Stay Connected with Us:

by Astrid Alva Ryan, MA, PhD

One of the enduring modern myths among not only establishment Jewry, but also the largely Zionist “dissident right” who masquerade as White advocates as their day job, and other racial lapdogs, is the ideology that Ashkenazi Jews are intellectually superior to the rest of the human race, including those I unashamedly called Aryans.

This Jewish supremacy thesis is also maintained by many prominent Jewish psychologists and neo-Marxist ideologues, who are seemingly critical of the notion that Blacks, primarily American Blacks, have a lower IQ than Whites, but see their own tribe as apparently immune to their critique of IQ. Running alongside this thesis is one almost equally promoted by most of the dissident right, that East Asians are also intellectually superior to Aryans. Of course, the White cucks promoting both theses hold that Ashkenazi Jews are at the top of the pops, with East Asians next.

It is the aim of this article to begin a critique of the Ashkenazi intellectual supremacy thesis and East Asian supremacy claims. To do this in one article is a large task, as I wish to challenge almost everything and everybody in this debate (I have taken early retirement from my psychology post that I held at a mid-level American college, turning to clinical practice, having had enough of their academic diversity), so much of the following is an overview which should be expanded to a book length presentation. However, it is doubtful whether this larger critique can be published through mainstream sources, given the power that Jews have, which is now even admitted by some of the tribe: Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (1993), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1-2; E. S. Shapiro, A Time for Healing, (1992), Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 117; J. J. Goldberg, (1995) Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 280, 287-288. My main focus will be a critique of the Ashkenazi Jewish intellectual supremacy thesis, as this has been seldom challenged in the literature, and the arguments against it also undermine the East Asian intellectual supremacy thesis as well.

This thesis of Jewish intellectual supremacy is seen in numerous publications, such as by Ernest van den Haag in The Jewish Mystique, (1977), New York: Stein and Day, but also more recently by Jewish commentator Bret Stephens, “The Secrets of Jewish Genius,” The New York Times, December 27, 2019,, considered below. Jordan Peterson in addressing the “so-called Jewish question,” in a blog post :, stated that Jewish overrepresentation was completely explicable on the basis of the (Ashkenazi) Jew mean IQ of between 110-115. Fred Reed, concludes that Jews are just smarter:, and he rejects the claim that nepotism, collusion and deviousness come into play as well: “the problem with attributing Jewish achievement to deviousness or collusion is that there is just too, too, damn much of it.” That is simply self-undermining, as if claiming that say, as an analogous argument, group X is not violent, even though crime statistics and daily experience are bursting, if not bleeding, with the crimes of X. But, reason goes out the window when one is praising the Chosen.

There is evolutionary material proposed as supporting the Ashkenazi intellectual supremacy thesis, which is necessary if there is some postulated genetic basis to this supremacy. “Evolution has made Jews more intelligent than white people,” proclaims race realist Lance Welton: The thesis is entertained in the mainstream publication by Nicholas Wade, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History, (2014), New York: Penguin Press, 198, where he notes that Jews account for 0.2 per cent. of the world’s population, but have won 14 per cent. of the Nobel prizes in the first half of the 20th century and 29 per cent. in the second, and as of 2007, 32 per cent. of the Nobel prizes awarded in the 21st century (198), all allegedly due to higher intelligence bestowed by evolution. Along similar lines comes racial realist Richard Lynn, in The Chosen People: A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement, (2011), Whitefish: Washington Summit Publishers, a book which falls all over itself with worship of the Jews. For example, the conclusion of the study accepts that Jews will genetically disappear by miscegenation, which is occurring, but, “it will be good news for Gentiles who will benefit from an infusion of Jewish genes that have contributed so much to world culture.” (359) This is scientifically nonsense, a virtual mysticism, since given the small Jewish population of 0.2 per cent of the world’s population, and the only modest IQ differences, by his own work, of 110-115 or lower (107?), any IQ contribution would be dissipated by regression to the mean, or less technically, diluted to nothing — that is, if is existed in the first place which I now challenge. I suppose Lynn felt he had to end his epistle to the Jews with a literary flourish.

There are thus two parts to the Ashkenazi Jew intellectual supremacy thesis. First is the claim of supremacy disproportionate to the numbers. Then there is the causal basis of this, namely that IQ provides a necessary and sufficient explanation for this. But, some such as Bret Stephens hold only to the necessity part of the thesis, and propose that there is more, namely a culture of critical discourse that accounts for Jewish achievement. Whether that is true or not need not be addressed in this paper, which is directed against the Zionist race realist tribe. See generally: S. L. Gilman, Smart Jews, (1996) Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

As well, strong critics of the Jews operating within the evolutionary psychology paragon, like Gentile Kevin MacDonald, accept the alleged genetically-based IQ differences, see an evolutionary basis for this, but believe that an appeal to variables such as nepotism and group collusion are jointly necessary to explain Jewish over-representation: Kevin MacDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, Westport: Praeger, 188-191.

The first part of my critique will attack the achievement thesis, including evolutionary explanations for it. Then I will turn to more technical material attacking the IQ studies, and indeed IQ itself. This is not for the purpose of any displaced equalitarianism; on the contrary, race differences exist, but it does not follow that the existing IQ tests are methodologically adequate to deal with intelligence, intuitively understood. This can in fact be mathematically proven by use of Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem, but the race realists may not understand the theorem … perhaps because of lack of IQ.

Part 1: Attacking the Jewish Achievement Thesis

Usually after citing the claim of Ashkenazi Jew IQ being on average around the magic numbers of 110-115 (or slightly lower, maybe 107), sometimes with a verbal component being cited as high as 125 (why not 155!), there is given a litany of smart Jews who illustrate this attainment. Thus Bret Stephens has his all-star list: “Sarah Bernhard and Franz Kafka; Albert Einstein and Rosalind Franklin; Benjamin Disraeli and (sigh) Karl Marx.” Apart from Einstein and Marx, it is an eccentric list for today, with many people not even knowing who Bernhard and Disraeli were. The reference to Marx is presumably about influence rather that good deeds, since the death toll from Communism is in the hundreds of millions, which would make most non-Leftists sigh indeed: V. Krasnov, “Sighing at the Secrets of Jewish Genius: Rebuttal of Bret Stephen’s The New York Times Column,” February 3, 2020, at

Lynn in The Chosen People mentions Marx in passing (135), with no evaluation of his contribution to humanity, which is evil and thus negative. The index has no reference to Communism, or in fact any substantial negative Jewish contributions. Jews and crime are indeed mentioned, briefly, but this is to show by consideration of crime statistics that Jews are under-represented among criminals relative to Jewish population numbers. Lynn asserts that crime is associated with low IQ, so he says that it would be expected that Jews would have low rates of crime, the sort of circular reasoning common to this field. However, this is a typical naïve empiricist argument of the race realist school, the same methodology used to allegedly show that Asians are more law-abiding than Whites by merely looking at conviction statistics. For one, for both Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians, it fails to examine white collar crime and cyber-crime, which is associated with high intellect and learning. Nor does it consider criminal organisations, such as the Asian triads and Yakuza, found by so-called high-IQ East Asians, worshiped by the race realists, and also Jewish organized crime. Thus, F. Cantor in The Sacred Chain: A History of the Jews, (1995), London: Fontana Press, 389, states that the Mafia in the US was created by the Jews, before large Italian involvement (389), and Murder Inc.: Rich Cohen, Tough Jews, (1998), London: Jonathan Cape. “Russian” organized crime is essentially Jewish as well: Robert Friedman, Red Mafiya: How the Russian Mob has Invaded America, (2002), New York: Penguin. As for East Asians and the racial realists, the holy trinity of their racial division is clearly challenged by the widespread dishonesty and corruption of East Asian, and indeed Asian societies, by Euro-standards, where “cheating,” bribery, and dishonesty, as defined in the West, is the norm. A study of honesty in returning supposed lost wallets (really a staged social experiment), found that the Nordic countries, and most White-majority countries, had the highest rates of wallet return, while Asian countries, the least, and the smallest rate of return of all, drum roll … China:… For more serious crimes by Chinese, from theft of IP (intellectual property) to poisoning of food, see: Peter Navarro and Greg Autry, (2011) Death by China, Pearson Prentice Hall. That much of the dissident right has a love affair with China supplies a knockdown argument for seeing them as race traitors, playing at being White advocates as a job, or for entertainment purposes.

The argument from the Nobel prize winners is less compelling when subject to sober examination. There is a cynical view that all such prizes like this, decided by committee vote, are subject to politics and hence lobbying by well-organized tribal groups, such as the Jews, supporting one of their fellow tribesmen. But, leaving that aside, this argument is circular, insofar as it is offered as proof of superior Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence: To be in the running at all for a Nobel prize already presupposes high intelligence to get in the door. It would not be sheer intelligence that gets one over the line, since there are plenty of equally intelligent competitors, but other elements from creativity to luck, and intellectual prejudice and fashion — ignoring nepotism for the moment.

As well, outside of literature, which now is governed by “wokeness” — witness Bob Dylan being awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature — most scientific research today is done by research teams, so the idea of the lone Einstein solving the mysteries of the universe is a myth: E. Yong, “The Absurdity of the Nobel Prizes in Science,” October 4, 2017, at Further, Nobel prize winners are good scientists, not geniuses: “Nobel Prize Winners – They’re Just Like Us,”

What about Albert Einstein and the special and general theories of relativity? For a start, it is not often mentioned that both of these theories are logically inconsistent with quantum mechanics — with the probabilistic physics of quantum mechanics raising havoc for both theories, but especially general relativity: B. Greene, (1999) The Elegant Universe, London: Jonathan Cape. The black hole information paradox is but one inconsistency between general relativity and quantum mechanics: Paul Davies, “The Black Hole Paradox that Thwarts Our Understanding of Reality,” September 22, 2021, at

Black holes, a theoretical prediction from Einstein’s general relativity, destroy information and result in a time asymmetry of physical laws, with every other part of physics having laws that are symmetric in time. That is the motivation of string theory, to move beyond both these theories, but unfortunately, string theory seems to be unverifiable in principle, even if realistic sense can be made of its multi-dimensionality, which seems to be an artefact of the mathematics. Einstein famously opposed quantum mechanics with the EPR thought experiment, and was shown to be utterly wrong, for “God” does play dice.

Apart from the question of the theoretical coherence of the special and general theories of relativity, there is the issue of Einstein’s plagiarism, as documented by Christopher Jon Bjerknes, Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist, (2002) Downers Grove: XTX Inc., and The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein: The Propaganda of Supremacy, (2019), Omnia Veritas. These books show that Einstein did not originate the special theory of relativity, with all the basic ideas found in the work of Voigt, Lorentz, and Poincaré, with Poincaré in an article in 1898 in Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, already postulating the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. Max Planck attributed the principle of relativity to Lorentz. Harry Bateman claimed to have presented the general theory of relativity before Einstein: H. Bateman, (1919), “On General Relativity,” Philosophical Magazine, 37, 219-223. And Olinto de Pretto, is said to have published the E = mc2 equation in the scientific magazine Atte in 1903, two years before Einstein: R. Carroll, (November, 1999), “Einstein’s E = mc2 ‘was Italian’s idea,’” at Perhaps for these priority reasons, Einstein was never given a Nobel prize in physics for relativity, but received it in 1921 for his explanation of the photoelectric effect, which contributed to the formation of quantum mechanics, which he came ironically to reject. I do not doubt that this was a worthy achievement, but alone it is not proof of a genius coming even close to, say, Newton, an Aryan who had outstanding achievements in both physics and mathematics (the differential and integral calculus).

Evolutionary Considerations

The Ashkenazi Jewish intellectual supremacy thesis presupposes that the Ashkenazi Jews and European Gentiles are genetically distinct populations. This question is separate from the one that is debated in cultural circles about “whether Jews are White,” with most of the Leftists concluding that Jews are “people of color”, and thus on the “right side of history,” as they see it: Jim Goad, “Wonder Woman and the Jewish Question, June 12, 2017, at

Regardless of this debate, genetic research has indicated that the Ashkenazi Jews’ female ancestors were primarily European women, and as Thomas Jackson has rightly concluded, “[t]his means the founding mothers of many of today’s Jewish communities are not Jews by present Israeli standards, which requires proof of a Jewish mother”: American Renaissance, May, 2008. M. D. Costa (et al.), “A Substantial Prehistoric European Ancestry Amongst Ashkenazi Maternal Lineages,” Nature Communications (2013): doi:10.1038/ncomms3543, state that “~ 40 % of Ashkenazi mtDNA variation, have ancestry in prehistoric Europe, rather than the Near East or Caucasus. Furthermore, most of the remaining minor founders share a similar deep European ancestry.” Jews married European women, indicating the European women’s race traitor willingness to miscegenation even in those times, as well as the race treason of the fathers. Thus Jewish maternal linages included European assimilation. A similar conclusion was reached by S. Carmi (et al.), “Sequencing an Ashkenazi Reference Panel Supports Population-Targeted Personal Genomics and Illuminates Jewish and European Origins,” Nature Communications (2012); doi:10.1038/ncomms5835: “Modelling of ancient histories for AJ and European populations using their joint allele frequency spectrum determines AJ to be an even admixture of European and likely Middle Eastern origins.”

Kevin MacDonald thinks that even given “very substantial European admixture” Jews are still a “genetically distinct population”: “Exponential Growth of Ashkenazi Jews Following a Medieval Population Bottleneck,” September 11, 2014, at Still, as far as the intellectual supremacy thesis goes, it may well be that it is the Aryan/Nordic genes give the alleged intellectual edge rather than the “Jew genes,” or perhaps, hybrid vigor! Who knows? Many of today’s so-called high-IQ Ashkenazi Jews have many European Nordic features such as light-colored hair and blue eyes, along with characteristic Jewish features too. Anyway, for the sake of argument, let us assume that the populations of Ashkenazi Jews and Aryans is distinct in the sense needed for IQ comparisons.

The evolutionary explanation for alleged Ashkenazi intellectual supremacy, frequently endorsed, has been given by Nathaniel Weyl, The Geography of American Achievement, (1989), Washington DC: Scott-Townsend Publishers. Jewish intellectual supremacy is “the end-result of seventeen centuries of selective breeding for scholars.” (147) Jewish scholars, mainly rabbis, were more fertile than celibate Christian monks. Kevin MacDonald follows this account, “the Talmudic academy … as an arena of natural selection for intelligence.” A People that Shall Dwell Alone, 181. The obvious problem here for Weyl and MacDonald is that the race realists see only Ashkenazi Jews as intellectually superior to the rest of the human race, with Oriental Jews, despite some historical geniuses, having a lower IQ, according to Lynn, than plain old White Europeans: H. David and R. Lynn, (2007) “Intelligence Differences between European and Oriental Jews in Israel,” Journal of Biosocial Science, 39, 465-473. But if the rabbinical traditions were producing a eugenic effect, we would expect to see this in all Jewish populations, which the race realists allege we do not see.

The actual numbers of rabbis are small, and likewise for Christian clergy, and it is highly unlikely that this had the effects Weyl and MacDonald hypothesise. It is assumed that these traditions have something of a monopoly on intelligence, which is hardly so, since the universities, business administration, government, science, and technology would have supplied high intellects as well. Thus, C. Cochran, J. Hardy and H. Harpending, (2006) “Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence,” Journal of Biosocial Science, 38, 659-693, maintain that in medieval times, Ashkenazi Jews were “forced” into finance because of the Christian prohibition of usury, they became rich, and had more surviving children (than whom? — presumably the poorer Jews). Given the standard “just so” selectionist argument, the more intelligent Jews came to dominate the Jewish population. This assumes that highly intelligent Jews dominated finance and international trade, rather than simply moderately intelligent, but financially motivated Jews. It is an assumption, since these fields are not, contrary to Cochran et al. necessarily populated only by those with the highest intelligence. This work could be done by intellectually competent Jews, who may have excelled in other qualities, such as greed (no offence intended; the allusion is to the “greed is good” comment by Gordon Gekko in the movie Wall Street (1987), but heroes of conservatives such as Adam Smith (1723-1790) in The Wealth of Nations (1776), also celebrated capitalist self-interest). Also, in medieval Jewish communities wealth was strongly inherited, and those with wealth usually married those who were also wealthy. So genes for mathematical and verbal ability were beside the point, since this was mostly a closed system. What would have been more important than pure intelligence in business, then as it is today, are financial connections and access to capital, as well as nepotism. Emotional and social intelligence would have been of greater benefit than sheer IQ.

It is concluded that the genetic/evolutionary argument for Ashkenazi intellectual supremacy fails. That leaves open cultural explanations, if the phenomenon does exist. I turn now to a critique of the Jewish IQ material.

Part 2: Ashkenazi Jewish IQ: A Critique

The champions of IQ in psychology to a man believe in the scientificity of psychology as a discipline. While there are postmodern, deconstructive, constructive, and God knows what else nonsense from the left attacking empiricist psychology, the main challenge comes from within the discipline. There is replication crisis in psychology, but also in the disciplines including biology and environmental science. A 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists found that “70 per cent. failed to replicate at least one experiment by other scientists, and 50 per cent. their own previous experiment”: M. Baker, (2016), “1,500 Scientists Lift the Lid on Reproducibility,” Nature, 533, 452-454; “Replication Crisis,” In a paper that has never been refuted: John P. A. Ioannidis, (2005) “Why Most Published Research Findings are False,” PLoS Medicine, 2, e124, he states: “Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.” Psychology acutely faces this problem due to the low statistical power of most studies, Ioannidis argued. The elephant in psychology’s China shop is the widespread problem of “sharp,” corrupt, or questionable research practices, such as selective reporting, selective publication, the manipulation of outlier data, and data fabrication: L.K. John (et al.), (2012), “Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices with Incentives for Truth Telling,” Psychological Science, 23, 524-532. It is thought that outright fraud in psychology occurs more frequently than the discipline records: see generally S. Ritchie, (2020), Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth, New York: Metropolitan Books. I can think of no other field in psychology more subject to the likelihood of fraud than IQ studies. I simply trust none of the research.

As far as IQ studies go, this methodological crisis, which also extends to the statistical methods in psychology, such as the p-value (significance tests), puts a question mark over all IQ research. It is surely one of the weakest fields of research empirically, let alone conceptually. Richard Lynn (2003), “The Intelligence of American Jews,” Personality and Individual Differences, March, downgraded the estimate of Jewish IQ, with the verbal IQ being a less than galactic 107.8 at the lower end of estimates, as past studies were based upon small sample sizes and were non-representative. So much for those past studies.

Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray (1994), The Bell Curve, New York: Free Press, is an example of another problem with the literature on Jewish IQ, relying upon old studies, (275), such as M.D. Storfer (1990), Intelligence and Giftedness, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, where it would be difficult, if not impossible, to scrutinize the original data sets, let alone conduct re-testing of the exact subjects. Vox Day has also made this point, as well as noting that many studies are authored by those with an observational bias: “The Myth of Jewish Intelligence,” April 22, 2018, at; “IQ, Exaggeration, and Overrepresentation,” August 6, 2017, at See also “Are Jews Intelligent?” at Vox Day gives a lower estimate of Jewish IQ than Lynn, of 102.4.

These values, even if accepted, are mean values, and the interesting question is not about the ordinary punters, but about what shape the alleged normal curve takes on its right tail. It is noted that the assumption that IQ follows a normal distribution at all is not beyond question, for that curve is normally derived from randomly distributed phenomena, and little of human behavior is random: T. Micceri, (1989), “The Unicorn, the Normal Curve, and Other Improbable Creatures,” Psychological Bulletin, 105, 156-166; C. Dudley-Marling, (2020), “The Tyranny of the Normal Curve: How the “Bell Curve” Corrupts Educational Research and Practice.” In D. Allen and J. Howell (Eds.), Group Think in Science, Cham; Springer.

According to Herrnstein and Murray in The Bell Curve, the normal curve is “one of nature’s most remarkable uniformities.” (557). But there is a substantial scientific literature challenging the claim of normality, and even early researchers such as Sir Francis Galton and Karl Pearson found that human traits such as height, weight and strength did not produce perfect normal distributions: R.C. Geary, (1947), “Testing for Normality,” Biometrika, 34, 209-242. Dudley-Marling (op cit.) points out that achievement tests such as IQ, distribute normally only as a “statistical effect,” as the tests have a mathematical bias towards a normal distribution, due to the averaging process and the Central Limit Theorem. Thus, “the average of averages tends to produce normal distributions even if the variables do not distribute normally.” Micceri (op cit), examined 440 large sample achievement and psychometric measures, including the Stanford Reading Tests and Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), and found distribution characteristics were “significantly non-normal.”

The alleged normal curve distribution of IQ is used to infer that there is a large difference in the tails, given even small differences in the means: Steven Pinker, “The Lessons of Ashkenazim Groups and Genes,” June 26, 2006, at This assumes that the normal curve takes the standard shape. However, it is likely that the Aryan curve is flatter than the Jewish one, with fewer Aryans clustered around the mean, and more at the left and right tails, which still gives the area under the curve as 1 unit. This would account for the achievements of Aryans who built the modern world, with technological innovations and scientific discoveries. On the line taken by the race realists, it is difficult to see how these average-IQ plebs could have achieved anything at all, when in fact, Aryan achievements dwarf Jewish ones, in science, medicine, technology and art: Striker, “Jewish Brilliance: Synthetic like Zirconia,” January 5, 2020, at

All this assumes that the standard IQ tests measure something called g, general intelligence. There is a large body of contemporary cognitive psychology challenging this. First, there is a conceptual problem of actually defining “intelligence” as a scientific rather than a mere intuitive concept: M.J.A. Howe, (1990), “Does Intelligence Exist?” The Psychologist, November, 490-493. Second even if the concept of intelligence can be made scientifically precise, there is no reason to believe that present IQ tests actually adequately measure it. A study involving 44,600 data sets and over a million data points, concluded from a principal component analysis that IQ tests alone could not measure intelligence, which had to be broken down into three factors, short-term memory, reasoning, and verbal ability: A. Hampshire (et al.), (2012), “Fractioning Human Intelligence,” Neuron, 76, 1225-1237; R. Highfield, “Raise Your IQ Instantly – By No Longer Believing in It,” February 16, at

Other cognitive psychologists have developed accounts of intelligence which are too complex to be measured by the simplistic IQ tests: R.J. Sternberg, (1985), Beyond IQ: A Triarchic Theory of Intelligence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Keith Stanovich, (2008), What Intelligence Tests Miss, New Haven: Yale University Press. A wider view of intelligence makes sense of the paradox facing the race realists, that Nigeria has a low mean IQ, but Nigeria is the world’s top-performing nation in English scrabble, even though high-IQ competitors challenge them: Chanda Chisala, “Nigerians, Jews and Scrabble: An Update on the IQ Debate,” The Unz Review, February 27, 2021, at The IQ tests do not capture this aspect of intelligence.

The final nail in the coffin of IQ came with P.J.W.N. Bird, (1979), “the Impossibility of IQ,” Economic Letters, 2, 95-97, where he showed that the four Arrow conditions of (1) unrestricted domain, (2) the Pareto condition, (3) independence of irrelevant individuals and (4) no dominant ability, were met by IQ: A Sen, (1970), Collective Choice and Social Welfare, London: Oliver and Boyd. This parallels a social welfare function, and Arrow proved that no such function could satisfy all four conditions simultaneously. Hence there is no IQ function. Therefore, there can be no question of Jewish, or anyone else’s IQ superiority, as it does not exist!

East Asian IQ and Intelligence

We can find statements in so-called White racial sites proclaiming that “Asians are so much smarter than us,” which is certainly true about the plebs making these claims. And, when I read their pleadings, I wonder why they bother claiming to be White advocates and do not just support full-time their beloved superior Asians — if the Asians would have them! Although it is somewhat reductionist, I have noticed as a female researcher that those making these claims are usually males with some Asian connection: a Chinese wife, or having spent time on Asian sex tours, notably the Philippines. The dissident right and some conservatives definitely have an “Asian fetish,” and from my experience, many White men having sex with Asian women ultimately go a bit crazy:

However, the East Asian superiority thesis probably evolved as a cucked strategy by the present crop of pathetic “alt-righters,” to evade the charge of racism, so that they could proclaim that they are not “White supremacists,” because the East Asians are “objectively superior to Whites in everything,” as a number of these quasi-nationalists have put it. That is an unsubstantiated generalization, basically on par with the sorts of statements made over the fence by the postmodern Left. I personally would not donate my money to anyone saying that. Could one imagine a pro-Chinese defense organization saying that their kind was intellectually inferior?

In any case, the claims are only about differences in mean IQ, with the East Asians supposedly averaging around 105, and smaller, less representative countries and cities (e.g. Hong Kong, IQ 116) being higher. Herrnstein and Murray’s The Bell Curve (1994) has a discussion (272-276), where, following IQ guru Richard Lynn, they put the median IQ for both Chinese and Japanese as 103. However, Richard Lynn estimated the mean IQ of China to be 101, which is basically meaningless, as no representative sample of the population that vast has ever been taken: Richard Lynn, “Race Differences in Intelligence: A Global Perspective,” Mankind Quarterly, 31, 264-265. Note as well that this is an “estimate” by Lynn, not a scientifically precise measure, so it is really just a guess. But Herrnstein and Murray admit doubts about the figures, which do vary. They say; “[t]he indeterminacy of the debate is predictable. The smaller the IQ difference, the more questionable its reality.” (273) Even given that, they inconsistently conclude that there is a three-point difference, whereas they should have concluded that the issue is undecided — indicating their bias, common in this field. IQ researcher James Flynn found that Chinese-American IQ was slightly less than that of White Americans: James R. Flynn, (1991), Asian Americans: Achievement Beyond IQ, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erbaum Associates. A Chua and J. Rubenfeld, The Triple Package, London: Bloomsbury, state: “Lynn’s higher Chinese IQ numbers do not incorporate certain important corrections for temporal shifts; when “such corrections are made,” Lynn’s own data showed Chinese IQ to be generally comparable to North American white IQ.” (290). See for a critique of the IQ argument: A. Hsin and Y. Xie, (2014), “Explaining Asian American’s Academic Advantages Over Whites,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 8416-8421 (greater academic effort, not due to any alleged advantages in cognitive abilities). An excellent summary of the methodological and statistical objections in the academic literature to Richard Lynn’s work is given by Ferdinand Bardamu, “Are East Asians More Intelligent than Whites? The Evidence Says “Not Really’! January 18, 2019, at Ricardo Duchesne, “China is Superior to Race-Mixed Brazil But Inferior to White Brazil,” December 7, 2018, at, shows that the Whitest areas of Brazil have higher levels of economic well-being than China, regardless of IQ.

According to Robert Henderson, Asians have not dominated, despite (presumably) having higher IQ over historical time, due to their allegedly innate personality traits such as passivity and a lack of questioning, so high intelligence is not enough to ensure cultural dominance: Henderson rightly notes that China, while developing practical solutions to problems, did not develop general explanations of the world, constituting science as the West knows it, and failed to fully develop things it allegedly invented such as gunpowder. Indeed, even Charles Murray in Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, says that 97 percent of all scientific achievements from 800 BC to 1950 came from Europe and North America: White achievements. An excellent paper defending this view is Ricardo Duchesne, “The Collective Brain of Whites Generated all Modern Innovations,” April 22, 2021, at It is highly doubtful that mere personality differences alone explain why the Chinese were unable, or unwilling, to make the intellectual leaps needed to push their initial inventions through to completion — it rather is due to a lack of reflective transcendentalism in the Chinese mind, Ricardo Duchesne argues: “On the “Unreflected Substantiality” of the Chinese Mind,” February 22, 2019, at; “The Transcendental Mind of Europeans Stands Above the Embedded Mind of Asians,” January 11, 2019, at “[O]nly the West developed appropriate philosophies, disciplines (ethnography, anthropology) and methodologies (pragmatism, historicism, hermeneutics) to understand other cultures and other historical epochs, because only the West produced a transcendental mind able to stand outside its own cultural norms, [and] understand how it is bounded by a particular context.” See also: Ricardo Duchesne, “Jean Piaget and the Superior Psychogenic Cognition of Europeans” Part I,” October 3, 2018, at, and Part II, October 12, 2018, at, and “White Men Responsible for Almost All the Greatest Human Accomplishments, July 16, 2020, at; Tobias Langdon, “The Pale Male Paradox: How White Men Achieve Most and are Vilified Worst,” February 18, 2012, at

This is an obvious problem for the standard dissident right line that white Europeans have an average IQ of only 100, since, how could these massive achievements have been possible? One response is that White IQ was higher in the past, and has dysgenically fallen. For example, it has been argued that Victorian English had an estimated IQ of 118: M. Woodley of Menie, (et al.), “The Victorians were Still Faster than Us. Commentary: Factors Influencing the Latency of Simple Reaction Time,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, doi:10.3389/fnhum2015.00452. That in principle could be true, but it is unlikely that a crash of IQ to such a degree occurred during arguably the peak of White creativity in the early 20th century. See further, Ferdinand Bardamu, “Are East Asians More Intelligent than Whites? The Evidence Says “Not Really”! January 18, 2019, at

Further, although it is not part of the “woke” mainstream today, there has been a past current of literature that saw the Aryans as the builders of most civilisations, including China’s: William Montgomery, McGovern, (1939), The Early Empires of Central Asia, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. The Tarim mummies are perhaps a trace of Aryan influence/interaction: V.H. Mair and J.P. Mallory, (2008), The Tarim Mummies, London: Thames and Hudson. There is even evidence that Bodhidharma (the Buddhist monk who brought Buddhism to China) was a Nordic: Ali Aliabadi, (2012), On Martial Arts, Zen, and the Blue-Eyed, Red Bearded Barbarian, Ostara Publications.

The fact remains that Euro-Whites have dominated mankind, and as Michael Levin has put it, “a world in which there had never been Europeans is unimaginable”: “Is There a Superior Race?’ in G. McDaniel (Ed.), (2003), A Race Against Time, Oakton: New Century Foundation, 272-280, at 275.


This article has been a critical one, attacking the thesis of alleged Ashkenazi Jewish and East Asian intellectual supremacy. The principal arguments for that thesis have been shown to be flawed. That leaves the task of accounting for existing Jewish and East Asian achievements. There is considerable material on Jewish tribalism, ethnocentrism, and nepotism, at sites such as the Occidental Observer and National Vanguard, and many other sites. As Dr. William Pierce noted, Jews have been a “self-conscious racial-interest group, which accounts for their wealth and power throughout the ages”: W. Pierce, (1998) “How It Fits Together,” quoted from The same idea applies to the peoples of Asia, who have the added advantages of high population levels producing large numbers of competent people.

Dr. Pierce — and I concur — saw this tribalism of both the Jews and East Asians as an “enviable” fact, something Aryans need to replicate if they are to have any chance of surviving the present onslaught of the Great Replacement. As Paul Silva and Chris Rossetti, “The Most Logical Explanation for Jewish Hegemony in the United States,” October 22, 2016, at, put it, paraphrasing Wilmot Robertson in The Dispossessed Majority: “An organized minority with a given amount of intelligence can obtain supremacy over a disorganized majority of equal intelligence. A race-conscious population group is far more effective and successful in most forms of endeavour than a race-unconscious group.”

Stay Connected with Us:

Stay Connected with Us: