|American Renaissance magazine|
|Vol. 3 No. 12||December 1992|
Race and Physical Differences
Physical differences between the races are just as striking as mental differences.
Everyone recognizes race. Africans, Europeans, and Asians can be distinguished at a glance because the races differ so obviously from each other. Although the differences are popularly referred to as “skin color,” as if this were where they began and ended, color is one of the least important ways in which the races differ.
Although many physiological differences are well established and easy to measure, they are often completely unknown to the general public. Perhaps this is because the cumulative effect of a list of physical differences can give an impression of alienness even more powerful than do assertions about mental differences.
Just as it was once universally accepted that races differ in intelligence, so the study of physical differences was once entirely respectable. Some 19th century investigators, however, hoped to find justifications for slavery and not all were good scientists. Therefore, in the revolt against “racism,” good data from the past has been thrown out along with the bad, and the study of physical differences has languished.
The modern data now becoming available confirm many 19th century views. The best evidence suggests that races differ markedly in such things as maturation rate, brain size, bone density, susceptibility to disease, and perhaps even personality.
The races differ in skin color because of different levels of melanin production. All races have approximately the same number of melanocytes, or melanin-making cells, but they differ in how actively the cells make melanin.
Anyone who has seen an albino African knows how trivial a racial difference skin color really is. The albino may actually seem more strange to a European than a normal African, because negroid features and tightly curled hair seem incongruous in a light-skinned person. No one would mistake the albino for a European. Likewise, West Africans, Dravidian Indians, and Australian aborigines are all “black,” but they are racially very different.
Color does have one physiological effect: three and a half times as much ultraviolet light from the sun passes through the skin of whites as through that of blacks. Light skin is beneficial in the northern regions where whites evolved, since ultraviolet light converts ergosterol in the body into vitamin D. Dark skin protects against the tropical sun.
Adaptation to Climate
There are other racial characteristics that are obviously adaptations to the climates in which the races evolved. Many East African peoples have elongated limbs and bodies that easily dissipate heat. North Asians, on the other hand, have evolved in a cold climate. Their bodies are more squat, they have thick, dark hair, and the epicanthic fold that gives Asians almond-shaped eyes is thought to reduce glare from snow and ice. A flat nose is less exposed to cold, and the virtual absence of facial hair means that condensation from a man’s breath will not freeze on his beard and chill his face. All of these characteristics are most obvious in the Asians who live in the coldest climates.
Some racial differences are not so easily explained. Phenylthiocarbamide (PTC) is a chemical that can be synthesized in the laboratory. To some people, it has a strong, bitter flavor, but to others it has no flavor at all. Seventy percent of Australian aborigines can taste PTC, but only 13 percent of Navaho Indians can. Fifty percent of whites and about 38 percent of Japanese can taste it.
For whatever reasons, the races do not smell the same. Blacks and whites have strong, but differing smells, and many Asians have scarcely any smell. Koreans often have no odor-producing glands in their arm-pits at all and Japanese have very few. Nineteenth-century Japanese found Europeans so foul-smelling that even today, a common Japanese expression for anything Western means “stinking of butter.”
Though they may not always be willing to say so, sports physicians have found physical differences that give different races advantages in different sports. Whites and West Africans, for example, differ in proportions of body fat, width of hips, thickness of thighs, bone density, and proportion of fast- and slow-twitch muscle. Even East and West Africans differ in important ways that explain why they excel in different sports.
Because blacks have such dense bones, they are less buoyant and less likely to be swimming champions. However, their bones are more resistant to aging. After their mid-30s, white men lose about 2.5 percent of their bone mass every year. Blacks lose less than one percent. Loss of bone mass speeds up greatly under conditions of weightlessness, so blacks could probably survive longer space voyages than whites.
Studies have repeatedly found that black men have more of the male hormone testosterone in their blood than whites do. Testosterone is directly related to physical and sexual aggressiveness, but it also combines significantly with intelligence. Men who are intelligent but who have high testosterone levels are likely to be more successful, socially and professionally, than intelligent men with low testosterone levels. Men who are unintelligent but who have high testosterone are more likely to be criminals than unintelligent men with low testosterone. High crime rates among blacks are consistent with low intelligence and high testosterone.
Although egalitarian partisans — most notably Steven Jay Gould in his 1981 book, The Mismeasure of Man — have tried to discredit the evidence, it is well established that average brain size differs from race to race. A study by K. L. Beals, published in Current Anthropology in 1984, reported that a survey of 20,000 skulls shows that the average size of the brain case in Asia is 1380 cc, while in Europe it is 1362 cc and in Africa 1276 cc. Other studies have found that the brains of American blacks are approximately eight percent lighter than those of American whites.
Studies of brain size and weight can be difficult to replicate because researchers do not often have access to enough skulls or cadavers and may use different measuring techniques. A 1989 study overcame these difficulties by using magnetic resonance scanning to determine skull capacity. Brain size was found to have a positive correlation of about 0.3 with intelligence.
Not surprisingly, the bones within which brains reside can be markedly different. A child could distinguish between the skulls of Eskimos and Laplanders as easily as he could tell cucumbers from zucchinis. The skulls of Australian aborigines have characteristics not found in any other race, but common in fossils of pithecanthropus. The bones of the skull are twice as thick as those of any other race (10 mm v. 5 mm), and the skull has heavy frontal and parietal ridge lines typical of pithecanthropus. The teeth and lower jaws of aborigines are also larger than those of other races, and more similar to those of our remote ancestors.
It is little known that Africans have identical twins twice as frequently as Europeans — who in turn have them twice as frequently as Asians. Some African populations have identical twins seven times as frequently as whites. Blacks also have shorter gestation periods than whites or Asians. By the 39th week, 51 percent of black babies have been born but only 33 percent of whites. By the 40th week, the figures are 70 percent and 55 percent. Shorter gestation seems to be a characteristic of blacks that is independent of social status or access to medicine.
Prof. J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario, who has probably studied maturation rates more extensively than anyone else, reports that rapid development of blacks continues after birth. Many African and black American newborns can hold their heads up whereas white and Asian newborns almost never can. The average age at which black children walk is 11 months, compared to 12 months for whites and 13 months for Asians.
Prof. Rushton has found that blacks reach sexual maturity earlier than whites. By age 12, 19 percent of black girls have full development of breasts and pubic hair, whereas only two percent of white girls do. Black American women menstruate at an earlier age than white women. They then go on to have sexual intercourse for the first time at an average age that is two years younger than that of whites.
Although it has long been the subject of ribald speculation, the races do appear to differ in the size of their sex organs. The best data seems to have been gathered in 1979 by P. H. Gebhard and A. B. Johnson. They actually took measurements and found that popular myths are correct: blacks are better endowed than whites. In extensive interviews, they also found that black men at least report themselves to be less restrained than whites in their willingness to commit adultery, likelihood of frequenting prostitutes, and number of sexual partners.
Somewhat comparable differences have been found between whites and Asians. Even after controlling for body size, Danes have testes that are proportionately twice the size of those of Chinese. Whites are also estimated to produce twice the number of spermatozoa per day as Asians.
Earlier maturation and early sexual activity among blacks may have a biological price. In the United States, blacks, on average, can expect to die six years sooner than whites. Higher homicide, accident, and disease rates contribute to this difference, but it is entirely possible that blacks may also have a naturally shorter life span.
Our society generally keeps quiet about physical differences between the races, but information about them occasionally surfaces in news stories about disease. Alcoholism, for example, appears to strike different races at different rates. Asians (and American Indians to whom they are related) react more strongly than whites to alcohol. More Asians than whites show an allergic reaction to alcohol and therefore do not drink, whereas many American Indians seem to have a biological predisposition to alcoholism. Curiously, Asians are twice as likely as whites to suffer from motion sickness.
In the United States, the most frequently reported medical differences concern blacks and whites. It is well known that only blacks suffer from sickle-cell anemia, for example, a condition that helps the body resist malaria, and is therefore a benefit in the African jungle.
Most of the known medical differences, however, seem to disadvantage blacks. Black women are twice as likely to have strokes as white or Hispanic women, and they suffer more damaging aftereffects. Blacks are three to four times more likely to have dangerously underweight babies. This could be due to bad diet, poor general health, or scant medical care, but some studies indicate that even when these factors are equalized, black babies are more likely to be underweight.
Kidney disease is eighteen times more common among blacks than whites. Left untreated, AIDS kills blacks more rapidly than it does whites or Hispanics, and blacks do not respond as well to the drug AZT as do patients of other races. Glaucoma strikes blacks five times more often than it does whites. It sets in earlier, and the likelihood of getting the disease does not appear to be affected by social status or availability of medical care.
Blacks are also twice as likely as whites to have high blood pressure, and five to seven times more likely to have dangerously high blood pressure. This is often attributed to the pressures of “racism,” but physiology is certainly part of the cause.
A study at the University of Maryland found that when black and white students were paired for age, diet, fitness, and medical history, and given a mild stress — their hands were put in ice for 30 seconds — blacks reacted by constricting their blood vessels (a hypertensive reaction) for at least ten times longer than whites. Research in Barbados has shown that mixed-race blacks are more likely to have high blood pressure if their maternal rather than paternal ancestors were African; genes passed down from the mother seem somehow to be involved. One reason for high blood pressure among blacks may be their relative inability to secrete sodium, so a salty diet can be more dangerous for blacks than for whites.
It has long been known that blood transfusions and organ transplants work best between people of the same race. Until the Second World War, stocks of blood were routinely segregated by race for this reason. Classification by race was ended when it was discovered to be “racist,” but blood banks are reinstituting segregation.
The distribution of the common blood types is different from race to race, and some rare types are unique to certain races. Only blacks have U negative blood; only whites have Vel negative or Lan negative blood. Dr. W. Laurence Marsh of the New York Blood Center justifies racial classification: “It makes no sense to screen 100,000 whites for U negative when no U negative white person has ever been found.”
Kidneys and other organs are classified by race for similar reasons. About 20 percent of blacks are so genetically incompatible with whites that they reject organs from all white donors.
Origin of Species
Clearly, all these differences cannot be dismissed with the fashionable notion that race is nothing more than a matter of skin color. No one knows for how long the different races have been evolving independently, but it might be necessary to go back one million years or more to find an ancestor common to all races. Clearly, a great deal of divergence has taken place during that time.
In his magisterial work, Race, John Baker suggests that certain racial groups are already so different from each other that they are not, technically speaking, the same species. Certain matings between extremely unrelated stocks — Bushmen and Europeans, for example — are thought to have produced only female children, or in some cases hybrids that could not mate successfully among themselves. These are well-known signs of an unrelatedness that is so vast as to be verging on separation into different species.
Indeed, according to Dr. Baker, in the prehistoric past different races and sub-races probably avoided cross-breeding and behaved as if they were different species. He points out that in nature, animals that are no more different from each other than northern Europeans and southern Europeans never breed with each other. It is only in domestication that a horse, for example, can be made to mate with a donkey. Man is, of course, the most domesticated of animals. As the French anthropologist Paul Broca remarked, “Man, especially civilized man, is of all the animals the least exclusive in his amours.”
Separate development is, to use Charles Darwin’s phrase, the origin of species. Apes and humans once had a common ancestor but are now distinct species. Likewise, racial differences are nature’s first steps towards the creation of new species. Left to themselves for long enough, the different races of man would have become so different that they could no longer produce fertile young. This might well have happened if the domesticating effects of civilization had come later, or if discovery and travel had not brought isolated peoples into contact with each other.
One of the great ironies of today’s quest for “diversity,” — the forcible mixing of peoples as unlike each other as possible — is that it is a destroyer of diversity. It is only through separation that nature can produce that culmination of true diversity: a new species.
This is the second of a series of articles on racial differences. The first, published last month, covered racial differences in intelligence. Next month, the concluding article will discuss why it is important that these differences be acknowledged.
The Color of Preference
As the nation’s population changes, so does the racial mix of the people entitled to affirmative action. Back in 1970, 66 percent of those who could expect advantages because of race were black; 27 percent were Hispanic. By 1990, the black percentage had dropped to 49 percent while Hispanics had risen to 36 percent. Asians and American Indians made up the rest.
Many blacks think of affirmative action as preferences for blacks, and are unhappy about sharing. The conflict has been most evident in California, where the number of Hispanics has been growing rapidly.
For example, in July 1988, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors decided on a new affirmative action program that would make the racial proportions of county employees mirror the county’s population. This was bad news for blacks, since earlier waves of affirmative action had already boosted their county employment figures to twice their proportion of the population. Hispanics, less practiced in the ways of racial preferences, were only about half as likely to be employed by the county as to live in it. Parity would have required approximately doubling the number of Hispanic employees and halving the number of blacks.
Blacks fought the plan, on the perplexing principle that they were for affirmative action but against preferential treatment. Translation: They wanted special treatment for blacks but not for Hispanics.
A more recent Los Angeles battle ground has been the Martin Luther King-Drew Medical Center. It is in what used to be a black neighborhood and affirmative action ensured that the staff was heavily black. Now the neighborhood is more than half Hispanic, as are the patients, and black staffers must fight off Hispanic job-seekers clamoring for “parity.” So far, they have mostly succeeded, since many of the top hospital administrators who make hiring decisions are black. Hispanics have taken their case to Los Angeles County, which will have to solve the ticklish problem of deciding who pays the price for affirmative action when there are no more whites left to discriminate against.
The racial shift in patients at MLK-Drew has not changed the hospital’s work. The U.S. Army still sends combat medics there for training because emergency-room patients come in with so many interesting kinds of bullet wounds.
As the benefits of affirmative action become more generous and widespread, people who used to call themselves white are changing their minds. Tens of thousands of “Indians” have come out of hiding; between 1970 and 1990 the number of people who told the census they were Indian went up 300 percent. “Indian” is just about whatever anyone says it is. There was much huffing and puffing when it was recently learned that a Los Angeles company that got $19 million worth of minority contracts was owned by a man who is 1/64th Cherokee.
Where does all this leave the poor bloody white man? The Hudson Institute estimates that in ten years only 15 percent of all new job-seekers will be white men, who are the only people who never get racial preferences. That means only 15 percent of job-seekers will pay the freight for the other 85 percent who will be entitled to preferences because of race or sex — or by then will white men be able to claim “minority” status, too?
The Struggle to Save the West
The New Right in Europe has struck the opening blows.
Against Democracy and Equality, Tomislav Sunic, Peter Lang,, 1990, 196 pp., $39.95
reviewed by Thomas Jackson
In America today, those who see the fundamental problems the nation faces live almost in an intellectual vacuum. This is because the United States does not even recognize its most dangerous enemies: racial and cultural dispossession, growing hatred of our European heritage, and the fatal loss of nerve that has permitted this to happen.
When public discourse touches on these subjects at all, it is to celebrate them as signs of a new, better America. Thus, for those who see the road to the new America as the road to oblivion, it is easy to think that they are alone, and that their country faces a unique horror that no one else ever imagined or thought about.
Of course, this is not true. Against Democracy and Equality by Tomislav Sunic not only traces the distinguished history of “revolutionary conservatism” but introduces a contemporary school of European writers who are struggling to find answers to the questions that, in America, are not yet being asked. As Professor Paul Gottfried writes in the preface to this little volume, Dr. Sunic has given us the first book-length introduction in English to the European New Right.
The very title suggests how boldly the New Right is prepared to defy the most cherished liberal assumptions. If this group of thinkers can be said to have one central tenet, it is that the essential nature of man lies not in equality but in inequality. Individuals, races, cultures, and nations are different and unequal; any attempt to treat them as equals is a form of tyranny.
Thus, the thinkers of the New Right are adamantly opposed to anything that imposes a universalistic equality. For them, Communism has been the most ruthless form of egalitarian totalitarianism but, in one of their most provocative insights, they see modern Western liberalism as a form of “soft” totalitarianism that is achieving its goals without the violence of concentration camps and secret police. In its ultimate form — which we can see developing in the United States — there is no need for violent repression because each man becomes his own censor and his own jail keeper.
The most prominent leaders of the European New Right are Frenchmen. Alain de Benoist is the best known figure, along with such men as Guillaume Faye, and Julien Freund. They have been prominent since the 1970s, and have played a central role in dislodging Marxism as the unacknowledged religion of European intellectuals. In America, where their ideas are even more of an anathema than in Europe, they are studiously ignored.
As Dr. Sunic explains, the New Right finds inspiration in thinkers who were influential before the Second World War, but who have since been repudiated because the Nazis endorsed some of their views. As part of his introduction to the New Right, Dr. Sunic briefly outlines the thinking of Carl Schmitt (1888-1982), Oswald Spengler (1880-1936), and Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923). These men clearly saw the rush towards universal brotherhood and saw that the consequences would be that Europe would voluntarily give up its prominence and even its distinctiveness.
According to Pareto, for example, it is folly for those who rule to renounce power in the name of universal brotherhood. As Dr. Sunic paraphrases his views, “The downtrodden and the weak will always appeal to the sense of justice of those who rule, but the moment they grab the reins of power they will become as oppressive as their former rulers. Moreover, if by chance some nation happens to display signs of excessive humanity, philanthropy, or equality, it is a certain symptom of its terminal illness.” In Pareto’s own words, “Whoever becomes a lamb will find a wolf to eat him.”
For liberals, this does not matter. Let Europe be eaten by North Africa or the United States by Mexico. Since all peoples and cultures are equally valid, nothing will have been lost and resistance would be immoral.
One of the New Right’s goals has been to understand the origins of the militant, universalist egalitarianism that underlies liberalism. Though its point of view offends many traditional conservatives, it finds the source in Christianity. Unlike polytheistic religions, monotheism emphasized the equality of all men before God. By the 16th and 17th centuries, this equality was broadened to include the temporal concepts of legal and political equality.
Thomas Jefferson is a villain to the New Right because of his assertion that all men are created equal. Though Jefferson did not mean these words literally, the New Right sees Karl Marx and his insistence on economic equality as a direct heir to Jefferson.
As Dr. Sunic explains, it is because of their veneration of equality that liberals are unable to withstand the arguments of socialists and communists. Liberals cannot reconcile themselves to the fact that even though men may be politically equal, free competition will always result in inequality. Liberals can therefore raise no principled objection to the forced economic equality of Communism.
The New Right therefore sees both Communism and Nazism as reactions to the half-way equality of liberalism. Communists think it has not gone far enough, whereas National Socialists think it has gone too far.
The New Right rejects equality and takes for granted the genetic basis of inequality. So far, according to Dr. Sunic, the New Right has not made formal political proposals but it would agree with the great British geneticist J.B.S. Haldane that “Any satisfactory political and economic system must be based on the recognition of human inequality.”
The other trait common to Christianity, liberalism, and Communism is their insistence on their own universal validity. In the Gospels of both Matthew and Mark, Jesus makes the staggering claim that anyone not for him is against him. Communism’s goal of world-wide revolution was always explicit, but liberalism’s projects for uplift are just as universalist. Muslims must be made into feminists; Japanese must become anti-racists; Africans must be taught democracy; Chinese must eat hamburgers.
Despite its constant preachments about “tolerance,” liberalism is therefore as harshly intolerant as any religious inquisition and would gladly remake the entire world in the image of a leftist American university.
Alain de Benoist has a completely different view of society: “A people is not a transitory sum of individuals. It is not a chance aggregate. It is a reunion of inheritors of a specific fraction of human history, who, on the basis of the sense of common adherence, develop the will to pursue their own history and give themselves a common destiny.”
As Dr. Sunic paraphrases him: “Real “organic’ democracy can only exist in a society in which people have developed a firm sense of historical and spiritual commitment to their community. In such an organic polity . . . the law must not derive from some abstract preconceived principles, but rather from the genius of the people and its unique historical character. In such a democracy, the sense of community must invariably preside over individualistic and economic self-interests.”
Economism and Individualism
This leads to the two other great flaws of liberalism: its emphasis on economics and its tendency to strip away a man’s traditional, organic ties, and leave him a solitary individual. Once all people are seen as equal and equivalent, parochial loyalties are pure prejudice.
Common markets, currency unions, and supra-national organizations like the European Parliament are symptoms of both the attack on particularism and the victory of pure economics. If local loyalties no longer matter, only economic efficiency is left. The Deutsche Mark, the Pound Sterling, and the traditions and sovereignties they represent can all be brushed aside if a single European currency would be more efficient.
The primacy of economics also explains the relentless ugliness of modern life — stores like warehouses, office buildings like boxes, middle class people who dress like tramps, the obliteration of good manners — because the esthetic and the cultural have no economic value.
In such societies politics is no longer a battle of competing world views but a form of commerce. As Dr. Sunic paraphrases Carl Schmitt: “Different opinions are no longer debated; instead, social, financial, and economic pressure groups calculate their interests, and on the basis of these interests they make compromises and coalitions.” Politicians become rug merchants. An assertion of genuine philosophical differences is a nuisance that hampers trade.
A man with no particularist culture is extremely vulnerable. In a society of pure individualism only wealth gives identity, so the poor have nothing and the middle classes face the threat of nothing.
In a healthy society the individual, whatever his economic status, can be concerned with the greater good because it is his society and unlike any other. He may even regret, as Nathan Hale did, that he has but one life to give for his country. The healthy culture thrives on what may appear to be the sacrifices of individuals, but it gives them meaning, history, confidence, and identity, be they rich or poor.
The individualism of liberalism is therefore fragmentation rather than strength. In the view of the New Right, it leaves men open to the “soft” totalitarianism that has made such headway in the United States. Even without police-state techniques, liberalism has so successfully enforced its orthodoxies that men fear to say what they believe about race, immigration, welfare, eugenics, mass democracy, culture, or even foreign aid. The New Right is correct in fearing this form of totalitarianism as the most dangerous and insidious.
Now that Marxism is dead there should be a free-wheeling debate about the validity of its assumptions about equality, universalism, and the primacy of economics. In America there is no such debate. As Alain de Benoist says, “It is always easy [for liberals] to avoid the debate. It suffices to disqualify the adversary . . . One attacks the persons rather than what they write.” Here, too, the New Right finds the legacy of Christianity: Disagreement with liberalism is wicked, and the non-believer is condemned to eternal damnation.
The spokesmen of the New Right are not generally optimistic about being able to overthrow soft totalitarianism, but they are willing to fight it to the end. As Dr. Sunic puts it: “No matter how dismal and decadent the modern polity appears to be, no matter what the outcome of the struggle is, or how threatened Europe appears, the New Right insists that it is still worth dying for Europe as an honorable warrior.”
Of course, no one will lay down his life for a currency union. The New Right fears that a denatured Europe could eventually be overthrown by vigorous non-whites who still have cultural and racial memories they are willing to die for. Sadly, the non-white nations will also have suffered heavy losses because of the contamination of their own cultures by the missionaries of liberalism.
The Battlefield of Ideas
The New Right has chosen to fight on the battlefield of ideas because it believes that the course of Europe is ultimately governed by the prevailing intellectual climate.
As Dr. Sunic explains, “The real force that sustains liberalism and socialism is the cultural consensus which reigns more or less undisturbed in the higher echelons of education and legal systems.” The left has always understood the importance of capturing the culture. Thus every movie, school book, art show, television program, and court decision promotes the doctrine of universal equality.
Marx believed that the economic structure determines the culture but the New Right argues that it is the other way around: Liberty can be achieved only by creating a counter-culture that is vigorous enough to break liberalism’s monopoly on the mind. This is a process that has hardly begun in the United States, where the more education a man has the more unthinkingly he has absorbed liberal dogmas.
Dr. Sunic has given us an important book. This review can only begin to summarize the richness of thought that he has found in scores of books and journals that are not even available in English. Dr. Sunic has opened the door to a great but little-known body of learning that directly addresses our current crises.
|IN THE NEWS|
O Tempora, O Mores!
Newark (NJ) has the highest rate of auto theft in the country. Most of the thieves are black, teen-age boys. Sometimes they strip the cars of valuable parts, which they sell to auto parts dealers, but most of the time they steal cars just for thrills.
Almost every night, young car thieves — many of them too young even to hold a legal license — gather with their trophies at the parking lot of Harold Wilson School on Mohammed Ali Avenue. There they imitate car chase scenes from movies, rolling and smashing other people’s late model cars. There is likewise great fun to be had from “riding ghost” (driving at night without headlights) and “chase to kill” (automobile tag on city streets).
At one time, the Newark police worked very hard to catch these young criminals. However, after several inexperienced drivers were badly injured in high-speed chases, the police were forbidden to pursue them. The thieves quickly learned about the new restrictions, and have taken to ramming patrol cars in the hope of provoking an illegal chase. Now it is the police who must run away from criminals so as to avoid injury, or damage to their patrol cars.
For the thieves, wrecking cars is an essential part of the fun. As one 15-year-old explains, “I drive, crash a couple of them, dump them and go get some more.” A 13-year-old, who has been known to steal as many as five cars in 12 hours, explains that “it just makes you be happy.” These youngsters feel no remorse for what they do because, as another 13-year-old explains, “we take from other races.”
White Man on the War Path
Salamanca (NY) is the only town in the nation that is completely surrounded by an Indian reservation. Salamanca was founded in the early 1800s, before the Seneca Indian reservation was established. Ownership of the land was then transferred to the Indians, but in 1892, they signed 99-year leases with the townspeople.
Now the leases are coming up for renewal, and the Seneca smell blood. They have put up prices by an average of 1,200 percent and are offering terms of no more than 40 years. They also claim that any improvements to the land — houses, farms, electricity, plumbing — belong to them.
Salamanca residents are furious. Last fall, they voted out the old City Council that had meekly agreed to the new arrangements, and put in a completely new slate of fighters. One resident had his house put up on jacks and moved it out of the reservation. Fifty others have received permission to blow up their houses with dynamite rather than hand them over to Indians. The city has sued the state and the Indian tribe. This promises not to be the usual capitulation but a real fight.
Good Sense Prevails
The federal Department of Education has finally ordered a university to stop discriminating against white applicants. In September, the department told the law school of the University of California at Berkeley that it could no longer hold open approximately one quarter of each class for minorities and admit them with qualifications well below those of whites.
This is the first time any university or graduate school has been found to be in violation of civil rights laws because of discrimination against whites (and against Asians). Ironically, the Assistant Secretary of Education who put a stop to Berkeley’s formal program of discrimination is a black named Michael Williams. In today’s topsy-turvy America, it takes a black man to order white people to stop discriminating against whites. If discrimination against blacks or Hispanics had been discovered, Berkeley law school would surely have been ordered to find the rejected applicants and offer them compensation. No such effort will be made for whites and Asians.
The way the University of California at Berkeley has handled race-exclusive scholarships over the years is almost a capsule history of America’s confusion about race.
Up until the mid-1960s, Berkeley was happy to accept money that was earmarked for students of a specific race. Most but not all such gifts were for white students. In 1964, Berkeley got nervous about race-specific scholarships, and although it continued to administer the ones it had, it announced that it would accept no more. Five years later, it got even more nervous and announced that it would violate the wishes of earlier donors and would remove racial restrictions on all scholarship money.
Berkeley actually held firm to this rule for a while, and in the name of consistency it turned down $10 million from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation that was to go to poor, non-white, lady medical students. In 1977, however, the university got the affirmative action bug and started accepting money earmarked for non-whites. It turned up its nose at anyone who proposed to give money for whites.
This year, Berkeley returned to the pre-Civil Rights era. In September, the board of regents voted unanimously to accept $500,000 from a women who specified that the money be given to “very poor American Caucasian academic scholars.” Berkeley’s chancellor, Chang-Lin Tien, explained that the gift “would not have any impact on the number of minorities on campus.”
Hoist by Their Own Petard
Walter E. Kimm is a white man who began to wonder why he could never even get an interview for a job at Brookdale Community College, near Asbury Park (NJ). In Dec. 1989 he decided to find out. He applied twice for a job as an admissions officer, once using his own name and once using the fictitious name of Suzy Ming Cheng. The résumé he concocted for Miss Cheng was essentially the same as his own.
Sure enough, Mr. Kimm was not offered an interview but Miss Cheng was. Mr. Kimm showed up for Miss Cheng’s appointment and explained the situation to a startled admissions committee. The committee reluctantly interviewed him but ranked him last out of 19 candidates and gave the job to a non-white. Not surprisingly, Mr. Kimm was the only white man to be interviewed.
Administrative Law Judge Daniel B. McKeown has, mirabile dictu, ruled that Brookdale Community College discriminated against Mr. Kimm. He has ordered the college to pay Mr. Kimm $500 and to pay a fine of $2,000.
Brookdale is impenitent and has appealed the ruling to the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights. Martin Barger, the school’s lawyer, has no regrets about what was done to Mr. Kimm. “Not only do we not deny it,” he says, “we are proud of it.” As Mr. Barger implicitly points out, affirmative action depends on discrimination against whites. “If we are stuck going through the straight resume process . . . [h]ow is any minority going to get a job at Brookdale?” he asks.
Santeria is an African-Cuban cult that is a mixture of voodoo, Christianity, and animism. Immigration has brought it to the United States and it is flourishing in Florida and California. One of the central practices of Santeria is animal sacrifice, often conducted in the presence of children.
In San Francisco, where at least 500 sheep, dogs, snakes, roosters, and turtles are killed in Santeria rituals every year, a movement is afoot to ban animal sacrifice. Santeria cultists claim this would violate their freedom of religion.
Los Angeles and Hialeah (FL) have already passed local ordinances forbidding Santeria sacrifices. Priests of the cult have challenged the ordinances, which are now before the Supreme Court.
Texas Train Wreck
Last month we reported that one of Governor Ann Richards’ Hispanic political protégés, Lena Guerrero, was under fire for having lied about her academic record. She has since resigned from her appointed position on the Texas Railroad Commission, but the governor is standing by her. Miss Guerrero has decided to run for election to the Commission, and Gov. Richards spoke at a fund-raising event for her. She also hosted a reception for Miss Guerrero at the governor’s mansion.
Hispanics do not seem to understand what the fuss was about. The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) “applauds and supports” Miss Guerrero and calls her a “tremendous role model for the Hispanic community.”
Regicide at Memphis
Racial friction has killed off the tradition of the homecoming queen at Memphis State University. The school has a large number of black students and in both 1989 and 1990, the homecoming queens were black. When the university crowned a white queen in 1991, blacks repudiated her. The outgoing queen defied tradition and refused to crown the new queen. The university sees no way out of the problem and has decided to end the tradition of homecoming queens.
Notes From the Underground
The New Republic of Oct. 5 reports on some of the more lurid doings of today’s feminists. At a recent conference, a black lesbian spoke of how much pain it had caused her when her “lesbian support group” broke up along racial lines. The New Republic continues:
Tension then developed in her black group between those whose lovers were black and those whose lovers were white. Those of us in the group who had white lovers were immediately targeted. . . It turned into a horrible mess. . . I ended up leaving that group for self-protection.
Even liberals have a hard time being liberal.
The Wormy Apple
Last year, a 6-year-old Brooklyn boy had a seizure and was rushed to the hospital. Doctors thought he had a brain tumor and scheduled him for surgery. Just in time, a pediatrician discovered the real problem — tape worms had attacked the boy’s brain.
The ordinary way to get tape worm is to eat the undercooked meat of infected pigs. However, the pork sold in America is almost never infected, and the Brooklyn boy’s family kept a kosher diet, which forbids pork. How did the boy get tape worms?
As it happens, the family had employed several Central Americans to work as cooks and baby sitters. Many Central Americans are infected with tape worms and excrete worm eggs in their feces. If they have bad sanitary habits, some of this egg-laced feces can get into the food they prepare. The unfortunate 6-year-old probably ingested tape worm eggs along with contaminated food.
According to the federal Centers for Disease Control, which conducted a formal tape worm investigation in Brooklyn, hundreds of Jewish families have employed Central Americans who carried tape worms. There have been at least three other cases of Orthodox Jews who have gotten tape worm from infected servants.
The People Speak
On November 3, Americans rejected George Bush and Ross Perot, and elected Bill Clinton as President. None of the three candidates was ever likely to do very much about the problems this country faces because none understands them.
Nevertheless, for white Americans, Bill Clinton is certainly the worst of the three. Non-whites, whose sense of their own racial interests is highly developed, understood this very well. Blacks voted for Gov. Clinton over President Bush at a rate of 7.5 to one, and Hispanics did likewise at a rate of 2.5 to one. Black women voted for Gov. Clinton at a rate of nearly ten to one.
Whites, who have only a dim sense of their racial interests, nevertheless voted — by a small majority — for George Bush. That is to say, if the electorate had been all white the incumbent would have been reelected. The vote among white women was split evenly, whereas four percent more white men voted Republican than Democrat.
Interestingly, Asians preferred Pres. Bush over Gov. Clinton by a margin of nearly two to one. Asians have a better sense of their racial interests than whites do. At the same time, they are now beginning to face affirmative action discrimination just like whites, and are much more willing to complain about it. Jews, as they generally do, voted heavily Democratic. Their 6.5 to one preference for Gov. Clinton was nearly as lopsided as the black preference.
New racially gerrymandered congressional districts ensured a sharp increase in non-white legislators. There will be 38 blacks in the new House — an increase of 13 — and 17 Hispanics, an increase of ten. Only one black and three Hispanics are Republican. California elected the first-ever Asian congressman: a Korean-American named Jay Kim, who is Republican. Congress will also get its first American Indian in 60 years; Ben Nighthorse Campbell won in a Colorado district. One of the most astonishing non-white successes was Illinois’ election of a black woman, Carol Braun, to the Senate. The state is only 15 percent black.
The rise in the number of non-white officials, along with the inevitable band of non-whites and liberals that Gov. Clinton will appoint in his administration and to the Federal courts, means that government-sanctioned racial discrimination against whites will become more entrenched. “Diversity” will be the watchword in everything from immigration policy to the selection of models for clothing ads. These policies will boost increasing racial consciousness among whites.
Whether they know it or not, the Republicans have a choice. Either they can appeal explicitly to the white majority and put political issues in increasingly racial terms or they can imitate the Democrats and try to appeal to marginals and outsiders. They could win with the first strategy; they will lose with the second.
|LETTERS FROM READERS|
Sir — In your October issue you note with displeasure Congress’ decision to continue forcing local jurisdictions to print ballots in multiple languages. I would like to point out that Congress passed this law despite an estimate by its own Budget Office that multilingual ballots will cost as much as $10 million a year. The biggest single burden will fall on Los Angeles County, which will have to print ballots in six languages.
Name Withheld, Los Angeles (CA)
Sir — I would like to correct a false impression you may have given in your short dispatch in October on the trial of Detroit’s former chief of police. Indeed, the largely black city government did vote to give Mr. Hart (also black) a $53,000-a-year pension despite his conviction for embezzling more than $2 million. However, Mr. Hart is unlikely ever to receive his pension. The court has ruled that if there is $53,000 a year to be had, it will go to restitution and not into Mr. Hart’s pocket. The last I knew, the city of Detroit was reconsidering its pension offer.
Paul Sokel, Warren, (MI)
Sir — In October you had a long article about Negroes in sports. In August and September it was Arthur Jensen. All were well done essays, but it seems to me that your contributors are tap dancing in front of a burning house. What matters to the United States is not so much what medals are won by which Africans, nor whether we really can say that “they” are less intelligent.
I will be gone before this stew pot of a country becomes entirely unbearable but what will happen to our children? What will become of them if the aimless drift continues? The real danger is that will just cope. Adjust. Move over and let it come.
People under the age of thirty do not seem to understand what is happening to their country. They either pat me on the head and laugh about me being a Neanderthal or they cite the pinko propaganda they get from their teachers. Our children need to discuss the swill they hear in school with older people who have known better times.
If your baby needed an operation to save its life or to repair a disabling defect, you’d mortgage heaven and hell so you could afford it. Our children are now threatened by social collapse and growing chaos. We must extirpate the poison, regardless of the cost to ourselves.
Loring Emery, Hamburg (PA)
Sir — I read your article on race and intelligence with great interest and commend you for tackling this important and suppressed subject. If I may I would like to add another piece of evidence that suggest how relatively unimportant environment is in the development of intelligence.
Dr. Joseph Fagan of Case Western Reserve University has devised intelligence test that give a surprisingly accurate assessment of IQs in infants only six months old. The results of his tests confirmed, years later, when these children start school and are given standard IQ tests.
The tests involve nothing more than showing pictures to infants and seeing how long they look at them. Infants spend less time looking at pictures they have seen before, and the more intelligent ones appear to remember what they have seen, even if they are incapable of speech and cannot say so.
In any case, if differences in intelligence are already measurable at six months, it certainly suggests that the cause is genetics rather than environment.
Steven Holcombe, Leesburg (VA)
Sir — I received a copy of Paved With Good Intentions by Jared Taylor, and would like to order two more copies. Please send them in separate packages, because I plan to forward one to my county library and the other to the library at the University of South Carolina.
Name Withheld, Columbia (SC)
Sir — In the last three issues of AR, there has been correspondence about the appeals to white racial solidarity that Russian leaders have made to Western European politicians — appeals that have left the politicians speechless. It is sure no coincidence that it is in eastern Germany that anti-immigrant demonstrations are strongest. Although Communism was a tyrannical system, it did not manage to snuff out all healthy feeling of race.
That the presumably non-coercive, democratic systems of the West have been far more successful at suppressing (white) racial consciousness reminds me of my favorite quotation from the Roman satirist Juvenal: “Luxury is more ruthless than war.” Our economic success has denatured us, and as conditions worsen, our sense of peoplehood my return.
The Roman example, though, is not encouraging. A number of prominent Romans foresaw the collapse and even wrote about it, but it could not forestall it. Consider this quotation from Horace:
Our grandfathers sired feeble children; theirs
Were weaker still — ourselves; and now our curse
Must be to breed even more degenerate heirs.