Excellent But Terrifying Interview

Doug Bandler The Second's picture
Submitted by Doug Bandler Th... on Sun, 2016-04-17 23:12

This is an interview by Stefan Molyneux with Danish scientist Helmuth Nyborg. The subject is genetics, heredity and race and gender differences. This is an excellent introduction to what hereditarian arguments are and the implications for Western Civilization. The future looks absolutely terrifying for European people. Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' was the collapse of an all white civilization which in hindsight was somewhat unrealistic. But what we are in store for is the collapse of industrial civilization in the context of racial displacement. Imagine the ending of 'AS' but with large scale racial war. And all of this is an inevitable outgrowth of genetic differences between the races (and genders).

Now I am not saying that the individual liberty movement is bad or doomed. But what I am saying is that the massive wave of legitimate science is showing that there is significant intra-species variation among humans; and that this has consequences for politics and culture. Objectivism will be an historical footnote if it does not start taking this into account. Everyone who aims at being a "new intellectual" needs to listen to this interview and really wrestle with the implications of what is being discussed.

All variants of libertarianism will have no future unless they understand that there are genetic requirements for a liberty oriented culture. The liberty software needs the right hardware for it to function. Objectivism in particular needs to purge itself of the racial egalitarianism it has adopted (largely the outgrowth of latent egalitarianism in Rand's ideas due to her knowing nothing about population genetics and evolutionary biology) and ground itself in biologic science. Until then it will NEVER "capture the culture".

I say all this out of love not malice.

Many Links

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Thanks for those print and video links, Neil!


Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Tom Woods recently interviewed and Australian libertarian college student who was very good at debating socialists. This guy said that in Australia there is a very laid back attitude to things largely driven by climate and that it is very difficult to challenge the status quo. I'm guessing there is a similar dynamic in New Zealand.

It also sounded from his interview that many libertarians down under are milquetoast types. My guess is that the Objectivists are even flakier. Objectivism requires a high degree of intelligence and mental effort to master at a high level. And sadly the way it is currently constituted it seems to have embraced some of the egalitarian positions of Leftism especially regarding cultural issues while simultaneously embracing NeoCon foreign policy (an odd mix). So I am not surprised that you were considered persona non grata.

I also understand why you were excluded by OrgOism. You are too far outside the Objectivist Overton Window. If you had been the head of the ARI, I think the movement would have progressed further than it has. I also think there would have been more fractures but that's not necessarily a bad thing. As crazy as it sounds I'm thinking that there should be a "right wing Objectivism" movement consisting of an attempt to mix Rand's best elements with Nozickian Minarchism with Austrian economics (minus the anarchism and anti IP) and racial and gender sex realism and of course anti-Islam, etc.. But there aren't enough people for that. Objectivism offers a philosophic package which is capable of replacing religion and satisfying a large enough number of people's "spiritual" needs. Correcting its errors is not something 99% of Rand admirers are interested in. Plus Objectivism as it is also offers an "in-group" for these people. Challenging that in-group is again something that will not be received well.

Hurd is an Obleftivist

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

That Hurd column was terrible. It was typical of the blind "individualism" that you get from Objectivists. He can't even conceive of the fact that Muslims are a danger as a group. And that as a group Africans and Arabs are dangerous. Its just "if we had the perfect free market Islam and Muslims wouldn't be a problem". That is not a serious position. I'm coming to believe its a form of escapism. And its ubiquitous in libertarian and O'ist circles.

Another Obleftivist - Michael Hurd

Neil Parille's picture

Michael Hurd is an Objectivist with a Ph.D. in pyschology. Here is his reason why Muslims engage in Jihad:*


Here’s how Wilders defended himself, in a publicly released statement:

"How and why do I want to get fewer Moroccans in our country has already been written down in the PVV election platform since 2006: We want to stop immigration from non-Western immigrants, and therefore also of Moroccans, to promote voluntary repatriation, and to denaturalize criminals with a dual nationality and expel them from the Netherlands. And before, during and after the contested election night, I have repeatedly explained this in front of many cameras and microphones. I did not say 'All Moroccans must leave the country' or 'Moroccans are no good,' but I advocated 'fewer Moroccans'. Because that is my opinion, that is what I want, and what many millions of Dutch want together with me."

We wonder why brutal attacks and explosions keep happening in Europe, in the name of Islam.


This is just like the liberals arguing that "Islamophobia" is causing Jihad.

No where does he mention immigration in this article (or any others).

* http://capitalismmagazine.com/...

Intelligence and Genetics - More from Molyneux

Neil Parille's picture

He's done a number of intereviews with important thinkers in the field:


James Flynn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Eric Turkheimer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...


Linda Gottfriedsen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Charles Murray: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Jason Richwine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Garrett Jones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Kevin Beaver: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...


Neil Parille's picture

"Nyborg says 60-80% of intelligence is inherited. Also that genetic heritage asserts itself massively over time, such as 20% when young, 40% when a teen, 60% when an adult, 80% when old. This is new to me! No clue if that's true, but it's always fun to hear new ideas and claims."

20 years ago or so The Bell Curve came out. Its central argument was:

1. IQ is an excellent measure of intelligence (and not biased).

2. IQ correlates with a variety of life outcomes (low IQ people commit more crime, high IQ people have more stable family lives, etc).

3. Intelligence is largely genetic within groups. (I don't recall the figure Murray and Hernstein gave.)

4. Intelligence varies among the races.

5. The variation among intelligence has at least some genetic component. (The Bell Curve didn't give an amount, but Murray seems to have become convinced of a high genetic amount in recent years).

Now, even at the time 1-4 were not controversial. In fact they were widely believed, even by leftist experts on intelligence.*

As far as 5 goes, The Bell Curve cites a study that at least 50% of experts in intelligence think there is or might be some genetic component to racial differences.

So there's quite a disconnect between what the public has been told about intelligence and what the experts believe.

In fact, the American Psychological Association issued a statement about intelligence and pretty much confirmed TBC, except on race.**


*Of course what the experts believe isn't determinative, but it's unusual to have such a consensus on a social science issue.

** http://differentialclub.wdfile...


Lindsay Perigo's picture

I'm glad you're starting to see. And your term "Obleftivism" is a great term that I wish would gain traction.

Reality is my cue. If there are indeed innate IQ differences based on race that's the conclusion I'll accept, though I regard it, currently, as far from being proved. If it's true, however, it would be taken care of by my prohibition on breeding and voting by ignoramuses.

Of course, "Obleftivism" should gain traction, just as "sacrifism" should, and my proof of the objective bestness of Romantic Music, and my Romance and Rationalism, and my Not One Muslim long before Trump came up with it (and apparently he doesn't mean it), and my revised American National Anthem, and my One Tenor, about to come out in print ... all of this and more. But I can do only so much, and I'm a useless self-marketer facing the green-eyed monster.


Doug Bandler The Second's picture

I agree with you. And the Mlll quote is a good one. The early Progressives were on board with some type of Eugenics and IMO they weren't wrong with that. Obleftivsts and Cuckservatives are quick to say "see the Progressives were the true racists!" But I hate that milksop crap. The Progressives were right as were the original racial scientists (who are constantly being vindicated by modern science).

Does this mean Hitlerism? No. But Objectivists should be mature enough to deal with this growing awareness of biology and understand the impact that it has on liberty. As the United States becomes an Asian-Mestizo country (which is what it is becoming), does any OrgOist elite really think that that population will take to Rand and Von Mises? My god.

When I say that some type of racial war is possible, I am not pulling this out of my ass. The Balkans is populated by a people that are very genetically similar. And yet with two different types of Christianity and Islam, that genetically similar Slavic people still butchered each other for centuries. What is going to happen in America with the massive racial diversity that it now has? Are they going to magically uphold "the Constitution?" Or the favorite of Objectivists: "Individual Rights"? (I hear Amy Peikoff's high pitched nasal voice whenever I think of that term.)

I'm glad you're starting to see. And your term "Obleftivism" is a great term that I wish would gain traction.

Child Abuse

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Lindsay promotes:

"[P]rohibition of breeding by those whose breeding would be a pre-emptive violation of the rights of the unfortunates whom they breed."

I see kids on the New York City subway almost every day whose life and fate is agonizing and unbearable. If I had my way, their moms and dads would immediately go to jail for the objective crime of child abuse, and their kids would be put up for adoption. This cruel, wild, personal abuse of defenseless children is an unspeakable crime. And it's irrational, illiberal philosophy on vivid and heart-breaking display.

Next 10 Minutes

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

From minute 10 to 20 Molyneux says different human sub-species adapt well to their local environment, and thus the human races and sub-races are different -- but not necessarily better or worse than one another. Nyborg mostly disagrees, saying that smart people do better everywhere on earth.

Nyborg says blacks from Africa have average IQs around 70 -- which defies a lot of common sense. 85 or so seems more reasonable. And intelligence seems to have many components which are not well understood. It's taboo to discuss them, so our knowledge here is weak. But intelligence seems to involve largely-separate skills such as: verbal, mathematical, engineering, spatial, artistic, creative, adoptive/adaptive, sympathy/empathy, etc. Thus, not a simple subject to comprehend. One simple number to sum up an individual, or race, gender, sexuality, etc., seems inadequate.

Nyborg says 60-80% of intelligence is inherited. Also that genetic heritage asserts itself massively over time, such as 20% when young, 40% when a teen, 60% when an adult, 80% when old. This is new to me! No clue if that's true, but it's always fun to hear new ideas and claims.

But overall, I still think the fate of the individual and the world hinges on philosophy -- not biological differences. Make it highly liberal, and life will be good for all. Compared to today, and all of history, it will be like heaven.

Still, current Objectivism may be too theoretical and abstract. Personal philosophy, psychology, and personality seem to be larger factors in individual and societal success and happiness than the current Objectivist belief-system.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

I have warmed somewhat to Molyneux over the last few viewings, although I too am critical of his penchant for going on for ever without reaching a conclusion or stating an abstract "so what?!" at the end of his bombardment of concretes. Typical empiricist behaviour. I suppose in this dumbed-down world even those supposedly versed in Rand are as ignorant of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology as they are of The Romantic Manifesto.

In this interview about race and IQ I was initially pleasantly surprised by Stefan's apparent ability to shut up and listen, for once—the rarest and most essential of requisites for good interviewing—but quickly realised that he wasn't actually taking in the answers he was seemingly listening to, since he didn't pick up on the points made therein but just went off in his own direction with each new question. Still, he is unafraid to tackle taboo subjects and in particular to attack the neo-fascism of Political Correctness, in a way that Obleftivists are not prepared to do, since they are PC themselves. Obleftivists are part of the problem, not the solution. That's TAS and ARI both. OrgOism in other words.

In all Western countries there need to be new Western Values Parties, upholding:

1) freedom within the rule of law;

2) restriction of government to protecting freedom and implementing the rule of law;

3) blind justice;

4) closed borders to aliens committed to the destruction of Western values;

5) repatriation of aliens already here committed to the destruction of Western values;

6) prohibition of breeding by those whose breeding would constitute a pre-emptive violation of the rights of the unfortunates whom they bred. (John Stuart Mill: "It still remains unrecognised, that to bring a child into existence without a fair prospect of being able, not only to provide food for its body, but instruction and training for its mind, is a moral crime, both against the unfortunate offspring and against society; and that if the parent does not fulfil this obligation, the State ought to see it fulfilled, at the charge, as far as possible, of the parent." Short-term, subsidisation of contraceptive implants for the unfit-to-breed should be a policy plank of WVPs, since Dem-dregs breeding more Dem-dregs at taxpayer expense is a major cause of the current collapse of America and of civilisation);

7) restriction of the franchise to those who pass literacy tests in English, history and politics.

Now, you can just hear the screams of Oblefti-morons, not to mention the overt left, at all of this. Obleftivists would vote for Dem-scum over a WVP. As I say, part of the problem.


Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

I watched the first 10 minutes out of 82. These two guys -- Nyborg and Molyneax -- seem semi-educated and semi-honest about biological race and sex differences. But watching the full 82 minutes has got to be painful. As always, Molyneux takes FOREVER to make even the tiniest point. How he gets 100,00 viewers per video is a mystery to me.

Prof. Nyborg promotes "altruism" about 4 times in the first 10 minutes. Also "democracy." So I'm not sure how much insight he's capable of.

But Nyborg did note that eugenics was a respectable science and topic of conversation before Hitler. Which is important. But is he smart enough to note that eugenic sperm banks were vociferously condemned when they began in the 1970s -- and now are universal? Doubtful.

So there may be far more hope in the world than Nyborg or Molymeux know or note, as their discussion rambles on and on and....

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.