(This article was originally written in May, 2022.)

The Jew Shana Lebowitz, who is a journalist at the popular Jewish website BusinessInsider.com, has written an article (“Professor Who Knew Bill Gates as a Student at Harvard: He Was the Smartest Person I’ve Ever Met”, November 20, 2015) that has recently come to my attention, which presents claims of such interest that I have made it in the domain of the present article to discuss them here, with an emphasis on an analysis of its propagandic significance and its relation to the Jewish Problem.

When I had first come across this article, no more than several weeks ago, I recall being notably surprised, as Business Insider, of course, is a mainstream (Jewish) media website, and in it Lebowitz admits that differences in IQ existed according to paid occupation. The writer mentions an anecdote by a Greek (Jewish?) professor of computer science, Christos Papadimitriou, who was an assistant professor at (Jew-controlled) Harvard University. Gates was then a student at Harvard whom Papadimitriou described as “the smartest person I’ve ever met.” 

Lebowitz proceeds to make the following statement:

“In 2013, Jonathan Wai, a professor at Duke University’s Talent Identification Program, published a study that found the majority of Fortune 500 CEOs and billionaires had attended an elite academic institution either as an undergraduate or graduate student”. Lebowitz follows by saying that such persons by reason of their attendance at an “elite academic institution” belonged to the top one percent of the population in terms of intelligence. Anyone with the slightest understanding of the Jewish domination of the education system, particularly in such “name-brand” elite schools as Harvard or MIT, will have a sense for how much of what is “admission” to these schools is less the result of inherent ability than of the effect of nepotism and of accumulated wealth typical of the Jews.

In my estimation, it is hardly sensible to marvel at the intellectual capacity of the majority of business leaders. What most of these “highly successful” (if we measure them in terms of riches only) business executives of today – most, possibly all of whom are Jews – appear to combine, is above average intelligence combined in a most unfortunate way with an exceptionally high psychopathy, of unnecessary ambition, of shrewdness, and of personal greed. It is much more the Jews’ personality than their intelligence (which is likely an exaggeration) that brings them to financial and social success.

The American writer Lothrop Stoddard (The Revolt Against Civilization, 1922) makes a very interesting observation. In fields such as art, science, or literature, the genuine superior can expect to rise to the level in society befitting his native ability (with Jewish domination of these fields, however, even this is doubtlessly less feasible now than it had been in 1922). “In other fields, however, particularly in politics, finance, and business, this is not the case. Here, too, creative intelligence does tend to rise, and sometimes rises to the top. But more frequently the highest posts are filled by essentially mediocre personalities – shrewd, aggressive, acquisitive, yet lacking that constructive vision which is the birthmark of true greatness.” If this was the state of affairs in America when it was at least to a considerable extent under non-Jewish hands, how much worse must it be now? “Mediocre”, I think, is too gentle a term to describe the “leaders” of finance and business today. Intellectually they may be quite average – in many cases, in fact, rather above the average – but their personalities are too often depraved, or at least highly questionable. I believe one can hardly get a more selfish and immoral group of individuals than those comprising the top levels of business and finance today. It may well be the case that in business and in government, a nature of organization exists that would favor a highly aberrant type of human combining intellectual ability above the average with the weakest moral principles.

The American biologist Frederick Adams Woods (Mental and Moral Heredity in Royalty, 1906) finds a correlation coefficient of 0.34 between intellectual ability and morality. As the American writer Albert Edward Wiggam notes, it is a false notion, nevertheless widespread, that genius is often accompanied by immorality: “All our high notions of morality, character and righteousness are the products, the creations of genius, and not of stupidity.” (The Next Age of Man, 1927, p. 186.) It is the chiefer grades of intelligence and of genius that have contributed all the morality to which mankind is indebted. Low intelligence is associated with higher rates of transgression (Fritz Lenz, Menschliche Erblehre, fourth ed., 1936, p. 753); but part of this is, it seems, an exaggerated effect due to the fact that intelligent criminals are more likely to evade notice or capture. It is my belief too, that, while a concession must be made, based on the evidence, of a positive (though by no means perfect) correlation between intellect and morality, the same cannot be said to hold for the Jews. Their race represents quite the exception. The more intelligent the Jew is, the more dangerous he becomes. It is hardly then a boon to us that intelligent Jews exist, for it is precisely these that are most destructive to society. The Jew may properly be called the scoundrel par excellence. Intellect can hardly be said to be the implement or foundation for success and progress as it is to a large extent with mankind.

On further reflection, it is self-evident, too, that the Jews must make attempts to “justify” their extremely large representation in finance, business, the media, the education system, research institutes, and the government. One of the most common ways they do this is by the claim that their position has been reached by nature of their high intelligence.

It is reported that Bill Gates’ score on the SAT was 1590 out of a possible 1600 – an exceptionally high score. It may be worth noting that this was on the pre-2/1994 scale, which was strongly correlated with IQ (the correlation between IQ and the SAT today is now weaker, as it has become more a test of achievement than of inherent ability). Such a score would seem to be equivalent to an IQ in the 99.99th percentile, which would correspond to an IQ of 155 (with a standard deviation of 15). While such a score is all but certain to be markedly above that of the average CEO, it is still probable that the typical business executive is intellectually superior to the average. But as Eric Hufschmid remarks, even if the Jews, taken as a group, are more intelligent than all other groups of people, “so what? Imagine if mosquitoes were more intelligent than the average human. Would that justify letting them suck your blood?”

It is dubious whether most of the lack of constructive vision is due more to a lack of intelligence on the part of leaders throughout the world today than to their inferior and degenerate personalities and spiritual character. The American psychologist Lewis Terman (Thirty-Ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, pt. 1, 1940) finds that IQs above 140 have relatively little effect on occupational success. The most plausible reason is that, while a certain “threshold” for intelligence is necessary to be successful at a certain profession, once this threshold is satisfied, traits of personality and emotion become relatively more significant in relation to occupational success. It may be said that the difference between an IQ of 130 and 160 is far less significant than a difference between, say, an IQ of 70 and 100.

I concur with Hufschmid when he says, “A man certainly needs to be above average intelligence in order to become extremely successful in business, but the primary reason some men become so successful is because of their personality; their emotions.”

Hufschmid further observes: “The free enterprise system does not specify how businesses should behave. Business executives could choose to compete in a fair manner, inspire one another, and work for the benefit of the human race, but unfortunately, the businessmen who don’t care about fairness or society will have an economic advantage over the others. Through the years this will result in business executives who behave like those we see today; specifically, like animals that are fighting over a piece of meat.”

In response to the accusation that my speaking poorly of the Jews is the outcome of an envious feeling, I shall say in response that nothing of individuals of races other than my own has caused me to feel a great sense of envy. I welcome real progress as it comes, and I hope that my emotions and prejudices do not vitiate my attitude toward plausible new ideas and of advancement. The Jews, however, have always presented a different question. Their history, their lives, have been of such a wretched nature that the sensible man feels little else but abhorrence and a sense of loathing towards them. I have looked for exceptions to the Jews. But these have nearly always, perhaps always have failed. I do not see any particular reason why I should choose to single them out as opposed to any other race or group of people. It is their wicked and lecherous behavior, which appears to exist with unvarying constancy in every one of them, that causes me to feel disgust towards them. As Hufschmid observes: “If the Jews had been nicely behaved people, we would love them. It’s their own fault that we’re disgusted with them.” It is also possible that, while differences between the races of humans must be admitted as they are found to exist, such diversity as one sees between the different races of mankind is of a comparatively insignificant sort in relation to mankind’s position regarding the Jews. 

The Jews, as Thomas Carlyle says, have “contributed nothing, besides, to the ‘wealth’ of mankind, being mere dealers in money, gold, jewels, or else old clothes” (James Anthony Froude paraphrasing Carlyle, Thomas Carlyle: A History of His Life in London, fourth ed., vol. 2, 1885).