Welcome to Keith Knight, Don't Tread on Anyone and the
Libertarian Institute. Today I'm joined by the Jolly
Heretic, also known as Doctor Edward Dunn.
He is a professor of evolutionary psychology and the
author of Making Sense of Race. Doctor Dutton, where is the best
place for people to find the many books and publications you
have published over the years? I suppose probably just Amazon.
That's the simplest way of doing it.
Suppose you can buy it. You can buy it from the
publishers if you want to, if you want to help them out.
But yeah, they're all, they're all with one exception, they're,
they're all available there. Terrific.
What were the great intellectual contributions of Jonathan Bowden
and what are some lessons that we can learn from his life?
I assume. Yeah, You're, you're asking me
with reference to my new book, of course, the The Shaman of the
Radical Right, The Life and Mind of Jonathan Bowden, which has
just been published. I'm not sure he made any great
intellectual contributions. I'm not sure that's what he did.
That wasn't his niche. That's not his thing.
I I don't think there was anything particularly original.
Basically he espoused a kind of spiritual Nietzscheanism.
So it was. It was a pig, I suppose, a kind
of philosophy rooted in Heraclitus and paganism and the
idea that we we should strive towards glory, we should strive
towards greatness, we should strive towards being one of the
gods. He had an idea something he was
said he wasn't a perennialist, but there's he said he wasn't.
But there's a degree to which, if you look at his philosophy,
he seems to be saying something like there are certain eternal
truths that are absolute and that are outside nature and that
are eternal and we just know them to be true.
And these eternal truths are things like that.
We should that there there is a there is something non
spiritual, spiritual. We should strive towards
greatness. We should do the good of our
there are certain truths that are preserved certainly in Pagan
religions and and therefore you should become a part of a sort
of Pagan religiosity of that, that you should ride the tiger
of modernity, as it were, and kind of fight against what's
happening. But at the same time, he he did
advocate what you might call a kind of reactionary modernism,
which was that you take, as you take the good, you don't just
reject something because it's modern as some people did.
Some people will argue that they reject the evolution because
it's modernist. You know, he would say we, we,
we take the good things about modernism and we add to that
certain Pagan or Nietzschean or whatever you want to call them,
assumptions such as a respect for the past glories of our
civilization, such as a mono ethnic society that looks out
for its ethnic interests. And such as a striving towards
glory and greatness and a rejection of, of, of wallowing
and suffering and a rejection of sort of a pitiable way of, of
looking at things. That's not a philosophy original
to him. There were lots of people you
could highlight, I don't know, TS Eliot or whoever, Judas
Evola, whatever who, who have said these kinds of things,
although you could argue that perhaps he synthesizes them.
It's the fact that he is able to distill them and to show the
connections between different aspects of them in an original,
in an insightful and in an inspiring and interesting way.
That's that's his big contribution.
So you could say that if you know, Nietzsche is an original
thinker, he's more like Nietzsche's bulldog or
something. He's he's able to present these
things in an interesting, original, intelligent,
insightful way where he makes lots and lots of connections
between this, that and the other.
So he's an influencer. He's an influencer before there
were influencers, and he is a significant posthumous influence
on many people on the mainstream and more radical right today.
He's a kind of charismatic figure, a shaman that inspires
people with his with his speeches and and makes them feel
that that their nation and I know based ideas of what you
want to say will triumph in the end.
That's his big thing. What would you say is the core
difference between someone on the left and someone on the
right? Well, it depends what element of
the left and the right. I mean, if you look at it
overall in terms of personality at the moment in a, in a broadly
left wing society, people that are left wing are more mentally
unstable. And this then breeds things like
if you're mentally unstable, you have low self esteem and you
this breeds things like resentment.
And so you are resentful of power.
And I'm sorry, there's a bit of an echo.
You are resentful of power and things like that.
And so you are resentful of history.
I'm sorry you are resentful of history.
You are resentful of anything that is anything that is
symbolic of power, which in many ways is the, and the essence of
the left. So there's, there's this being
mentally unstable in addition, and that that has a number of
dimensions to it. For example, if you're mentally
unstable, you'll be high in anxiety.
And if you're high in anxiety, that predicts extrinsic
religiousness, IE social conformity.
And so that then so you've got the kind of people that are
mentally unstable and thus resentful and they're, they're
left wing, the kind of people that are mentally unstable and
thus they fear others and they fear what's around them.
This makes the Machiavellian. And at the moment, the way that
you get power to a certain degree is through are you there
is through is through is through being left wing.
Another thing that will develop if you have low self esteem can
perhaps be a kind of narcissism where you deal with your low
self esteem by telling yourself that you're brilliant, that
you're the best, that you're that you're that you're uniquely
perfect and moral and entitled and grandiose and unique.
And therefore you will get, you will get narcissistic supply by
being left wing in a left wing society and then and obviously
socially conforming that will get you power and a sense of
self esteem in a left wing society.
So that's the first thing they seem to be is mentally unstable,
neurotic and they don't have a feeling that life has meaning or
anything like that. The second is they are they are
low in agreeableness. They're just not very nice
people on average. There's two components to
agreeableness. 1 is altruism, a kindness, empathy, you know, and
the other is politeness. They're very low in politeness,
but there's a degree to which they're also just learn more
generally in altruism. So imagine if you combine being
mentally unstable like that and thus wanting power and, and to
control people and all this sort of thing with being low in
agreeableness, being not a very pleasant person, being
individually oriented rather than group oriented, being out
for yourself. Well, what you will tend to do
is you will fear a fair fight because you're psychologically
weak, but you will as an, as a person, that's no agreeableness.
As a person that therefore is out for themselves, that wants
things for them, selfish. You will still want that power.
So how do you get it? Well, you virtue signal, you
play for status covertly like girls do.
You virtue signal, which is a or you victim signal, both of which
are signs of being left wing. And in the case of victim
signalling is a sign of sort of what's called vulnerable
narcissism because a, a vulnerable narcissist rather
than a grandiose narcissist is the biggest victim and he
manipulates people via his victimhood.
They're low in conscientiousness compared to right wing people.
Conscientiousness is impulse control and rule following.
And so then of course, this means they're emotional and
they're not interested in the rules, the traditional rules of
society. In fact, they're quite like
breaking them. So that's the difference between
the left and the right. Essentially. 1 is pro social,
one is antisocial. But if we then look at the far
right, extreme right, then that's a bit different.
Those people are where we have a dark, the dark triad of
interrelated traits, narcissism, Machiavellianism, which is that
you're power hungry and psychopathy.
And it's the psychopathy that the far right are high in
because if you are in a left wing, particularly if you're in
a left wing society, then you don't care about about
conforming you. In fact, you quite like hurting
people's feelings and you'd like danger.
Well, what is it going to be more attractive to you than the
far right, which is completely socially unacceptable.
So therefore, people like that that are high in psychopathy are
attracted to the, to the extreme right.
If the right overall are pro social, but the extreme right,
that's a bit different. They're going to be much more
antisocial, much higher in psychopathic traits.
And as I said, these, these do crossover them with things like
narcissism and Machiavellianism. So that's, then that's the,
that's the sort of the, the, the key difference that we have
these five moral foundations of being, of being, of obedience to
authority, of in Group loyalty and of sanctity versus disgust.
And this often keeps out that which is sickly from the group
or whatever. These are the group oriented
foundations. And then we have the
individually oriented foundations because we have to
get top of the group's past our genes in prehistory.
So we want to get more of equality and harm avoidance.
Now in general, the left are concerned, or they pretend to be
concerned only with equality and harm avoidance, the rest not
with the rest. But the right are concerned with
all 5 moral foundations. The right are concerned with all
5 moral foundations, but the far right, it would seem, are not
concerned with the individually oriented foundations.
You know, they're, they're, they're low in a group, they're
low in a grill. They don't care about harm and
they don't care about equality. They're prepared to be so group
oriented that you should lay down your life for the group
and, you know, go for it sort of thing.
So then see, we've got to distinguish between the right
and the far right, but I think that those are the key
differences. You refer to purple piled people
as people who know the truth but refuse to speak it.
What truths are you referring to?
Well, there's many of them. I mean, the most obvious are
that there are genetic, significant genetic or partly
genetic racial differences in all manner of things you can
think of. And you get people that of
course they know that's true. Of course they know that there
are average race differences in IQ, average race differences in
reaction times, average race differences in modal personality
as a consequence of adaptation to different environments, and
average race differences in things that we just feel it's
not polite to talk about like testicle size, average race
difference, or earwax composition.
And they, they, they know these things to be true and they have,
they have no reason to doubt these things.
I mean, I had not, there was an article reviewing the Bounden
book in the Spectator the other day and the guy that wrote it
rang me up to apologise ahead of time and say, look, I like you
and whatever, but I'm going to have to slag you off a bit in
this article because I have to play the game in a conservative
rather than far right magazine. So that's play.
That's that's being purple pilled.
And so he he kind of mocked the fact that I found that there
were race differences. He said, Oh, you, it's crazy
what you're saying race differences in penis size.
I said, no, there's no, no, we don't have data on race
differences in penis size, testicle size.
Yes. And he and he and he and he put
that in and then I found that there were race differences in
the extent to which men insert things up their assholes.
There are race differences in the extent to which that
happens. And East Asian men are
particularly into doing so. And he and he quoted that as if
it's, but it's just true. So you might, you might find it
impolite to say it, but it's, it's factually true.
So, so there was, it's, it's that sort of thing that they
particularly the race differences in psychological
traits that they, they, they fart, they know it's true, but
they pretend in polite society. Oh, well, maybe the data's not
clear. Oh, well, it's been counter
argued, isn't if So what? It's overwhelmingly clear.
So it would be things like that. And then everything that's
downstream of that, such as the immigration policy, must take
those differences into account. And if it doesn't, then you end
up with the kind of chaos that we see in British cities and
German cities all the time. And indeed, the studies that
indicate that's clear that people are evolved to be with
those who are genetically similar to themselves and they
get on with those are genetically similar to
themselves. And you will end up with
conflict of some kind always if you place people together who
are genetically dissimilar. And these ethnic groups and to a
greater extent races are genetic clusters that have been
separated for substantial periods of time.
And of course then if you put them together, yes, there'll be
some people that will that will have have mixed race offspring
or whatever, but they will be quite rare.
And in general, you just get a balkanized society.
Why are they so hesitant to accept a blatant reality when it
comes to disparities? They have no problem saying, of
course, 90% of the people who get, you know, who end up on
death row are men. Men are more violent.
They have higher levels of testosterone.
Younger men are more violent than older men.
They'll say whites have lower incomes than Asians because
Asians work harder. But anytime there's a disparity
that's either in favor of whites or means that women might have a
lower income, then all of a sudden they say it's really,
really immoral to look at disparities.
They don't openly say it's immoral, but they, but they will
use manipulative language. Yeah, basically they, they,
these people have adopted a worldview in which they are, in
which they deal with, as I said earlier, with their mental
problems with the, the, the aspects of themselves they don't
like. They haven't confronted with
their feelings of anxiety and depression and whatever by
telling themselves that they are morally superior to and better
than other people. And you could do that in two
interrelated ways. One is the moral way.
So you, you say it is, it is moral to say that there that any
difference is that, that, that all sex sexes are equal, that
races are equal, that we're all equal.
We're all equal. That's the moral thing.
We're we're all equal. I the, the, the left wing thing,
I am in favour. I am a good kind person.
What makes me good and kind is I'm in favour of equality and
harm avoidance. But what that ultimately means
is reversing in an illogical way the system such that the person
who is perceived as disempowered is always good, and the person
who is perceived as as empowered is always bad.
And then once this happens, then intelligent people will adopt
will perceive intelligence associated with conformity.
So you've got Intel, basically, intelligent people who are
mentally unstable, but those people will perceive the current
way of things, the way the wind's blowing.
They will adopt it, and then they will play for status.
You know, sort of runaway leftism signalling.
Until you get into a crazy situation where you're saying
I'm more moral than the last person because I think that men
can become women or, or whatever it happens to be.
And the other thing that you you do is you adopt what you might
call luxury beliefs or but high status beliefs.
So if you feel insecure about your social status, then you
adopt the state of the beliefs of higher status people in order
to make your reassure you that you're important.
And so if somebody confronts you, those two things, the
status issue and the morality issue are allowing you to cocoon
yourself from an understanding of what you know is true of you
deep down, which is that you're just pathetic, lying, sad,
unhappy person. And so if somebody then attacks
that ideology, then what they are confronting you with is, is
is the you, the you deep down, and this is very, very painful.
You have to make that person go away.
You're now feeling cognitive dissonance.
You have a perception of yourself as moral.
Because you hold these beliefs, these beliefs are undermined.
And it was intelligent as well. Because you hold these beliefs,
these beliefs are undermined. You're being shown as being
stupid, as being, as being pathetic, as being a virtue
signal, as being hollow, as being shallow.
And that's horrible to have to deal with.
And so then you're going to react in a highly emotional way
to people like that in order to, to get to go away.
I mean, and remember, if you're that anxious, you could think to
yourself, if this you're you. Franklin Roosevelt talked about
fear itself. Imagine fearing fear.
Imagine fearing that this person could make me so scared I could
kill myself. That's that, that's, that's the
kind of level we're talking about when they talk about
feeling literally unsafe. So, so that's what you're
dealing with very unstable people.
Whereas the opposite, the people that are on the, not the far
right, I think there's elements of the far right that have very
similar psychology to the far left.
And, and they will purity signal.
And the way they deal with it is by saying, well, you know, I
might not be doing very well in life, but at least I know the
truth about the world and I, I, I know the truth.
What is the truth? Oh, with the truth is it's all
the Jews. The Jews are responsible for
everything. So you, you, you may have
thought that it was the dinosaurs were wiped out
65,000,000 years ago by a meteorite or an asteroid.
No, it was the Jews and that and that and that and that.
And that gives you again, a sense of important, a sense of
being somebody. And if someone challenges that,
then again, you react with this narcissistic rage.
It's the it's the conservatives in the middle really who are the
stable ones. These people it's associated
with. These people are high in
conscientiousness, they are high in agreeableness.
They are pro social traits. They are high in religiosity.
They believe in God. They believe life has meaning.
They believe they have even if they don't.
This is the problem. They believe they have a sense
of agency and they believe they have a sense of control over the
world. And this is a problem because
they kind of if you, if you like that way of thinking means you
believe you have power, you believe you have self efficacy,
you believe you have power even if you don't.
Whereas the left believe they don't have power and they are
constantly fighting against the evil conservatives even when
they do have total power. And so that's why.
And that is one of the reasons why things tend to shift towards
the left. The other reason is that, as we
said, as I said earlier, the conservatives are interested in
all 5 moral foundations, whereas the liberal are interested in
two. So there's asymmetrical empathy.
So the conservatives will give way to the liberals and we will
move leftwards and leftwards and leftwards and leftwards until
you there's so little concern with in Group loyalty and with
obedience to authority and sanctity that you just get
chaos, absolute chaos, and lots and lots of people feeling
unhappy and lots and lots of people feeling the dysphoria.
And that at that point you get a right wing backlash, a
conservative backlash. I think we're going through one
now. We weren't going through one in
2022. And I predicted one would
happen. In my book, the part as a future
country, the common conservative demographic revolution.
And we're not going through the Demographic 1, which is going to
be, I think, a massive backlash towards the right.
But we're going in the 80s was a right wing backlash against the
liberal excesses of the 70s, where it got to a point where
you have people in positions of power arguing that, you know,
legalized sex with children and God knows what and socialism and
nothing working. And now we're seeing a backlash
against the consequences of DEI, the vote for Trump, followed
very quickly by the insanity of the fires in Los Angeles that
that presented for everyone to see.
This is the hell, this is the inferno the DI leads to and
other things as well, the assassination attempt on Trump,
which was probably partly down to just DI incompetence and and
such like. So we are seeing a backlash now,
but I think it's a it's a periodic one rather than the
major one, which I think will happen.
What is evolutionary psychology? Evolutionary psychology is
basically the study of, of, of man as an advanced form of ape.
So you whereas the, the kind of leftist that you look at
earlier, they have this blank slate view.
In the most extreme case, people like Margaret Mead or whatever
that we are a black slate. There's nothing built into us.
It's all to do with environment. We know from twin studies and
twin adoption studies. That's nonsense.
There is, there is a genetic component to pretty much
everything you can think of. And so it's looking at those,
our evolved instincts, our evolved psychological
adaptations and how they have, how they have occurred and why
and how they are continuing to occur.
When it comes to what evolutionary psychology can
teach us about the seeking of social status, what are some
lessons that come to mind? Something evolutionary
psychology can teach us. Well, we know from our evolution
that we are evolved to live in polygamous mating systems and we
were living in polygamous mating systems until really quite
recently in evolutionary time. And this is very important
because what it means is that there's a sort of 0 sum game
dimension built into, there's all kinds of things.
This is built into us. So the situation is the male,
the male wants sex. The female has something to risk
from the sexual encounter. I shouldn't get pregnant and
have children. So she wants investment.
So then she will sexually select for the high status male, the
high status male, both physically I, he can protect her
and things like this, that's why.
And mentally I he can reach high status.
So there's 2 dimensions in prehistory to status. 1 is that
you can literally win fights. And the other is that you're
intelligent and you're socially skilled and you're whatever and,
and you can hunt well and you can, which is predicted by
intelligence and you can get to the top of the group.
And This is why intelligence is part of a fitness factor
associated with other genetic signs of health, including
height in men but not women. Intelligence is genetically
associated with height. Intelligence is also genetically
associated with physical health, with mental health, with
basically everything that they would have selected for.
You're selecting for a fitness factor.
Now, of course, there's, I'm not saying it's a strong
correlation. I mean, there's all kinds of
deviations from that. And in of course, in recent
history, being muscular and in particular has been less
necessary. But it's still the case among
women. And it's built into them to be
sexually attracted to tall, at least relatively tall men.
Too tall and they're a freak with mutant genes that might
have other problems, but up to about sort of 6 foot 2.
And, and This is why men that are short, that are really
short, that's sort of five foot 6 or less will, will, will, will
have trouble. But so, so that's the kind of
thing. So then this is then the, the,
the, the quid pro quo that is engaged in.
And then the male says, OK, well, if I have to invest in
you, I want evidence that the offspring are mine.
So I need to be able to control your sexuality.
And so from there you develop patriarchy and from there you
develop a situation where the females will be evolved, will be
adapted to live in a patriarchy in which important decisions are
made for them. So you have therefore selection
under parental choice. So you might get a situation
where the parents will want to select for a partner for the
daughter who is in their genetic interests, and she'll want who
is similar to them, and she'll want to select for somebody
that's similar to her. So therefore, the way she'll get
what she wants, like the compromise will be ironically to
select for someone that's quite unsuitable.
And then she gets the balance in the end.
So you can see that if you take her away from that system,
she'll start making all kinds of mistakes because she's in an
evolutionary mismatch. And this is the problem that we
are our evolutionary match at best is basically farming.
To live in an Agricultural Society surrounded by people
that are evolution, that are genetically very, very similar
to us. That's our match.
And to be surrounded by death. I mean, child mortality was
about 50% until 1800. And it seems that if we are
surrounded by those things, our instincts hit in.
We want to have children. We want to have lots of
children. Take That's why if you pride
people with mortality sentence, they want to have children.
And it's why if you if you put them in a war, you get, you tend
to get a baby boom after the war because we're we're we're
surrounded by death. Take those things away and then
people stop wanting children. They're in an evolutionary
mismatch. Their instincts don't hit in and
you select for people that are highly instinctive.
And it seems that people that have low intelligence are highly
instinctive because an element of intelligence is the ability
to rise above your instincts and logically solve the problems
that follow. The intelligent people would
basically be lower in inbuilt hardware and higher in software
and, and just less instinctive. And this seems to be why in
advanced societies to a significant degree.
Well, it's a small correlation, but it's there.
Intelligent people are less likely to have children and the
most intelligent women are the least likely to have any
children. So there's all kinds of areas
that you can, you can pursue to try to understand how people
behave. For example, rape gangs.
What was, which would be a problem in the UK with these
foreign, these Muslim Pakistanis.
Well, it's absolutely predictable because if you're in
an environment in which most among the hunter gatherers of
the Kalahari, among the Bushmen, I've been totally report on
reservations, there were studies of them and 60% of the males
don't breed. So what do those males do?
Those low, saddest males? The answer is they gang together
and they try and find a woman and they gang rape her and they
let sperm selection do the rest. And This is why or part of the
reason why there is a fusion between sex and violence.
That's why pseudo masochism is such a common fetish, because
sex is fused to violence in that in that context, it's why men,
when they are masturbating over pseudo masochistic porn rather
than vanilla porn, produce more sperm and ejaculate.
Further, because because this is in a book called Natural History
of Rape, which you should read where where because they are in
that situation where they're watching.
There's other men involved if they're watching rape porn,
particularly where it puts them in that evolutionary mindset of
being in a rape gang. And if you're in a rape gang,
you're in sperm competition. So you've got to produce more
sperm and you've got you've got to ejaculate further in.
So and they get larger erections as well in response to this form
for the same reasons. And they're further in.
So there's all kinds of areas and a lot of it for some people
is, is rather they have a sort of prurient, they don't like
talking about it because it's sort of not very nice.
It's sort of a bit taboo, but it's, it's our nature.
We are an advanced form of ape. And it's interesting that
they're prepared to accept that they're, they're highly critical
of you saying anything is other than to do with environment.
It's all to do with environment, not to do with genes.
This is, this is nonsense, this is an exaggeration.
This is pseudoscience except sexuality and and the studies on
homosexuality indicate that that is actually highly
environmental. Among women about 20% genetic
and among men about 40% genetic. So the majority of the variants
in sexual orientation is to do with environmental factors,
including environmental factors in utero.
The environmental factors nonetheless, rather than genetic
factors. I wanted to go through a number
of statements and see how you would go through falsifying
these statements or verifying them or critiquing them, because
they're things we hear quite a bit.
I actually want to start with that one.
If I say homosexuality is purely genetic, how would you go about
falsifying that or disproving it?
Well. With anything to do with
genetics, what the best thing is twin studies and preferably
identical twin studies and preferably identical twin
adoption studies. And then what you can do is you
can see, you can what you can calculate based on that, the
degree to which something is heritable and the degree to
which it's to do with shared environment and the degree to
which it's to do with different environment.
And on that basis we can say that the heritability of female
sexuality is approximately 20%. Why?
It's much more adaptive for women to become less pernicious.
They are in, they are in these harems in which the male is
going to concentrate on the newest, youngest, most most
fertile wife any given time. So then they they had to deal
with that by creating a certain what they call aloe parents.
The female friendships are different from male friendships,
right? Female friendships involve a
small number of the clique, a small Sex in the City, a small
number of friends which are a specific gang, which have
borders and where they share secret, personal, vulnerable
information, things like that. That's how the friendship works.
And it's a situation of complete equality.
Why? Because they're trusting each
other with each other's children.
Now you can see in that context in which it would make sense
that the bond between them should be very, very strong to
the And if it were to become sexual, then it would become
very, very strong. And that seems to be why female
sexuality is highly plastic. And females will be much more
likely to go through a phase where they're a little bit less
pernicious, where they're a little bit experimental in
gayness, because it, it makes sense as a, as a, it's a, it's a
consequence of them developing such close friendships, which is
adaptive. That an element to that could be
that it's even more adaptive if, if they're sexual because then
they're strongly bonded or just that, that that's a, a flip
side, an unnecessary flip side, but a flip side of intense, very
intense friendship. Males tend to be, they might go
through a phase of being prison gay or something, or gay at a,
at a public, what we call a public school where it's all
boys and they're living together and things like that.
And you do get that indeed, in tribal analysis that they go
through these rites of pathlage where they're away from the
tribe for a few years becoming men and they and they go through
gay phases. But in general it's there are
they just make a decision and they're either they're, they're
either gay or they're not. They're either straight or
they're homosexual. You get some men that are
bisexual. This tends to be associated with
psychopathy and dominance and things like that, bisexuality.
But in general, they're they're either gay or they're or they're
straight. There are theories as to why
there is male homosexuality. One thing that you get is a very
strong the robust birth order effect.
So the more sons a woman has, the more likely the more older
brothers you have, the more likely you ought to be gay.
And the suggestion is that this helps to reduce into male
conflict in the community so that the the tribe that will
survive against the other tribe will be externally hostile and
internally cooperative. Positively and negatively
ethnocentric. If you have too many unmarried
men that can't get women, IE in cells, then this is going to
create social conflict which is going to be damaging in fighting
the other tribe. So therefore you don't want too
many men. And so therefore if you have a
system whereby for what, by whatever mechanism homosexuality
becomes more likely the more sons you have, then you reduce
into male conflict. So that's one theory.
But anyway, that's how you would prove that sexuality, indeed
almost anything you can think of, is partly genetic.
If someone says poverty causes crime, how would you go about
falsifying this? Or is this true?
Well, yeah, I think it's probably true that poverty
causes crime in the sense that if you're absolutely desperate
for food, if you're starving, you might go out and steal it.
But again, with twin studies and and family studies, we can show
that there is a significant heritability to criminality.
Criminality runs in families and again you can engage in adoption
studies and you can have and you can have people from criminal
parents that are brought up by very, very middle class,
educated, intelligent parents. And there's what's called a
Wilson effect, IE the genetic traits will hit in later.
And what you find is that in terms of their behaviour, their
criminality, for example, they will be much more similar to
their biological parents who will often be drug addicts and
things like that than they will be to they're adoptive parents.
So this is showing you that there is a significant genetic
element to criminality and indeed you can calculate what
elements it is and it's probably about 50% using twin adoption
studies. Not only that, but if you look
at the traits that cause criminality, IE low
intelligence, low conscientiousness, low
agreeableness, being psychopathic, whatever, these
are all at least 50% genetic. And indeed I think I'm right in
saying we've even highlighted specific alleels that are
associated with just with criminal like behaviour.
So criminal criminality is significantly like anything like
that. It's it's significantly genetic
in origin. There are certain kinds of
people that will just be criminally inclined no matter
what their circumstances. That makes much more sense
because the left will constantly say the only reason that people
commit crimes in the 1st place is because the system has pushed
them into poverty and left them no other.
Yeah, then that's another thing then.
So socio economic status is significantly genetic.
And indeed it's been fascinating.
Oh, you're poor. Well, you're why are you poor?
The the heritability of socio economic status across time has
been found to be something like 70%.
So it's it's very, very strongly genetic.
There is a degree to which social classes are separate, so
they marry each other. The the people that are that are
that are poor genetically select for other people that are
genetically similar to them for things that cause crime.
Low intelligence people are sexually attracted to other
stupid people. People with low with
psychopathic traits are sexually attracted to other people with
psychopathic traits and so on. And so these traits that that
that precipitate or that predict crime are being sexually
selected for. So that's why the heritability
of socio economic status is so high.
I mean, you know, there was a study in England in the 80s.
It's been replicated. The average blood types of
different social classes in England are different, right?
This is this is these are genetic, these are significant.
I guess it's movement by genetic chance or whatever, but these
are significantly genetic casts. Intelligence is associated not
just with socioeconomic status achieved, but with socioeconomic
status born into and the genetic component of intelligence, which
is a big predictor of crime. Negative predictor is 80%.
Someone says diversity is our strength.
How do you go about verifying if that's true?
What? Does that mean, I mean, it's
just such a black and white thing to say.
You could argue that in terms of producing a functioning society,
there are not Diversity is a bad thing.
People are evolved to be with people that are directly similar
to them. People will cooperate with
people that are directly similar to them.
People will trust people that are directly similar to them.
This will result in a Society of high social trust, a society in
which which then leads to all kinds of shared goods.
You know, shared public goods which you wouldn't bother a
Civic Society basically, which you wouldn't bother with if
there was no social trust. I mean, society with very low
social trust can't produce functioning societies because
there's so much crime and so much distrust.
No one trusts anyone else. And in order to build something
up, I mean to build a business together or to build anything
together, you have to be able to trust each other.
And if social trust is low, you can't do that.
And a diverse society militates against social trust.
It also reduces social trust among the natives because the
natives start to become concerned that other natives
will collaborate against the foreigners against them with the
foreigners, which they do, or that that they will get angry
and blame other natives for letting this happen.
So it reduces social trust even among the natives, but variously
people. E pluribus Unum by Robert Putnam
on this, which he suppressed for about 10 years once he voted
because he was so appalled by the results.
But multiculturalism produces a collapsing social trust.
It's associated at .66 with the degree of social conflict and
civil war in a society. If if beat by diversity you mean
that it's bad, you could argue that a small element of
diversity may be good, a small number of foreigners, because
those foreigners will bring an interesting outsider
perspective. Those foreigners, if they're a
specific kind of foreigner that's as or more intelligent
than the country into which they come, then they, the Ashkenazi
Jews would be an example. Then they will bring solve
problems and bring in innovations that the society
wouldn't otherwise have. That, that or the Asians in
Uganda would be another example. As I say, interesting outsider
perspective. And it's just sort of
stimulating to have a bit of difference.
So perhaps you could argue that a very small amount of
diversity, an optimum level of diversity is good.
OK. It's a total simplification to
say diversity is our strength because there's all kinds of
downsides to it. Final one on the falsification
attempts here. Problems with mass migration do
exist and that's why governments need to drastically increase the
amount of money they spend on food, housing, schooling and
healthcare for immigrants and we need to have anti bigotry
training for the domestic population.
How would you go about verifying as to whether or not that should
be pursued or that's something that would work in reality?
Well. I don't think, I mean to what
extent is anti bigot. I don't know.
I don't even understand what they're trying to say.
They're saying they should have. That's what all of us are
required to do. What does that, what does that
even mean? If mass migration, you have to
set out philosophically what you regard as the good that you want
to achieve. What is it?
If you're saying, if you're saying that mass migration is a
good in itself because it creates diversity, you're
basically saying diversity creates diversity.
It's a circular argument. That's that's just a form of
fanaticism. That's that's meaningless.
If what you're saying is you want workers and people with a
high standard of living, you, you want the people that live in
a country to have a high standard of living, if that's
what you're saying, if you're saying what you want is relative
equality, whereby everybody has a reasonably high standard of
living, is that what you're saying?
I don't know what you're saying. If that's what they're saying,
then you have to ask them, does mass migration assist that?
And the answer is obviously no, because one, it undercuts the
wages of the working class, so it reduces the extent to which
they can have a good standard of living relative to other
classes. 2, the infrastructure, it's very hard for the
infrastructure to keep up with it.
And three, it undermines social trust.
And social trust is very important and all kinds of
things are downwind of social trust, like innovation.
I mean, think about a person that is a genius type who is
highly intelligent and who has problems to solve right here.
There's only 24 hours in a day. If he's got to be worrying about
whether his house is secure, about whether his car might be
stolen, about whether his house might be broken into, about
whether it might be mugged in the street, about whether he can
get a doctor's appointment, about whether he can get his
child into a school. That's all intellectual energy
and time that is taken away from him being able to produce his,
his, his genius innovation. An extent to there's an extent
to which it aids innovation to cooperate with other people.
If you have a broad society where lots of other people are
concerned about all these things as well, and trust is anyway
lowered because people increasingly don't don't trust
each other because of diversity, you're creating a situation
where there's less innovation, there's less an ability to
solve, ability to solve problems.
And then you get a terrible situation where the degree to
which population increases, the only way we have a civilization
is that innovation takes place faster than population increase,
that we can increase resources faster than we can population
increase. If that difference is narrowed,
then standards of living start to kind of go down.
And, and, and so it seems to me all of these things bring
together, I tell you that mass migration is a terrible idea.
I don't believe in mass migration.
I believe in mass re migration. I think my country, England
elected a thoroughly anti British government.
It came to power on the 2nd of May 1997.
It revolutionized the country. It revolutionized all
traditional English liberties. It revolutionized everything and
it started mass migration in order to undercut the cost of
labour and in order because they just believed in it, just to rub
the right to nose in diversity. That's what they said to make
sure that. So I I think there should be
anyone that has been born in England since the 2nd of May
1990. Anyone that's come to England
since the 2nd of May 1997, unless they have married an
English person, I should be deported.
When it comes to intelligence, is there a general litmus test?
You have to see if you're speaking with an intelligent
person or someone who is rather feeble minded.
Me personally, yes. Is there a litmus test?
You how how quickly do they talk?
Talking speed is the robust call of intelligence that correlates
with intelligence is about .3. And you can you can judge it
very quickly. People that are low in
intelligence will speak slowly into a big part of intelligence
is basically just processing the big judgement is how quickly do
they speak. It's not a perfect judgement.
You're going to get some people that are highly intelligent that
speak slowly and you're going to get some people that are that
are very intelligent that can speak quickly.
But that's a big judgement. How how quickly do they speak?
And then the second one, again, it's not perfect because you're
going to get the tongue tied physicist or you're going to get
the not that bright sort of postmodern philosopher is the
kind of vocabulary, if they're native speakers, the kind of the
kind of vocabulary that they that they employ certain words
they employ indicating high vocabulary.
Yeah, I think talking speed is a pretty robust 1.
You would say that you are a scientist and we have scientists
in America called Tony Fauci who claimed that they also like
science. How can we differentiate good
science from bad science considering you are very often
labeled a hater and someone who uses selective science and
pseudoscience? How do we differentiate good
science from bad if you if you call?
It pseudoscience. That's an appeal to insult.
So that's a fallacy. So anyone that called anything
pseudoscience rather than saying, OK, we'll hear the
problems with it. If you call it pseudoscience,
that's that's an appeal to insult.
That's a fallacy and that shows you're a bad scientist.
Just the quick just using that term, because you shouldn't do
that. You should say, here are the
problems with this research. What you're doing is labeling it
and dismissing it. Secondly, if you say, oh, he's
cherry picking his data, we'll show that.
Otherwise you're just lying. So I I I would say that our good
distinction is do they do they use those kinds of facts?
Science should be about logically interrogating the
data. You should never, ever use
fallacious argumentation such as calling your opponents views
pseudoscience. That's an obvious one.
Or appeal to emotion. Saying you're you're someone
else's usable will cause problems or appeal to authority.
Oh, this person has a degree in linguistics rather than a degree
in science. And so I'm going to dismiss what
they're saying out of hand. For God's sake.
Thomas Edwards, the Aberdeenshire Shoemaker, was a
world expert on molluscs. Charles Darwin.
Charles Darwin had nothing more than a degree in theology.
So that's obviously a fallacy. So do they use those kinds of
fallacies? And if they do, that is a that
is a an ideologue dressed up in the cloak of science.
That is not do they call racist. I mean, there's a guy called
Adam Rutherford that's written about what the word racist is
inflammatory. It's insulting.
It's a shut up word. It's vague.
It's stretched as a means of reproving people back onto the
path of orthodoxy. It's no ordinary word.
So if you write a book as a scientist called How to Argue
with a racist, and yet he calls me a racist but won't come on
and talk to me, this is showing you that's not a real science.
That's not, that's OK. He's qualified in science.
He has a PhD in science, so he doesn't publish very much.
But, but, but that's a person who is an ideologue dressed up
in the cloak of science, and he's interested in science
because of the status that science accrues for you.
He's not interested. He's basically using science as
a means of espousing in an extreme way the current
ideology. He's not interested in actually
solving problems because you should be interested in, if
you're a genuine scientist in solving problems that will get
you into trouble for solving them.
The truth should be your one thing, the truth, the empirical
method, logic and the use of of a quantitative method.
That's the essence of science. And if you're using fallacious
arguments, that's the key thing that for me is just obvious.
They use fallacious argument at all.
That's a degree to which are they really?
A scientist like Richard Dawkins, he uses terribly
fallacious arguments. So I see him as a person that's
motivated by some sort of anti religious fervor rather than by
actually solving problems. You studied the anthropology of
religion. What is anthropology?
Anthropology it's there's two kinds of anthropologies,
physical anthropology, which is the study of the human body,
essentially forensic anthropology and there's social
anthropology, which is the study of essentially of cultures
normally via immersion. So you go and live with them and
spend time with them and observe them as you would a group of
monkeys in some ways and, and then you study them and that was
more what I, that was the side of anthropology.
I looked at social anthropology, so I spent being, you know,
being among fundamentalist Christians at universities.
Were there any significant findings that you came away with
in your studies on the anthropology of religion that
you feel are very valuable for people to understand?
No, that's why I moved over into other things because because
it's it's, it's it's, I mean, I spoke only only in so much as I
found that there were different in in my own field work.
You mean I found that there were different structures of
university and there were universities which were much
more transitional than others and the much more involved a
rite of passage and things like that and a change from childhood
to adulthood and extreme change. And that's what Oxford was like.
And Aberdeen was much less like that and lied and even less so
lied and just like living at home and going to school.
And it wasn't transitional. So, and the, it seemed to be
related to it, that if you're in transitional phase, it's
psychologically difficult and you're under stress.
And if you're psychologically difficult and under stress,
you're more likely to become religious because your instincts
hit in if you're under stress. And so I found that the the
presence of fundamentalist Christianity was much more
prevalent at Oxford than Aberdeen and in turn than at
Lydon. That was basically what I found.
If I'd done that again, I'd have looked at it from a more
psychological perspective and looked at more what was the
cause and what was the effect? Because it could be that the
kind of personality traits that make you religious are you being
highly pro social when you control for intelligence will
make you more academic and that's more likely to get into
Oxford. And so therefore we just get
people that are genetically more religious that go to Oxford for
that reason. So that's, that's something I've
thought about since, but we weren't taught any of that side
of things, the genetic side of things when we did the study of
religion in theology departments.
Do you think it's almost necessary for purposes of social
cohesion for people to embrace a myth that is extremely unlikely
to be true? For example, if a lot of Muslims
just said be kind to one another, our religion is about,
you know, building beautiful mosques and doing the right
thing. That might not inspire people.
It might not show allegiance if you believe something like that.
But if you believe that Muhammad rode a horse into heaven, that
is such a stretch of the imagination that you're really
signaling loyalty. And is this why religion might
be necessary for social cohesion?
I think as a rule, religion, I mean, you could argue that
there's been an evolutionary battle of different kinds of
religion across history. I mean, the the Shakers said you
shouldn't have children. Well, they're not going to last
very long, are they? And they didn't.
But in general, religion tends to take that which is adaptive
and make it into the will of God.
So it places a cloak of the eternal and the unquestionable
on essentially that which is adaptive at the individual and
particularly at the group level. That's what it does.
And there are different ecologies which then produce
different kinds of religiosity. So you get once you get cities
and people have to cooperate, but they don't know.
It's interesting that at that stage you get the development of
what's called big gods, IE moral gods, gods that are concerned
with individual morality. Because the only way you can be
sure that a stranger, you can trust him, that he won't mess
you around if he worships the same God as you and thus
believes in the same morality as you.
So you, you get these even these developments.
But I think that's basically what religion is doing.
And so therefore it has to have that eternal element.
And luckily we have evolved at times of stress and things like
this and mortality salience to feel that God is present in a
very real way, whether he is or he isn't.
And then religions encourage you to go to these religious
services which to varying degrees depending on the kind of
religion, attempt to induce the presence, a feeling of the
presence of God, attempt to to induce them through hymns,
through prayer, through whatever, a feeling of something
greater, as Durkheim put it in his analysis.
So and I think that that so yeah, I think that that is it
seems to be the case that that's what religion does and that
groups which are high in ethnos in in positive and negative
ethnocentrism and those that correlates very strongly with
religiosity. I'll have high they work.
They just got they will they will dominate.
They have higher fertility that they have high fertility.
They have higher genetic mental health.
They have higher genetic physical health.
And it seems to me that a process is occurring at the
moment. I look at this in my book work
Eugenics, that if you control, Yeah, OK, we're getting
stupider, We're all getting stupid.
Society is going down in IQ by about a point per decade.
But if for genetic reasons, But if you control for intelligence,
the big predictor of sterility is that you are left wing and
you are an atheist. And the big predictor of
fertility is that you are right wing and you are a conservative.
And these things correlate by the word about .6.
And the heritability of conservatism and of religiosity
is between .6 and .7. It's pretty high.
So essentially we are selecting among the more intelligent for
religious people and conservative people.
The left are becoming the right are becoming stupider, but the
left are becoming stupider more quickly among the native
population. And what this should lead to
eventually is a switch among the elite, Where the elite of, of
Gen. Z or whatever become right wing
and then you see the ascension upwards into positions of power
and all these Nick Fuentes types.
And so, so that's what, yeah, I think you, you do have to have a
metaphysical element. That's why religion has
survived, I think, because you have to have this metaphysical
element to, to fire people up, people of some kind, even if
it's quite vague, but but it has to be there.
And that's why Buddhism almost never exists as pure Buddhism,
because Buddhism doesn't have a God.
It's always Buddhism in synchronization with local Pagan
ideas and things like that. I have two more questions for
you. Thank you so much for your time.
When it comes to finding happiness, a lot of people in my
generation thought it was a result of acquiring large
amounts of material goods. And it seems like a lot of times
when once people acquire the material goods they sought
after, there's still a great amount of loneliness.
It's generally referred to in America as the loneliness
epidemic, that people are experiencing increased rates and
suicide and the like. When it comes to what makes
people happy from an evolutionary psychologist or an
anthropological perspective, what is it that makes someone
happy? Well, first of all, I should say
again, your question assumes the sort of typical environmental
view, doesn't it? You're going to get, you could
get a person that's genetically happy.
What is it to be genetically happy?
It's basically you're high in extroversion, you feel positive
feelings strongly. You're a happy person.
And you could get a happy person and you could take all their
money away and they'd be a happy person and they'd be poor.
Or you could get a person that's genetically unhappy, I learn
extroversion and high neuroticism and give them
£1,000,000 and they'd be a rich unhappy person.
So an, an element of it is just genetics.
But but putting that aside, I think a very big part of it is
living in, is living in your evolutionary is relative wealth.
So people are happier the wealthier they are.
This is, this is true relative wealth, but that that's not
enough. And another big part of it is
just living in your evolutionary match.
That's what makes us happy. Put a dog in his evolutionary
match, which is running around in the outside, he's happy,
right? Put a cat in his evolutionary
match outside hunting or whatever, he's happy.
Put a human in their evolutionary match, which is to
live in a small scale countryside community where he
knows everybody and everyone's very similar to him and there's
lots of social trust. He's happy.
And it's been found that as I said, wealth does make you happy
because we are evolved to want to be the top of the pack.
We are evolved to want to be successful.
We are therefore evolved to want wealth.
And there was a study which found that over a certain level
of wealth, it doesn't matter. But the person that published
that study has now said no, he was wrong.
The richer you are in general, the happier you are.
So if people that are the CEO all are all else controlled for,
I mean, so people that are CEOs of large companies are quite
happy. But who do you think in America
who is not really rich, has a level of subjective happiness
which is as high as that CEOs? I would guess it's people in the
South who are a little more isolated and closer to their
families. Further north.
Further north, it would be
people in New England who are in Ivy Leagues.
No, it's the Amish. No, the Amish because, because
they, because they are living in their evolutionary match, which
is small scale communities, small scale religious
communities where they relate to everybody and they know
everybody and they and they, they have the, the kind of work
where they can see their results.
It's meaningful and they are extremely happy people.
So that's, that seems to be now that partly could be a genetic
effect. Are you the ones that are pissed
off of being Amish leaving Room Springer or something?
But the degree to which they are leading in Roomspring was going
down, so they now have an 80% retention rate.
So it could be it could be a genetic effect.
It's probably is partly genetic effect, but it's also I think
that they're just living in their evolutionary match.
You wrote a book titled Churchill's Headmaster.
What were some of the lessons you learned from researching
this topic? Well, the main, the key thing
was that a lot of what Churchill and his supporters say is lies.
And so I thought to myself, well, Eve Churchill, this thing
that he has this headmaster, who was this evil sadist.
Is that true? Let's check that.
And I went through all the records and I tracked down
people that were just the descendants of his pupils and
kept Diaries and things at the time.
And the degree to which he was this evil sadist was very, very,
very heavily exaggerated. He wasn't.
He was a severe flogger even by the stands of the time.
But there are others like him. And there was another side to
him. And a lot of people really liked
him and thought he was great. So it just shows you there is a
mythology based around Winston Churchill.
I'm afraid I've got a boomer truth, as my friend academic
agent calls it, that oh, he's this great guy, he's perfect,
He's wonderful. No, he was a warmongering
alcoholic. Money spending, wasteful,
dishonest aristocrat who took his country into a wasteful,
completely pointless war that was nothing to do with us
because of the because the people that were funding him
wanted there to be a war and he needed their funding because he
had this lavish lifestyle. And then in order to get America
to come on board once we're deep in that war, he basically had to
give away all our resources to America bankrupt, which which he
did. And then America got involved in
the war. And by the way, if we're going
to, if we're going to say that Franklin D Roosevelt, is he some
kind of Saint? No, Franklin D Roosevelt had
numerous affairs. That's why him and his wife were
married on paper only by the time of World War 2.
And during World War 2, it seems he was having a relationship
with the Crown Princess of Norway.
And this is what this pressure from her persuaded him to let to
lend the British equipment, which then resulted in the
Japanese bombing Pearl Harbour. So, you know, think about him as
well. But Churchill basically, I'm
saying is much blacker than he's painted.
That was the key take away. And his headmaster?
Not as black as he's painted. Thank you to everyone for
watching Keith Knight. Don't tread on anyone in the
Libertarian Institute. Today's guest, Doctor Edward
Dutton, check him out at the Jolly Heretic.
Links will be in the description below.
Doctor Dutton, thank you so much for your time.
Pleasure to talk to you. Bye bye.