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 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 »

Une conversation avec Olivier Piacentini, pour Suavelos

vignette-zoom-2017-01-23  Olivier Piacentini est depuis 17 ans le directeur d’un cabinet de conseil spécialisé dans la création d’entreprises, mais aussi essayiste prolifique et politologue, souvent invité dans des émissions radiophoniques et télévisées. Cette conversation avec Grégoire Canlorbe, Vice Président du Parti National-Libéral, a eu lieu à Paris en avril 2018.

  Grégoire Canlorbe : Pourriez-vous commencer par nous parler de votre proximité vis-à-vis des « jeunes de quartier » qui se lancent dans la création d’entreprise – et doivent endurer l’oppression des taxes et du code du travail ? Jusqu’à quel point vos essais sur la France, le déclin, et la mondialisation empruntent-ils à cette expérience de terrain ?

  Olivier Piacentini : Je dirige depuis 17 ans un cabinet de conseil spécialisé dans l’assistance aux créateurs d’entreprises. Situé dans le département de Seine Saint Denis (le fameux 9-3), je suis amené à travailler souvent avec des jeunes de banlieue, dont certains ont eu un parcours chaotique, parfois même la délinquance, avant de se ranger et de vouloir créer leur propre emploi. C’est là que l’incohérence, voire l’injustice, du système Français saute aux yeux : auparavant dans l’oisiveté, l’échec, ou l’illégalité, ces jeunes se trouvaient excusés par un système judiciaire laxiste, victimisés par les discours des assistantes sociales, des avocats etc. Pour ceux qui décident de sortir de l’ornière, la surprise est grande de constater qu’à peine les statuts de la société déposés au greffe, ils passent sans transition de l’autre côté de la barrière : de victimes, ils deviennent des patrons, donc des exploiteurs, des profiteurs, et ne bénéficient plus de l’assistance des pouvoirs publics, mais subissent, au même titre que tous les autres indépendants, l’oppression fiscale et réglementaire qui finit par en décourager bon nombre. Continuer la lecture de « Une conversation avec Olivier Piacentini, pour Suavelos »

A conversation with Guillaume Faye, for American Renaissance

260px-Guillaume_Faye_par_Claude_Truong-Ngoc_février_2015  Guillaume Faye is a French philosopher, known for his judeophile right-wing paganism, his call for a Eurosiberian Federation of white ethno-states, or his concept of archeofuturism, which involves combining traditionalist spirituality and concepts of sovereignty with the latest advances in science and technology.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: In my opinion, the liberalism [libertarianism, free-markets] of tomorrow will be a liberalism at the crossroads of Julius Evola and Filippo Tommaso Marinetti—a reconciliation that Italian Fascism basically failed to achieve. In other words, the liberalism of the future will be an archeofuturist liberalism. Do you envision France as a fertile ground for this new liberalism?

  Guillaume Faye: If one considers France from the point of view of Frédéric Bastiat, it is basically a communist country. In fact, France is today more communist than the Soviet Union ever was. It is one of the last bastions of communism in a world that is now profoundly liberal. Not only does government spending represent more than 58 percent of GDP, and redistribution expenditure more than 50 percent of GDP, but with a population that represents less than 1 percent of the world’s population, France represents 15 percent of the world’s welfare state redistribution.

Continuer la lecture de « A conversation with Guillaume Faye, for American Renaissance »

Entretien avec Guy Millière, pour Dreuz

Cet entretien est paru sur Dreuz.info le 18 juin 2017.

Guy_Milliere  Guy Millière, (spécialisation : économie, géopolitique), est titulaire de trois doctorats, et professeur à l’Université Paris VIII Histoire des cultures, Philosophie du droit, Economie de la communication et Maître de conférences à Sciences Po, ainsi que professeur invité aux Etats-Unis. Il collabore à de nombreux think tanks aux Etats-Unis et en France.

  Expert auprès de l’Union Européenne en bioéthique ; conférencier pour la Banque de France ; ancien visiting Professor à la California State University, Long Beach ; traducteur et adaptateur en langue française pour le site DanielPipes.org ; éditorialiste à la Metula News Agency, Israël Magazine, Frontpage Magazine, upjf.org ; membre du comité de rédaction d’Outre-terre, revue de géopolitique dirigée par Michel Korinman ; rédacteur en chef de la revue Liberalia de 1989 à 1992, il a participé aux travaux de l’American Entreprise Institute et de l’Hoover Institution.

  Il a été conférencier pour la Banque de France ; il a participé à l’édition d’ouvrages libéraux contemporains comme La constitution de la liberté de Friedrich Hayek en 1994 dans la collection Liberalia, puis dans la collection « Au service de la liberté » qu’il a créée aux éditions Cheminements en 2007. Il a été vice-président de l’Institut de l’Europe libre ainsi que Président et membre du conseil scientifique de l’Institut Turgot. Il fait partie du comité directeur de l’Alliance France-Israël présidée par Gilles-William Goldnadel. Il est l’auteur de plus d’une vingtaine d’ouvrages.

Continuer la lecture de « Entretien avec Guy Millière, pour Dreuz »

Interview with Majid Oukacha, for Gatestone Institute

  This interview was published on October 8, 2016 at 5:00 am on Gatestone Institute, a “non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank based in New York City” with a specialization in strategy and defense issues.

photo Majid Oukacha HD  Majid Oukacha is a young French essayist who was born and grew up in a France which he recognizes less every year. « A former Muslim but an eternal patriot, » as he sometimes likes to describe himself, he is the author of Face to Faith With Islam, a systematic critique, without value judgments, of the most inconsistent and imprecise Koranic laws.

  Grégoire Canlorbe: Could you start by reminding us of the circumstances and motives of your abandoning Islam — and of your decision to take up your pen to unravel your former religion for the public at large?

  Majid Oukacha: Like all Frenchmen who were born and grew up in France in the late twentieth century, I am fortunate to belong to a peaceful nation that allowed me to enjoy rights and freedoms for which I never personally had to fight. My parents, French citizens of Algerian origin and Muslim persuasion, provided me with a religious education, which destined me to remain a devout Muslim. They also gave me a civic, social and ethical education based on respect for France and its values, as embodied in its motto, « liberty, equality, fraternity. »

Continuer la lecture de « Interview with Majid Oukacha, for Gatestone Institute »

Entretien avec Pierre Bergé, pour la revue « Arguments »

  Cet entretien a été initialement publié par la revue « Arguments », fin mars 2017.

  Pierre Bergé est un entrepreneur en confection de luxe, essayiste, et mécène français. Compagnon d’Yves Saint Laurent, il l’aide à fonder la maison de couture du même nom. Il est aujourd’hui président de la Fondation Pierre Bergé – Yves Saint Laurent, reconnue d’utilité publique en 2002, dont les missions sont la conservation de l’œuvre d’Yves Saint Laurent, l’organisation d’expositions et le soutien d’activités culturelles et éducatives.

  De 1977 à 1981, il dirige le théâtre de l’Athénée puis préside l’Opéra Bastille de 1988 à 1993, année où il est nommé « ambassadeur de bonne volonté de l’UNESCO ». Soutien médiatique et financier du Parti socialiste, il est également un militant qui soutient la cause homosexuelle et la lutte contre le sida, cofondateur de l’association Sidaction dont il est aujourd’hui président. Il était propriétaire du magazine Têtu jusqu’en janvier 2013. En 2010, il prend le contrôle du quotidien Le Monde, conjointement avec Xavier Niel et Matthieu Pigasse, au travers d’une recapitalisation du groupe.

  Pierre Bergé est, enfin, l’auteur de plusieurs essais consacrés à Yves Saint Laurent, ainsi qu’à la liberté et aux valeurs républicaines. Évoquons notamment Liberté, j’écris ton nom, de 1991, Inventaire Mitterrand, de 2001, Les jours s’en vont je demeure, de 2003, et Lettres à Yves, de 2008. Il se définit politiquement comme un « démocrate rooseveltien ».

Continuer la lecture de « Entretien avec Pierre Bergé, pour la revue « Arguments » »

Interview with Waleed Al-Husseini, for Gatestone Institute

  This interview was published on September 20, 2016 at 4:30 am on Gatestone Institute, a “non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank based in New York City” with a specialization in strategy and defense issues.

716889-waleed-al-husseini01recadre2jpg  Waleed Al-Husseini is a Palestinan blogger and essayist as well as the founder of the Ex-Muslim Counsel of France. He garnered international fame in 2010 when he was arrested, imprisoned and tortured for articles he posted in which he criticized Islam. He has received threats and death threats. He is one of the most celebrated cyber-activists from the Arab world and now lives in France where he sought refuge. He continues to be a fierce defender of its secular, republican values.

  He is the author of an autobiography, Blasphemer! Allah’s prisons! edited by Graset in 2014 (re-issued in 2015), as well as articles in Le Monde, La Règle du jeu and Libération. His blogs are “la voie de la raison” and “I’m proud to be atheist.”

  Contact: hassayen@gmail.com

  Grégoire Canlorbe: Could you start by reminding us of the circumstances and motives of your dissent?

  Waleed Al-Husseini: My atheism is the result of a long quest for the truth about what I saw happening in front of me. Obviously, nobody holds all of the Truth, but during my research, I realized that religion in general, and Islam in particular, was highly incompatible with the values of human life. That was the beginning of my rejection of Islam. As time goes by, the horrors and crimes committed against mankind in the name of Islam seem to have proven me right. They have strengthened my conviction that it was the right choice to make.

Continuer la lecture de « Interview with Waleed Al-Husseini, for Gatestone Institute »