Belief in white intellectual superiority over non-whites was universal until the early 20th century
In 1753, the English philosopher David Hume wrote:
I am apt to suspect the negroes, and in general all the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences.
Hume’s opinions were considered extreme by his European contemporaries; he was later compelled to revise this passage because of the barrage of criticism that soon followed. Despite their repudiation of Hume’s unadulterated racialism, European philosophers and naturalists were unanimous in their opinion that the white race was the pinnacle of nature’s achievement.
This meant that the white man was the intellectual and biological superior of the non-white. The dominant scientific world-view of the time ordered all human varieties within a racial hierarchy, with whites at the top, the lesser races in between, and the negro at the bottom. This pattern was officially enshrined in the taxonomic classification of human varieties first devised by the 18th century Swedish naturalist Carolus Linnaeus. He spoke highly of the Europæus albus or white European, but described the other varieties in purely negative terms. He reserved his most derogatory language for the negro. In Linnaeus’ system, only Europeans were inventive, indicating that their civilizational attainments vastly surpassed those of the other varieties.
The 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant’s reflections on the origins of human races are another example of this purely “typological” and hierarchical thinking, with the exception that he considered the American Indians to be even lower than African negroes on the scale of humanity:
In the hot countries the human being matures earlier in all ways but does not reach the perfection of the temperate zones. Humanity exists in its greatest perfection in the white race. The yellow Indians have a smaller amount of Talent. The Negroes are lower and the lowest are a part of the American peoples.
Widespread belief in white intellectual superiority was further supported by the rise of physical anthropology as a separate academic discipline in the 19th century. Samuel G. Morton, an American naturalist, amassed a large collection of human skulls from around the world. This became known as the “American Golgotha.” He determined their cranial capacity using seed- and shot-based measurements. The average difference in cranial capacity, with Caucasians having the largest brain volumes, followed by Asians, American Indians, and negroes, was seen as evidence of polygenesis, the Bible-based belief that the races were distinct species of men. Their creational rank in nature was determined by brain volume; Caucasians were superior to all other human varieties because their brains were the largest, followed by Mongols, Malays, American Indians, and negroes. According to polygenists, the races were specially created by God to be fully adapted to the physical environments over which they were dispersed.
In Crania Americana (1839), Morton’s magnum opus, the white race was said to be distinguished from all other human varieties by the “facility with which it attains the highest intellectual endowments.” This was the end result of having the largest average cranial capacity. In contrast, the negro species represented the “lowest grade of humanity,” an order determined by virtue of possessing the smallest brain volumes on record. His disciples, the physician Josiah C. Nott and Egyptologist George Glidden, were strongly influenced by his polygenist race theories. After Morton’s death, they collected his papers and further publicized his findings. In a famous illustration from Nott and Glidden’s Indigenous Races of the Earth (1857), the negro is depicted as a created intermediate form between the Apollo Belvedere, the Greco-Roman ideal of European beauty, and the chimpanzee. For these writers, not all whites were created equal; the “Teuton” or the Germanic race was superior to all other white populations in both mind and body.
Charles Darwin, the founder of evolutionary biology, strongly argued against the Bible-based polygenist views of the early physical anthropologists. He said that all men, because of their numerous similarities in anatomy and behavior, belonged to a single species that had originally evolved on African soil. Darwin was a firm believer in the white man’s racial superiority over the non-white. He often contemptuously referred to non-whites as “savages,” lesser beings hierarchically ranked between the Caucasian and the gorilla. However, he liked to remind his fellow Europeans that, despite having attained a level of intellectual development far higher than any achieved by non-whites, they too were likewise descended from savages. In 1871, he wrote:
The western nations of Europe, who now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors, and stand at the summit of civilization, owe little or none of their superiority to direct inheritance from the old Greeks, though they owe much to the written works of that wonderful people.
In Darwin’s view, a distinction was to be drawn between race and culture. Men were savages because of a lack of proper moral and intellectual training, not because of race, at least not primarily. It was the rediscovery of ancient Greek philosophy, mathematics, science, engineering, the great achievements of antiquity long-obscured by the Christian Church’s neglect and hostility, that had raised the white man to his current position of unchallenged racial superiority. Nevertheless, Darwin was only marginally less “racist” than his contemporaries. In a letter to a friend, Darwin described with some enthusiasm the eventual extermination of the lower races as the “progress of civilization.”
Morton’s use of cranial morphology to establish white intellectual superiority proved highly influential. It was widely supported by the European scientific community until the end of the 19th century. Prominent disciples of Morton included the noted French anthropologist Paul Broca and his student Paul Topinard, who both transformed the emerging field of craniology into an exact quantitative science.
With the establishment of the Boasian school of anthropology in the early 20th century, the idea of racial differences in intelligence and behavior was considered taboo among European and American intellectuals. The emerging scientific consensus was that there were no innate racial differences in intelligence and behavior and that race was a social construct. It was this biological egalitarianism that emerged as the dominant orthodoxy among academics in the 1960’s. Even though physical anthropology was gradually marginalized within the academy and replaced with the more politically correct, race-neutral discipline of biological anthropology, racialists continued to maintain that Caucasians were the most highly evolved race in terms of intelligence and behavior well into the 20th century.
The last great physical anthropologist, Carleton S. Coon, argued that whites were more evolved than Mongoloids, Congoids, Capoids and Australoids. In The Races of Europe (1939), Coon asserted that the earliest Homo sapiens were members of the white race. Given his racial theories, this implied that the white cerebral cortex had doubled in size before the other races had completed their “saltation” from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens. In Coon’s mind, Northeast Asians were less evolved than whites, but biologically similar enough to be classed along with Caucasians as the “alpha” of human evolutionary development; other populations, such as the Hindus of India, who were of partial Australoid racial stock and the Hottentots or Capoids of southern Africa were seen as less evolved than Europeans and Orientals. They were classed as the “omega” of human evolutionary development.
Enter Richard Lynn
White racialists had long agreed that, in the world of biology, there existed a racial hierarchy separating the most highly evolved from the least evolved races. This always consisted of whites at the top, followed closely by Orientals (especially the “higher Asiatics” or those of northeastern origin), who were followed by various inferior, mongrelized breeds, with negroes and Australian aborigines occupying the bottom rung of human evolutionary development. In 1977, a psychologist named Richard Lynn published “The intelligence of the Japanese” in the Bulletin of the British Psychological Society. Almost overnight, the traditional consensus had been shattered. Lynn had estimated the Japanese IQ at 106.6, which was higher than either the American or British mean IQ of 100. Later that same year, Lynn published another paper estimating the Singaporean Chinese IQ at 110. In 1982, Lynn discovered that the Japanese IQ was 11 points higher than the American mean. “At 111,” Lynn proclaimed enthusiastically, “the mean IQ in Japan is the highest recorded for a national population by a considerable order of magnitude.”
Lynn was the first racialist academic to have challenged and successfully demolished the general consensus that whites were at the top of the racial hierarchy. Even though Lynn’s ideas were proven to rest on very shaky scientific ground, acceptance of the new racial order among white nationalists would bring with it a number of political and ideological advantages. The continuing popularity of the Oriental superiority hypothesis reveals how enormously influential Lynn has been among white nationalists. As tribute to this enormous influence, many contemporary white nationalists piously mouth the same old tired shibboleths about Northeast Asian, and sometimes just “East Asian” or even “Asian,” racial superiority. Jared Taylor, editor of the online journal American Renaissance, is a typical representative of this new generation of media-savvy white nationalists who have faithfully imbibed Richard Lynn’s theories. He has been quoted as saying:
I think Asians are objectively superior to Whites by just about any measure that you can come up with in terms of what are the ingredients for a successful society.
Oriental intellectual superiority?
Richard Lynn’s claims were not without controversy. Even those race theorists who were inclined to accept the Oriental as the intellectual equal of the white man, or maybe even his racial superior, found Lynn’s claims of an 11 point advantage in favor of Orientals preposterous. The half-Jewish Marxist firebrand turned racialist Nathaniel Weyl wrote in 1978:
While Lynn’s paper provides impressive evidence that the Japanese are at least equal and perhaps superior to white Americans in intelligence, the conclusion that they enjoy an 11.7% advantage should be regarded with skepticism. The younger the children, the more unreliable the mental-test scores. Moreover, if Japanese IQ distributions are similar to those of Europe and America, then an 11.7% superiority in arithmetic mean would presuppose such a decisive Nipponese superiority at the highest intelligence levels as to give Japan leadership in all fields of creative intellectual endeavor.
The psychologist Harold W. Stevenson’s re-analysis of Lynn’s research showed that it was seriously methodologically flawed. Lynn had relied on unrepresentative samples in his cross-national comparison of Japanese and American cognitive functioning. He failed to adjust for socioeconomic status and rural-urban differences, a significant omission, given that urban dwellers and people of high socioeconomic status score higher on IQ tests than rural dwellers and the poverty-stricken. The American WISC-R’s wider standard deviation indicated that Lynn’s “Caucasian” sample reflected a much broader cross-section of the population. In addition to being less biased in favor of urban dwellers and those of high socioeconomic status than the Japanese version, the sample also showed greater racial heterogeneity because it included low-achieving blacks and Hispanics. Lynn’s research was plagued with difficulties from the start because he did not conduct any of the testing himself; instead, he relied on the general information provided by the authors of the Japanese and American standardizations of the WISC-R. In reality, Lynn had merely compared the Japanese score on the performance subtest of the WISC-R with the American full scale IQ and pretended that this was a cross-national comparison of cognitive ability. He unscrupulously presented this as an 11 point difference in favor of the Japanese.
Intrigued by the possibility of superior Northeast Asian cognitive functioning, Stevenson and his team of researchers conducted their own cross-national assessment of IQ. This was an impressive study that attempted to overcome the methodological flaws of Lynn’s research and produce a more accurate relative assessment of Northeast Asian and white American cognitive functioning. What Stevenson uncovered was counter-intuitive; American children were initially found to be more intelligent, but this intellectual superiority disappeared by fifth grade, when it was discovered that there were no significant cognitive differences between American and Northeast Asian children. Lynn, flabbergasted, dismissed the study as unrepresentative because of its reliance on an “elite” white sample with an average IQ of 105. But what did Lynn mean by this? The American and Northeast Asian standardizations are not directly comparable because the former is based on a much broader cross-section of the population. If anything, an IQ of 105 for the mostly Germanic and Scandinavian denizens of Minneapolis is well within range of the urban North European IQ data collected by German psychologist Vinko Buj (1981). According to Buj’s data, North European IQs could be as high as 10 points above the IQ mean of 100. Even Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein were somewhat perplexed by Lynn’s curt dismissal. In one of the footnotes to their magnum opus The Bell Curve (1994), the authors write:
Lynn has noted that the mean white IQ in Minnesota is approximately 105, well above the average for the American white population. On the other hand, it is possible that the cities chosen in Japan and Taiwan were similarly elevated.
Lynn’s claims of superior Northeast Asian cognitive functioning also attracted the attention of Kiwi psychologist James Flynn. He re-assessed Japanese- and Chinese-American IQ by examining a total of 16 studies from 1965-1985. After adjusting for the “Flynn effect,” the rise in IQ test score averages over time, he found that in all 16 studies, Northeast Asians had lower IQs than whites. In the largest and most representative of these studies, the 1965 Coleman Report, Flynn discovered that these Asians had an average IQ of 97, 3 points less than the average American IQ of 100. Despite their somewhat lower IQs, Flynn found that Orientals in North America had actually achieved far more than what would be expected for their level of intelligence. Lynn’s belief that greater Oriental academic and vocational achievement was the result of superior cognitive functioning was obviously erroneous. Instead, Northeast Asians had compensated for their lower levels of intelligence through the wholehearted embrace of a strong work ethic. For the Chinese, this was inherited from a deeply Confucianist tradition that saw study for the national examinations in traditional China as the gateway to the Mandarin class.
The list of IQ studies Lynn uses as “evidence” of superior Northeast Asian cognitive functioning, such as the one found in his Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis (2006) and elsewhere, leaves one with the impression that Lynn deliberately distorted and cherry-picked studies to bolster his own preconceived opinions. Some findings have been deliberately manipulated, such as Stevenson’s IQ data for Taiwan and Japan. Many of the other studies are drawn from his own methodologically flawed research. Lynn uses various standardizations for his calculation of Northeast Asian IQ, which do not control for the same factors as the American and British standardizations. He also relies on elite samples of Chinese university students, small sample sizes, tests of preschoolers and achievement tests that are poorly correlated with IQ (because they are substantially impacted by non-g factors).
By the early 2000’s, the validity of Lynn’s proposed estimation of Northeast Asian IQ was still being disputed, even among white nationalist and racialist intellectuals. In 2008, German race realist and psychologist Volkmar Weiss wrote:
There should be doubt whether the average IQ of China is really as high as 105 (Lynn and Vanhanen, 2006) […] This average may hold for the coastal regions, but perhaps not for the provinces in the interior […] In view of the fact that also within industrialized countries […] the difference between the prosperous and the economically backward regions amounts to about 10 IQ points, why should the situation in China be different? Also, for decades in China, as in most countries all over the world, highly qualified women bear only half the number of children as unqualified women: those with primary education 2.14 children, and those with tertiary education 1.08 (Goujon and Lutz, 2004). It is simply naiveté to believe a one-child-policy has changed anything in this respect.
The HBD blogosphere is notorious for its rejection of Lynn’s race theories, including his false claims of Oriental intellectual superiority. Prominent bloggers such as the conservative Greek nationalist Dienekes Pontikos, who runs a popular genetic anthropology site, are among Lynn’s fiercest and most vocal critics. These bloggers, as well as their many followers, have repeatedly denounced Lynn as a fraud, a charlatan, a “data massager” andmany other terms that cannot be printed here. They urge students of population genetics to exercise extreme caution when using Lynn’s research.
If Lynn’s claims of superior Northeast Asian cognitive functioning rested on such a shaky house of cards, it followed that other areas of Lynn’s research may also be seriously methodologically flawed. In 2010, Lynn’s claim that sub-Saharan Africans had an average IQ of 70 was rigorously investigated by a team of Dutch scholars at the University of Amsterdam. They found that Lynn’s estimate of African IQ was based on unrepresentative “convenience samples” and that his review of the relevant literature was unsystematic and biased. The most damaging criticism leveled at Richard Lynn was that he had deliberately selected unrepresentative samples in order to produce the lowest possible estimate. After correcting for apparent methodological flaws, the researchers calculated a new IQ estimate of between 78-82 (Wicherts et al., 2010).
Lynn’s position on North-South differences in Italian IQ also came under attack. Lynn had argued that Southern Italians were intellectually inferior to Northern Italians. This estimate was based, not on actual IQ data, but on PISA. The PISA IQs for Northern and Southern Italians were 100 and 90 respectively. As an achievement test, PISA is not an adequate substitute for IQ because test performance is substantially impacted by non-gfactors. Among other problems, Lynn’s study revealed a total ignorance of the fundamentals of population genetics in attributing the supposedly low Southern Italian IQ to admixture from the Near East and North Africa. He even inflated Northern Italy’s record of historical achievement by redefining the physical boundaries between North and South. In 2010, Italian scholars responded that “purer measures of IQ obtained during the standardisation of Raven’s Progressive Coloured Matrices […] show no significant differences in IQ between children from South and North Italy”(Cornoldi et al., 2010).
Lynn’s belief that Orientals are more intelligent than whites is not supported by any real evidence. If much of his research rests on outright fabrications and manipulated data, nothing he does can be trusted. It is ironic that Lynn accuses leftist paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of being “mendacious” and posing as a “scientist on a quest for truth,” when he himself has done the same thing and often to a much worse degree.
But wait a minute … Isn’t it true that East Asians have larger brains than whites?
“OK,” some diehard Richard Lynn fans might argue, “even if Lynn’s estimate of average Northeast Asian IQ is not supported by the available psychometric evidence, what about their supposedly larger and heavier brains? Doesn’t having a larger brain mean higher intelligence?”
There is a modest positive correlation between brain size and IQ, which appears to be well-validated and statistically robust (see McDaniel, 2005). However, the research on race differences in brain size, most recently carried out by Lynn’s close associate J. Philippe Rushton, are of limited or even questionable generalizability because they rely on older and less accurate external head circumference measurements and postmortem cranial analysis, instead of MRI. Let us assume that East Asian IQ is 5 points higher than the average white IQ. The within-population standard deviation for brain size is typically 130 cm³. If mean brain size for East Asians and whites is 1364 cm³ and 1347 cm³ respectively (Rushton, 2000), then 17/130 = 0.1 σ or SD units. If we accept Rushton’s finding that the correlation between cranial capacity, measured in terms of external head circumference, and g-factor is 0.2, then 0.1*0.2*15 = 0.3 IQ points, which is to say that only 0.3 IQ points are explained by racial differences in brain size. If the IQ gap is 5 IQ points, then 0.3/5 = 6%, leaving 94% of the East Asian-white racial difference in brain size unexplained.
Those who see brain size as an isomorphic proxy for IQ face other difficulties. Brain size is correlated with IQ up to a certain point, after which the law of diminishing returns begins to kick in. The people with the largest brains suffer from megalencephaly and are typically low IQ or even mentally retarded. Sex differences in brain size are much larger than race differences, but the best research reveals that men and women are of the same level of intelligence. This is the so-called “Rushton-Ankney paradox.” After analyzing highly g-loaded tests with representative samples for sex differences in mental ability, Jensen concluded:
No evidence was found for sex differences in the mean level of g or in the variability of g. […] Males, on average, excel on some factors; females on others (1998).
Although a controversial position, Ashkenazim are supposedly the most intelligent demographic on the planet, with an IQ mean in the range of 107-115, but they tend to have smaller brains than Europeans. Maurice Fishberg, a Jewish anthropologist, writing on Ashkenazi cranial morphology in 1911, found that Ashkenazi brains weigh 1320.4 grams, which is 30 grams less than the European average of 1350 grams. The Ashkenazim were found to have less brain tissue to height in cm, at least in comparison to average Germans. He concluded: “This shows the Jewish brain lighter not only absolutely, but relatively.” Fishberg’s analysis of Jewish cranial capacity is supported by recent analysis of MRI-derived brain morphology,based on samples of NW Europeans and Ashkenazim (“SE Europeans”). It was found that geographical ancestry was correlated with brain morphology, with measures of brain volume and cortical surface area becoming progressively larger the higher the percentage of NW European ancestry (Bakken et al., 2011).
Thus, a high IQ doesn’t necessarily mean a larger and heavier brain; this isn’t true of individuals and it certainly isn’t true of populations. Similarly, there are populations with larger and heavier brains than whites, but significantly lower IQs. This would include the northern Mongoloid tribes of Siberia, the Inuit of the Arctic Circle and North American Indians. Northeast Asians should be added to this category as well; they have possibly larger brains than whites, but roughly similar, or in the case of the mainland Chinese, significantly lower IQs.
Because brain size is a weak predictor of cognitive ability, it is not a simple proxy for IQ. There are cerebral macrostructures and neurophysiological processes, such as the integrated parieto-frontal neural networks of the brain and neural efficiency, that correlate with IQ independently of brain size. Neither brain size nor any of these other cerebral macrostructures or neurophysiological processes are necessary oreven sufficient for intelligence. This precludes a strict isomorphic relationship between any one variable and IQ. Rather, there are many different cerebral macrostructures and neurophysiological processes that mediate the relationship between brain morphology and intelligence, which is why a population may have smaller than average brains, but higher than average IQs, such as the Ashkenazim.
The evidence for East Asian-white differences in brain size, inconclusive though it is, does not indicate that Northeast Asians have higher IQs than whites.
What our best evidence says about Northeast Asian IQ
There is no credible evidence that Northeast Asians – or “East Asians” or even “Asians” for that matter – have higher IQs than whites. Since all of the evidence for Oriental intellectual superiority comes from Richard Lynn, a known liar with a penchant for manipulating data and fabricating evidence, we can safely dismiss this body of research as both ideologically driven and seriously methodologically flawed.
Our best evidence indicates that Northeast Asians are of roughly the same, or in the case of the mainland Chinese, significantly lower intelligence. The Japanese must be considered the intellectual equals of the white man (but not necessarily the intellectual equals of the most inventive white populations, i.e. the Germans or Italians), given the astonishing rapidity with which they were able to fully assimilate and take advantage of the white man’s vast reservoir of accumulated technological and scientific knowledge. In less than a few decades after the Meiji Restoration of 1868, they were able to go from a medieval feudal agricultural society to an industrial powerhouse with what would eventually become the third largest economy in the world. The Japanese IQ ≈100.
The Chinese, on the other hand, are not the intellectual equals of the white man. China has one of the lowest per capita incomes in the world, with over a quarter of the population living on less than $5.50 a day and another quarter of the population without access to basic sanitation. Compared to the western democracies, China’s basic infrastructure is considerably worse, with a less efficient power grid and much worse sewage/waste disposal and transportation systems, especially in the rural areas of the country. Water and air quality are much poorer, largely because of China’s heavy reliance on coal for the domestic production of electricity. This would also mean that China’s cities are among the world’s most polluted. Taking into consideration rural-urban differences and socioeconomic status, the average IQ for China ≈ 90, although coastal Chinese populations may have considerably higher IQs.
It seems odd that Richard Lynn would come up with such a high estimate for Chinese IQ. Logically speaking, a low national IQ would predict widespread underdevelopment; China is, for all intensive purposes, an underdeveloped country. A Chinese IQ of 90 makes sense, given all of the historical and contemporary evidence. For example, even during the Dark Ages, when the Christian Church had tossed out nearly all ancient scientific and mathematical writings, European scholars still understood that the Earth was spherical; in contrast, belief in a flat Earth was universally accepted by the Chinese until they were taught modern astronomy by Europeans in the 17th century. Moreover, an estimate of 100 and above is laughable for a nation where around 50% of the population are rural peasants living in relatively primitive conditions. To say otherwise is to deny the predictive validity of IQ. The same goes for human accomplishment. If the Chinese and Japanese had higher IQs than whites, they would have been responsible for most of the world’s scientific and technological development. Instead, white males are responsible for 97% of the world’s scientific and technological development (Murray, 2003). This supports the predictive validity of IQ; the higher the IQ, the greater the statistical likelihood of scientific discovery and technological innovation.
Richard Lynn supporters explain away this discrepancy by claiming that the East Asian bell curve has a narrower standard deviation, producing fewer geniuses, or that East Asians lack creativity. However, there isn’t a shred of evidence for any of this idle speculation. If one looks at the widely accepted Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model of general intelligence, creativity is conceptualized as a subcomponent of g. If the theory behind IQ is correct and all test scores on measures of cognitive ability show a positive manifold, then higher intelligence would lead to greater creativity. If Europeans have been more creative than Northeast Asians, it’s because the most inventive European populations have significantly higher IQs than Northeast Asians, especially the Chinese with their low average IQ of 90.
The bottom line is this: Either IQ has predictive validity, meaning that it is highly statistically correlated with real-world consequences, or it does not. It cannot have predictive validity for blacks and Hispanics alone; it must predict outcomes for East Asians as well and with the same degree of accuracy. If it cannot do this, then IQ is a useless measure of intelligence and must be discarded. It is absolutely astonishing that many white nationalists, especially those with pro-East Asian sympathies, fail to see this.
Why did many white nationalists abandon traditional beliefs in white racial superiority?
From 1900 to 1950, leftist intellectuals infiltrated the major institutions of North America and western Europe. The horrors of WWII made their job even easier. Once they reached critical mass, they were able to force out the conservative old guard and seize the reigns of power for themselves. The South was desegregated and the third world was decolonized. Advocacy of white racial superiority, as many racialist intellectuals had done before the social upheaval of the 1960’s, became a dangerous activity. Hate crime and hate speech laws were enacted to silence those whites who opposed the racial transformation of their own societies. The word “racist” was used to shut down debate and silence dissenters. One of the pillars of white racial superiority, IQ, came under prolonged and sustained attack from leftists. The mass immigration of non-whites simply added more fuel to an already burning fire. White racialists were suddenly backed into a corner. How does one make a case for white nationalism without being smeared as a “racist”?
In the late 1970’s and early 80’s, a decision was made to abandon traditional beliefs in white intellectual and biological superiority by elevating East Asians to the top of the racial hierarchy. This was a purely tactical maneuver and Richard Lynn justified it by manufacturing evidence in support of the Oriental superiority hypothesis. This served a dual purpose:
- To refute accusations that IQ tests were culturally biased with as much evidence as possible, thereby lending credibility to IQ testing.
- To make themselves more acceptable to the public. It was as if they were trying to say: “Hey, we’re not white supremacists. We’re not like those evil Nazis or those mean old segregationists. We believe that East Asians are objectively superior to whites in every way. If you want to call us anything, call us Asian supremacists!”
Gone were the grumpy, monocled old men sipping cognac in smoky drawing rooms, either railing against the fertility of the lower classes or droning on endlessly about the “white man’s burden.” This new white nationalism tried to put on a happy face, but unfortunately it had embraced a prejudice just as irrational and just as dangerous as the white leftist obsession with mass non-white immigration. By disassociating themselves from the more aggressive white racialists of the past, who typically subscribed to the view that whites occupied the highest plane of evolutionary development, it was believed that white nationalists would be able to pursue their own agenda in relative peace. Under the cloak of Asian supremacy, race-oriented differential psychologists would be able to further consolidate their research on negro intellectual inferiority without having to endure constant leftist taunts of “white supremacist!” or “Nazi!”
The shift from white intellectual superiority to Oriental intellectual superiority in the late 1970’s was a last-ditch effort at ideological and racial self-defense in the face of overwhelming odds. White nationalists, the ideological inheritors of the traditional conservative establishment, had their backs up against a wall. The primary white nationalist imperative was to ensure white racial survival. Placing East Asians at the top of the racial hierarchy, despite all of the earlier historical, biological, anthropological, craniometric and paleontological evidence that had been adduced in favor of white superiority, was supposed to allow them to pursue this primary directive without being molested by a leftist-controlled establishment determined to snuff out all dissenting opinion. East Asians were chosen for this role because they were, under the old racial hierarchy, almost as evolved as whites, unlike the other races who were viewed as closer to the more primitive Homo erectus or, in Darwin’s time, the gorilla. In continuing to make this choice, Richard Lynn fans are confronted with a dilemma: if East Asians are so superior, why bother focusing on preservation of the white race? Shouldn’t the best genes be allowed to survive and propagate? If this is the case, whites should make way for an East Asian world by diluting themselves out of existence through non-white immigration and miscegenation. Whatever its short-term goals, in the long run, advocacy of Oriental racial superiority is the logic of white genocide on a large scale.
