The Evolution of Racial Differences in Morality

Michael Levin, American Renaissance, April 1995

Readers of AR will be aware of the well-documented race differences in intelligence and temperament. The mean black score on valid IQ tests is 85, while the white mean is 100 (and some Asian groups outscore whites). Black children adopted into upper-middle class white families fail to attain IQs much above 85, which implicates genes as the cause of this difference. Twin studies and cross-cultural comparisons implicate genes in the greater levels of impulsiveness and aggression also found in blacks.

A less frequently noted point is that these psychological differences suggest race differences in morality. Part of the difference may be due simply to different levels of intelligence. The mean IQ of incarcerated felons is about 90, and Lawrence Kohlberg’s extensive research on children found that IQ is correlated with moral development. It should not be surprising that mental ability is linked to moral character, since the latter requires grasping rules and thinking through the consequences of one’s actions.

However, different levels of intelligence are not likely to be the sole cause of racial differences in morality. Data reported in The Bell Curve (and noted in the February issue of AR) show that black and white populations differ in crime and illegitimacy rates even when IQ is held constant. Thus, in one large-scale study, blacks in general were 6.5 times more likely to be incarcerated than whites, but when the comparison was restricted to blacks and whites with IQs of 100, blacks were still 2.5 times more likely to be incarcerated.

Temperament therefore appears to have an effect on behavior that is independent of intelligence. This is intuitively obvious, as aggression easily becomes heedlessness of the rights of others; we should therefore expect black and white standards of behavior to differ.

Examples of this difference abound. “Trash talk,” the stream of arrogant banter with which black basketball players seek to intimidate and humiliate opponents, is alien to white ideals of sportsmanship. Likewise, Montel Williams, the host of a television talk show, claimed to have discovered racial bias in a question on an IQ test that asked children what they would do if they threw a baseball through a neighbor’s window. The answer scored as correct was offering to pay for the window, but Mr. Williams, who is black, objected that in his old neighborhood a “Sorry, man” would have sufficed. No doubt, Mr. Williams was right that blacks do attach less urgency than whites to compensating damage.

Numerous fights among blacks result from “dissing”-males seeking dominance over each other by shows of disrespect — a practice that indicates disregard for the golden rule. Moreover, it is hard to imagine a more blatant violation of the golden rule than the constant demand for royalties by Martin Luther King’s estate whenever his speeches are published — especially when his own plagiarism is justified as “voice merging.”

What Morality Is

Evolutionary biology suggests an explanation for race differences in moral values. But first, to begin with a definition: An individual’s “morality” is the rules he wants everyone to follow, and that he wants everyone to want everyone to follow. Honesty is a moral value for him if he tries to be honest, tries to make his children honest, hopes others will be honest, and encourages others to reinforce honesty. A group’s morality is the moral rules its members share.

The clause about “wanting everyone to want everyone” is needed to distinguish moral questions, like honesty, from other “universal” concerns. If you are like most people, you think others ought to be honest. But you may also think everyone should exercise, without considering exercise a “moral” value. The difference between the two is not in their usefulness, since both are useful: jogging is healthful, and honesty facilitates such profitable activities as trade. But honesty, unlike exercise, is advantageous only if everyone else is honest. Jogging strengthens my heart whether or not you jog, whereas being honest helps me only insofar as it induces others to reciprocate, allowing me to rely on their words. This is also why it is smart to be honest even when tempted to lie — if you are found out, others will feel no obligation to be honest with you.

On the other hand, if everyone else is a liar, honesty only lets others take advantage of you. Therefore, since honesty, self-restraint, and other moral virtues are good ideas only when everyone thinks they are good ideas, you not only want everyone else to be honest, you want everyone to encourage others to be honest, and to ensure that honesty is widespread.

The advantages of honesty and other virtues have a biological dimension. Since moral individuals in a moral community do better than scoundrels, they live longer and have more children. Obeying and reinforcing moral rules is adaptive. If there is any genetic tendency to obey and reinforce moral rules, a tendency to obey and reinforce them and to be susceptible to reinforcement will be passed on to offspring.

However, selection for morality need not have been uniform, since honesty, cooperation, and the other virtues need not have been equally important in all environments. Cooperativeness (like intelligence) was probably more adaptive in the colder, harsher, Eurasian environment in which whites and Asians evolved than in sub-Saharan Africa. Food grows year-round in a warm climate. There is little danger of freezing to death, so it is not necessary to work together to build large shelters. Sexual patterns are also influenced by environment: Since a woman abandoned by her mate has a better chance of supporting herself and her children in a benign environment, there is less pressure on women to evolve a demand for male fidelity, or for males to evolve a strong sense of attachment.

The situation was otherwise in Eurasia, where large game was a dietary staple. Bringing down a cornered mastodon takes cooperation, with each man in his assigned position, ready to respond to shouted instructions. There must be jointly acceptable rules for dividing the kill. And, since females depend on male hunters for their own survival and that of their children, an advantage would accrue to females who chose mates likely to support them for a lifetime. Sexual selection would then mold males more inclined to satisfy the female demand for fidelity.

Environment does not consist merely of natural factors like climate. Since morality is advantageous only when others are moral, a major determinant of the fitness of an individual’s “gene for morality” is the character of those with whom he interacts. As Robert Axelrod and William Hamilton put it in their classic study, “The Evolution of Cooperation” (Science 1981), “there is no single best strategy regardless of the behavior of others in the population.” In fact, seemingly irrational levels of mistrust can become locked into a group. Suppose a mild physical environment has selected for weak cooperative tendencies. A worsening of the environment might make greater cooperation in everyone’s interest, but not necessarily more fitness-enhancing, for any honest, helpful mutants who appear will simply be exploited until they die without issue. It is perfectly rational to be indifferent to others when they are indifferent to you.

In short, observed race differences in honesty, sexual self-restraint, and cooperativeness may be due to the fact that these traits did not have the same evolutionary value in Africa that they did in Eurasia. Indeed, since universality and reciprocity are built into the very concept of morals, it is incorrect to talk of “different moralities.” It is more accurate to say that individuals of Eurasian descent tend to be more moral than individuals of African descent.

Consequences

Nobody can go back in time to verify whether the races really developed in the way outlined. Still, the hypothesis sketched above is plausible enough, and it may be useful to note some of its implications.

1) Black behavior that is unacceptable by white standards — theft, drug use, preoccupation with sex — is not “sick.” It is how traits that were once adaptive in Africa express themselves in Western urban society. This may be part of the reason blacks seem not to experience white laws and standards of personal responsibility as binding, and why black spokesmen are so curiously unapologetic about black crime. They will caution black males that crime is “stupid” (i.e. apt to lead to punishment), and a Jesse Jackson may denounce black-on-black crime as harmful to blacks, but they do not say that crime, particularly black-on-white crime, is intrinsically bad.

In one remarkable incident, Edmund Perry, a Harlem teenager recruited on full scholarship to the prestigious boarding school of Exeter, was killed a few weeks after graduation when he attempted to mug a plainclothes policeman. Angry demonstrations ensued, in which blacks complained of Perry’s alienation at Exeter. Far from expressing regret over Perry’s actions, blacks blamed white society for them. In fact, the difficulties blacks experience in conforming to American society cannot really be blamed on black attitudes or white norms, but on the mismatch between the two.

2) Black children cannot be expected to respond as white children do to externally imposed white socialization. If the races evolved different values, black and white children will be receptive to different sorts of training and exhortation, a point with important practical consequences. It is often suggested, for instance, that black children would do better in school if told, as white and Asian children are, that school is important. But black children will not care about grades and the esteem of teachers, no matter how much they are told to, if valuing knowledge is a more weakly evolved norm among blacks. Since black societies never evolved formal education, it would make no sense for black children to be ready to internalize praise of education.
3) Violence will skyrocket when a group acquires a killing technology it did not develop. Groups that have invented such things as firearms without killing themselves off must also have developed sufficient inhibitions about using them. Groups that acquire weapons from outside sources are less likely to have evolved the same level of self-restraint, just as groups that do not discover fermentation are unlikely to develop a tolerance for alcohol, and often fall prey to drinking problems when alcohol is introduced from outside. Blacks may have been unprepared for access to the firearms developed in Western society.Consider the remarkable increase in gunshot homicides among black men in the last half-century. In 1943 there were 44 handgun homicides in New York City; in 1992, 1,500 black males died of gunshot wounds inflicted by other black males. Since 92 percent of the 2,200 murders recorded in New York that year were committed by blacks, black males must have also killed several hundred non-blacks with firearms as well. The parallel increase in gunshot homicides nationally over the same period is essentially an increase among blacks.

Now, the sheer availability of guns does not automatically mean murder. Guns have been available for centuries to the whites who invented and manufacture them. Every adult male Swiss citizen owns a gun, yet the annual homicide rate in Switzerland is one two-hundredth that of Washington, D.C. or Harlem. The immediate cause of the rise in homicide has been the sudden availability of guns to blacks, who seem ready to resort to firearms in disputes that whites would regard as trivial. (Gunfights over calls in pick-up basketball games are not uncommon in New York City.) It may well be that blacks lack the restraints that would have evolved during the march to the invention of firearms — a possibility that should be considered in any discussion of gun control. If the “gun problem” is really the problem of black access to firearms, forbidding whites to have guns is pointless and unjust.

4) Moral signals may become confused when divergent groups interact. To explain the point with a crude example, suppose that blacks, being less empathetic than whites, must use stronger signals to rouse each others’ solicitude. It takes angry shouting to get another black to notice an injury that a white can be induced to attend to by less strident means. Likewise, a white will take an angry shout as expressing a more serious injury. If these signal patterns have themselves become innate in the two populations, whites will interpret the signals of blacks as if they were coming from other whites, and consistently overestimate the seriousness of injuries claimed by blacks.The tendency of whites to interpret the angrier manner of blacks as if blacks were other whites leads whites to respond to black complaints with inappropriate generosity, thereby reinforcing black anger by teaching blacks that anger is rewarded. The result is intensified demands and further white confusion — a dynamic that may explain the puzzling phenomenon of white guilt, and the indulgence of many whites toward even the most unreasonable black demands.

Neither is Better

The idea that blacks and whites evolved different systems of values says nothing about which values are “better,” and each group can be expected to think its values best.

Whites will continue to consider blacks “irresponsible” and blacks will, more openly, continue to call whites “up tight.” But the practical decisions of life require the adoption of some standards, and a group can use only those standards evolution has given it.

What by white standards is a black deficiency in morality — defined as conformity to the golden rule — explains the persistent unwillingness of the races to associate with each other. People almost by definition prefer the company of those who share their values, so it is no wonder that whites feel more comfortable with whites. Indeed, while blacks — even including Malcolm X — prefer to send their children to white schools and to use the other amenities of white society, blacks nevertheless prefer the company of blacks. The conventional idea is that these preferences are entirely due to “prejudice” that can and should be extirpated by education (i.e. propaganda). But if preference for one’s own kind is due to deep-seated differences in values, there seems nothing wrong with it, and there certainly seems no reason for it to be illegal.

Moreover, from their own point of view, whites are right to prefer their own company. By white standards, adherence to the golden rule and norms associated with it are the chief criteria of personal merit. Since blacks are on average less likely than whites to adhere to the golden rule — less cooperative, more aggressive, less respectful of property and persons — the average black is, by white standards, not as good a person as the average white. This is perhaps the least politically correct statement it is possible to make, but it is true and must be made. And, put in non-racial terms, it is one that even liberal egalitarians would assent to. Even they would admit to preferring the company of people who are less apt to steal, kill, lie, cheat, and shout them down in a debate.

It is possible to argue on purely philosophical grounds that people should be able to associate with whomever they please. This right, after all, can be enjoyed by everyone, and is itself in conformity with the golden rule. And this right, which implies that whites can “discriminate” in favor of other whites in housing, employment, and the schools to which they send their children, has been contravened by civil rights laws. This was allowed to happen because Americans, who respect freedom but also like to see that freedom is not abused, became convinced by the 1960s that use of the freedom of association to avoid blacks was entirely arbitrary. They became convinced that it could be motivated only by ignorance and hatred, and saw no reason not to forbid actions so maliciously based. Race differences in moral outlook, which people have long sensed, are perfectly good, non-arbitrary reasons for whites to wish to avoid blacks. Perhaps when this is more widely realized whites will once again permit themselves this liberty.

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Anonymous

    This looks like a promising article which I will read later.

    For now, I will post what I posted under another article today:

    Race and morality:

    Whites = random acts of kindess (plus charitable giving)

    Blacks = random acts of violence (plus charitable taking)

    Asians = neither?

    Hispanics = ?

  • Guilty Liberal

    Perhaps the least politically correct article ever written. I’m deeply intrigued by this article, have been since I first read it several years ago. I’m skeptical of it, too. Don’t all humans describe groups they’re in conflict with as less moral than they are? Then again, it’s remarkable how quickly blacks pivot from dismissing crime, particularly against whites, to blaming whites — or the broader society — for their ills…

    Take this particularly infuriating example, which I read today…

    Murder To Excellence: Investment in Youth

    This past weekend a flash mob made up of dozens of Black youth attacked attendees leaving the Wisconsin State Fair. The violence was random, the punishment was swift and many of the victims were white.

    While no one was hurt badly, the incident made national headlines during a busy news weekend that was dominated by the S&P downgrade of the federal government.

    Locally, the event incited elected officials and conservative talking heads to rekindle old stereotypes and fan the flames of racial discontent that often permeate segregated communities.

    And even though the mainstream media rarely tells the whole story when covering youth of color, the reality is that Black kids growing up in Milwaukee, like other working class Black communities like Philadelphia and Detroit are experiencing a crisis of historical proportions. Their schools suck, unemployment is at record highs and there is no end in sight. And sadly, they are very familiar with violence.

    http://goo.gl/NrWBL

    …as Levin wrote…

    Black behavior that is unacceptable by white standards — theft, drug use, preoccupation with sex — is not “sick.” It is how traits that were once adaptive in Africa express themselves in Western urban society. This may be part of the reason blacks seem not to experience white laws and standards of personal responsibility as binding, and why black spokesmen are so curiously unapologetic about black crime. They will caution black males that crime is “stupid” (i.e. apt to lead to punishment), and a Jesse Jackson may denounce black-on-black crime as harmful to blacks, but they do not say that crime, particularly black-on-white crime, is intrinsically bad.

    In one remarkable incident, Edmund Perry, a Harlem teenager recruited on full scholarship to the prestigious boarding school of Exeter, was killed a few weeks after graduation when he attempted to mug a plainclothes policeman. Angry demonstrations ensued, in which blacks complained of Perry’s alienation at Exeter. Far from expressing regret over Perry’s actions, blacks blamed white society for them. In fact, the difficulties blacks experience in conforming to American society cannot really be blamed on black attitudes or white norms, but on the mismatch between the two.

  • OP

    I think it’s quite apparent that, in light of the damage we’ve sustained from LBJ’s Great Society programs, we are not

    compatible with blacks, and while they profit endlessly by our culture their greatest contribution to this society is after many generations still limited to non-essential sports and entertainment ; except for a small number they are otherwise simply a liability. Arrogant, ungrateful , shameless. This will not change until we change it.

    The blacks and their enablers have ruined many white lives and destroyed many white futures since the ’60’s and at present they have very little to fear from us and they know it. The scope of the problem before us is enormous but not invincible.

    I think we should start contemplating local, small group “workshops” assessing means to reverse our present situation within the next twenty years by best available means.

    We should not waste energy offering any excuses.

    What else do you have on your agenda?

    Adapt or perish, now as ever, is nature’s inexorable imperative.

    PS : My direct ancestors served in the Virginia militia during the French & Indian War and during the American Revolution fought a guerilla war beside Thomas Sumter and Francis Marion in the Carolinas.

    I have been raised with and have worked with blacks since I was a kid in 50’s CA. When I was 15 a black guy on another crew invoked the Black Panthers and said ” we need to kill all the white people” and I didn’t take it personally because I thought he was an aberation. I was wrong.

  • John Engelman

    Although the climate is fairly warm in Arab countries, the murder rate is usually lower than in the United States. A better explanation than climate in explaining racial differences in crime and other forms of moral behavior is the number of centuries a population has practiced agriculture and urban living. These exert different population pressures than hunting and gathering.

  • Madison Grant

    Masterfully written. Levin adeptly shows that while black behavior may make sense for life in a tropical jungle, it’s completely out of place in a civilized society.

  • john

    Michael Levin is guilty not just of thought crimes, but of fact-based verifiable thought crimes.

    Clearly, he should be incarcerated before his evil and pernicious views gain wide currency. Oh, wait – they already have wide currency. People are just afraid, as they should be, to express them.

  • Kingoldby

    John Engleman, you wrote that ‘Although the climate is fairly warm in Arab countries, the murder rate is usually lower than in the United States.’

    That is true because of the utterly ferocious punishments inflicted on criminals. When those punishments are removed the crime rate rises extremely rapidly.

    Arabs who live in countries and societies without those ferocious punishments tend to have a relatively high rate of criminality.

    Which clearly indicates what there nature is and what is needed to control it and maintain decent standards, not welfare but enforcement of order and law.

  • on the lam from the Thought Police

    This essay documents the truth that a large black population places a country at a serious disadvantage. This will become increasingly obvious as the U.S. economy declines. The United States will face increasingly difficulty competing with countries in Europe and Asia that do not suffer this disadvantage.

  • Tim Dean

    As a philosopher conducting research into evolutionary biology and moral psychology, I can safely say that this article is fundamentally at odds with science and our best understanding of ethnicity and racial differences. Its argument, evidence and conclusions ought to be challenged in the strongest possible terms.

    First, there is far more variability within racial groups than between racial groups in all measurable traits, including intelligence. IQ tests are also notoriously flawed when measuring innate intelligence and eliminating cultural and educational differences.

    There is also no evidence to support the notion that there are significant differences in moral psychology between racial groups. There is also no evidence to support the idea there is biologically-inclined “black morality” as opposed to “white morality”.

    Plus, there’s abundant evidence to suggest Caucasian individuals are capable of “theft, drug use, preoccupation with sex” – these being more a product of culture and socio-economic factors.

    Perhaps one could compare the murder rate amongst white Americans with the murder rate amongst Germans or Australians and claim that natural selection has made white North Americans a less moral race. It’s just as absurd as the claims made in this article.

  • Guilty Liberal

    Again, this is THE article that haunts me. I almost wonder if this is something too big to be discussed, electronically, on Amren.com or in the pages of the magazine. Larry Auster’s way of circling around questions, and leading a discussion, might be the best way to ponder this (and I know this article is one that, if I read his comments on it recently, he disagrees with, deeply)

    Levin addresses the question that American politics has revolved around for a decade now: are sub-Saharan Africans fundamentally incompatible with Western Civilization?

    One could say the same of the Vikings, of course, who were known for raiding (as well as trading). A Viking raiding party was, no doubt, far more terrible than any black flash mob. Yet the Vikings turned into today’s very civilized Norwegians and Scandinavians.

    But, of course, the Vikings were capable of cooperating among themselves well enough to undertake very dangerous and difficult sea journeys. That takes more than just intelligence, it takes the sort of morality that Levin identifies.

    I’ve never heard of any comparably such dangerous and difficult undertakings by groups of sub-Saharan Africans (and if anyone has, I’d love to hear about it).

    In fact, the participants of today’s flash mobs, by contrast, rely not just on technology built and maintained by whites, but rampage through cities planned by whites — rather than across open oceans seas — and are literally FED by whites through TANF, Snap and other programs.

    The utter dependency of these new barbarians strikes me as something strange and different.

    So are they better compared to the mobs that wreaked havoc in Rome and Constantinople during the classical era? Like Roman plebes, they are on the dole. But did those mobs target their fellow citizens because of their race? Was there a racial element to those ancient mobs? And did those who spoke to those ancient mobs rail against the civilization that sustained them, itself?

    I don’t know the answer, but Levin’s article raises deep and profound questions for me.

  • Ned

    Is it just me or does it seem as if the whole idea of African culture and their many accomplishments ARE ALL LIES?

    Here is just one example of what I mean:

    MODERN TRAFFIC SIGNAL:

    Invented by Garrett A. Morgan in 1923? No!

    The first known traffic signal appeared in London in 1868 near the Houses of Parliament. Designed by JP Knight, it featured two semaphore arms and two gas lamps. The earliest electric traffic lights include Lester Wire’s two-color version set up in Salt Lake City circa 1912, James Hoge’s system (US patent #1,251,666) installed in Cleveland by the American Traffic Signal Company in 1914, and William Potts’ 4-way red-yellow-green lights introduced in Detroit beginning in 1920. New York City traffic towers began flashing three-color signals also in 1920.

    Garrett Morgan’s cross-shaped, crank-operated semaphore was not among the first half-hundred patented traffic signals, nor was it “automatic” as is sometimes claimed, nor did it play any part in the evolution of the modern traffic light. For details see Inventing History: Garrett Morgan and the Traffic

    Is there ANYTHING about these creatures and their bragging that is true? OF COURSE THERE ISN’T !

  • Istvan

    9 — Tim Dean wrote at 10:55 AM on August 20:

    As a philosopher conducting research into evolutionary biology and moral psychology, I can safely say that this article is fundamentally at odds with science and our best understanding of ethnicity and racial differences. Its argument, evidence and conclusions ought to be challenged in the strongest possible terms.

    And why then do people migrate AWAY from black majority areas and toward white majority (or in the case of pre-black rule SA white run)areas? How many “nice” all black neighborhoods are there? Did you know that raping a baby cures AIDS? Ask an African. People like you need to live in “da hood” and not in your ivory towers. Everyone can see what happens when blacks reach critical mass.

  • Also an academic

    “there is far more variability within racial groups than between racial groups in all measurable traits, including intelligence. IQ tests are also notoriously flawed when measuring innate intelligence and eliminating cultural and educational differences.”

    Tim Dean,

    The IQ gap betweeen Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans is actually greater on culture-free tests. It is also apparent when we compare black, white, and biracial children who have been adopted into white families.

    Obviously, one can never fully squeeze out cultural differences. But one would expect that the IQ gap would narrow as one narrows cultural differences. This doesn’t happen.

    You’re probably referring to Lewontin’s work on genetic markers (quantitative data on blood groups, enzymes, and the like). Yes, we see more variability within than between human populations for these markers. But we don’t see the same degree of overlap for morphological traits that have been shaped by natural selection. In other words, the more a trait responds to natural selection, the less it will overlap between human populations.

    We see this when we compare different species with genetic data. Very often, in the case of sibling species, we see more variability within than between these species. Yet they’re still biologically distinct from each other.

  • Rhialto

    Re #9:

    1-Your studies obviously did not include statistics. It’s probably true that there is far more variability within racial groups than between racial groups in all measurable traits, including intelligence,

    The minimum I.Q. of a human of any race is 0; The maximum of any race is at least 70. A difference of at least 70. The average I.Q. of any race is less than 110, all results that I have seen indicate a racial average of at least 50. Since 110 – 50 = 60 and 60 There is also no evidence to support the idea there is biologically-inclined “black morality” as opposed to “white morality”. The term “morality” is vague, and I think a better term would be “instinctive behaviors”, when addressing a general audience. As the article makes clear, human survival in Africa required particular adaptions, physically, psychologically, and socially. Which behaviors are genetic, which are social, which are situational and which are a complex interaction between these factors are areas that serious evolutionary psychologists investigate.

    4-Levin does not suggest that all non-Africans are nice people, or behave according to Liberal ideals. All normal humans have a capacity for violent behavior; the point Levin makes under what circumstances different groups are violent.

    5-I don’t think that Blacks are less altruistic than other races, Blacks are extremely generous. But this generosity is extended only to individuals with whom they are sure biologically related (in the African environment that meant matrilinearly), great strategy for survival in the traditional African environment.

  • Madison Grant

    To Tim Dean (#9):

    I was so relieved to read your post and learn that blacks and whites have equal intelligence, crime rates, morality and ambition. And blacks are just as likely to produce new advances in science, medicine and technology!

    The bad news is you’ve been brainwashed. The good news is you’ve made a first step toward recovery by visiting this website.

    Stick around.

  • Anonymous

    Those with low IQ’s can adhere to a high level of morality, at least these groups have done so in the past. You can’t take away the cultural factor. Differences in temperament are not the only thing to consider. This is why foolish groups work so hard to subvert or destroy our culture?

  • Anonymous

    This is an important article.  Although the contribution of evolution to morals, as opposed to that of cultural influences and developmental psychopathology, is surely a complex topic—-the differences in morals as indicated by street crime and of black racism along the lines that only whites can be racist and deserve to be victimized, is not.  

    But rape is the Achilles’ heel of reverse racism. The most striking color-race correlated moral indicator is found in rape statistics— FBI Uniform Crime Data from 1960-2009 estimates over 3,500,000 rapes vs. about 85,000 homicides over the fifty year period.  Rapes rose from 17,190 in 1960, to 37,170 in 1969, to 109,092 in 1992, and dropped to 88,097 in 2009.  To this must be added factors of under reporting of rapes and homosexual prison inmate on inmate rape, as well as rape by prison officials; roving rape gangs in the U.S. and many developed and undeveloped countries. Also, white outlaw biker gangs, rogue military units, pedophile rings, etc., etc., are other aspects of pandemic sexual assault.  “Hate crimes”, the DOJ Civil Rights Division’s #1 priority, in 2009 included about 10 homicides and 9 rapes from around 7,500 cases.