(This article was originally written on February 13, 2021.)

Erwin Baur

1) Erwin Baur was the leading German geneticist from the 1910s to his rather early death in 1933, at the age of 58. In 1921, Baur, together with Eugen Fischer and Fritz Lenz, published a textbook titled Menschliche Erblichkeitslehre und Rassenhygiene, which became a standard work on human heredity even into the 1960s. Bentley Glass, a student of the Jewish geneticist Hermann Joseph Muller, in an article in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, October 1981 entitled “A Hidden Chapter of German Eugenics Between the Two World Wars”, asks the question, “Why did the esteemed and scrupulous plant geneticist Erwin Baur collaborate with Eugen Fischer and Fritz Lenz to write in 1923 [the date of publication of the first edition was really 1921] the influential book, Menschliche Erblichkeitslehre und Rassenhygiene (Eng. trans. Human Heredity), which became the cornerstone of Nazi eugenics? To this date the matter has remained a mystery.” This matter, however, contrary to the exaggerated talk of Jewish academics and academia, is not a mystery at all. 

Baur was an enthusiastic supporter of eugenics. As early as 1907 Baur was a member of the Berlin Society for Race Hygiene. The plant geneticist included a chapter devoted entirely to eugenics in later editions of his work Einführung in die Experimentelle Vererbungslehre, which was first published in 1911. Baur discussed eugenics with his colleague and confidant William Bateson, the preeminent English geneticist of the time. For Baur, as the historian Hans-Walter Schmuhl notes in The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics, 1927-1945 (2008), plant genetics was merely a means to a fuller understanding of human heredity and the improvement of the human germ-plasm. Like his fellow co-writers of Menschliche Erblichkeitslehre, Baur was a member of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Rassenhygiene (German Society for Racial Hygiene). Hence it is absolutely no “mystery” that he worked with Eugen Fischer and Fritz Lenz, one a leading anthropologist and another a specialist in medical genetics, to write a textbook on eugenics or race hygiene (although the two terms mean essentially the same thing, the latter was preferred by many German eugenicists).

2) Today, February 13, is the physicist William Shockley’s (b. 1910) 111th birthday. The Jews have written an article in (the now Jewish-controlled) Scientific American entitled “Recognizing Spatial Intelligence” (November 2, 2010), co-written by a Jewish psychologist of the name David Lubinski, the first paragraph consisting of the following statement:

“Ninety years ago, Stanford psychologist Lewis Terman began an ambitious search for the brightest kids in California, administering IQ tests to several thousand of children across the state. Those scoring above an IQ of 135 (approximately the top 1 percent of scores) were tracked for further study. There were two young boys, Luis Alvarez and William Shockley, who were among the many who took Terman’s tests but missed the cutoff score. Despite their exclusion from a study of young ‘geniuses,’ both went on to study physics, earn PhDs, and win the Nobel prize.“

I found the above statement when reading William Shockley’s article in Jewish-controlled Wikipedia, where a part of it was quoted. In fact, there are fives separate notes in Shockley’s Wikipedia article about Shockley’s IQ – one of these notes coming from the well-known Jewish psychologist Eysenck, who had been criticized by virtually the whole of the psychology community with a public say for reason that his work showed or supposedly attempted to show race differences in intelligence. In one moment, Eysenck, according to the Jewish media is a monstrous kind of person promoting racial hatred and pseudoscience, and in another they will use some other work of his to help “prove” that IQ has no relevance in measuring mental ability or predicting achievement.

That Shockley was not included in Terman’s study as a result of his not meeting Terman’s criteria for intelligence tells nothing of the fact that Shockley himself strongly supported eugenics and differential intelligence which he believed could best be discovered by comparative scores in intelligence as measured by IQ tests. This is simply fact, and one can easily find videos of Shockley promoting differences in IQ as being due mainly to differences that lie in the blood. 

Just a few months ago I had been very mistrustful of IQ tests; I still somewhat am. The concept of IQ testing has been invaded by Jewish psychologists and academics since their first construction around 1905 by the Jewish psychologist Théodor Simon. However, I do believe IQ tests are a good way to measure intelligence and should not be undervalued – and utility, wherever found, should be welcomed by any man who looks upon any idea or concept with a generous and accepting mind. But we must not always make the assumption that high intelligence will always be accompanied by diligence and good morals, even if these qualities have been proven, as they have, to be found far oftener in the intellectually able than among the common “run of mankind” or in fools. The Jews more than any other illustrate a profound instance of high intelligence combined with extraordinary moral vileness and are as a race a remarkable exception to the general rule.

To return to the statement in Scientific American, can one imagine whether a tithe of attention would have been paid by any of the Jews’ major media publications if Shockley had met the “cutoff score” for Terman’s study? There would have been no news of it, because, as American biologist Frederick Adams Woods (“The Racial Origin of Successful Americans”, Popular Science Monthly, April 1914) says, “The statistically true can be exciting only to the scientifically inclined.” Do students of physics and Nobel Prize winners tend, as a group, to have IQs above or below the average of the general population? The answer is extremely obvious, yet such contrary and exceptional instances as the one mentioned above, so appealing as it is to the ego, are much more readily retained by the masses. As the American biologist Albert Wiggam said, “Popular notions are always wrong. They have to be wrong. It is a psychological necessity that they should be wrong. This is, in most cases, because they are based on observations of the exceptions to the general rule of things and a guess as to what causes the exceptions.” The public mind grasps only those instances which prove to be exceptions to the rule. What is statistically significant is dull and never worthy of their attention.

On another interesting note, I had assumed that Luis Alvarez, who was mentioned in the Scientific American article, and whose name I had never heard or read of and didn’t recognize, was a typical mestizo, but after seeing his face, it is clear that he had little or no American Indian blood, and appeared to have been of European ancestry. I don’t know if the Jews at Scientific American intentionally included Alvarez’s name to create the sort of assumption in people’s minds that I had – but that seems very possible. A little more research shows that Alvarez’s father was from the Northwestern Spanish province of Asturias, which has a relatively large amount of Nordic blood, and his mother, a Smyth, was possibly of English blood, which would explain Alvarez’s quite Nordic appearance, which immediately struck me as rather “un-Spanish” besides the obvious dearth of an American Indian’s visage.

Another side note: The IQ that is generally believed to be in the “genius level” is 140 or higher, which is actually a score somewhat above the 99.0th percentile when taking the typical IQ standard deviation of 15 (such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale IV) into consideration. An IQ of 140 (SD 15) would seem to be closer to the 99.6th percentile, and would be a quotient reached by no more than approximately 1 in 250 persons. An IQ of 130 would be at the 98th percentile, and an IQ of 145 would be around the 99.9th percentile – such an IQ is reached by no more than 1 in 1,000 persons. IQ scores are largely useless without knowing the standard deviation of the test taken; an IQ of 172 using the Cattell Culture Fair Test’s standard deviation of 24, for instance, is essentially identical to an IQ of 148 taken on the Stanford-Binet intelligence test, which uses a standard deviation of 16. Both are three standard deviations above the mean IQ of 100 and correspond to an IQ at around the 99.9th percentile. Without considering differences in standard deviation between various IQ tests, an IQ in the 99.0th percentile wouldn’t be considered “genius level” unless 1 in 100 persons is to be called a genius, which I think is too high a proportion by any sound estimation.

The IQ testing industry, as I said, is flooded with Jews, though it seems likely that the Jewish invasion of psychometric testing isn’t as severe as in other aspects of psychology, which are somewhat less qualified in the name of science.

3) I have recently ordered a single-volume encyclopedia: the Oxford Family Encyclopedia (1997). I have been reading the book for perhaps an hour and already see that the book is filled with Jewish propaganda – as probably all popular and contemporary published books are. Here are just a few instances of Jewish propaganda and deception I have thus noticed:

Male circumcision is done for health benefits. 

Racial differences have no genetic basis. 

Eugenics is class-based prejudice. 

Francis Galton, who besides being the founder of eugenics made noteworthy contributions to the fields of meteorology, anthropology, psychometrics, and statistics, and despite being an exceptionally gifted writer and observer, has no biography article. I can only assume that he was deliberately omitted by the Jews.

Perhaps I will review particular examples of Jewish propaganda and trickery in the book in more detail in following posts. The reader is always welcome to give suggestions as to relevant or related issues that are worthy of examination here.