A conversation with Richard Storey, for The Council of European Canadians

2gsjgnRrABUb4zYhgrB2BPEdMRNiHnWu8cSAeH6Pk1prKVACUsqDy9xYCGfpGpThi4tJo1w5Fq4Bi7VpwdSVdyfCyL3bggPDkvzzsdJmJVXKggXiCe  Richard Storey LL.M is a Catholic traditionalist, sometimes described as a medieval libertarian. His writing spans law, history, theology, and cultural criticism, and he is the author of The Uniqueness of Western Law: A Reactionary Manifesto. He lives in England with his wife and three children.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: Ayn Rand’s notion that scientific racism is the worst form of collectivism has virtually reached the whole libertarian spectrum. How do you conciliate libertarian individualism and race consciousness?

  Richard Storey: Well, at once we need to first understand what we mean by libertarian. Most libertarians would believe they are libertarians because they are Austrian economists or because they are extremely individualistic, I would say, “hyper-individualistic”. That is not libertarianism. Libertarianism is only a theory of law, that’s it. What kind of law is that?  Well, it is the rule of law – a deontological theory of law. The law rules above everyone. The law is king of kings, if you want to put it that way. And so I think most libertarians do not even understand what the word means themselves.

  So, where does this more modern, secular libertarianism, which we are more familiar with, come from? It emerged from an Anglo-liberal, classical liberal background, inspired by figures like John Locke. It is very individualistic, of course, as anyone with a passing knowledge of Ayn Rand can see full well. And yet, even figures like Murray Rothbard, Jeff Deist, who is of course the current President of the Mises Institute, recognize and speak very openly about the necessity of family and of the groups into which we are born; they speak about culture, they speak about religion, and of course nationality – your territorial, ethnic group if you like. That is something you are born into as much as your family, your immediate family. Or at least it used to be.

  Of course, in cities, in the artificial environments we have been created for the past 2000 years, the situation is very different. Your family, or what you might call your family might just be a group of loose friends that you have, maybe who you meet at the café, or some people you see at work and, really, you do not have a great deal of interaction in your community, in your neighbourhood. So, many libertarians are now realising, through my writings, those of Frank van Dun and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, that the former intermediary institutions and communities between the individual and the state, which formed medieval society, were essential in preventing the rise of centralised, coercive states among European civilisations.

Continuer la lecture de « A conversation with Richard Storey, for The Council of European Canadians »

A conversation with Laurent Alexandre, for The Council of European Canadians

laurent-alexandre Laurent Alexandre is a French surgeon-urologist, essayist, and entrepreneur. The founder of the Doctissimo website, he is interested in the transhumanist movement and in the upheavals that humanity could experience, along with the progress of science in the field of biotechnology. His latest book is L’IA va-t-elle aussi tuer la démocratie [Will AI kill democracy as well]?

  Grégoire Canlorbe: It should be remembered that Nietzsche saw in birth control, as well as in the non-assistance of weak elements (in terms of physical or mental abilities) in our society, an unavoidable aspect of the superhuman culture which he was calling for. As a supposed transhumanist, do you regret the collapse of the eugenic movement in the 1950s?

  Laurent Alexandre: I do not believe that the 1950s are a period of decline of eugenics, they are rather a period of mutation of eugenics. When Julien Huxley invents the word “transhumanism” in 1957, it is for the purpose of creating left-wing eugenics… namely egalitarian eugenics. The 1950s did not see eugenics receding after the horrors of Nazism: they saw right-wing eugenics mutate into a leftist eugenics, dubbed “transhumanism” by Huxley.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: The alleged responsibility of human carbon emissions for contemporary warming is a subject that is conducive to raising the temperature in debates. Could you remind us of the main lines of your Promethean (or Faustian) reassessment of climate policy: namely a reassessment that does not deny the need to mitigate the greenhouse effect supposedly linked to CO2 emissions, but which attempts to conciliate climate action, the industrial and cognitive domination of nature, and materialistic enjoyment?

  Laurent Alexandre: Controlling CO2 emissions is going to be incredibly complicated. One is going to spend several very difficult decades. And if indeed, as I believe, there is a link between CO2 and climate, we will not be able to reduce CO2 emissions before 2050. We will have climate concerns probably until the end of the century.

  First of all, collapsologists overestimate the social body’s acceptance of a CO2 reduction policy. We have seen what means a tiny drop in the purchasing power of Yellow Vests to fight against the greenhouse effect: one imagines what would give a drop of 30 to 40% of the purchasing power of the lower classes. One would have a real revolution, which would probably be a far-right revolution rather than an extreme-left one in the current context. A degrowth policy will therefore be very hardly accepted… and one can see that all the polls show that the priority of the French is the purchasing power before the ecological transition.

Continuer la lecture de « A conversation with Laurent Alexandre, for The Council of European Canadians »

Conversation avec Laurent Alexandre, pour Dreuz.info

  L.ALaurent Alexandre est un chirurgien-urologue, essayiste, et entrepreneur français. Fondateur du site web Doctissimo, il s’intéresse au mouvement transhumaniste et aux bouleversements que pourrait connaître l’humanité, conjointement aux progrès de la science dans le domaine de la biotechnologie. Son dernier livre, co-écrit avec Jean-François Copé, est L’IA va-t-elle aussi tuer la démocratie ?

  Laurent Alexandre s’entretient ici avec Grégoire Canlorbe, journaliste scientifique qui couvre des sujets comme le climat, l’intelligence, ou la religion. Contact de Canlorbe : gregoire.canlorbe@wanadoo.fr

  Grégoire Canlorbe : On se souvient que Nietzsche voyait dans le contrôle des naissances, ainsi que dans la non-assistance envers les éléments manifestement trop faibles (au plan des aptitudes physiques ou mentales), un aspect incontournable de la culture du surhumain qu’il appelait de ses vœux. En tant que transhumaniste supposé, regrettez-vous l’effondrement du mouvement eugéniste dans les années 1950 ?

  Laurent Alexandre : Je ne crois pas que les années 1950 soient une période de recul de l’eugénisme, elles sont bien plutôt une période de mutation de l’eugénisme. Quand Julien Huxley invente le mot « transhumanisme » en 1957, c’est aux fins de créer un eugénisme de gauche… c’est-à-dire, un eugénisme égalitaire. Les années 1950 n’ont donc pas vu reculer l’eugénisme après les horreurs du nazisme : elles ont vu l’eugénisme de droite muter en un eugénisme de gauche, baptisé « transhumanisme » par Huxley.

  Grégoire Canlorbe : La responsabilité alléguée des émissions carboniques humaines dans le réchauffement contemporain est un sujet propice à faire monter la température dans les débats. Pourriez-vous nous rappeler les grandes lignes de votre réévaluation prométhéenne (ou faustienne) de la politique climatique : à savoir une réévaluation qui ne nie pas la nécessité d’atténuer l’effet de serre supposément lié aux émissions de CO2, mais qui entend concilier action climatique, domination industrielle et cognitive de la nature, et jouissance matérialiste ?

  Laurent Alexandre : Contrôler les émissions de CO2 va être incroyablement compliqué. On va passer plusieurs décennies très difficiles. Et si, comme je le crois, il y a un lien entre CO2 et climat, on ne va pas pouvoir réduire les émissions de CO2 avant 2050. On va avoir des soucis climatiques sans doute jusqu’à la fin du siècle.

  Première raison à cela, les collapsologues surestiment l’acceptation par le corps social d’une politique de réduction du CO2. On a vu ce que signifie une toute petite baisse du pouvoir d’achat des Gilets Jaunes pour lutter contre l’effet de serre : on imagine ce que donnerait une baisse de 30 à 40% du pouvoir d’achat des classes populaires. On aurait une vraie révolution, qui serait vraisemblablement une révolution d’extrême-droite plutôt qu’une révolution d’extrême-gauche dans le contexte actuel. Une politique décroissantiste sera donc très difficilement acceptée… et l’on voit bien que tous les sondages montrent justement que la priorité des Français est le pouvoir d’achat avant la transition écologique.

Continuer la lecture de « Conversation avec Laurent Alexandre, pour Dreuz.info »

A conversation with Edward Dutton, for American Renaissance

Unknown  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.

Continuer la lecture de « A conversation with Edward Dutton, for American Renaissance »

A conversation with John Christy, for Association des climato-réalistes

johnchristy  John Raymond Christy is a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) whose chief interests are satellite remote sensing of global climate and global climate change. In February 2019 he was named as a member of the EPA Science Advisory Board.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: You have been at pains to show that climate models are over-predicting warming by roughly a factor of two. Could you come back to this alleged falsification?

  John Christy: We should be applying the scientific method to claims scientists (and others) are making about the climate. In this case I downloaded the output from 102 climate model simulations used by the IPCC and compared the tropospheric temperature since 1979 between the models and several observational datasets, including the satellite dataset we generate. The models on average were warming the atmosphere at a rate significantly greater than the observations. This is a test result from which we can say the models failed, and thus one shouldn’t depend on model output to characterize the future climate.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: You are notably known for your involvement—along with Roy Spencer—in devising the first successful satellite temperature record. It turns out that beforehand you had already built your “first climate datasets” at the age of twelve, “using a mechanical pencil, graph paper, and long-division (no calculators back then.)” Could you tell us more about this life of invention?

  John Christy: I was fascinated with the weather conditions around my home in the San Joaquin Valley of California (a desert basically) and the contrast with the climate of the Sierra Nevada Mountains immediately to the East. I was curious as to why some years were wet, others dry… why the Sierras had more precipitation and why the snow levels varied so much. I was the first high school student in California to write a simple program to predict the weather and to calculate the snow level in the mountains. These were very crude, statistical models in 1968, written for computers that were far less sophisticated than today’s cell phone. But, they introduced me to computer coding and to the power that was required to study. That was over 50 years ago.

Continuer la lecture de « A conversation with John Christy, for Association des climato-réalistes »

A conversation with Richard Lynn, for American Renaissance

Richard-Lynn Richard Lynn is an English psychologist and author. A former professor emeritus of psychology at Ulster University and assistant editor of the journal Mankind Quarterly, Prof. Lynn is perhaps the world’s foremost proponent of eugenics. He is also well known for his studies of racial differences in intelligence. Many of his books have been reviewed at American Renaissance.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: When assessing both your personal and intellectual lifetime retrospectively, what may have been your equivalent of Isaac Newton’s Annus Mirabilis—namely the year 1666 when he theorized the law of universal gravitation after he allegedly saw an apple falling—; or Albert Einstein’s one… namely the year 1905 when he published his four papers in Annalen der Physik shaking the notions of space, time, mass, and energy?

  Richard Lynn: It was in 1977 when I discovered that the intelligence of the Japanese was 3 IQ points higher than that of white Americans. Hitherto, virtually all discussions of race differences in intelligence had been concerned with the problem of why white Americans and British had higher IQs than other peoples, and this was generally attributed to the tests being biased in their favor. My discovery about the Japanese set me thinking about whether other Northeast Asian peoples (Chinese and Koreans) have higher IQs that Europeans. I began collecting studies on this and found that they did.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: The 2005 review by Rushton and Jensen on race and cognitive ability had a huge impact and has now over 500 citations. What are more recent discoveries—in life history theory, cognitive psychology, sociobiology, or evolutionary anthropology—that you feel should be documented?

  Richard Lynn: I regard the most important to be what I have called “the cold winters theory” to explain the evolution of race differences in intelligence. The theory explains the relation between the IQs of the races and the coldness of the winters. Thus, the Northeast Asians had to survive the coldest winters and evolved the highest IQs (105) followed by the Europeans (100), North Africans and South Asians (84) and sub-Saharan Africans (70). I first proposed this theory in 1991 and it has become widely accepted.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: You make no secret that you worry about “dysgenic immigration” and the great replacement with which both the white race and national IQs are threatened in the West. What is the current extent of the danger?

  Richard Lynn: In 2016 Rindermann & Thompson have calculated that the intelligence of immigrants in all European countries is lower by an average 6 IQ points than that of indigenous populations. Further data confirming this conclusion for a number of economically developed countries have been reported by Woodley of Menie, Peñnaherrera-Aguire, Fernandes & Figueredo in 2017.

  It can be anticipated that in the decades that lie ahead migrants from sub-Saharan Africa will continue to try to get into Europe. There has been a huge increase of the population in sub-Saharan Africa from approximately 230 million in 1960 to approximately one billion in 2018 and it will likely continue to grow. There are high rates of unemployment and poverty throughout sub-Saharan Africa that are likely to continue and inevitably large numbers will seek a better life in Europe and many will succeed.

Continuer la lecture de « A conversation with Richard Lynn, for American Renaissance »

A conversation with Gerhard Meisenberg, for Psych

Gerhard Meisenberg is a retired professor of biochemistry who lives in the Caribbean island nation of Dominica. Originally from Germany, he studied at the universities of Bochum and Munich where he obtained his Ph.D. in biology. He then did biochemistry research in the United States for three years, before joining the faculty at Ross University School of Medicine in Dominica. He worked in Dominica from 1984 until the end of 2018. He became known as the senior author of a major textbook of medical biochemistry that has so far been printed in four editions. In addition, he embarked on research in educational research and psychometrics. His special interest is in secular trends of intelligence (Flynn effects), which he studied in Dominica.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: You are best known for your textbook Principles of Medical Biochemistry as well as your evolutionary psychology treatise In God’s Image: The Natural History of Intelligence and Ethics. How do you move from the former to the latter?

  Gerhard Meisenberg: Biochemistry and the study of human behavior both are part of biology, although at slightly different levels. Psychology is one step down in the “hierarchy of sciences”: more complex, and less precise. What attracted me to human behavior are the big questions about why humans are the way they are, how they got that way, and what it means for our ongoing evolution. As Theodosius Dobzhansky famously said, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” I realized that the “big picture” of human history cannot be understood without an understanding of the ongoing evolution of the value systems that determine what aims people pursue and the intelligence that determines how good they are at attaining these aims. Neither of these are etched in stone. They keep evolving, both culturally and biologically.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: A short while ago you co-wrote an article on sex differences in intelligence with Professor Richard Lynn. Could you remind us of the outlines of your perspective on this subject conducive to arousing hysteria?

  Gerhard Meisenberg: There was actually a big debate about sex differences in the journal Mankind Quarterly, where contributors exposed the different views in the field. Briefly, there are those who hold that in modern Western societies there are no sex differences in intelligence that are big enough to have any real-world importance. James Flynn defended this position. The second view is represented by Richard Lynn, who claims that boys and girls start out pretty equal, but from the age of about 15 males gain an advantage over females because their mental as well as physical growth continues to an older age. Lynn estimates that adult men score 3 to 5 IQ points higher than women, which is a very small difference. He thinks that together with a higher male standard deviation, this is sufficient to explain male dominance in many intellectual fields. Then there are those, including myself, who emphasize that males and females have different strengths and weaknesses. For example, males have an up to one standard deviation (15 IQ points) advantage in mechanical reasoning, but females come out on top in tests of emotional intelligence and of verbal and episodic memory. There isn’t a huge amount of disagreement among scientists who study these sex differences. It’s a matter of emphasis.

  Another thing to consider is that sex differences in some non-cognitive traits are much bigger than those in measured intelligence. Some aspects of vocational preferences have sex differences of at least one standard deviation, although this depends much on the way the differences are measured and analyzed. Perhaps the reason why women have lower mechanical comprehension is not that they are innately deficient in this kind of reasoning, but that they have zero interest in the workings of gears and pulleys. Therefore they never bother to develop the ability to understand these things.

Continuer la lecture de « A conversation with Gerhard Meisenberg, for Psych »

A conversation with Kevin B MacDonald, for The Occidental Observer

SPLC-Extremist-Files-Kevin-MacDonald-1280x720  Kevin B. MacDonald is an American psychologist. A retired professor of psychology at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB), he is best known for writings that characterize Jewish behavior as a “group evolutionary strategy.”

  Grégoire Canlorbe: It is not uncommon to employ the locution “Judeo-Bolsheviks” to designate the 1917’s revolutionaries in Russia. Yet one seldom speaks of “Judeo-Libertarians,” even though the main intellectual leaders of libertarianism (or free-marketism) in the XX century were Jews: let one think of Milton Friedman, Israel Kirzner, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, or Ludwig von Mises. How do you explain it?

  Kevin B. MacDonald: CofC stands or falls depending on whether I have adequately described certain specific intellectual and political movements as Jewish. In doing so, I focused on movements that were or are influential and provide evidence of their influence. In describing these movements, I focus on the main figures, discuss their Jewish identities and their concern with specific Jewish issues, such as combatting anti-Semitism. I discuss the dynamics of these movements—the authoritarian atmosphere, the guru phenomenon, ethnic networking, and non-Jews who participate in the movement. I am not attempting to discuss all well-known Jewish intellectuals if they are not part of these movements.

Continuer la lecture de « A conversation with Kevin B MacDonald, for The Occidental Observer »

A conversation with Michael H. Hart, for American Renaissance

d3f340_6daeb2af30d82d77142cc638c144a35d  Michael H. Hart is an American astrophysicist, historian, and white separatist militant. He is mostly known for the Fermi-Hart Paradox, and his books The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History and Understanding Human History. He was a speaker at the 1996 American Renaissance conference.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: You call for defending the “Judeo-Christian heritage” of American civilization against mass invasions from the Third-World. How do you sum up the values at the core of the Judeo-Christian Weltanschauung—and the outlines of your partition plan intended to preserve those?

  In the decades yet to come, do you see rather a Republican candidate or a Democrat one to run for the presidential elections under the banner of a racial-partition program?

  Michael H. Hart: I would have a hard time trying to sum up what are Judeo-Christian values. I believe our civilization’s uniqueness lies in the importance it gives to individual freedom.

  In my book Restoring America, I identified the three principal causes of our decline as follows: large-scale immigration from Latin America (in particular from Mexico), the decline of pride in our national heritage, and most importantly racial hostilities which are henceforth so great that we can no longer function effectively as a single unified country. Hence we must split into two countries.

  The partition would not be exactly a racial one. One of the two countries would be a “Red” one, consisting mostly of those regions in which conservatives make up the majority. The other would be a “Blue” country, consisting primarily of those regions in which “liberals” make up the majority.

  Hopefully secession will happen in a peaceful and voluntary manner. But I don’t believe that will be the case. I think that the partitioning will most likely occur in the context of a civil war. It will be implemented by an authoritarian figure. As for knowing whether the latter will be a Democrat or a Republican, I can make no prediction. Many of my conservative acquaintances are silently in favor of partition though.

  I should make it clear that I do not advocate dividing the USA long racial lines. (I once had that idea, but I no longer do.). In Restoring America, I suggest dividing the country between the conservatives and the leftists. I anticipate that most blacks—but not all—will choose to live in the leftist country. But I expect that a substantial number—perhaps about a million—will choose to live in the conservative country. They should be accepted by the conservative country without any reservations.

Continuer la lecture de « A conversation with Michael H. Hart, for American Renaissance »

For an Archeofuturist Renewal of Catholicism

  The following article was first published on the Council of European Canadians.

“The confusion goes so far that one stigmatizes with the most insulting names the great virtuoso of life (whose sovereignty of oneself constitutes the most marked contrast with the vicious and the debauchee). Even today it is thought necessary to disapprove a Caesar Borgia: that is laughable. The Church excommunicated German emperors because of their vices: as if any monk or priest could afford to discuss all that a Frederick II has the right to demand of himself. A Don Juan is sent to hell: it’s naive. Has one noticed that all the interesting men are missing in Heaven?”
Friedrich Nietzsche, in Posthumous Fragments

  The contemporary crisis of the Catholic Church assumes two aspects. On the one hand, there is the spiritual gynecocracy in the nets of which the Roman Church has fallen: it is symbolically testified by the putting forward of the Virgin Mary onto a level equal (if not superior) to the Father in the contemporary liturgy; and, in terms of political and economic recommendations, it is testified by the socialism, the cosmopolitanism, and the ecologism of Pope Francis. On the other hand, there is the deflection of the feeling of guilt, which no longer plays in Western society its role of regulation of economic and domestic individualism—individualism that was formerly encouraged by the Church with the twin revolutions of the Popes Gregory the Great and Gregory VII—but which drives Westerners into a slow suicide of their race and of their civilization. And this with the ideological and militant complicity of the Catholic Church.

  Added to this is the disarray of Catholics in a world where Providence seems to have become American-Zionist: a world where God seems to have abandoned the Catholic peoples, and where Americans and Israelis now seem to be the beloved nations of the Lord, the apple of His eyes. In this article, we intend to promote an archeofuturist renewal of Catholicism: a revival of the Roman Church, and of its discourse, on the basis of the archeofuturism from philosopher Guillaume Faye. Before going further in the definition of archeofuturism (and in our personal version of the notion), we can already state that an archeofuturist Catholicism would consist in reconciling domestic and economic individualism with these two Indo-European archaisms that are permanent innovation and the aristocratic-warlike ethos. Technically, it would mean returning to the Borgia and to the syncretism of the Italian Renaissance between Judeo-Christianity and Greco-Roman paganism.

I. The Catholic Church, in the nets of spiritual gynecocracy

  By spiritual gynecocracy, one must understand an ideology of the nurturing and caring Mother, be this goddess explicitly mentioned or be the ideology in question limited to clarifying the mores and institutions that derive from such a cult. First consequence: equality, whether in a legal (with libertarianism), economic (with socialism), or ethnic sense (with cosmopolitanism); gynecocracy envisions human beings, not only as being all sons of the Mother, but as being equal sons. Second consequence: the hegemony of the productive and reproductive function, which means that in the scale of values, economy (understood as the production of goods required for material comfort or enjoyment in the broad sense) passes before war and sovereignty. Third consequence: ecologism, understood as refusal of growth and of industrial exploitation.

Continuer la lecture de « For an Archeofuturist Renewal of Catholicism »