Edward Dutton is an English evolutionary anthropologist who is ‘Docent’ (Adjunct Professor) of the Anthropology of Religion at Oulu University in Finland. Dutton has a degree in Theology from Durham University and a PhD in Religious Studies from the University of Aberdeen. Dutton has notably published work on human intelligence. He has a YouTube channel on controversial scientific research called “The Jolly Heretic.”
Grégoire Canlorbe: Should we try to do something to solve the problem of low IQ immigration—and a fortiori crossbreeding—in the West?
Edward Dutton: It’s not up to me to make a value judgment on whether there’s too much crossbreeding between Blacks and Whites. If you are talking about the video I did on race, I’m interested in the consequences of it. Whether there’s too much of it is a much more complex question. What seems to be the case is that it’s associated with—at least, if it’s a black male and a white female—elevated levels of mental instability. So, I suppose that, based on that, a person could start to make value judgments—in terms of r strategy and K strategy.
r strategy is that you live in an unstable ecology, but it’s an easy ecology. And so, it’s unstable, so you live fast and die young and you have as many children as you can by as many genetically fit people as you can, and within that—while we’re doing that—there’s some use for outbreeding because the genetically very different person might have some useful genes for parasite resistance or whatever that you don’t have, and so, therefore, you’d expect r-strategists to be interested in outbreeding. And r-strategists tend to have high levels of mental instability because there’s very little selection against it.
Once you get to a K strategy, then the carrying capacity for the species is reached and then they start competing with each other, and they do this as the ecology becomes a bit more stable and more harsh. They do this by investing less energy in copulation and more energy in nurture. So they have a smaller number of children and they invest a great deal in them so they’re highly adapted to the ecology and more likely to survive the within-species competition. Now, once this happens—once you are reducing the number of people who you are having sex with and you’re reducing the number of children you have—you can maximize the extent to which you pass on your genes by selecting an optimal level of genetic similarity in your partner.
So people tend, in these ecologies, to select against outbreeding and select in favor of people who are similar, or who are optimally similar, to them. The optimum level of similarity seems to be the equivalent of third cousins or actual third cousins. And so they will then be less likely to contract mixed race marriages. Now, there are variations in that, of course, because 88 per cent of the genome is the brain. And so there is an extent to which, sometimes, you’re going to get people who can select somebody who’s very, very mentally similar to them, let’s say, but who will be of a different race. That’s quite possible.
In fact, it’s very interesting that, when it’s a white man who marries a black woman, those marriages are very, very stable, presumably because they are highly K strategy. I mean, a black woman is not often regarded as particularly feminine or attractive, and so, he’s not selecting her that way, based on physical markers. He’s evidently selecting on mental markers, and so, therefore, they’re much more likely to get along and not argue with each other.
Much more important than crossbreeding is the issue, within Europeans, of who’s having children. I look at this in my book At Our Wits’ End: Why We’re Becoming Less Intelligent, What It Means For The Future. That’s the big issue, which is that there is now a negative association between fertility and the average IQ. And so, this means that intelligence is going down—and we know it’s genetic because we have this research from Iceland. We know that over the last three generations, the percentage of the population that carries genes which are polymorphisms, which are associated with a very high IQ has gone down.
So, we’re definitely getting less intelligent for genetic reasons, and that’s what’s going to cause civilization to collapse. The causes of this, as I’ve said in my book, are the introduction of contraception, and it tends to be, therefore, that among more intelligent people, everyone wants to have a relatively small family, unless they’re religious or something, so that they can have a high standard of living. But it’s the intelligent who are more able to achieve this, using contraception. The intelligent are higher in intellect and lower on instinct, and so, they just don’t plan to have many children anyway under these zoo-like conditions that we live in. Less intelligent people are less efficient users of contraception, often too impulse to use it, and less likely to achieve their goals.
Feminism, of course, means that more intelligent women delay their fertility in order to pursue a career. Welfare: now, we’re in a situation where only those who are on welfare, who have a very low IQ, are breeding at above replacement fertility in Western countries. Immigration from low IQ countries, obviously, is a factor, as well, because it reduces IQ at the genetic level, but also, seemingly, at the environmental level in that it makes schools less efficient; it also brings in all kinds of conflicts, and that means that IQ becomes suboptimal for everybody, but I’m not sure that miscegenation becomes a problem in that regard, no.
Grégoire Canlorbe: How do you assess retrospectively the Lebensborn experiment under the Nazi regime? Could it have reversed the secular dysgenic trends in the West—in regenerating the “Aryan race”?
Edward Dutton: Again you’re asking me these questions of sort of ethics. That doesn’t really interest me. Do you mean Hitler was trying to raise intelligence and he was basing it on this marker of being Aryan? Well, there is some very weak correlation between having blonde hair and blue eyes and having high IQ—very weak. So, let’s say there is an extent to which that may have elevated IQ. But the thing is the Nazis were not particularly interested in things like intelligence research. The Nazis were a nationalist movement that wanted to unite all different social classes under nationalism. They wanted to stop people that had very low IQs from having children. But apart from that, I’m not sure they were particularly interested in doing anything in terms of eugenics… or even understood that the downward trend in IQ was going on.
When you’re speaking of race, you’re dividing up humanity based on gene frequencies, and, generally, gene frequencies where those people are evolved to a particular environment. And so, therefore, those differences in gene frequency, although they are small, tend to push in a particular direction. And so, consequently, we end up with a series of genetic clusters, which, by the way, tend to parallel the twelve races of Classical Anthropology. I don’t think people would talk about an “Aryan race,” but I suppose you could talk about an Aryan ethnicity or something like that. Certainly, there are areas where these characteristics—blonde hair, blue eyes, pale skin—are more pronounced than others, and so, you could talk about, perhaps, a sub-race or something like that, I suppose.
Edward Dutton (on the right) in the company of Grégoire Canlorbe
— London, May 2019
Grégoire Canlorbe: Besides race and intelligence, you happen to have a keen interest in religion. How do you explain that Catholicism has fallen into cosmopolitanism since the Second Vatican Council? May it have something to do with the stranglehold of Freemasonry?
Edward Dutton: Catholicism has fallen into cosmopolitanism to the extent that all Western religions have done that. Religions, any ideology, just tend to be a manifestation of the way the people are thinking. And say, if you have a situation where the big predictor of religiousness is stress, and so, people who are stressed tend to become more religious; and if the levels of stress have substantially gone down, and so, massive numbers of people have become not religious at all, then apart from the people that are still traditionally religious, many people have become very kind of liberal in their religiousness. They don’t believe things firmly, or whatever.
There’s the extent to which, in the past, within their societies, religion would promote ethnocentric ideas as the will of God. That may be one reason why religion was selected also, as you have an instinct to preserve your ethnic group. And then, you also have God telling you that you should do that, and that your ethnic group is the best. Then, this elevates the likelihood that the group that follows that worldview is going to survive. But stress makes you instinctive and religious. So as the level of stress goes down and people become less and less instinctive, then, you’re going to find that these instincts, this need for group survival and all this are lessened, and all that is going to be reflected in the religion itself. And then, you’re going to have factors that are going to interfere with who takes over the religion—who takes control.
My colleague Michael Woodley of Menie has talks about what he calls the social epistasis model. At the start of Industrial Revolution, child mortality was 40 percent, now it’s only one percent. Now mutant genes of the mind correlate with mutant genes of the body. And so, it would have been in the past that all of these mutant genes that made you have maladaptive ideas or whatever would have been expunged from the population every generation because they would have been associated with a poor immune system; and so, you wouldn’t have survived childhood, or you wouldn’t have survived to live very long, have many children. And these would have been correlated with mutations of the mind because the mind is about 88 percent genome, so it’s a massive target for mutation. High rates of infant mortality purged mutations that affect the mind.
And we know this now: people that have deficiencies of the mind—things like depression and autism, and whatever—they tend to have things wrong with the body, as well: allergies, physical abnormalities, and so on. So, you’re going to get more and more people—what Woodley calls spiteful mutants—who exhibit these spiteful mutations of the mind. They advocate things which, basically, would be washed out in evolutionary conditions because they’d make you destroy yourself. They’d make you go against evolutionary imperatives. Examples would be encouraging childlessness in women, homosexuality—which is a reproductive dead end—and welcoming aliens into one’s territory who then become fierce competitors for resources. And those people will advocate those things, and then, they will cause those with whom they associate—even if the associates are not mutants—to express their own genes sub-optimally because we’re adapted to be with people who are normal. And the mutants will want to take over, as this will be maladaptive for their group.
You’d expect the elite—and class is about 70% genetic—to have more of these spiteful mutants, because their ancestors have been subject to Darwinian conditions for fewer generations than those whose ancestors were poor. And so you can see how these spiteful mutants will take control: take over religion, take over politics. These people would take over these institutions, and then, they would make them maladaptive—they would make them go against evolutionary imperatives and so influence even non-mutants to be maladapted, by limiting their fertility for example. And that, perhaps, is what you’re seeing with the Catholic Church, not just the Catholic Church, but other religions; and so, they’ve increasingly become these. Whereas in the past, they were advocating evolutionarily useful things, now, it’s flipped, and they’re advocating things that, basically, will cause the destruction of European Man.
I don’t know much about Freemasonry, but you’ve got the idea that they believe in the one God, haven’t you? That you’ve got these levels of knowledge that you have to go through. Yet there were a series of Christian sects in the Early Church that came under the umbrella of Gnosticism, and there’s a degree to which, perhaps, it has points in common with them. That’s all I can say. In Gnosticism, you go through these levels of knowledge until you reach, attain full knowledge.
Grégoire Canlorbe: If the great leaders of the former Pagan world—Leonidas, Pericles, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, or Augustus—were coming back to life, how do you think they’d react to the invasion of Europe by Muslims and black Africans?
Edward Dutton: Obviously these people were living under conditions of Darwinian selection. And so, should they come back nowadays, these people would, for the most part, be strongly adapted, both at the individual level and the group level, to evolutionary survival. Actually there’s an extent to which they’d have already experienced what we’re being faced with.
During the decline of Rome, you had weakened Darwinian selection, and you had warmer conditions, which would have weakened Darwinian harsh selection. And you had contraception, which would have reduced intelligence and would have had a dysgenic effect. And then, you had the fall of Rome. So, they would have experienced our decline before. But Caesar, of course, was living about 40 or 50 years before the decline of Rome slowly started. So, he would be a lot more horrified, I think. I don’t know what the Pagan leaders of the past would do, should they come back in our epoch. It’d depend on how much power they’d have. I imagine they’d stop the situation or put it into reverse.
You could argue that Muslims that are coming into Europe now have been under conditions of Natural Selection for longer than Europeans have. We stopped being under conditions of Darwinian selection in about 1800. So, we’ve had generations and generations and generations of this rising mutation. People from third world countries have had much less of that. So, what I suspect the Pagans would do is what the Muslims are doing now. Look at their behavior patterns: that’s what Pagans would do. And, therefore, they would outbreed the present population, and they would be highly militarized and highly religious—martial values and all that—and then, basically, take over.
Grégoire Canlorbe: It is sometimes advanced that the religion linked to a given people expresses the soul of their race. Do you think that the East-Asian Mongoloid genome actually influences the religion of East-Asian peoples—such as Buddhism or Shintoism?
Edward Dutton: Well, if we’re talking about East Asians, Northeast Asians, it is interesting that the kind of religion that they have—if we look at, say, the Japanese—has developed in a slightly different way from Europe. So, with Europe, you have this very strong sort of moral God who judges your morality, and you have one God, as well. He judges your morality, and the good thing about that system is that it is open. It’s not a religion based around race—at least, not openly.
Let me put it in another way: I’ve got a book coming out soon called “Race Differences In Ethnocentrism.” And I’ve got another book that’s already out called “The Silent Rape Epidemic: How The Finns Were Groomed to Love Their Abusers.” In both books, I argue that some peoples follow what I call a “genius strategy,” and that some peoples follow what I call an “ethnocentric strategy.”
If you’re evolved, like East Asians are, with a very cold and very harsh, but very stable climate, then, you can’t develop a large gene pool because if you deviate too strongly from this particular evolution to the ecology, then, of course, you’ll just die. So, you end up with a small gene pool, and that means that you can’t really create geniuses very easily because what geniuses are, in part, is people with outlier high IQ.
You need to have not just that to survive—not only a small gene pool—but you need to be able to cooperate and get along and create highly pro-social groups, and all this. And geniuses are a problem there because geniuses tend to be higher IQ outliers, and this means that they’re more likely to happen, by genetic chance, if there is a large gene pool, and, also, they tend to be moderately psychopathic. And in an ecology such as that which the Japanese are evolved to, you really can’t risk that. There’s a good side to geniuses, but there’s also a bad side which is psychopaths and criminals. And you just can’t afford to have many of those people; you need to have these tightly structured groups where everyone gets on.
And so, for these reasons, you can’t really produce geniuses. And so, it means that the way that you can defend your society and you can win the battle of group selection with other groups is to be more ethnocentric than them. And you see that with the Japanese: when they invaded Singapore, or whatever, they were just unbelievably brave and ethnocentric, and prepared to give their lives for the country.
Now, in a country like Britain, it’s a bit different because it was less harsh, historically. You have a larger gene pool, and this allows you to produce these geniuses, and they come up with amazing inventions. And then, you can trade, and then, you can expand, and then, your gene pool can become bigger and bigger, and then, you can produce more geniuses because it’s bigger, and then, you can expand more. And then, you get to the situation where all these countries—Britain, America, Canada, New Zealand, Australia—they’re all the British sphere, they’re all British. In terms of winning the battle of group selection, we Brits have done very well, and that sort of strategy worked perfectly well under Darwinian conditions because the levels of ethnocentrism and the levels of religiousness never dropped too low.
Now, once they do drop too low—once the environment becomes as wonderful as it is now, and it’s such low stress—then, people stop being religious, and they lose their kind of ethnocentric instinct. They’re less in touch with their instincts, and then, it’s a problem because then, they’re very open, they’re not very ethnocentric, and so, then, suddenly, this is going to be weaponized against them, right? Whereas, with the Japanese, they’re much more ethnocentric than we are.
And so, even though they don’t come up with original things—the Japanese, even though they’re cleverer than us, they haven’t produced much in the way of original inventions or geniuses, or whatever—even now, when their environment is so good, they are still high in ethnocentrism. What we’re seeing in terms of psychological trends is that they’re not particularly interested in having children anymore.
So, you’ve got this difference, and you see this in the nature of the religions—that Christianity, and, to a certain extent, even Islam and Judaism, encourage this, it’s this global religion. So, you’re not in it based on your ancestry: you’re in it based on just believing things. And this, of course, helps the religion to expand, and it helps the gene pool to expand because it makes people more cooperative and open to other people, right? And it means that the insurance policy—which means that you should trust somebody—is that they believe in the same God as you, that they have the same religion.
Whereas, in East Asian countries like Japan, it doesn’t work like that: you are shintō by virtue of being Japanese. And, okay, there’s an extent to which they kind of adopted aspects of the genius strategy by having Buddhism because Buddhism is a universal religion, but it’s only to a limited degree. So they’ve kept with this form of religion that is, basically, promoting their own genetic cohesion as an ethnocentric group—that you can’t just convert to Shintoism.
And you get something quite similar with Hinduism, and even with Islam. Even though you can convert to Islam, there are all kinds of preservations of genetic proximity within Islam with things like cousin marriage and stuff like this. So, actually, there’s an extent to which it’s a little bit more complicated with Islam. So that’s how I see the religion of East Asians reflecting their genes.
That conversation was originally published by American Renaissance in a slightly abridged version, in July 2019.
Grégoire Canlorbe is an independent scholar who has conducted numerous interviews with economists and social scientists for academic journals such as Man and the Economy, which was founded by the Nobel Prize winning economist Ronald Coase. His subjects have also included a wide range of renowned personalities such as Harvard’s astrophysicist Willie Soon, Yves-Saint Laurent’s co-founder and former President Pierre Bergé, Greenpeace’s co-founder and former President Patrick Moore, leader of the Alt-Right Jared Taylor, and former Czech head of state Václav Klaus.