|American Renaissance magazine|
|Vol. 9, No. 6||June 1998|
Waging War on America
A great nation is deliberately destroying itself.
During the past 33 years, Congress has enacted laws on immigration, citizenship, and territorial powers that are deconstructing the United States both as a historic nation and a federal polity. Taken together, federal action amounts to the dissolution of virtually every tie that holds a people together: language, culture, race, and national consciousness. Up until the 1950s and 60s, every one of these vital elements of nation seemed unassailable, but now, primarily because of immigration, the very foundations of national unity are under assault. It is no longer farfetched to consider a possibility that would have been unthinkable 30 or 40 years ago — the collapse and disaggregation of the United States. There is probably no other nation in history that has voluntarily adopted policies that so clearly point towards self-destruction.
A ‘European’ Nation
For nearly two hundred years after independence from Britain in 1783, the United States was demographically a “European” nation with never less than 81 percent of the population white and overwhelmingly Northern European. As recently as 1950, European-Americans were still approximately 90 percent of the total population.
This began to change with the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act Amendments. The congressional sponsors of this legislation repeatedly promised that the law: (1) would not increase annual levels of immigration, (2) would not lower standards for admission, (3) would not redirect immigration away from Europe, and (4) would not alter the demographic makeup of the United States.
Senator Robert Kennedy stated that “the new immigration act would not have any significant effect on the ethnic composition of the U.S.” His brother, Senator Edward Kennedy, asserted: “This bill is not concerned with increasing immigration to this country, nor will it lower any of the high standards we apply in selection of immigrants.” And Emanuel Celler, a congressional opponent of U.S. immigration policy since 1924 insisted, the effect of the bill on the U.S. population would be “quite insignificant,” and that the bill would not let in “great numbers of immigrants from anywhere,” including Africa and Asia.
What these men said proved to be false. Between 1968, the year when the 1965 immigration law fully took effect, and 1996, the annual level of legal immigration rose from around 300,000 to nearly one million. At the same time, the ethnic mix of immigrants changed dramatically. During the 147 years between 1820 and 1967, of the 44 million immigrants legally admitted to the United States, 80 percent were from Europe with another 9 percent from Canada. As a result of the 1965 act, of the more than 19 million immigrants legally admitted to the United States between 1968 and 1996 approximately 83 percent came from somewhere other than Europe or Canada. Asia and the Pacific islands accounted for 34 percent; Latin America and the Caribbean islands for 46 percent; and Africa for about three percent.
This precipitous decline in immigration from Europe and Canada is even more pronounced than it looks. Since 1968, not all immigrants from those countries have been Europeans. Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans often emigrate to various European countries or Canada, then come to the United States under the quotas for those countries.
When illegal immigration is included, the drop in European immigration is even more dramatic. The Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates that five million illegal aliens have settled permanently in the United States, and that this population is increasing by 300,000 a year. Illegal immigration, like legal immigration, is almost entirely nonwhite. As of 1996, of the 2,684,892 illegal aliens granted amnesty by the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) more than 98 percent came directly from the Third World — Africa, Asia, Latin America or the Caribbean.
Many immigrants come for welfare. Before the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, immigrants were participating in more than fifteen major federal and state programs, including Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). As more immigrants began to come from the Third World, their welfare rates went up. In 1970, immigrants were on welfare at the same rate as native-born Americans — six percent. By 1990, immigrant welfare rates were higher than those of natives (nine percent versus seven percent) and almost twice as high as for native-born whites (five percent).
Some immigrant groups have particularly high welfare rates: Chinese and Filipinos — 10 percent, Mexicans — 11 percent, Ecuadorians — 12 percent, pre-Marielito Cubans — 15 percent, Vietnamese — 26 percent, Dominicans — 28 percent, and Cambodians and Laotians — nearly 50 percent.
From 1970 to 1990, immigrants went from getting seven percent of all welfare cash benefits to 13 percent, but three quarters of the total cost of welfare is “non-cash transfers,” such as Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc. In his recent analysis, Immigration and the Welfare State, Dr. George Borjas of Harvard calculated the cost of these transfers and found that the overall welfare dependency rate for immigrants is actually 21 percent compared to 14 percent for native-born Americans and 11 percent for native-born whites. The rise in welfare rates among immigrants is expected to continue, since current immigrants have less schooling, less proficiency in English, fewer skills, and are earning less than either earlier immigrants or native-born Americans.
Today, nearly 40 percent of all adults admitted to the United States each year are high school dropouts. In 1990, one of every four high-school age immigrants from Mexico was not in school, and some three million immigrant high school dropouts living in the United States accounted for one-fifth of all dropouts in the labor market. This represented a doubling of the immigrant share of high school dropouts since 1980.
Of the foreign born who arrived since 1980, 60 percent do not speak English “very well” compared to 37 percent of those who arrived before 1980. Only 26 percent of the European foreign born do not speak English “very well,” compared to 71 percent of Mexicans, 63 percent of Central Americans, 48 percent of South Americans, and 43 percent of Caribbean islanders. In 1995, the poverty rate for the foreign born was 70 percent higher than that for native-born Americans. The number of recently-arrived elderly immigrants more than tripled between 1970 and 1994. This helps explain why, in 1992, immigrants received $2.7 billion more in social security benefits than they contributed. Donald Huddle of Rice University and David Simcox of the Center for Immigration Studies estimate that over the next decade the social security deficit caused by immigration will total $30 billion. From 1982 to 1994, the number of elderly immigrants who received Supplementary Security Income (SSI) grew from 127,900 to 738,000 or by approximately 580 percent.
According to Dr. Huddle, the net national cost of immigration to U.S. taxpayers was $65 billion in 1996, or the equivalent of $981 for every American family of four. The annual cost is projected to grow to $108 billion within the decade.
Despite Senator Robert Kennedy’s insistence that the 1965 immigration law “can have no significant effect on the ethnic balance of the United States,” its impact has been dramatic. From 1965 to 1990 — in just 25 years — it has reduced the percentage of whites from 89 to barely 75. The Census Bureau estimates that after 2050 whites will drop below 50 percent of the U.S. population. Even before that date, whites will have been reduced to a demographic minority in California by the year 2000, in Texas by 2015, and in Florida and New York some time after 2015.
In the meantime, the impact of Third World immigration, through the concept of “multiculturalism,” has already produced a sustained attack on the historic identity of the United States as a “European” country. Pro-Third World militants demand that since the United States is multiracial it must also be multicultural. The U.S. government agrees. The opening attack on the cultural identity and political unity of the United States was the federal assault on the English language. In 1968, Congress passed the Bilingual Education Act authorizing education of non-English speaking children in their native languages. By 1993, the annual cost of bilingual education was $12 billion. In its 1982 “Plyler v. Doe” ruling the Supreme Court only made things worse, by requiring the states to provide free public education — often in their own languages — to illegal aliens.
Despite federal law requiring a naturalized U.S. citizen to be able to “demonstrate an understanding of the English language,” Congress amended the Voting Rights Act in 1975 to require that ballots be printed in languages other than English whenever 10,000 people of voting age or five percent of the total voting-age population in a district speak a language other than English (these figures include non-citizens who are legally prohibited from voting), and have an illiteracy rate that exceeds the national average. Local authorities can now be required to print ballots in 320 languages and an additional 100 dialects.
In 1990, Congress waived the English fluency requirement for citizenship for people who are over 50 and have lived legally in the U.S. for more than 20 years, and for those who are over 55 and have lived legally in the country for more than 15 years. Even before this, one third of immigrants who became U.S. citizens during the 1980s were classified by the Census Bureau as “linguistically isolated.” These are people who live in “households in which no one 14 years old or over speaks only English and no one speaks English “very well’.” Remarkably, over two percent of “native-born” Americans (this figure includes Puerto Ricans) now do not speak English “very well.”
Language is one of the central battlefields of the culture war. In 1982, then-mayor of Miami, Florida, Maurice Ferre, declared that “within ten years there will not be a word of English spoken [in Miami]; one day residents will learn Spanish or leave.” Mayor Ferre could say this because post-1965 immigration had so completely changed the demographics of Miami. In 1960, whites were approximately 77 percent of the population. By 1990, Hispanics, who had been an insignificant number before 1965, were at 62 percent and whites were only twelve percent.
In November 1980, alarmed whites approved a referendum making English the official language of Dade County (which contains Miami). In May 1992, Hispanic militants successfully lobbied the Dade County Commission to repeal the referendum.
In November 1988, at the state level, 84 percent of voters approved an amendment to the Florida constitution to make English the sole official language, but the amendment required enabling legislation in the state house to take effect. In 1989, Hispanic activists bottled up the bill in committee, effectively nullifying the amendment.
Hispanic activists are on the offensive in other states, too. At a January 1995, rally at the University of California, Riverside, to oppose Proposition 187 (which denied welfare and other benefits to illegal aliens) Art Torres declared: “Remember, 187 is the last gasp of white America in California!” At the time, Mr. Torres was chairman of the California Democratic Party. Participants at the rally included Xavier Hermosillo, a Los Angeles radio talk show host, who boasted in 1993 that Mexican-Americans were taking political control of the “former Mexican colony, California, house by house, block by block.” Among the many statements made at this rally were “English should be a foreign language”; “We are hostages in our own land, prisoners of war”; “We live under occupying alien force,” “We’re in a state of war,” and “We live in the annexed territories of Aztlan.”
The success of the Aztlan movement, which would detach the Southwest and create an independent, all-Mexican nation, will depend on whether American immigration policy continues unchanged. In 1970, Hispanics were 12 percent of the population of California. By 1990 they were 26 percent and are projected to be 32 percent in 2000. Between 1970 and 1994, the Hispanic population in California grew from 2,369,000 to 8,939,000, more than tripling in 24 years.
Meanwhile, the culture war against the “European” identity of the United States continues to rage. In 1991, Congress changed the name of the Custer National Battlefield Monument in Montana. It is now officially called the Little Bighorn National Battlefield Monument and commemorates both sides — the 200 U.S. troopers who were killed and mutilated, and the Indians who killed them. In Oregon in 1994, a state agency rejected a monument called “The Promised Land,” which it had commissioned to commemorate the 150th Anniversary of the Oregon Trail. The statue depicted a white pioneer family.
In San Antonio, Texas, Mexican militants are demanding that the monument to the defenders of the Alamo — Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie, William Travis, etc. — be torn down or removed.
In San Jose, California, in 1994, Hispanics succeeded in having the city spend $500,000 to have a statute of the Aztec god, Quetzalcoatal, erected in a public park. This replaced a monument to the Liberty Bell. The State of South Dakota and the City of Berkeley, California, have abolished “Christopher Columbus Day” and now celebrate American Indians instead.
In Lady Lake, a Florida retirement community, management prohibited residents from displaying the U.S. flag from their homes in 1996 because “in a multinational community, U.S. flags might offend some residents.” In New York City in 1996, Islamic militants objected to Christmas decorations in Grand Central Terminal. At their insistence, most of the decorations were removed, and an Islamic flag with a star and crescent will now be put up every Christmas season.
Universities are now part of the assault on America’s European identity. In 1988 Stanford University changed its curriculum when student demonstrators marched chanting “Hey hey, ho ho, Western Civ. has got to go.” Now Berkeley, Dartmouth, Mount Holyoke, and the University of Wisconsin require students to study Third World cultures, but not European culture.
As the culture crumbles, Congress has been at work undermining the meaning of citizenship. The citizenship test is multiple choice with two dictated sentences to determine English literacy. The applicant need get only one sentence right. Should an applicant fail, he can keep on taking the examination until he passes. The Federal Citizenship Textbook Series assures applicants that “re-tests are variations of the initial test.”
Some of the test questions demean citizenship. One is “Name one benefit of being a citizen of the United States.” According to the U.S. government the three acceptable answers are: “to obtain federal government jobs, to travel with a U.S. passport, and to petition for close relatives to come to the United States to live.”
One question asks “Whose rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?” The U.S. government says the correct answer is “Everyone’s (citizens and non-citizens living in the United States).” In fact, besides limiting the franchise to citizens, the Constitution does not allow aliens to run for President, Congress, or the Senate.
The INS itself makes a mockery of naturalization. Although the law requires FBI fingerprint checks of applicants for naturalization, since 1994 the INS has let immigrants submit fingerprints by mail! From August, 1995, to September, 1996, an estimated 180,000 aliens were naturalized without complete FBI background checks. A reported 71,500 became citizens despite criminal records that should have disqualified them.
The franchise has gone the way of citizenship. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, known as the “Motor-Voter” law, does everything but explicitly invite fraud. As columnist Georgie Anne Geyer notes, it “requires states to conduct mail-in voter registration, discourages states from verifying eligibility or citizenship, and expressly states that mail-in registration forms may not include any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication.” The federal government also permits cities to let non-citizens vote in local elections. Five cities in Maryland do this: Takoma Park, Somerset, Martin’s Additions, Barnesville, and Chevy Chase.
As it undermines citizenship, attacks the culture, and encourages demographic transformation in the United States, Congress explicitly recognizes the dangers of all these things when it grants special powers to American territories. The most important of these is control of immigration, a power the Supreme Court denied to the states in 1875. American Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Northern Marianas, and Palau can control immigration to their territories in order to preserve their racial, ethnic, and cultural identities. Congress also permits American Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Northern Marianas, and Palau to restrict land ownership. In effect, only the natives of these islands can own land.
Although the states of the union are losing control to immigrants and aliens, Congress has granted American Samoa, Guam, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Northern Marianas, Palau, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands independent representation in international organizations. Such marks of sovereignty are denied to the states. Multiculturalism and dispossession are fine for white Americans but would be a tragic loss of identity for nonwhite islanders.
In 1787, John Jay wrote of the good fortune of the Americans in being “one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.” Since 1965, the United States has thrown away all the advantages Jay so rightly appreciated. However, the deconstruction of the United States is not an act of God or ordained by any law of history. It is the result of policies deliberately implemented by the federal government over the last 33 years in blatant disregard of the expressed wishes of the white majority. It is a process, therefore, that not only can be stopped; it can be completely reversed. All that is necessary is for whites, in the words of columnist Samuel Francis, to “have the strength and the will and the common purpose to take back our country and our culture.”
Joseph Fallon is a writer living in Rye, New York. This article is excerpted from Deconstructing America: Immigration, Nationality and Statehood, Council for Social and Economic Studies, Monograph Number 27.
How New Americans are Made
The final step in becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen is an oath-taking ceremony conducted by a federal judge. I have always wanted to observe the ceremony, and recently attended one at the federal district court in Alexandria, Virginia.
On this occasion, there were 60 citizens-to-be, accompanied by perhaps 40 guests and friends. A few people were in business clothes, but most were dressed for shopping or a sports event. The courtroom was full, but the citizens-to-be were seated separately, away from their friends, so there was very little chatter as we waited for things to begin. A lawyer from the INS was mistress of ceremonies. She was Hispanic, with a distinctly Spanish accent, and mentioned at the outset that she, too, was an immigrant. She covered a few practical questions, such as how to apply for a U.S. passport, and then got down to business. She apologized in advance for any mispronunciations, and then called out the names of each of the aliens and asked them to state their original nationalities. She spoke the large number of Hispanic names in a clear, Spanish accent. No one seemed to think it odd that she not be a native American or that she should speak accented English.
I listened carefully as 60 people said where they were from: Guatemala, Somalia, Lebanon, Panama, Ghana, China, Egypt, Korea, Vietnam, Peru, Turkey, Honduras, Sierra Leone, etc. There was just one European, an Englishwoman who later left the courtroom with what appeared to be her American husband and child. There was also one “Russian” who looked more Armenian or Azeri than European. From the back of the courtroom, this collection of Americans-in-the-making was a virtually unbroken sea of jet-black hair.
As we waited for the judge to arrive, the INS lawyer remarked approvingly on how many countries were represented. “The worth of the United States is that we come from all parts of the world,” she said. “That’s what makes us special.” She urged everyone to get acquainted with his neighbor, so as to be able to tell grandchildren that on that grand day when the family became American “I was sitting next to someone from Egypt — or from Guatemala.” The INS lady ran out of things to say, and after about six or seven fidgety minutes the Honorable Barry Poretz arrived in his black robe to administer the oath of citizenship.
He considerately broke the oath up into short pieces so those whose English was a little new could follow along. They all raised their right hands and renounced all former loyalty to any “prince, potentate, state or sovereignty” and promised to bear “true faith and allegiance” to the United States Constitution. They also swore that they would bear arms in the service of the United States should the law require it, and that they took the oath of citizenship “freely, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion.”
Judge Poretz then gave a little talk, saying that his grandfather had been an immigrant and that it always makes him happy to welcome new citizens to the United States. He noted that although in the past people had thought of the United States as a melting pot he thought the country was more like a stew. “The recipe is better because you all maintain your ethnic backgrounds, and the country is better for that,” he said. He urged everyone in the room to cherish his national heritage, explaining that “that’s what makes the stew better and the country better.” He did not mention the Constitution, to which 60 people had just sworn faith and allegiance, nor did he discuss what constitutes evasion or mental reservation. Not once did he mention the meaning of the oath of citizenship; no one else did either.
After the judge left the courtroom, the INS lady congratulated the new citizens and spoke about the importance of voting. She explained that there were volunteers in the courtroom who could help them register. The next speaker was Lynette Anderson, a Daughter of the American Revolution. Her subject was freedom — how her Revolutionary ancestor had fought for it, and how glad she was to have been “born into” it. In remarks that could have seemed mildly offensive to the former nationalities represented in the room, she told the new citizens that they were “very special” because “now all of your descendants will be born into freedom.” She also urged them to write letters to their descendants, describing “your American dream.” She said she wished she had a letter of that kind from her Revolutionary ancestor, and promised the former Somalis and Vietnamese that their descendants would, one day, be thrilled to have such a thing.
Miss Anderson then led the group in pledging allegiance to the flag. This was an awkward, mumbling business, and though the Daughter explained that the right hand was to be placed over the heart, quite a few — demonstrating once again the newness of their English — raised their hands in the air as they had for the oath of citizenship.
The 60 names were then called out again, and the new Americans marched up to the front of the room to collect certificates of naturalization. As each person filed by, a representative of a group called Alexandria Voter Registration handed out registration forms, and Miss Anderson gave each person a small American flag. I glanced at the certificate of a former Egyptian. It was attractively engraved, with a color photograph attached, and did not look easy to counterfeit.
One of the voter registration people stood at the door of the courtroom, shaking hands and saying “congratulations” to each new American on his way out. I mentioned to her that not many seemed to be registering to vote. “A lot of them don’t understand what it’s about,” she replied pleasantly. Then, gesturing towards the INS lady who had called the roll, she said, “Isn’t it remarkable how she pronounces all those names?”
The ceremony straggled to a close. I was surprised to have observed no emotions of any kind. Although the ladies from the INS and the DAR tried to give the ceremony some kind of significance they got no reaction from their audience. It could have been a crowd waiting for a bus or a jury pool waiting for a case. As I watched my fellow citizens — just about every possible race but white — walk out of the courtroom, I couldn’t help thinking that what should have seemed like an odd, alien collection of un-American-looking people didn’t look that way at all. It looked, in fact, like just about any big-city crowd waiting for a bus.
[Editor’s Note: This essay is featured in Jared Taylor’s book, If We Do Nothing, available for purchase here.]
We Have Been Warned
What Hispanics talk about when whites aren’t listening.
California Coalition for Immigration Reform, Reconquista!: The Takeover Of America, 1997, $7.00, 40 pp.
How do Hispanic activists see the future of the United States? Reconquista!: The Takeover Of America lets them speak for themselves. It contains pages of quotes from university professors, activists and elected officials that betray an openly racialist plan to “re-conquer” the Southwestern United States. These leaders understand that demography is destiny, and are eager to take power and land from “Anglos.” For anyone who doubts that Hispanics are saying these things, or who may simply want to hear the tone in which they discuss reconquista, the California Coalition for Immigration Reform (CCIR) offers an audio tape that includes every quotation in the booklet.
Here are excerpts from a few of the quotations.
Professor José Angel Gutierrez of the University of Texas, 1995:
We have an aging White America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It’s a matter of time. The explosion is in our population. You must believe that you are entitled to govern . . . Don’t you find it curious that in the midst of all this harassment and repression that there are those who are saying that they are concerned because we’re Latinizing Los Angeles? That there’s too many Mexicans here? That we’re the biggest national security threat to the United States? I love it! Se estan cagando cabrones de miedo! (They are sh****** in their pants with fear.) I love it!
Richard Alatorre, Los Angeles City Council, September, 1996:
[T]hey’re afraid that we’re going to take over the governmental institutions and other institution. They’re right, we will take them over, and we are not going to go away, we are here to stay . . .”
Art Torres, former California State Senator and current chairman of the California Democratic Party:
Remember, 187 is the last gasp of white America in California. Understand that. And people say to me on the Senate floor when I was in the Senate, ‘Why do you fight so hard for affirmative action programs?’ And I say ‘Because you’re going to need them [when whites become a minority].’ (laughter)
Gloria Molina, Los Angeles County Supervisor, June 1996:
[W]e are politicizing every single one of those new citizens that are becoming citizens of this country . . . And our vote is going to be important. But I gotta tell you that a lot of people are saying, ‘I’m going to go out there and vote because I want to pay them back.’
Antonio Villaraigosa, Majority Leader in the California State Assembly, June, 1997:
We know the sunny side of midnight has been the election of a Latino speaker [in the state house], was the election of Loretta Sanchez against an arch-conservative, reactionary, hate-mongering politician like Congressman Dornan.
Mike Hernandez, Los Angeles City Council, June 1996:
Somos Mexicanos (we are Mexicans)! Mexico, some of us say, is the country this land used to belong to! . . . We are the future, we will lead the Western hemisphere!
Fernando Guerra, Professor, Loyola Marymount, Jan. 1995:
[W]e need to avoid a white backlash by using codes understood by Latinos but not offensive or threatening to others.
Armando Navarro, Professor, University of California, Jan. 1995:
[T]ime is on our side, as one people as one nation within a nation as the community that we are, the Chicano/Latino community of this nation. What that means is a transfer of power. It means control.
Ruben Zacarias, Superintendent, Los Angeles Unified School District, June, 1997:
And I’ll tell you what we’ve done with the INS. Now we’re even doing the [citizenship] testing that usually people had to go to INS to take, and pretty soon, hopefully, we’ll do the final interviews in our schools. (laughter) Incidentally, I started this very quietly because there are those that if they knew that we were creating a whole new cadre of brand new citizens it would have a tremendous political impact.
Street activists use more colorful terms than elected officials and college professors. Here is Augustin Cebada, a leader of the Brown Berets, on July 4, 1996:
Go back to Boston! Go back to the Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you, leave like beaten rats. You old white people, it is your duty to die. Even their own ethicists say that they should die, that they have a duty to die. We are the majority in L.A . . . Through love of having children we’re going to take over.
Anonymity permits the greatest candor. This is the beginning of a message left on the answering machine of an immigration reform organization in 1996:
I’m a Mexican-American, and you being a white bastard, you are a mother-f****** trespassing son-of-b****. And if you don’t watch yourself, like all other white mother-f****** here in Aztlan, you’re all going to be blown away, son-of-a-b****.
The only non-Hispanic quoted in Reconquista! is Albert Gore. He was the keynote speaker at the 1995 conference of the Southwest Voter Registration Project, which helped speed through one million new naturalizations in time for the 1996 elections. He said:
This President [Clinton] wants to put the “N’ back in INS . . . The President and I look forward to hearing your views on every single step we take to create a balanced immigration policy that makes the most of our diversity. We are all the descendants of immigrants, whether our forebears came on the Mayflower, or in steerage from Eastern Europe, or walked across an unmarked border in Texas or California.
For some reason, Mr. Gore is the only speaker who has anything to say about “diversity.”
This excellent little booklet contains photographs of many of the people it quotes, along with samples of the aggressive graphics that Hispanics often use in connection with their cause. The CCIR has done a first-rate job of gathering information that is almost never reported. This collection deserves the widest possible distribution.
Improving on Nature
What genetic engineering could mean for our species.
Lee Silver, Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World, Avon Books, 1997, 317 pp., $25.00.
What can we expect from human genetic engineering? How will cloning change our species? Can governments misuse genetic technology? These are some of the questions Lee Silver tries to answer in Remaking Eden. This book is so breezy it reads as if it were pitched to readers of Mademoiselle, but Prof. Silver clearly knows his field and makes no secret of his enthusiasm for using science to improve on nature. Whatever scruples — religious or otherwise — one may have about the advisability of tinkering with human reproduction, this book leaves little doubt that human cloning and designer babies are likely to be common in the next century.
Just a Small Business
Prof. Silver explains that cloning will be a crucial step in our ability to manipulate reproduction. Last year’s successful cloning of a sheep means there should be no scientific obstacles to doing the same thing with humans, but what is a clone and how does cloning work? A clone is an exact genetic copy of an organism. Clones are easily produced by plants that can be propagated from cuttings, but animals don’t reproduce that way. A clone of a person would be made by putting his genetic material into an embryonic cell, implanting that cell in a womb, and letting it develop to term. Biologically, a clone is no different from an identical twin, except that it is born later — perhaps many years later.
The news of the sheep cloning was met with widespread hostility, and people from President Clinton on down urged that cloning of humans be prohibited. Prof. Silver thinks opposition is both futile (because cloning will be impossible to ban) and misplaced (because cloning will be good and useful). He argues that fancy reproductive genetics cannot be prevented because it does not require large-scale investment, and can be done virtually anywhere. If the United States bans it, Singapore or North Korea or the Cayman Islands will welcome the small businesses that will inevitably spring up to provide it.
According to Prof. Silver, cloning and its associated techniques are good, partly because only individuals, not governments, are likely to use them. There are several reasons for this. First, human cloning starts with a single cell that must be grown into an adult, so it takes 18 to 20 years. Champion athletes or obedient soldiers cannot be cranked out of a clone factory fully-grown, and Prof. Silver suspects that few governments have the patience to wait for clones to grow up. He also reports that in the foreseeable future the chances of creating an artificial womb are slim to none, since the chemical communications between mother and fetus are too complicated to reproduce. Cloning will therefore require human wombs, and large-scale government cloning would require a slave army of young women compelled to produce and rear government-issue babies. This is improbable even under the worst dictators.
Who, then, would clone and why? Since cloning will be labor-intensive, only the rich will be able to afford it. Some people — and not necessarily egomaniacs — will want the nearest thing yet to another chance at life: the opportunity to rear a genetic carbon copy of themselves.
Prof. Silver offers other more exotic possibilities: A couple could go infertile before it had all the children it wanted and could decide to clone the one(s) it already had rather than adopt. A lesbian could decide to clone herself and implant the embryo in her “partner” ‘s womb — both women would then be “biological” mothers of the resulting child. If the only child of a couple were killed in an accident the parents might decide to clone the child (from its remaining tissue) rather than start over. At a more gruesome level, a clone might be produced because it would be a perfectly compatible organ donor for someone who needed new parts. Some types of useful tissue are already present in the fetus, so the clone could be aborted and all its useful bits harvested.
Cloning makes for startling possibilities. A woman who particularly admired her parents could clone them, have them implanted in her own womb, and rear them. She would then be the birth mother of people who were, genetically, her own parents. Also, since human tissues can be stored indefinitely in the deep freeze, a long-dead ancestor’s genes could be thawed out and given another try. A child could grow up to learn that what he had always thought was his brother was — genetically — his great-grandfather.
Prof. Silver points out that it is possible to clone someone who has never been born. An aborted fetus has all the genetic material anyone needs for cloning. Spookier still is what could be done with the fact that male and female fetuses already contain eggs and the precursors of sperm. If these were harvested and used for in vitro fertilization, someone could be born of parents who were, themselves, never born. Prof. Silver does not necessarily endorse any of this — he is simply explaining what is now or soon will be possible. And to those who find these ideas repulsive, he points out that when in vitro fertilization was first achieved in 1978 it was denounced as “playing God.” It is now practiced without controversy in 40 different countries, and by the end of 1994 some 140,000 people had come into the world that way.
He also notes that surrogate mothers — women who rent out their wombs — continue to ply their trade, despite bad publicity. In 1986, Mary Beth Whitehead refused to turn over a contract baby she had agreed to carry for an infertile couple, and the saga of “Baby M” wore on for months. Since then, states have passed laws governing commercial surrogacy, some banning it outright. Others, like Arkansas, are receptive to reproductive contracts and will enforce them even if the surrogate mother does not want to hand over the baby. Prof. Silver reports that surrogates are now selected with such care that there are no more battles over possession. His point is that a procedure that once provoked an outcry is now quietly flourishing. He predicts that other reproductive techniques that now seem outlandish will also gain wide acceptance.
Whatever happens, this will be sport for the rich: In vitro fertilization costs anywhere from $50,000 to $200,000 and the total costs of hiring a stranger to carry your child run to about $50,000.
Improving on Nature
Even more troubling for some people is the prospect of human genetic improvement, but simple techniques of this sort are already being used. If parents use amniocentesis to test an unborn child for genetic diseases, they have the option of aborting the fetus rather than have a baby with a serious defect. This is crude, all-or-nothing selection but it is still a refusal to leave reproduction to chance. Embryo selection is similar but more complex. When infertile couples resort to in vitro fertilization, they usually fertilize several eggs at once to make sure at least one will be usable. If several embryos are left to develop they can be examined and the most promising chosen for implantation. Soon it will be possible to change the genetic contents of the embryo so as to eliminate hereditary diseases and even add desirable qualities.
Prof. Silver notes that cloning will be central to this process because at the pre-implantation stage that will make it possible to work with batches of embryos rather than just one. Biological procedures are never 100 percent reliable, so reproductive genetics needs the margin for error that comes with genetically identical copies. A technician who would never attempt an uncertain maneuver on a single, laboriously-harvested, fertilized, and partially-developed embryo could try it confidently on 100 identical embryos.
Needless to say, there is much controversy about all this. Some people would view the 99 failed-and-discarded embryos as 99 abortions. Likewise, there are doubts about the advisability of tinkering with genetic characteristics that could be passed on to succeeding generations. Indeed, some of the probable methods do seem strange. For example, it should soon be possible to modify the precursor cells that produce human sperm. Harmful characteristics could be eliminated and helpful ones added. These cells could then be implanted into the testes of a pig or mouse, which would produce improved human sperm, which could be harvested and used for in vitro fertilization.
Whatever techniques are used, Prof. Silver suggests that in 100 years or so, true designer babies will be possible. A couple could select their own most desirable traits and add nice features from other people and even other species. There is no theoretical obstacle to stitching into humans the genes that give dogs a keen sense of smell or even those that permit echolocation in bats or dolphins. Humans may some day be able to see radio waves and infrared light, or even perform photosynthesis.
Prof. Silver recognizes that the children of people who can afford these techniques will dominate society. Every parent with enough money could have beautiful, talented, genius children. Prof. Silver even recognizes that these improved humans could quickly become a distinct species, or even several distinct species, depending on the set of characteristics they selected. Is this eugenics? Indeed it is, says Prof. Silver, who argues that even if the Nazis gave it a bad name, it would be irresponsible not to take control of our genetic destiny now that we are able.
Fantastic as all of this may sound, Prof. Silver is probably at his most convincing when he argues that unless the United States or some other superpower launches a global effort to prevent anyone anywhere from perfecting and practicing these techniques, reproductive engineering will surely come to pass. Parents want the best for their children, and with or without their government’s permission they will find a way to get it. Although there will not be new, improved human super-species in our lifetime, Prof. Silver argues that there is no harm in getting used to the idea now.
|IN THE NEWS|
O Tempora, O Mores!
Sierra Club Vote Fails
The members of the Sierra Club, one of the country’s largest and best known environmental groups, have defeated a resolution that would have required the club to work toward reducing immigration. About 78,000 of the club’s 550,000 members voted 60:40 against the resolution. Proponents of immigration control argued that overpopulation is a serious environmental problem in the United States, and opponents — of course — accused them of racism. The administration of the club, which was bitterly opposed to taking a position on immigration, was afraid to put the measure to a straight, up-or-down vote. Instead, it added an alternative that proposed global population-control measures and did not mention immigration, and asked members to choose one or the other. Population control is something many immigration activists also favor, and they argued that putting an attractive alternative on the ballot falsified the result. (William Branigin, Sierra Club Votes for Neutrality on Immigration, April 26, 1998, p. A16.) It is actually encouraging that 40 percent of what is an overwhelmingly liberal group voted to reduce immigration despite the club’s underhanded tactics.
Nurse Walks the Plank
In April, a 90 year old senile white man was admitted to Sinai Hospital in Detroit. In response to a special request from the man’s family, a nursing supervisor posted the following notice in the nurses’ lounge: “Until further notice, please assign the patient to white staff members. This is per family requests in an attempt to decrease his confusion and agitation. Per his sister, this patient was attacked by a black man some years ago, and they aren’t sure what to do.”
The request was not honored, and the note soon came down — and so did a storm of criticism. The supervisor was duly reprimanded and counseled, and the Detroit City Council voted a unanimous resolution saying that it viewed the incident “not as a “mistake’ but as a sorry commentary on the current state of race relations in southeastern Michigan.” The resolution went on to call for the hospital to acknowledge a “pattern of racism” and to take steps to overcome it. Thirty protesters gathered in front of the hospital shouting that the nursing supervisor be fired. She groveled in the usual way, but could not hold out against the pressure. Three days after she posted the note, she resigned. (David Goodman, AP, Hospital Apologizes for Racist Act, April 23, 1998. AP, Nurse Quits After Racial Furor, April 24, 1998.)
On February 15th, a huge crowd of Mexican-“Americans” attending a soccer game in Los Angeles between the Mexican and U.S. national teams booed and hooted during the national anthem and pelted the American players with trash (see AR, April, 1998). When reporters later asked Mexican Consul General Pescador Osuna what he thought about this show of disrespect he offered a simple solution: stop playing “The Star Spangled Banner” at soccer games. (Georgie Ann Geyer, Dual Nationality Undertow, Washington Times, April 18, 1998.)
Earlier this year, Captain Paul Prokop retired after 32 years with the Coast Guard. His farewell speech started conventionally, with praise for his shipmates and stories from his career, but it ended with a bang. With his boss, Rear Admiral Timothy Josiah looking on, Captain Prokop explained why he was taking early retirement:
Unfortunately, our commandant is accelerating us headlong down the path of political correctness. Primary consideration in selecting officers for assignments and promotion are now gender and race . . . I have come to realize that I am far out of step with my superiors and can no longer support them or this organization that I value and love.
Capt. Prokop has since been ostracized. The videotape of the ceremony, which is usually given to a retired officer, has been confiscated. He received a sharp letter from former friend and Coast Guard Academy classmate, Adm. Josiah, criticizing his “unexpected, highly offensive remarks.”
Capt. Prokop is not backing down. “They know there are other officers who don’t like this [race and sex preferences], and they want to suppress it. Somebody needed to say it, and nobody on active duty can say it or their career will be over. Look at what they did to a guy who retired. Think of what they’ll do to a guy on active duty.”
The Coast Guard has been under heavy pressure from the Clinton Administration to appoint a black and a female admiral. Current commandant Adm. Robert E. Kramek apparently promised he would appoint one of each before his term expired. The Coast Guard is part of the Department of Transportation, whose former secretary, Frederico Pena, put great emphasis on “diversity” and hiring homosexuals. (Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times, Captain Makes Waves At Retirement, April 7, 1998, p. A1.)
Since 1984, the state of Israel has paid to bring in over 25,000 black Jews from Ethiopia. They are not assimilating, and the sense of separateness appears to be mutual. Younger Ethiopians, who have little recollection of life in Africa, say they feel much closer to black Americans, Jamaicans and Africans than to Israelis. Others complain that Israelis will not sit next to them on buses. For their part, immigration authorities house black immigrants in trailer parks rather than apartments, explaining that keeping Ethiopians together helps ease the transition. Ethiopian discontent erupted last year in riots when it was reported that Israeli blood banks were throwing away blood donated by Ethiopians for fear it might be contaminated with the AIDS virus.
Some Israelis wonder if bringing in Africans may not have been a mistake. “No other Western-type country invited a black immigration, and this country did,” says Zvi Sobel, head of the social sciences department at Haifa University. “We did it on an ideological basis. The question is whether we were realistic. We are not Superman.” He argues that Israel has problems enough without racial friction. “Do we have too much on our plate to add the color dimension?” he asks. “No society has dealt with color well. To think we could do it was chutzpah.” (John Donnelly, Miami Herald, Religious Bond, Cultural Divide, March 22, 1998, p. 1A)
Carefree College Days
Last March, three football players at Illinois State University at Normal were visiting the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity house. One of the fraternity members asked them to leave after he saw a player urinate in a shower stall. The football players started hitting the frat men with beer bottles, were injured in the ensuing fight, and withdrew. The next day, 15 men dressed in black charged into a chapter meeting of the fraternity and attacked the members. They bludgeoned them with pipes with nails in their ends, car antennas, and socks stuffed with batteries. Frat men who ran out of the house were met by 10 more assailants who beat them as they tried to escape. No one was killed, but there was so much wreckage and gore in the frat house a police photographer vomited at the sight. Six football players have been arrested in connection with the attack and more suspects are sought. Police have run into a wall of silence among football players, and lawyers hired by suspects are making the investigation as difficult as possible. Everyone arrested in the incident so far is black. The fraternity is white. Campus authorities insist that this was not a racial incident. News coverage has been strictly local. (Jennifer Jones, Ugly Scene at ISU, Chicago Sun-Times, April 5, 1998, p. 15A.)
Hispanic students in the schools of Fremont, California, have been protesting the curriculum, which they say is outdated because it concentrates on whites and Europeans. Recently 75 students left classes and marched to the school district headquarters, insisting that Cinco de Mayo — a Mexican holiday — be declared a school holiday. (They were, of course, not disciplined.) In April, the school board voted unanimously to recognize Cinco de Mayo with official school celebrations, but stopped short of giving students the day off. They also promised to work “Latino heritage” into the social studies curriculum at every school in the district, and to offer classes in ethnic studies. Videos on Latino culture will now circulate in all junior high and high schools, and the Fremont public library will display materials on Hispanic culture. A bookmobile with similar collections will visit the district’s four elementary schools. (Sandy Kleffman, Schools Add Ethnic Studies in Fremont, San Jose Mercury News, April 10, p. 1B.)
How many Mexicans does it take to push around a white school district? Of the 30,000 students in the Fremont schools, only 13.5 percent are Hispanic.
Mysteries of Jurisprudence
In the state of Louisiana, members of grand juries are chosen at random, but foremen are appointed by judges. Someone discovered that blacks are not appointed as often as their numbers indicate they should, so the system is hopelessly “racist.” A white man who was found guilty of murder has therefore had his conviction overturned because the grand jury that indicted him was part of this tainted system. The U.S. Supreme Court, in one of its goofiest race decisions in a long time, upheld the lower court that threw out the conviction, because a black might have suffered discrimination when a judge appointed the grand jury foreman. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that a murderer, “like any other white defendant, has standing to raise an equal protection challenge to discrimination against black persons in the selection of his grand jury. Regardless of his or her skin color, [a defendant] suffers a significant injury in fact when the composition of the grand jury is tainted by racial discrimination.”
As usual, the one black justice showed the most sense. Even assuming that prejudiced white judges really were keeping blacks from becoming foremen, Clarence Thomas wrote: “I fail to understand how the rights of blacks excluded from jury service can be vindicated by letting a white murderer go free.” Justice Antonin Scalia joined Justice Thomas in this dissent, but even these two justices agreed that although the conviction should not be overturned, the murderer had grounds to challenge the indictment on due process grounds. (Laurie Asseo, AP, Court Backs White Defendant Rights, April 21, 1998.)
The Spoiled and the Sensible
California’s Proposition 209, passed by voters in 1996, bans racial preferences in state institutions. This is the first year it has affected undergraduate admissions at California universities, and the results were predictable.
Last fall, 1,045 Hispanics, 562 blacks and 69 American Indians were admitted to Berkeley, but this year the numbers are 434, 191 and 27 respectively, for an overall drop of 61 percent. The administration seems to think the university will be a failure if there are not lots of blacks and Hispanics on campus (it gets plenty of Asians without affirmative action), so it has pulled out all the stops to try to get them in. It sends them videos of the campus, and treats them to evenings of dinner and dancing. Chancellor Robert Berdahl himself telephones some of them, pleading with them to come to Berkeley. “They really want us,” observed Rafael Farais with a smile as he sat in Berkeley’s Alumni House, watching the sun set over San Francisco Bay while a mambo band played in the background. He has an offer from Stanford as well, and will not make up his mind until he sees how much money the schools offer him. (Michelle Locke, Recruiting for Minorities Intense, AP, April 27, 1998.)
Blacks who are already at Berkeley have decided to sabotage the school’s efforts. Although the abolition of affirmative action was a voter initiative forced upon reluctant administrators, blacks now say Berkeley doesn’t like them any more. Students and faculty who used to get on the telephone and urge students to come to Berkeley refused to this year despite special pleading from the chancellor. Dana Inman is a senior and works at the Black Recruitment and Retention Center. When some blacks visited the campus, she and other staffers said they shouldn’t come: “We told them that it’s a very hostile environment and that we’re not welcome here, and they don’t want us here because they’re not letting us in.” It is hard to imagine a more spoiled and thankless attitude toward a university that has coddled them from the beginning.
Hispanics have been much more sensible. After a vigorous debate they decided they would be just as active as before in helping persuade Hispanics to attend. They even seem to understand what the new admissions policy really means. As one junior said to a prospective freshman, “We really admire you guys. You got in without any affirmative action or anything.” (Frank Bruni, Berkeley Blacks Suggesting to Black Recruits They Might Be Happier Elsewhere, New York Times, May 2 1998.)
Voodoo Comes To Jersey
Sheila DeGraff, a 28-year-old Haitian immigrant living on Long Island, was convinced that sounds coming from her basement were caused by spirits unleashed by her father. She hired Pierrot Charles, a voodoo priest living in New Jersey, to cast out the spirits. After Mr. Charles spent eight nights trying to chase away spirits, he tried something different on the ninth. He threw a sheet over Miss DeGraff, doused her with Florida Water — a cologne often used in “African” religions — and set her on fire. Mr. Charles took Miss DeGraff to his house but did not take her to the hospital until the next afternoon. She had third degree burns and required two operations and skin grafts. Police have charged Mr. Charles with attempted murder, in an incident that has brought unusual attention to practices that are ordinarily cloaked in great secrecy.
James Weinberg, Mr. Charles’ lawyer, says his client was just practicing his religion and calls the indictment “ridiculous.” “It’s like charging a rabbi or a priest with murder,” he explains. Others note that voodoo is common among immigrants from Haiti. Henry Frank, who runs the Haitian Centers Council in Brooklyn says, “Like a lot of ethnic groups who’ve migrated here, we’ve brought our culture with us.” (Garry Pierre-Pierre, A Voodoo Priest is Charged in the Burning of a Woman, New York Times, April 8, 1998.)
CCC Conference in Charleston
The Council of Conservative Citizens will be holding a national conference in Charleston, SC, on June 5 and 6. Panel topics include “America’s Problems,” “Turning America Back to God,” “Southern Patriots Report,” and “Focus on South Carolina.” Jared Taylor will be part of a panel called “Immigration — the Changing of America,” along with Brent Nelson, Louis March, and Wayne Lutton. Registration is only $20.00.
For information please call (314) 2918474. For hotel reservations ($65/night) please call (803) 7448281.
Teaming Up for the Cause
During the very hours that President Clinton and his race panel were spouting the usual nonsense about the lack of blacks in sports executive positions, a real dialogue on race was taking place in the studios of WABC, New York City’s most powerful radio station. Michael Levin, author of Why Race Matters and I were debating two black brothers, Mark and Clayton Reilly, who have worked as radio hosts on a notoriously anti-white black-owned station. As is often the case with blacks, the discussion was so tense and hostile that it carried over during every commercial break, becoming very nasty and personal.
The tone was set early when Clayton Reilly refused to shake hands with Prof. Levin and me. The Reilly brothers had the opening say, but when Prof. Levin’s turn came, they did what blacks often do on these shows — they interrupted, shouted, and tried to drown Prof. Levin out. During a commercial break Prof. Levin told the host, Curtis Sliwa, that if he didn’t keep the Reillys in line he would leave. Clayton Reilly took Prof. Levin’s remark as some kind of racial slur and barked that he would “settle” it with him. Prof. Levin asked, “Is that a threat?” “No,” Mr. Reilly replied, “It’s a promise.”
I refuse to be pushed around by hostile blacks and began giving the Reillys a taste of their own medicine, frustrating them at every turn and never letting them get the better of a discussion or more air time. The discussion itself was as expected. The Reillys denied that people generally want racial segregation and, of course, refused to acknowledge racial differences in IQ. Prof. Levin and I cut their arguments to shreds, while Mr. Sliwa, who is normally uninhibited about stating opinions, uncharacteristically refused to take sides.
In the final segment, Clayton Reilly, in a very loud and threatening manner, accused me of being a fascist, Nazi, white supremacist, etc. I replied, “I know you’re used to whites being intimidated by you and backing down. But that will never happen while I’m in the room. You can’t refute our arguments, so you resort to name-calling.” I taunted Mr. Reilly by saying, “Why don’t you lose that massive chip on your shoulder?” He got up, touched his shoulder and said, “Here it is, what are you gonna do, man?” I just laughed and said, “You don’t scare me, so sit down.”
The next day, the newspaper that carries my column, the Queens Ledger, was inundated with calls of support, many expressing amazement that our views even got on the air. It was a good evening for the AR point of view.
Mr. Borzellieri is an elected school board member in Queens, N.Y. He and Prof. Levin will speak at the next AR conference.
|LETTERS FROM READERS|
Sir — In your interesting commentary on the Le Pen phenomenon, you gave a number of reasons why you thought racial nationalism had been so much more successful in France than in the United States, but you left out the most important: the charisma and force of character of Jean-Marie Le Pen himself. For a movement to succeed it is not enough for its leaders to be right. They must have the gifts and talents that would have taken them to the top in any field.
Here in the United States we have many clever writers and thinkers. What we do not have is anyone with the dynamism and organizational ability of Mr. Le Pen. Ideas are supposed to have consequences but they need the help of tireless, dedicated supporters.
Arnold Rosen, Glens Falls, N.Y.
Sir — Yes, isn’t it odd that as soon as the Front National wins a little support, French liberals start saying that (a) there is something wrong with the electoral system, and (b) democracy is threatened. Germans are just as silly. An obscure, anti-immigration party wins 15 percent of the vote in Saxony-Anhalt and lo, German democracy is under assault.
It would be hard to find a more transparent example of the hollowness of liberal claims to love democracy, revere the people, or promote “inclusion.” I do not doubt that many liberals would happily trample upon the will of the people if the people voted the wrong way.
Some years ago, a militant Islamic party won free elections in Algeria. The government, displeased with the results, annulled the election and jailed the party leaders. The United States, which fancies itself the world’s foremost fighter for democracy, let out hardly a peep. But when Burmese generals did exactly the same thing with a liberal candidate, Aung Sen Suu Kyi, Europe and America went into fits of indignation. They cut off trade with Burma, gave Miss Kyi the Nobel peace prize, and puffed themselves so full of self-righteousness they nearly popped.
How I despise liberals! Their slogans always have a contemptible little echo audible only to the trained ear: Democracy! (so long as I approve of the results), Diversity! (within the limits I set), Freedom of Speech! (for me and my friends), Integration! (for everyone except me and my friends), Equal Opportunity for All! (and preferences for women and nonwhites), etc. How do they manage such transparent hypocrisy? I believe it was Voltaire who said: “Man is a most deceiving animal, and he whom he most deceives is himself.”
Carla Fittipaldi, Phillipsburg, N.J.
Sir — Your articles on Le Pen were excellent. I read news about Le Pen in German publications, but your explanation of the French electoral system was the best I have seen. Americans, of course, know virtually nothing of Le Pen.
It would be good to do a similar report on the catastrophic situation in Germany. The only real conservative with any stature there is Franz Schonhuber, former head of the Republican Party, who it totally ostracized. Germany, like all of Europe, is being destroyed by its politicians and the leftist media.
H. E. Hays, Bainbridge Island, Wash.
Sir — Whether the races differ in intelligence is a scientific question, and will be resolved soon, whether liberals gag on the results or not. Prof. R. Plomin is already isolating genes that affect IQ, and we’ll soon know if they are evenly distributed.
But genetics won’t be destiny for very long. Some years hence we’ll have a smart shot or a smart vaccine or even a smart pill. [Editor’s note: It may not be quite so easy as that. See p. 8 of this issue.] Any nation that declines to use it will be left in the dust where it belongs. I understood the liberals a little when they were trying, however clumsily, to improve IQ by bettering the environment. But I predict they will hate any effort to do the same thing through genetic science. Their only fallback is to claim that intelligence is un-measurable — yet they somehow manage to measure it when crusading against lead poisoning.
Leon Day, Oakland, Calif.
Sir — In his arguments about the effects that a family can and cannot have on a child, it seems to me that Glayde Whitney draws the dividing line more or less wherever it suits him. If I can’t change my children’s IQs or personalities or even have much influence on what careers they pursue, how can I give them a healthy group consciousness? It is difficult for me to believe that if personality is essentially impervious to family influence, attitudes toward integration are, as Prof. Whitney asserts, almost completely under family control.
In the South, publicly-expressed attitudes towards integration changed in a single generation. Clearly the underlying genes did not change; but if family influence controls attitudes toward integration how could they change so quickly? The obvious answer is that some things are powerfully influenced neither by genes nor by family but by society at large. It is in this larger arena that whites are weakest and most vulnerable.
Name Withheld, Dover, Del.