Soren Kierkegaard distinguished between three stages of existence.1 He referred to the base as the aesthetic stage, where man is committed solely to the fulfillment of his own personal desires, much in the mold of Machiavelli. The next step is the ethical stage, where man is drawn outside himself and sees obligations to others as superceding his own wants. Finally, the religious stage is the synergy of man with the Absolute. If we contemporize Absolute by defining it as empirically verifiable truth, we have a working system (albeit not one Kierkegaard would necessarily be fond of) with the third stage being the apex of an individual and by extension a society.
Why, then, does the information dissemination structure, comprised of the great triumvirate of news media, Hollywood, and academia, viciously fight to squelch the notion of human biodiversity by ignoring and marginalizing the deluge of research that suggests it is fundamental to the differences in human populations? Because there is a new secular religion borne out of the 1960s that has swept across the West that demands the equality of outcomes and the suspension of all judgment, moral or otherwise, by those non-member individuals or institutions in any position of authority. It started with Marx, but was reformed by men like Gramsci and Marcuse from being economically-based to being culturally-based. Realizing that capitalism would wipe communism every time the two came into conflict, they knew that the roots of capitalism had to first be eradicated. Christianity and the bourgeoisie class were the targets—the two stalwarts of a free market. Laying every evil of mankind on their shoulders was the way to destroy them.2
The egalitarianism myth is fundamental to this new religion—if it flounders the whole house comes down with it. A theory of massive blank-slates requires there be no fundamental differences in groups of people. This extends beyond equality under the law or spiritual equality in the eyes of God, both tremendous positives brought about by Christian Europe. They wish biological differences to be vanquished as well. Employing cultural Marxism, more benignly known as “political correctness,” the new religion’s adherents believe that the imbalance of power in societies and among people is artificial. All people and communities are said to equal at birth and differences only emerge due to societal (or “structural”) forces. The apostles work to enforce this belief by harshly punishing those who deviate from or even question it.3
Kierkegaard called this tactic “leveling,” and he would suffer dearly for coming up against the media establishment in his own time, where he was virulently scorned for his challenge to the conventional wisdom of the time.4 The faithfuls’ riposte to any contrasting viewpoint is a combination of blackballing, character assassination, and supercilious ridicule. Unfortunately, the apostates possess a deadly weapon to strike back with: empirical evidence.
In Two Ages, Kierkegaard criticized leveling, describing how “it lets everything remain but subtly drains the meaning out of it… [it] has transformed the whole of existence into an equivocation.”5 Frustrated by the age’s desire to overthrow everything without discrimination for the sake of destroying it, he attacked the philosophical weakness and inherent lack of conviction in the equivocation that leveling desired. Today, we need not be so esoteric. Let us look now at facts that fatally stultify the egalitarianism myth.
In Mein Kampf, Hitler rabidly laments that “the Jewish influence on economic affairs grows with terrifying speed.”6 He was not baseless in his assessment. Although Jews only represented 1% of Germany’s population, they comprised an astounding 75% of Berlin’s doctors, 80% of the country’s theater directors, and a disproportionately large number of German lawyers.7 Hitler was so irked by Jewish cognitive superiority that he banned IQ tests in Germany after Jews consistently outscored the Gentile population.8 Perhaps his one-thousand year Reich have survived more than twelve years if Hitler had utilized his human capital instead of obliterating it or sending it scurrying to the enemy.
Successful Jews were not unique to Germany. In fact, to this day Ashkenazi (European ancestry) Jews are enormously successful virtually everywhere they go. Although they comprise less than 3% of the US population, 27% of Nobel Prize winners are Ashkenazi. Over half the world’s chess champions are Jewish.9 A slew of intellectual titans also claim Ashkenazi ancestry, including Karl Marx, Albert Einstein, Bobby Fisher, and Sigmund Freud. IQ tests consistently show them scoring an average of 112-115 compared to the white European mean of 100 and the world average of 90.10 Yet by appearance and lifestyle, Ashkenazis are today indistinguishable from others of European descent. They go to the same schools, live in the same culture, and have the same friends as the goys they live amongst. The crucial difference is innate, and it is in the history.
Ever since the close of the fourth Century following the excoriations of Judaism by Church fathers like Saint John of Chrysostom and Saint Augustine of Hippo, European Jewish life has been largely segregated from that of Christians. The Church abhorred usury, and consequently Jews were heavily overrepresented in the areas of finance and banking. Only five percent of Jews worked in agriculture at a time when most Europeans were farmers.11 Thus, Jews relied heavily on intelligence for success. Financing and banking were among the most cognitively demanding occupations at the time. As Jews lived almost exclusively in urban areas, children were an economic liability rather than an asset as they were for farmers and other craftsmen. Therefore, the most successful Jews could afford to have the most children while the dullards could not, whereas struggling rustic non-Jews had huge families to help make ends. In addition, entering the religious order was a desired achievement that required great intellectual ability to be able to read and write in multiple languages and become well versed in theological and philosophical history and discussion. Monks were celibate, while rabbis were encouraged to have many children, thereby spreading their intelligence while many monks became a genetic dead-end. Finally, there was little intermarrying—Jews and Gentiles came from distinct stocks from before the fifth century until the mid-twentieth century, with a different set of natural selection forces at work on them. Less than one percent were thought to have married outside the Jewish community.12 Given that IQ is agreed to be 40-80% hereditable (with 75% being the most agreed upon), the differences we witness today are not surprising.13
Terrified by Jews who threaten to shatter the appeal of their special interests—that they are victims of relentless white oppression—other minority group leaders attack this tremendously successful one. Radical Colorado University Professor and Native American activist Ward Churchill rages about the “clear, and often quite overtly expressed, desire among many Jews to claim an absolute monopoly in terms of genocidal suffering.”14 In the run up to the election of a new California Governor to replace ousted Gray Davis, an advocate of Aztlan’s creation (making the Southwestern US become an independent nation and home for displaced Aztecs) named Ernesto Cienfuegos wrote that criticism of Cruz Bustamante (who was seeking the Governorship) was an “attack by the Jews to keep in check the emerging Mexican-American community of Alta California and to continue perpetuating their power in Sacramento.”15 Black activist and former Presidential candidate Al Sharpton famously exclaimed after being heckled that “I am already in hell. I’m in Israel.”16
But wait! We are attempting to use Darwinian evolution to explain biological differences in human populations. Yet was not Social Darwinism merely a perverse rendering of Charles Darwin’s watershed discovery that was discredited after Hitler’s atrocious disaster? Further, is not race just a social construction rather than a biological one? So goes the criticisms of “the lightly equipped encyclopedists” Kierkegaard writes of, who believe that because they have heard a bit about everything they are infinitely erudite, when in actuality they are “overwhelmed by delusions.”17 That Richard Rorty proclaims it to be self-evident that classifications like “homosexual,” “negro,” and “female,” are “inventions that have done more harm than good,” does not make it a veritable truth.18
Curiously, Hitler’s systematic destruction of six million people in the name of inequality has made the discussion of human biological differences anathema, while Stalin’s 25 million dead and Mao’s 20 million dead—both in the name of equality—has not ended the ebullient enthusiasm for unfettered egalitarianism. Yet the facile proposition that differences are due to how groups are treated by hegemons is at best only partially true. Ashkenazis are particularly potent in refuting this assumption, as they are historically the most persecuted group in the world and yet have become the most fruitful today. Ashkenazis, Koreans, Africans, and indigenous South Americans have all been brutally oppressed by industrialized nations. This cruelty is to be lamented and disdained for sure. But what is interesting is the vast variance in how these populations have made it in the world, with the former two being extraordinarily successful while the latter have not been able to adapt as well to a technologically advanced world that has been thrust upon them.
The first step we can suggest to those who believe evolution abruptly shuts off at the human level—after autioning them that they may shortly feel the urge to rip the Darwin fish-creature off the back of their cars—is for said epigones to read the full title of Darwin’s work, rather than the politically-correct abridged version: The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. It is difficult to imagine a phrase more inflammatory today than “favoured races,” and yet proponents for intelligent design fail to utilize the cultural Marxist’s own weapon against them. Darwin believed there to be differences between races, though it is crucial that he used “races” rather than the singular term “race.”19 Different races have been naturally selected for the environments they live in by a process taking place over tens of thousands of years since we first began breaking away from the simians. As Darwin writes, “Natural selection in each well-stocked country, must act chiefly through the competition of the inhabitants one with another, and consequently will produce perfection, or strength in the battle for life, only according to the standard of that country.”20 Clearly, Darwin understood that humans were not separated from the rest of life on earth, somehow immaculately free from the stains of diversity. In fact, humans are among the most physically diverse species on the planet, outdone only by domesticates that have been eugenically bred (like dogs).21 Different groups display different abilities and tendencies. Consequently, the desire to “level” the end result of groups or individuals is unnatural and a recipe for tension—or worse—between groups.
“If simultaneously we could spread the notion that it is all make-believe, we would approve and admire… but privately know that nothing decisive is supposed to be meant by it. And we will not be repentant, for after all we are not demolishing anything,” wrote Kierkegaard, mocking the established order of his day.22 And so goes the same today in regards to that elusive term “race.” There is no specific “white” or “black” gene. But that is due to the fact that race is a relative term to denote a basket of differences between human populations. It can be used to differentiate blacks from whites, Germans from British, or Irish Protestants from Irish Catholics. It is, in essence, an extended family from which there is some inbreeding present (if there were no such inbreeding we would each have billions of ancestors wandering the earth thousands of years ago, as our family pedigrees would expand indefinitely and exponentially as we moved up them.)23 A solid definition of “extended family” is equally elusive, yet no one would seriously deny the hereditary relationship between family members—if that is the case, we had all best call up our contingency lawyers to go after those swindling doctors who have been scamming us by proscribing routine check-ups based on our family history!
Geography provides a terse analogy that is initially less contentious: Are not geographical demarcations artificial? We do not see a black line in the sand separating Mexico from the US, Johnson County from Wyandotte County, or the Western Hemisphere from the Eastern Hemisphere. Yet these distinctions are of great utility as the environment in each generally varies from the other, with broader (or larger) groupings displaying more pronounced differences—as the contrasts of Canada and Mexico are more stark than those of Miami and Johnson counties. Similarly, both are going to share some traits, at least in some segments of their total area, but the tallest mountains are going to be found in Canada and the warmest weather will reside in Mexico. Likewise, race can be sliced up in countless ways, with individuals in the group differing from one another and sometimes being very similar to a member of another group, but on average there are valuable differences extant between the groups nonetheless.
Let us quickly take a few more of the most conspicuous examples of differences between populations (a term essentially interchangeable with race) before moving on. Running is a universal sport that nearly everyone can participate in and anyone can detect a natural talent for. Yet the 100 fastest sprinters in the world are all of West African descent, and not a single top runner is of Asian ancestry, even though the continent contains over half of the world’s population.24 Clearly running ability is orders of magnitude away from being random—it is genetic. White males are at six times greater risk for contracting melanoma than are males of other races.25 East Asians score nearly a standard deviation higher on visuo-spatial IQ tests than white Europeans, going a long way to explain their relative dominance in fields like engineering, chemistry, and mathematics yet they fall around four or five points below white Europeans in verbal-analytical scores, which suggests an explanation for lower numbers of East Asians in fields like law or the humanities.26
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger adroitly observed, “Nobody will ever win the Battle of the Sexes. There's just too much fraternizing with the enemy.” That the relationship between males and females is portrayed as a competition, while seemingly jocular, is actually dangerously ignorant. Men are going to “win” in some arenas, and women will be victorious in others. It would be sagacious to, accepting that, look at the biological differences rooted in tens of thousands of years of human existence and base societal norms on each gender’s relative advantages. But the second wave of feminism, emerging in the 1960s, militantly attacked the perceived differences of men and women in society as being one in which “men raped women physically, economically and spiritually.”27 If everyone is truly the same, and it is exclusively the apocryphal nature of social constructions that make us think otherwise, then the only explanation is (non-genetic) male oppression! Of course, this begs the question of how men became dominant in the first place if no meaningful distinction can truly be made between the abilities of men and women, but we should not digress.
There is hardly any better demonstration of this fallacious thinking than the Harvard President Lawrence Summers fiasco in January 2005. In a meeting convened to discuss possible reasons that men so heavily dominate the top echelons of the hard-sciences (like mathematics, science, and engineering), Summers suggested among a host of other potential explanations that innate differences in intelligence distribution between men and women might account for the disparity. He was crucified for heresy by the cultural hegemons. The former Clinton official had to pony up $50 million in Harvard revenues and earmark them for “diversity efforts” including increased affirmative action hires and a “commitment to the advancement and support of women in academic life” at the school.28
Kierkegaard wrote that furtive envy “does not understand that it is itself a negative acknowledgment of excellence but wants to degrade it, minimize it, until it actually is no longer excellence, and envy takes as its object not only the excellence which is but that which is to come.”29 His criticism was directed at those who leveled attacks at others out of a covetous desire for the knowledge or possessions they held. He could have been writing last week. The evidence for differences between sexes is overwhelming. Women have more white matter in the brain while the brain of men contains more gray matter. Different areas of the brain are activated for reasoning, emotive response, memory formation, and decision-making. Men outperform women on visuo-spatial and quantitative tests while women clean up on vocabulary and reading comprehension.30 The distribution of IQ is wider for men than for women by about one point per standard deviation, although the mean value is the same for both sexes.31 This means that 99.7% of white women (average 100) are contained between IQs of 55 and 145, while for white men it must be expanded slightly to IQs of 52 and 148 to achieve 99.7% of the population. Thus, there are more men at the highest (and lowest) intellectual echelons in society—exactly what Summers suggested.
Why then, with science on his side, was Summers persecuted successfully, especially when the discussion revolved around scientific questions? “No particular individual will be able to halt the abstraction of leveling, for it is a negatively superior force,” wrote Kierkegaard about the culture in 1846.32 The stranglehold does not easily loosen. Charles Reich, a counterculture drone, enthusiastically wrote that cultural Marxism “is now spreading with amazing rapidity, and already our laws, institutions, and social structure are changing in consequence.”33 What he proclaimed in 1971 was firmly implanted in the minds of Ivy Leaguers in 2005 when Harvard’s faculty gave a vote of no-confidence to the institution’s president for his suggestions.
Even if true, the question is sometimes asked, what good does pointing out innate differences in individuals and by extension populations do? Conditioned by years of relentless “discrimination is evil” coupled with the “inequitable results must entail discrimination” bromides, it is an understandable concern. The largely unchallenged thinking goes as follows: “If non-Hispanic whites in the US earn more per year on average than blacks, white racism must be the culprit.” Kierkegaard abhors how “the drunken sailor has absolutely the same right to a public as the most distinguished of men.”34 Interestingly, Asian-Americans, who have crime rates half that of whites and who outperform whites educationally and economically, are almost always ignored in media reports on racial inequality.35 They too inconveniently throw a wrench into the “white oppression” model. Irrational discrimination is wrong, as the civil rights struggle in the United States has shown. But a capitalistic republic relies on the ability of individuals and institutions to make rational choices. Neo-Marxist socialism mandates a loss of that right at grave expense, and we will pay dearly for it. Let us look at a couple issues where acknowledging human biodiversity could be of great benefit.
Unfettered immigration has taken its toll on the Southwestern Border States. California has been especially hard hit. Only a decade ago, California was the US cognitive treasure chest enjoying some of the nation’s highest school test scores while being equipped with Silicon Valley and Hollywood. How the mighty have fallen. Saddled with almost $25 billion in debt with a infrastructure that is collapsing, the state was forced to close seven ERs in Los Angeles alone when they could not find their way out of the red as swarms of uninsured patients were continuously taken in.36 The state scored 44th in mathematics and 49th in reading in 2003 (out of fifty-one, including DC), among the very worst in the nation on the NAEP standardized test.37 Over one-quarter of its population is foreign-born, the highest percentage in the country, and one-third of its population is Hispanic.38 As far as even the fourth generation, Hispanics are only one-fifth as likely as the rest of the country to receive any education beyond high school.39 Leaving the discussion of why this is aside, such statistics clearly raise warning flags about the ability of the US to sustain a rapidly growing foreign-born population that tops 32 million, of which over half are from Latin America.40 Forty-one percent of foreign-born US residents from Latin America make less than $20,000 per year compared to only 16.5% of natives.41 The tax revenue derived from such an income ($5,000 as a liberal estimate) comes nowhere near covering the cost of education ($10,000 per child), road wear, police and medical services, jail facilities, and other infrastructure. With an $8 trillion national debt and unfunded liabilities of ten times that amount, the US can scarcely afford to be so profligate.42 Bring this into the debate, however, and at instant one becomes “racist” or “anti-Hispanic.” The policy suggestion borne out of such a fact, however, is not one of racial motivation. Instead, it calls for some measure of merit-based immigration that is controlled so that those entering the US are both accounted for and judged to be a net benefit to the sovereign nation.
A non-violent liberal democracy sweeping over the Middle East would be a dream come true. The US has spent nearly 2,000 American lives and $150 billion to help make it happen. But given even the best efforts of a noble and effective military, is this plausible? The average IQ of Iraq is estimated to be eighty-seven.43 Income and IQ are inexorably linked, and it has been found that countries with per capita incomes of under $3,000 per year historically do not ever become (or remain if installed externally) democracies.44 Iraq totters dangerously at $3,500 and Islamic culture does not mesh well with democratic ideals.45 Hopefully it will succeed nonetheless, but such concerns should be brought up. At a recent online discussion when I did just that, the one I was debating gave this stellar response: “I cannot believe you just wrote this. You should be ashamed of yourself.”46 It seems that Iraq’s intellectual capital could be increased if the damaging frequency of consanguineous marriage was reduced, and Western-style leaders may be able to help ameliorate that in time. Currently, half of all Iraq men are married to someone who is a second cousin or closer, a fact that is definitely contributing to lower intelligence and a host of other problems that are borne out of inbreeding at such close proximity.47
Finally, there is the incendiary issue of eugenics. The mere mention of the word makes people uncomfortable, and with good measure. The unintended consequences could be devastating as the science fiction industry can attest to. Unless it is situated next to the word “Nazi,” it is not to be found cultural Marxist media machine, as it is blasphemous. By equating eugenic practices with Nazism and “reminding people of the past it can discourage them from all else.”48 But a dearth of discussion on the subject is risky as well, for in a country of 1.3 billion people it has long been taking place.
Some 91% of Chinese scientists believe eugenic practices to be beneficial.49 The PRC has in place a law calling for the “sterilization of morons.”50 Of course, the Chinese hardly have a history of success in managing people, as Mao’s tragic Great Leap Forward demonstrates. The idea of forced sterilization is abhorrent to the West and to most of civilization in addition to being dangerous. Yet a more humane policy in the West could be of benefit if it was kept strictly voluntary. Sperm banks charge upwards of $5,000 for the sperm of high-IQ donors, and eggs from Ivy League graduates can fetch a price of $50,000 in some cases.51 Conversely, the non-profit CRACK (Children Requiring a Caring Kommunity) pays drug-addicted women to become sterilized.52 These stories are buried in the news if mentioned at all yet they deserve attention as both are potentially quite beneficial. As the technology advances, affluent people are going to use positive eugenic services increasingly—by not making it a public issue, we may be dooming lower classes to an even more disadvantaged status.
To attack individuals for bringing to light contentious but important issues because the result might be damaging to an ideology or purpose is fascism. Quixotically trying to mold the world to fit a preconceived notion of how things ought to be has an ugly history: Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Mao just to name a few. Yet cultural Marxism seeks to do just that: “It now turns polemically against individuals—in order to save every single individual religiously.”53 Most who react so viscerally against the suggestion of human biodiversity as a potent factor in the makeup of our world do not have a clandestine motivation—they have simply been conditioned to believe that such a suggestion, irrespective of the evidence, must be inherently evil. If that does not demonstrate a “leveling” via secular dogmatism, it is unclear what does. I realize Kierkegaard would likely come down on the side of the illogical existentialist rather than the stoic empiricist, as the latter is the object of his criticism in Two Ages. Yet in his time it was the pseudo-scientist that was perceived to hold the monopoly. Today, the tables have turned, and people are artificially discouraged from being individualistic (that is, seeking verifiable truth) in the name of individualism. Hopefully Kierkegaard would have detested that. By keeping us locked in the aesthetic stage where we live for ourselves by the approval of others, we are barred from perceiving the truth that bubbles just below the surface. Confronting reality can be difficult and even painful at times, but ultimately the truth shall set us free.
1. Clark, Kelly James et al. 101 Key Terms in Philosophy and Their Importance for Theology. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004. p 46-47.
2. Buchanan, Patrick J. The Death of the West. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2002. p. 80-87.
3. Lind, Bill. “The Origins of Political Correctness.” Accuracy in Academia Address. Speech delivered in 2000 at American University, Washington DC.
4. Shepherd, Victor. “Soren Kierkegaard.” June 1999. 22 July 2005. <>
5. Kierkegaard, Soren. “Two Ages: The Age of Revolution and the Present Age.” A Literary Review. 30 March 1846. p. 253
6. Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf. Mariner Books, 1997. Volume I, Chapter II.
7. “Arithmetic Questions in a German schoolbook.” (translated) Rachenbuch fur Volksschulen. Melle, 1941. (Provided me by Professor Frances G. Sternberg of The Midwest Center for Holocaust Education)
8. Sailer, Steve. “Jewish Telegraph Agency on Ashkenazi Intelligence by Cochran and Harpending.” Steve Sailer blog Archives. 8 June 2005. 23 July 2005. <>
9. Owen, James. “Did Discrimination Enhance Intelligence of Jews?” National Geographic News. 18 July 2005.
10. Dr. Cochran, Gregory et al. Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence. Department of Anthropology, University of Utah. May 2005.
13. Herrnstein and Murray. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York. Simon & Schuster, 1994. p. 23
14. Churchill, Ward. “Forbidding the ‘G-word’: Holocaust Denial as Judicial Doctrine in Canada.” Other Voices. Feb 2000. 21 June 2005.
15. Cienfuegos, Ernesto. “Jews are behind attacks on Cruz Bustamante and MEChA.” La Voz de Aztlan. 3 October 2003.
16. Newsmax News. “Sharpton Nixed Terror Victims for Arafat Lunch.” 30 October 2001. 26 July 2005.
17. Kierkegaard, Soren. “Two Ages: The Age of Revolution and the Present Age.” A Literary Review. 30 March 1846. p. 253
18. Rorty, Richard. “Phony Science Wars.” Atlantic Monthly. November 1999.
19. Sailer, Steve. “The Genetic Revolution: From Marx to Darwin to Galton.” Speech delivered at Hudson Institute’s Thatcher Weekend. 11 December 1999.
20. Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. 1859. Chapter Six.
21. Sailer, Steve. “The Genetic Revolution: From Marx to Darwin to Galton.” Speech delivered at Hudson Institute’s Thatcher Weekend. 11 December 1999.
22. Kierkegaard, Soren. “Two Ages: The Age of Revolution and the Present Age.” A Literary Review. 30 March 1846. p. 257
23. Sailer, Steve. “Making Sense of the Concept of Race: A Race is an Extremely Extended Family.” Steve Sailer blog Archives. 1998. 24 July 2005. <>
24. Entine, John. Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We’re Afraid to Talk about it. Public Affairs, December 1999. BBC excerpt.
25. MMWR. “Deaths from Melanoma—United States, 1973-1992.” Center for Disease Control. 5 May 1995.
26. Various authors. “Smart Fraction Theory II: Why Asians Lag.” La Griffe du Lion. May 2004. Volume 6, Number 2.
27. “History of Women in the United States.” Wikipedia. 12 July 2005. 24 July 2005.
28. Mac Donald, Heather. “Harvard’s Diversity Grovel.” City Journal. Spring 2005. Volume 15, Number 2.
29. Kierkegaard, Soren. “Two Ages: The Age of Revolution and the Present Age.” A Literary Review. 30 March 1846. p. 258
30. Kelly, Janis. “Men and Women Achieve Intelligence Differently.” NeuroPsychiatry Reviews. March 2005. Volume 6, Number 2.
31. Langdon, Kevin and Seaborg, David. “Sex Differences in the Distribution of Mental Ability.” Noesis. November 1999. Volume 144.
32. Kierkegaard, Soren. “Two Ages: The Age of Revolution and the Present Age.” A Literary Review. 30 March 1846. p. 259
33. Reich, Charles A. The Greening of America. New York: Bantam Books, 1971. p. 2
34. Kierkegaard, Soren. “Two Ages: The Age of Revolution and the Present Age.” A Literary Review. 30 March 1846. p. 263
35. Parker, Randall. “Wealth Gap Widening Between Whites, Blacks, Hispanics.” Parapundit. 18 October 2004. 26 July 2005.
36. Andersen, Hil. “Los Angeles Votes to Close Inner-city Trauma Unit.” The Washington Post. 21 September 2004.
37. Parker, Randall. “Immigrants do not Improve Academically in Later Generations.” Parapundit. 13 May 2004. 26 July 2005.
38. US Census. California: 2000.
39. Parker, Randall. “Immigrants do not Improve Academically in Later Generations.” Parapundit. 13 May 2004. 26 July 2005.
40. *****. “Letter to Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (R).” The Audacious Epigone. 14 July 2005. 26 July 2005.
41. US Census. Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2003.
42. *****. “Letter to Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (R).” The Audacious Epigone. 14 July 2005. 26 July 2005.
43. Wikipedia. “IQ and the Wealth of Nations.” From Lynn, Richard and Praeger, Tatu Vanhanen. IQ and the Wealth of Nations. 2002.
44. Goldberg, Jonah. “Democracy in Iraq.” National Review. 31 March 2004.
45. Iraq, 2005. CIA World Factbook.
46. dmbmonkey. “Question for Conservatives.” Nancies.org Discussion Forum. 26 June 2005. 26 July 2005.
47. Tierney, John. “Iraqi Family Ties Complicate American Efforts for Change.” New York Times. 28 September 2003.
48. Kierkegaard, Soren. “Two Ages: The Age of Revolution and the Present Age.” A Literary Review. 30 March 1846. p. 261
49. BBC News. “Asia-Pacific Chinese Scientists Back Eugenics.” 22 October 1998.
50. Sailer, Steve. “The Coming War over Genes: Darwin’s Enemies on the Left.” National Post. 1 December 1999.
51. Parker, Randall. “High Intelligence Sperm and Egg Donor Prices Rising.” Futurepundit. 25 February 2003. 26 July 2005.
52. Ripston, Ramona and Watt, Kathleen. “Challenging Payment-for-Sterilization.” ACLU of Southern California: News and Commentary. 12 November 1998.
53. Kierkegaard, Soren. “Two Ages: The Age of Revolution and the Present Age.” A Literary Review. 30 March 1846. p. 268