|American Renaissance magazine|
|Vol. 8, No. 10||October 1997|
Why Race Matters
A philosopher’s elegant and compelling dissection of the race problem.
Why Race Matters: Race Differences and What They Mean, Michael Levin, Praeger Publishers, 1997, 415 pp., $65.00.
Michael Levin’s long-awaited book on race has finally arrived, every bit as powerful and insightful as his admirers had hoped it would be. Why Race Matters does exactly what the title promises — it removes all illusions about the insignificance of race, and explains what racial differences mean for a multi-racial society. It is a thorough, overwhelmingly convincing treatment of America’s most serious and least understood problem. Like the work of Arthur Jensen and Philippe Rushton, it destroys the egalitarian myth, but Prof. Levin parts company with other academics in his willingness to tell us what biology means for policy. Facts imply conclusions, and this book draws them.
As Prof. Levin points out, a book like Why Race Matters should not have to be written. The only sensible conclusion to be drawn from simple observation is that races differ: “To put the matter bluntly, the question is not why anyone would believe the races are unequal in intelligence, but why anyone would believe them equal.” For centuries, people as different as Arabs and Englishmen have judged Africans to be unintelligent, lascivious, jolly, and keen on rhythm. Today, in whatever corner of the globe one looks, blacks behave in certain consistent ways.
Nevertheless, every important racial policy in this country is based on the assumption that race differences in ability are known not to exist. Current beliefs are a remarkable victory of dogma over not only the evidence of our senses but the findings of science.
Prof. Levin begins by presenting the data. This has been done many times by others, and the basics need not be repeated here. Prof. Levin capably and thoroughly presents twin studies, adoption studies, test data, and heritability estimates, all while dismantling the desperate attempts of egalitarians to dismiss them.
There is now not much informed opposition (though a great deal of uninformed opposition) to the conclusion that IQ tests test intelligence, that intelligence is at least partly hereditary, and that the races differ in average IQ. The last-ditch battle of the egalitarians is to try to save the idea that race differences are caused by environment — primarily by malevolent white people, past and present.
To counter this view, Prof. Levin gives a thorough account of recent work on the strictly biological correlates of intelligence. When smart people think, their brains emit different electrophysiological signals from those of the less smart. Prof. Levin notes that advances in the study of brain waves could probably establish quite precise racial differences, but fear appears to have halted the research. Brain size also has a robust correlation with intelligence, and intelligent people’s brains metabolize glucose relatively slowly.
Egalitarians claim that childhood nutrition accounts for this sort of thing, but the differences remain when nutrition is held constant (when only those blacks and whites who get the same diet are compared). Moreover, black children mature more rapidly than white children, are more athletic, and go on to dominate professional sports — not what one would expect from the malnourished. Likewise, diet does not explain metabolic or brain size differences in fraternal twins reared in the same family on the same food. If the anti-biology camp is not to be silenced completely it must argue that people unconsciously single out children with large heads for favorable treatment or give white children subtle training in how to retard glucose oxidation.
It is nevertheless theoretically possible that the most hotly-defended egalitarian position is correct: that the black-white IQ gap persists only because the two populations are reared in different environments. According to this view, blacks and whites should be thought of as identical twins reared apart, but with the black twin’s environment so dismal it robbed him of 15 IQ points.
Such a view might be plausible if intelligence is easily molded, but it is not. Prof. Levin points out that since it is generally accepted that 70 percent of the variation in IQ is controlled by genes and only 30 percent by environment, “it is almost but not quite irrational to believe that the interracial IQ difference of +1 SD [standard deviation, or 15 points] can be completely explained by differences in black and white environments.” Blacks and whites would have to live in fantastically different worlds (Prof. Levin calculates them as 1.85 SD apart) to account for this IQ difference, yet the difference has been unchanged by integration, huge transfers of wealth, and the very considerable reduction in the gap between black and white environments.
There have, of course, been many attempts to raise black IQ by “enriching” the environment. As Prof. Levin explains, the most ambitious such efforts, including Head Start, the Perry Preschool Program, and the Milwaukee Project all failed to produce lasting gains in IQ. Recent ingenious testing methods for young children have shown that the one SD difference between blacks and whites is present by age three. It is hard to imagine white society managing to damage black children permanently during the very years when most blacks have virtually no contact with whites.
The tenacity with which egalitarians hold to social rather than biological explanations for group differences probably bespeaks a fear that biology is immutable in its power to determine our lives. And yet, if blacks are so vulnerable to environment that they have been collectively beaten out of 15 points of IQ, environment must be just as ruthless and deterministic as biology. The difference is that so long as there is a chance that white people are to blame for black failure, there is joy in denouncing and persecuting “racists.” All the fun goes out of the game if nature, not bigots, is to blame. Thus, as Prof. Levin explains, so long as there is even the flimsiest, post facto environmental explanation for differences, there will be zealots to defend it.
In the end, however, unless the data are somehow suppressed, Prof. Levin expects the Human Genome Project to identify intelligence-related genes and to show that they are not distributed with the same frequency in all races. He expects the distributions to match the social science data, which is indirect but relentlessly consistent. He tips his hat to W.E.B. Du Bois who, he says, will stand vindicated by science. When Du Bois spoke of “the talented tenth” — the minority of blacks on whom racial progress depends — he was very close to the truth. Approximately 12 percent of blacks are born at or above the white average in intelligence.
The modern debate about IQ has been quietly raging ever since Arthur Jensen relaunched it in 1969. Since many of the data are now unassailable, debate centers on how they should be interpreted. Much of Prof. Levin’s book is therefore devoted to taking the stuffing out of the sometimes comical arguments of people like Steven Jay Gould and Andrew Hacker. As the book shows, egalitarians are always shifting their ground, ignoring data, and creating mysteries where none exists.
Examples of the latter are the currently fashionable views that race is a purely social artifact that should be junked, and that intelligence is undefined and unknowable. Prof. Levin notes that acrobatics of this kind are pure tendentiousness. Those who would discard the idea of race in any discussion of IQ find it essential for affirmative action. As for the pose that intelligence is unknowable:
People who make a point in argument of not understanding ‘intelligence’ invariably do understand it in all other contexts. They know an ‘intelligent’ child is one who learns quickly, and that, of the two, Nobel laureates tend to be more ‘intelligent’ than manual laborers . . . People pretend not to understand ‘intelligence,’ I suspect, to avoid embarrassment over race.
There is also much ignorant shrieking about the “bias” of IQ tests designed by white men, but it is an odd bias that permits Asians to outscore whites. As Prof. Levin explains, a real example of bias would be a test of hand-eye coordination that involved only the right hand. Lefties could prove the bias of such a test by demonstrating their ability with their left hands. “If the races are equally intelligent,” he writes, “it should be possible to find a task intuitively requiring intelligence that blacks perform as well as whites.” No such task has ever been found.
This is what leads otherwise reasonable people to insist that musical and athletic abilities are forms of intelligence in which blacks may surpass whites. As Prof. Levin points out, it tortures the language to claim that Babe Ruth was a genius, but egalitarians must either take fantastic positions or cease to be egalitarian.
Even scientists lose their bearings when it comes to race. It is now fashionable to point out — correctly — that there is more genetic variation among African populations than in all other groups combined and then to suggest — stupidly or deceitfully — that this means genetic racial differences do not matter. Prof. Levin patiently explains that there is vastly more genetic variation in dogs than in giraffes, but that does not prevent people from noticing that giraffes are taller than dogs. The egalitarian literature is full of “science” of this kind, and one of this book’s great strengths is its relentless pursuit and exposure of claims that may well be deliberately deceptive.
Egalitarians may be best at deceiving themselves, as Prof. Levin shows in his neat analysis of the trendy view that blacks cannot be racists. When people say this, they are probably thinking of “racism” as the claim that one’s race is superior to others. In some dark recess of their minds, liberals cannot imagine anyone really believing that blacks are superior to whites, so blacks cannot be “racist.” Since this reasoning is taboo, they instead claim that only members of “the dominant culture” or the group with “power” can be racist.
Prof. Levin is at his most original and provocative when he sets aside well-established data on intelligence and takes up the even more controversial question of morality. Other researchers have suggested that blacks differ from whites in ways other than IQ, but have not followed this argument very far.
For example, the widely used Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), which subdivides personality into a number of categories, shows consistent differences in how blacks and whites evaluate themselves. Blacks, for example, hold themselves in higher regard than whites (or, in today’s jargon, have “higher self-esteem”). They are consistently more likely to agree with statements like:
I am an important person.
I am entirely self-confident.
If given the chance I could make a good leader of people.
I have often had to take orders from someone who did not know as much as I did.
The common assumption that blacks are “taught to hate themselves” is wrong; blacks are quite pleased with themselves. At the same time, they consistently score higher than whites on the MMPI scales for such things as Hypomania, Psychopathy, Schizophrenia, and Masculinity, which are precisely the traits that distinguish incarcerated criminals from the rest of us. They tend to agree, for example, with statements like:
Most people are honest chiefly through fear of being caught.
Most people make friends because friends are likely to be useful to them.
Most people will use somewhat unfair means to gain profit or an advantage rather than lose it.
It is not hard for me to ask help from my friends even though I cannot return the favor.
Another finding is that blacks are more impulsive or present-oriented than whites. Given a choice between a small candy bar today and a big one tomorrow, black children are more likely than white children to want the small one today.
Finally, even within races, moral reasoning is closely associated with intelligence. Intelligence does not guarantee good behavior, but a certain level is necessary for self-knowledge and the comprehension of moral distinctions.
Prof. Levin does not flinch from drawing what may appear to be an unkind conclusion: Given the crime rates, social irresponsibility, lack of foresight, impulsiveness, and general self-centeredness of black behavior, blacks probably have a different inherent capacity and appreciation for morality.
He proposes that this difference can be explained by the environments in which blacks and whites (and Asians) evolved. In a warm climate where food can be gathered year-round, people do not need to develop habits of cooperation and planning in order to get through the winter. In the north, it took mutual trust and cooperation for groups of men to bring down large game, so reciprocal morality evolved along with intelligence.
Climate and terrain could also have influenced sexual behavior. Since African women could gather food for themselves and their children even if a mate abandoned them, there was less pressure to insist that men support their children. For the same reason, there was less evolutionary pressure on fathers to stick around. In the north, a man who abandoned his children might well leave no descendants to behave in like manner. And in fact, the family habits of Africans and transplanted blacks are extremely loose by white standards.
What we think of as moral behavior, including sexual morality, is now known to be heavily influenced by genes. As Prof. Levin points out, there is no biological reason to expect different populations to have evolved exactly the same distribution of morality-influencing genes. Therefore it is likely that “the races have . . . evolved divergent evaluations of cooperativeness, aggression, rule-following, and concern with the future.”
That blacks care less about others and worry less about the future is suggested in virtually every area of behavior. Crime is only the most obvious example, nor is it the expression of wretchedness and self-loathing that excuse-making whites pretend it to be. Prof. Levin notes that “the criminal behavior of young black males just does not look like an expression of despair. In account after account, these individuals come across as full of themselves and unrepentant.” He might have added that if blacks were really reduced to hopelessness by white oppression, they would presumably have high suicide rates, whereas in every age group blacks kill themselves at only one half to one quarter the white rate.
The other prominent black deviation from white morality is reckless procreation, but other traits are just as striking: unwillingness to do volunteer work, support charities, donate organs, volunteer as medical test subjects, keep quiet in theaters, recycle trash, save money, exercise, or keep houses in good repair. Black mothers are twice as likely as white mothers to smoke, drink, and take drugs during pregnancy, even when doctors tell them not to. Blacks between ages 15 and 24 are ten times as likely to have fatal gun accidents as whites of the same age even when gun availability is controlled for. By white standards, black behavior is impulsive, shiftless, and inconsiderate.
People respond better to norms their ancestors evolved than to norms imposed on them by strangers. This may explain why black children get into trouble when held to standards of classroom decorum not “natural” to African societies. It may also explain current calls for “respecting the black learning style” or for Afrocentric curricula, but it is hardly fair of blacks to insist that the rules be changed to suit them after pushing their way unbidden into white institutions.
The personality differences Prof. Levin emphasizes explain why standardized tests “overpredict” black performance. Black students do not get grades as good as their SAT scores suggest they should, and even when IQ is held constant blacks are more likely than whites to be criminals. Why? It is likely that impulsiveness, a lack of concern for the future, and a lower regard for moral norms keeps blacks from performing at the levels IQ alone would predict.
Prof. Levin nevertheless warns whites against the mistake of thinking any human standard is absolute. Blacks can find whites moralistic, repressed, and incomprehensible: “A degree of helpfulness considered obligatory by hunters is considered foolish by gatherers, whereas hunters might regard gatherers as selfish. Each may think “something is wrong’ with — and dislike — the other.” He goes on to say that for people who have evolved under different circumstances “a propensity to violate white norms need not be disordered or dysfunctional.” Such differences are inherently no more value-laden than the fact that owls live in trees and moles live in holes. Blacks are simply different from whites and it may be foolish to expect them to behave like whites.
Of course, in a society built to white standards, it is difficult to refrain from ranking groups invidiously according to intelligence and morality. Prof. Levin argues that whites may therefore have valid reasons for wanting to avoid blacks. In this sense whites may well think whites (and Asians) “better” than blacks. Is this shocking? “The ranking of individuals and groups goes uncontested in nonracial contexts,” he notes, and adds that “few egalitarians would have the effrontery to deny that the average minister has more qualities he admires than the average murderer.”
At the same time, low intelligence and low self-control may mean blacks are simply less able to govern themselves. In Prof. Levin’s view, “a person of limited mental ability, not given to worrying about the quality of his desires or the likely consequences of following them, is relatively less free. So are people who follow an impulse as soon as it enters their heads.” This suggests that “the white advantage in intelligence and self-restraint implies that, on average, whites are more autonomous and responsible for their actions than are blacks . . .” and that blacks may be “less capable of scrutinizing the self and its choices.”
Curiously, many liberals unintentionally speak of blacks in much the same way. They describe deviance as the understandable and even inevitable consequence of “oppression,” thus implicitly accepting black helplessness. The literature on race is filled with the hunt for “root causes,” which is another name for excuses. And yet if the environment excuses blacks why does it not excuse the whites who are said to oppress them? That liberals never speak sympathetically of the “root causes” of racism suggests they think whites are more autonomous and responsible than blacks.
Affirmative action is a somewhat less controversial subject but Prof. Levin tackles it with characteristic thoroughness and none of the mumbled apologies common even among “conservatives.” He notes that justifications for preference keep shifting:
“As the compensation argument has tottered — mainly with growing awareness that the beneficiaries of affirmative action have never been discriminated against, and that its white victims have never discriminated — there has been a migration to new grounds, few of which were heard of in 1965.” Nonsense about role models, self-esteem, fighting stereotypes, diversity, etc. is now spouted by “people who have forgotten, or never knew, why they supported racial preferences in the first place.”
Prof. Levin explains that the only valid excuse for preferences is compensation for past wrongs, but far from deserving compensation, American blacks have benefited enormously from life in a white-dominated society. Since black limitations are overwhelmingly likely to be inherent, whites have no obligation to help them overcome them. If anything, whites deserve compensation for the continuing violence and larceny they suffer at the hands of blacks.
Prof. Levin also points out the contradictions in affirmative action thinking when preferences are justified on probabalistic grounds: Even if it cannot be proven than any given black has suffered from white wickedness or that any given white has benefited from it, the chances are high enough to justify rewarding the one and punishing the other. However, preference advocates refuse to consider any probabalistic procedures that might inconvenience blacks. Blacks are vastly more violent than whites but liberals would gasp at the idea of making it more difficult for blacks than whites to own guns. Preventing violence is a far more legitimate role of government than promoting “diversity,” so why is probabalistic reasoning unwarranted in crime control?
Affirmative action also violates the liberals’ cherished notion that “separate is inherently unequal.” If separate employment or promotion standards are valid for blacks, why not separate schools — which would presumably be designed to meet their special needs? Incoherence on questions of this kind is mere cover for the conviction that the state may never allow race to be used against blacks but can require that it be used against whites.
Affirmative action is, of course, a policy that Prof. Levin would abolish today. While he is at it, he would legalize all private forms of discrimination. On libertarian grounds, people should be free to choose their associates or neighbors even for irrational reasons, and on empirical grounds it is often rational for whites to avoid blacks.
Prof. Levin would also abolish welfare. He argues that a social safety net may be a permissible luxury in a society of whites who will not abuse it but is, for blacks, too great a temptation to indolence. Likewise, the minimum wage is an unnecessary obstacle to blacks (and others) whose labor is simply not worth what government insists it should be.
Although blacks may be less able than whites to control behavior it does not mean wrongdoing should go unpunished, but that different punishments may be appropriate for different races. For blacks it should perhaps be swifter and include corporal punishment, especially for men who treat a jail term as a badge of honor and a rite of passage. It might also be sensible to try some black juveniles as adults, since blacks mature more rapidly than whites. Finally, since blacks have frequently shown themselves unable to transcend racial loyalty, they might be excluded from juries in trials that could inflame racial passion.
Interestingly, Prof. Levin’s exhaustive study of racial differences leads to policies strikingly similar to those of the pre-civil rights era American South. It may be no coincidence that the latest scientific findings support the traditions of whites who lived, for generations, in the most intimate contact with blacks.
The only real objection to this excellent book is what some readers will consider its excessive thoroughness. As the author himself concedes, he sometimes appears to be “defending the obvious with complicated rejoinders.” He explains that “where race is concerned, however, people seem capable of doubting what they elsewhere find self-evident, so argumentative overkill is difficult to avoid.”
The symbolic logic is confined to footnotes, but some readers will still find the overkill heavy going, especially when Prof. Levin veers into his own field of philosophy. Nevertheless, this is an invaluable volume, packed with insight and information, and deserves the close attention of anyone with a serious interest in the American racial dilemma.
Equal Opportunity Commissars
Racial follies in the U.S. Army.
Following the December 1995 murder of two black Fayetteville, North Carolina drug dealers by skinhead thugs assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, the North Carolina chapter of the NAACP demanded that it be allowed official “representation” on Fort Bragg, as advisors on equal opportunity and race “problems.” On 29 March 1996, Lieutenant General John Keane, commanding general of Fort Bragg, appointed a staff judge advocate colonel as official liaison with the Fayetteville and North Carolina chapters of the NAACP.
There is no other private, political organization with whom the base has official liaison. In fact, Army regulations expressly prohibit such representations. So, in order for the NAACP to have official liaison with Fort Bragg, general Keane would have needed an exception to policy; which could have been granted only by Secretary of the Army Togo West, who happens to be black.
When I heard about this I remarked to several of my comrades that appointment of an official liaison to the NAACP would make it the de facto equal opportunity Staatssicherheitsdienst (Stasi) on Fort Bragg. I predicted that anybody who opposed minority quotas or spoke out against so-called equal opportunity on moral principle would be branded a “racist,” or an “extremist,” and would be persecuted by the chain of command based on no evidence other than NAACP displeasure. My comrades thought I was overreacting. Until recently.
On 29 July 1997 the Fayetteville Observer-Times (local fish wrap) published a letter I wrote to the editor contesting the view that blacks are “overrepresented” in prison. My objections were drawn from the Justice Department’s Uniform Crime Reports (1994), which list average black crime rates at nine times those of whites. I noted that blacks (like all criminals) commit crime on purpose, and that black “representation” in the prison population is nothing less than it should be.
From the chain of command’s reaction, you’d have thought I had advocated sending blacks to Konzentrationlager. The local office of the NAACP immediately laid siege to the office of the commanding general of Special Operations Command, to which I am assigned, demanding that I be punished, and that inquiries be made forthwith into “racism” and “extremism” in the special forces. Simultaneously, the NAACP barraged the Special Operations Command’s Equal Opportunity (EO) Office with demands that my next non-commissioned officer evaluation report contain an “X” in the “No” block of “Values/NCO Responsibilities” Number 7, which is “Supports EO/EEO.”
What does it mean for a non-commissioned officer to be officially branded as a non-supporter of “equal employment opportunity”? It could result in my expulsion from the Special Forces, eliminate any chances of further promotion, be used as a pretext to make me undergo psychological evaluation, effectively end my military career, and result in a bar to reenlistment. The NAACP Stasi knew exactly what it was doing.
On 31 July 1997 — just two days after my letter was published — I was called to the First Sergeant’s office and issued a counseling statement to the effect that my letter to the editor violated Army policy prohibiting “stereotyping” minorities. I told my First Sergeant that I was so close to retirement that the only way I could be hurt with this counseling statement was if he rolled it up and poked me in the eye with it. I signed it and wrote as my “nonconcurr” statement: “I told the truth. I’m being punished for it.”
To his credit, my First Sergeant (who is black, but could “pass”) said he had no objections to what I wrote, that he knew it was based on fact, and that because I was not criticizing Army policy my letter was within regulations governing soldiers expressing their beliefs. Nonetheless, he was compelled by the chain of command to “counsel” me for no other reason than to “appease the EO office and the NAACP.”
After signing my counseling statement I called the EO office. I asked Sergeant First Class Martin, EO representative, what the big deal was over my letter, and why the chain of command was cringing and groveling at the shrieking of the NAACP. I told him my original letter referred to the Justice Department’s Uniform Crime Reports, but that the “editor” had excised that sentence from my published letter. (The swine who edits letters at the Observer-Times is an expert at discerning the key contextual sentence in an opposition letter, and removing it.)
There are rare moments when those who are engaged in the willful destruction of America reveal their true “thought” processes. They do so when they believe they are in an unassailable position of power. Thus did SFC Martin, EO commissar, respond to my statement that everything in my letter to the editor was based on demonstrable facts: “I’m not concerned with the facts — I’m only concerned with how the NAACP feels about them.” SFC Martin, EO representative, is white.
On Friday, 01 August 1997, SFC Kim Hudson, the (radical leftist black) EO representative from the Special Forces Command, descended upon my unit to administer an unscheduled EO Climate Survey. This is an exercise that tests whether soldiers have swallowed the Army’s racial dogmas. Apparently, he and the rest of the EO commissariat were concerned that I might have poisoned the minds of my comrades between the time of the last EO group brainwash in March, and the publication of my letter in July.
In the military, chain of command is sacred. EO Climate Surveys are the commander’s tool and may be administered only at the commander’s request, if he thinks there may be an EO “problem” in his unit. SFC Hudson, at the bidding of the NAACP, decided on his own “authority” that I was a sufficient threat to warrant bypassing the chain of command to administer an EO Climate Survey.
When our commander, Colonel David McCracken, found out about SFC Hudson’s EO “initiative,” he justifiably took great exception. According to one of his associates, COL McCracken “. . . walked [rather than drive] to Special Forces Command to blow off steam while he was trying to figure out which EO rep to hang by his balls.”
COL McCracken returned to our headquarters sullen and silent. Mind you, he wasn’t sticking up for me. He has been fully “read in,” and is a vocal supporter of minority parasitism and quotas. He was incensed at having been bypassed by the EO commissariat. A commander cannot tolerate unauthorized busybodies snooping around his unit, and COL McCracken was not just any old soldier with a beef. He is a line officer, unit commander, and big EO booster. That he should be sent home cowed should give readers an idea of how much power and influence the EO commissariat and their NAACP Stasi exercise in the Army. Chain of command is no obstacle to the commissariat. It wasn’t in the Soviet army either.
Throughout my career, I have never been shy about voicing objections to the Army’s equal opportunity (EO) program. It is blatantly designed to promote blacks and other minorities in the Army to the detriment of white soldiers who merit promotion based on their proven performance.
Twice a year we are compelled to fill out EO Climate Surveys. I always mark “Strongly Disagree” to the statement: “I support the Army’s Equal Opportunity/Equal Employment Opportunity program.” Because the rest of the survey questions naturally assume that one does support EO/EEO, I stop at that point, leaving the other questions unanswered.
Don’t misunderstand. Merit is merit, and soldiers (white or black) who merit promotion based on their proven performance deserve promotion. However, that is not how the Army’s promotion system works. The Army has minority promotion “goals.” It categorically denies these “goals” are quotas.
But in today’s politically correct Army, which has become more a leftist social experiment than a martial force intended to defend America, it’s one thing to hold a principled belief and quite another thing to state it publicly. Anyone who doubts the chain of command’s egalitarian fantasies or who exposes the Army’s equal opportunity program for the anti-white fraud it is is punished lest he infect other white soldiers.
The Army’s EO program is held up by the Establishment as a “model for the nation.” I have dealt with the Army’s EO commissariat for 24 years. If this is a model for the nation, civilians should be loading 75-round AK drums in anticipation of the consequences.
Sergeant First Class Barry is assigned to 3d Special Forces Group (Airborne) at Fort Bragg.
Report From the Galtonian Front
Move Beyond Hitler
James D. Watson, who won the Nobel Prize for his co-discovery of the structure of DNA, has told the German scientific community that the time has come to “put Hitler behind us.” In the keynote speech to a congress on molecular medicine in Berlin, Dr. Watson criticized the Germans for their weak support of genome research and attacked Germany’s restrictive laws governing genetic research.
“Genetics per se can never be evil,” he said. “It is only when we use or misuse it that morality comes in”. [Koenig, R. (1997) “Watson urges ‘Put Hitler behind us’”, Science, Vol. 276, (9 May 1997), p. 892]
The Germans seem to want to benefit from genomic research without admitting that genes exist. In Germany the National Socialists lost a war and egalitarian socialists have been in control ever since. For the last 50 years, genetics, eugenics, and all aspects of racial science have been painted with the tar brush of anti-Nazi hate propaganda.
Race Differences Are Genetic Too
One of the last bastions of racial egalitarianism among scientists is the “two realms” hypothesis. This theory holds that although differences between individuals of the same race may be due to some mix of genetic and environmental factors, differences in average performance between different races are entirely due to environment.
A common illustration of the two realms hypothesis goes like this: Imagine two different flowerpots. Fill one pot with poor soil and for good measure add a little plant poison. Fill the second flower pot with rich soil. Call one pot black urban (or rural) ghetto, call the other pot white suburbia. Into each pot sprinkle an identical mix of genetically variable flower seeds.
A diverse mixture of plants will grow in each pot and will show a bell curve distribution of individual characteristics, but the bell curve of the first pot will average substantially below the bell curve of the second pot. The two-realms hypothesis holds that within each pot (the realm of individual differences) both genetic and environmental factors can contribute to differing outcomes. However, between the two pots (the realm of race differences) only environmental factors contribute to differing outcomes. Furthermore, as long as the two pots have any environmental differences between them it can never be proven (and well-meaning, ethical scientists will never theorize) that genetic factors might contribute to average race differences.
Numerous scientists — perhaps most noted are Arthur Jensen and J. Philippe Rushton — have suggested that real world data best fit the “one-realm hypothesis,” namely, that the mixture of genetic and environmental factors that are proven to cause individual differences also most plausibly cause the average differences between the races. To data and theory on the side of one realm we can now add a newly developed, mathematically powerful approach from David Rowe of the University of Arizona.
The new approach starts with a large data set consisting of thousands of relatives (full-sibs, half-sibs, etc.) from both races. It continues with complex models from esoteric mathematics and statistics, such as structural equation modeling and path analysis. Powerful computer programs crunch the data, solving simultaneous equations and finding numerical weights and variables that produce models that best fit the real world data. If the two-realms hypothesis is true, then identical or closely similar models will not fit both individual differences (within race) and average race differences. However, if the one-realm theory is true, the same mix of genetic and environmental factors that explain individual differences within race would also explain the average race differences. Rowe and his student co-author Hobart H. Cleveland applied the approach to academic achievement test scores of blacks and whites.
Their paper has finally been published — after seven stringent peer reviews, rather than the two typically required for politically correct research findings.
The results were overwhelmingly in the one-realm corner. As summarized by the authors, “the genetic and environmental influences involved in producing individual variation were the same as those producing the group-mean differences. In this sample, genes accounted for 66% to 74% of the observed group difference in verbal achievement and 36% of the difference in mathematics achievement.” [D. C. Rowe & H. H. Cleveland (1996) “Academic achievement in blacks and whites: Are the developmental processes similar?” Intelligence, Vol. 23, pp. 205-228.]
A 2,200 Percent Difference
“Assault rates for males aged 15 to 24 years were 598 per 100,000 population for blacks vs 27 per 100,000 for whites,” reports a study of California hospitalizations for firearm injury. If we play the common epidemiologist game of reporting results in terms of percent difference, this means California blacks are 2,200 percent more likely than whites to be hospitalized for injuries suffered in firearm assaults.
The approximately seven-to-ten-fold difference between black and white homicide rates has been widely reported, but national statistics on firearm-related injuries are not collected. Since a lot of folks can’t shoot straight and because modern trauma medicine is so effective, it is “estimated that for each firearm fatality, 2 persons sustain nonfatal injuries that lead to hospitalization and 5 persons sustain injuries that require outpatient treatment.”
To get data on non-lethal gun injuries, the authors studied the 1991 California Hospital Discharge Abstract Data Tapes, which list all discharges from California hospitals. These included hospitalizations for all gunshot wounds, including assaults, accidents, attempted suicides, police shootings, and wounds of unknown causes. The authors found the usual sex and age effects for violence. For example, 90 percent of those discharged were male, and 72 percent of the males were between 15 and 24 years of age. However, race trumped age in that the black rate for the oldest and least shot-at group (55 years and over) exceeded the rate for the most shot-at white category (15 to 24 year-olds).
It should also be noted that these data cover only those who were wounded, not those who did the wounding. They therefore minimize race differences in commission of violence, since a much greater proportion of mixed-race incidents are black-on-white rather than white-on-black.
According to the study, 49 percent of those discharged were “other race,” mostly Hispanic, who made up an estimated 35 percent of the state population. The 7 percent of the population that is black accounted for 32 percent of discharges, while the 57 percent who are white (non-Hispanic) accounted for just 19 percent of discharges. An all-white California would presumably see its firearms injury rate drop to a third while an all-black California would see the rate go up 457 percent.
The authors used a variety of sources to estimate costs: “[T]he average true cost per patient was $12,485 and the ratio of charges to costs was 3.8 (mean charge per patient, $48,612).” This 380 percent markup is usually passed on to the taxpayer. The present study is similar to others in indicating that the majority of patients with bullet wounds are either on public programs or have no health insurance. The authors estimate that in 1996 there were 72,000 firearm-related hospitalizations in the United States, which cost $993,024,000.
Needless to say, the correct inference from this study is not that we need to ban firearms. Other data indicate that the population group with the highest firearm ownership (rural, educated white males) is among the lowest in firearm-related injuries. [Vassar, M. J., & K. W. Kizer (1996) “Hospitalizations for firearm-related injuries: A population-based study of 9562 patients” The Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 275, No. 22 (June 12, 1996), pp. 1734-1739.]
Glayde Whitney is professor in psychology, psychobiology and neuroscience at Florida State University.
|IN THE NEWS|
O Tempora, O Mores!
Doctoring the Primitives
Miami has a constant problem with quack doctors. People just hang out a shingle and start practicing. Some claim to have been trained in Haiti or Guatemala but many just claim to be gifted. Miami is good for entrepreneurial medicine because many third-worlders don’t know the difference between a doctor and a fraud. Recently, Elsa Palenzuela was arrested for doing dentistry in her house without a medical license or an instrument sterilizer or radiation shielding for the X-ray machine or any means of disposing of infectious wastes. She cooked instruments in a toaster oven before she hacked at patients, of whom she saw some 400 or 500 a year. (Peggy Rogers, Police Shut Down Dental Practice Filled With Hazards, Miami Herald, July 23, 1997, p. 1B.)
Doctoring the Books
Medicare fraud costs the country billions of dollars every year, with an estimated 14 to 17 percent of Medicare money going into the pockets of thieves. The heavily Hispanic south Florida area, where approximately one fifth of the spending is fraudulent, has the highest concentration of bandits. The government hardly checks bills before paying up, so greedy medical people can make millions by overcharging, double charging, taking kickbacks, and billing for imaginary services and patients. One Miami Lakes agency collected $26 million for home visits it never made. Medical agencies routinely charge the government as much as $10 or $12 for a one-dollar catheter. Medicare fraud is so easy and profitable in south Florida that organized crime is reported to be joining the fun. (Peggy Rogers, Medicare Fraud: 20% in S. Florida, Miami Herald, June 28, 1997, p. 1B.)
. . . and the Earth is Flat
Decision No. B 4-0045/97 of the European Parliament:
The European Parliament takes the view that the concept of race has absolutely no scientific basis, neither genetically nor anthropologically. (quoted in Nation und Europa (Coburg, Germany), June 1997, p. 38.)
Only a Matter of Time
In the 1978 Bakke case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the University of California at Davis had the right to consider race as one of its criteria for admission to medical school. Allen Bakke (and other whites) were rejected so that less qualified blacks could become doctors. One of these was Patrick Chavis.
Dr. Chavis has since been lauded as one of the great success stories of racial preferences. Senator Edward Kennedy calls him “a perfect example” of a supposedly less qualified non-white going on to serve his people with distinction. During the campaign in California over Proposition 209, which eliminated racial preferences, Dr. Chavis was repeatedly cited as one of the wonders affirmative action has wrought.
In June, the Medical Board of California suspended Dr. Chavis license, noting his “inability to perform some of the most basic duties required of a physician.” The board found him guilty of “gross negligence” in the case of three patients, one of whom died because of his incompetence. He has been sued at least 21 times for malpractice. He has failed to pay child support, and in March he declared bankruptcy in order to escape debtors.
Incompetence should be no surprise. In most years, the blacks admitted to medical school have average Medical College Aptitude Test scores lower than the whites who are rejected. Eighty-eight percent of white doctors pass their medical board exams but only 49 percent of blacks do.
What does Dr. Chavis say about the medical board’s findings? “That’s racism, I don’t care what you say. They wouldn’t do that to a white guy.” (Jeff Jacoby, A Case of Medical School Affirmative Action that Backfired, Boston Globe, Aug. 15, 1997. Scott Lindlaw, Doctor Was Once Affirmative Action Success Story, Now In Trouble, Associated Press, Sept. 2, 1997.)
We’re All Americans Now
Mohammed Aidid was the Somalian gangster the U.S. lost three helicopters and 18 men trying to catch in 1993. Aidid’s men dragged one of the American bodies through the streets of Mogadishu, where women and children beat and spat on it. Mr. Aidid died three years later in a gun battle, and his son, Hussein Aidid, was named leader of the clan.
As it happens, the younger Aidid is a U.S. citizen. When Somalia fell apart, his war lord father sent him to America, where he studied engineering at Cal State Long Beach. He also joined the Marine Corps and fought Iraqis in Desert Storm. He has a Somali wife whom he met in California and who still lives there. The self-proclaimed president of the essentially non-existent country of Somalia is of the same nationality as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. (Bob Reiss, “I am a Product of the U.S.’ Washington Post, Parade Magazine, Aug. 31, 1997 p. 16.)
The headline and sub-headline of the cover story of the travel section of the Sunday Washington Post for August 17 was: “Forget the Alamo! Today’s San Antonio has little to do with that symbol of doomed Anglo imperialism. It’s a thriving capital of Hispanic culture, and a magnet for multicultural tourism.”
The sub-headline of a June 12 Chicago Tribune story about Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party reads: “A new, anti-immigrant party appeals to some Australians who still harbor notions of remaining a Caucasian society.”
Headline of a June 3, 1997 Christian Science Monitor article about non-whites moving into Utah: “Adding Spice in a State the Melting Pot Missed.”
Rev. Butt Naked
One of the more colorful figures in the Liberian civil war was “General Butt Naked,” who used to lead his men into combat dressed only in jack boots. He has since resumed his birth name of Joshua Milton Blahyi and become an evangelical minister, roaming the streets of Monrovia with a microphone, preaching peace and reconciliation.
The 25-year-old now explains that when he was eleven he joined a satanic society that required regular human sacrifice and battlefield nudity to ensure protection against the enemy. Mr. Blahyi explains how he got fresh human blood to ward off bullets:
Sometimes I would enter under the water where children were playing. I would dive under the water, grab one, carry him under and break his neck. Sometimes I’d cause accidents. Sometimes I’d just slaughter them.
What accounts for Mr. Blahyi’s change of profession? He was on the front lines, in his usual attire, when God appeared to him and told him he was a slave of Satan and not the hero he took himself to be. (Tina Susman, Gen. Butt Naked Now Bares Only His Soul, Washington Times, National Weekly Edition, Aug. 17, 1997, p. 22.)
Mixed Up Mississippians
Mission Mississippi is an organization of Christian businessmen that is urging the people of Jackson, Mississippi to fight racism. As one of its good works, it has persuaded a number of restaurants in the area to offer discounted meals to mixed-race couples. Mission Mississippi also sponsors rallies and picnics that encourage racial mixing. (Charlotte Graham, Black, White Couples Dining Together Offered Discount, Clarion-ledger (Jackson, Miss.) June 21, 1997, p. 13.)
A Forgiving Flock
Henry Lyons, head of the largest black church denomination, had a brush with scandal but the 8.5 million-member National Baptist Convention seems to have forgiven him. Rev. Lyons’ troubles began in July. His wife told police that while the reverend was off in Nigeria she discovered the deed of a $700,000 house he had bought in Boca Ciega Bay, Florida. Listed on the deed as co-owner was Bernice Edwards, a 40-year-old convicted embezzler whom Rev. Lyons had hired to work for the church. Mrs. Lyons visited what she thought was a love nest, found some of her husband’s suits in the closet, and tried to set the place on fire. She then drove her Mercedes into a palm tree.
Later, Rev. Lyons denied having an affair, and offered esoteric explanations for co-owning a mansion with his employee. Mrs. Lyons now denies everything she told the police, and claims that the fire started when she dropped a match. Curiously, the fire started in several different places and Mrs. Lyons did not call the fire department. It has also come to light that Rev. Lyons bought a $27,000 Lexus for a lady who is a former church employee.
Rev. Lyons does not care for the publicity, nor for questions as to how he can afford fancy homes and a collection of cars that includes three Mercedes and a Rolls-Royce. “What are you trying to imply?” he asked reporters. “That blacks in this country can’t be successful?” He has vowed to take his story to the black press. “They understand the truth,” explains an advisor.
At the end of August, the denomination held a convention in Denver. The 200-member board of directors voted without dissent to drop “the whole matter.” It found no misappropriation of funds, nor did it quiz the preacher about what he and Miss Edwards got up to in that $700,000 house. The denomination seems to have chalked the whole thing up to racism. As Rev. Lyons told God in an emotional prayer during the convention, “Don’t let white America tell us how to do Your will.” (Trials and Tribulations, Newsweek, July 21, 1997, p. 35. Black Baptist Group Drops Probe of Embattled Leader, Washington Post, Sept. 2, 1997, p. A2.)
One quarter of Chicago’s public school eighth graders were held back this year and will not be entering high school. This is the second year the city has started using a standardized test that must be passed in order to graduate from junior high school. The passing grade for eighth graders is the level of achievement that should be reached by someone who has completed the sixth grade.
Last year, the city eased the pain for non-performing eighth graders by letting them take part in graduation ceremonies, but they got an empty envelope rather than a diploma. This year they weren’t allowed to take part in the ceremony at all.
Pass rates by race have not been released, but different figures at different schools tell the story. At ten inner-city schools more than two-thirds of the students failed to make the grade, and at Mount Vernon School 98 percent failed. By contrast, the test has not been much of a problem in the suburbs. In Schaumberg Township, for example, every one of 1,688 eighth graders passed the test. In Cicero, only eight of 1,000 students failed.
An objective evaluation can be a shock for black students who do not realize how diluted their course work is. Sandra Jennings-Smith was an eighth-grader who got straight As in “honors” courses but still could not score at the sixth-grade level. (Rosalind Rossi, 8th-graders Held Back, Chicago Sun-Times, June 4, 1997, p. 1. John Carpenter, Suburbs Making the Grade, Chicago Sun-Times, June 4, 1997, p. 2.)
Moving on to the ninth grade is not necessarily a reward. The city has announced that seven high schools — every one of them 95 percent or more black — are to be “reconstituted.” On the basis of test scores, attendance, graduation rates, and other factors, every employee, from the janitor to the principal, will be fired and must reapply for his job. In effect, the schools are to be shut down in the hope that they will reopen under improved management. In fact, 80 percent of the current employees are likely to get their jobs back. (Rosalind Rossi, Shakeup Planned at 7 Schools, Chicago Sun-Times, June 12, 1997, p. 16.)
Meanwhile, a black 17-year-old girl who was attending the graduation ceremony at Bremen Township High School just south of Chicago ended up with a criminal record rather than a diploma. Despite repeated requests for silence she kept yelling and whooping as her friends graduated. She refused to leave the auditorium and attacked police, who had to subdue her with pepper gas. They hauled her away handcuffed and screaming. “I was super mad,” she explained later. “I wanted to graduate.” (Art Golab & Phillip O’Connor, Cops Arrest Girl Who Cheered at Graduation, Chicago Sun-Times, June 5, 1997, p. 4.)
Dr. Cattell Attacked
Raymond Cattell, one of the world’s great living psychologists, is the author of many of the standard personality and intelligence tests in use today. The American Psychological Association planned to honor him for lifetime achievement but decided to postpone the award because of allegations that Dr. Cattell is a “racist.”
Barry Mehler of Ferris State University in Michigan, a hyperactive opponent of “racism,” led the charge, saying Dr. Cattell has “a lifetime commitment to fascist and eugenics causes.” He added that “right-wing extremists” try to lend an air of scientific authority to their views by quoting Dr. Cattell. Perhaps he had AR in mind. We published an interview with Dr. Cattell in the Oct. 1995 issue.
The charge of fascism is, of course, absurd, but Dr. Cattell has been long interested in eugenics. His 1978 book Beyondism: A New Religion From Science, is a full exposition of his views and was reviewed by Thomas Jackson for AR. The American Psychological Association has appointed a blue-ribbon panel of experts to review Dr. Cattell’s work before making a final decision about the award. (Philip Hilts, Award to Accused Racist is Delayed, New York Times, Aug. 15, 1997, p. A24.)
An interracial couple living in Georgia, Freeman Berry and Sandra Benson, have been arrested for insurance fraud in connection with a self-administered hate crime. In August, their home burned to the ground and the couple complained of hate calls and spray-painted swastikas. There was wide, sympathetic coverage. Miss Benson wept in the backyard of her burned-out house, telling reporters and investigators she was being punished for loving a black man. The FBI came to solve the hate crime and discovered that the couple had burned down their own house. Expensive computer equipment they claimed had been destroyed in the fire was later found in a rented storage locker. Nationwide Insurance rejected their $301,000 damage claim.
This is not the first time Miss Benson and Mr. Berry have played this game. They made off with $244,000 from State Farm Insurance when their house in Goshen, N.Y. burned mysteriously. Miss Benson has also falsely claimed she was injured in a car wreck, though she managed to bilk three different insurance companies out of a total of $200,000 in the incident. She also claimed she was blinded when a photocopier fell on her as she was applying for a job, but it turned out she was “applying” for a job with the company that she and Mr. Berry run at home. She also has sued a doctor for “disabling” her by bungling an operation for breast reduction and fat removal. Mr. Berry has falsely claimed to have been injured falling down a flight of stairs. The two have been indicted on 23 counts of mail and insurance fraud. (Chelsea Carter, FBI Probes Georgia Insurance Scam, Associated Press, Aug. 24, 1997.)
Our Fault, of Course
A liberal group reports that 50 percent of black men between the ages of 18 and 35 living in the District of Columbia are either in jail, on parole, on probation, or have warrants out for their arrest. DC blacks are 36 times more likely to be in custody than DC whites, whereas in the rest of the country blacks are only seven times more likely to be in jail. During the 1980s, the district increased spending on corrections at a rate almost seven times faster than it did on higher education. In fiscal 1996, it spent $842 million on criminal justice — $47 million more than on public education. In the nation as a whole, 80 percent of black men are reported to have spent at least one night behind bars, usually before they turn 40. (Eric Lotke, Hobbling a Generation, National Center on Institutions and Alternatives, August, 1997.)
The authors of the report bemoan the misguided priorities of our racist society, but the figures they report will not produce the socialist response they are hoping for. Washington, DC, including its police force, is run by blacks, not whites. Today, most whites who hear that 80 percent of black men have been in jail by their 40th birthday will assume they deserved to be. Far from voting to raise taxes for midnight basketball and other silliness, they will quietly organize their lives so as to stay as far from blacks as possible.
The One-Slave Rule
The borough of Queens, New York, is named for Catherine of Braganza, the 17th-century Portuguese princess who married Charles II of Britain. The Portuguese have decided to commemorate this fact by paying for most of the costs of a one-million-dollar, 35-foot bronze statue of the queen, which is to be erected next year on the Queens side of the East River. Rev. Al Sharpton, candidate for mayor of New York, is now leading a band of blacks who oppose the statue. He says Queen Catherine is “a racist symbol of slavery” because Britain and Portugal were involved in the slave trade and because the queen’s family reportedly owned slaves. (Merle English, Group Protests Statue as Racist, Newsday (New York), Aug. 26, 1997.)
Just Can’t Get Along
Rodney King, millionaire, is finally in jail. He is serving a 90-day sentence for trying to push his estranged wife out of a moving car. In addition to his most famous drunk-driving incident in 1991, in which he was beaten but not otherwise punished, he has also been caught for soliciting prostitutes, trying to run over a policeman with a car, and yet more drunk driving. This is the first time since his nation-wide notoriety that he has actually gone to jail. Mr. King received $3.4 million in damages from the city of Los Angeles on account of the 1991 beating. (Rodney King in Jail for Spouse Abuse, Associated Press, Aug. 21, 1997.)
Kiwis on the March
An anti-immigration party has been established in New Zealand. Inspired by the success of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party in Australia, John Lehmann has decided to turn his Government Accountability League into a full-fledged political party and fight the 1999 elections.
Mr. Lehmann has already been accused of “racism.” An Auckland college refused to let him use one of its buildings for a meeting when he advertised it as open to “bona fide New Zealanders only.” Last October, the New Zealand Race Relations Conciliator, a man named Rajen Prasad, stopped the league’s “Dob-a-wog” (turn in a non-white) campaign, which encouraged New Zealanders to report overstaying visitors to the authorities. Mr. Prasad found public use of the word “wog” illegal under the New Zealand Human Rights Act. (David Barber and Stephanie Peatling, Hanson Inspires Like-minded NZ Party, Sydney (Australia) Morning Herald, Aug. 14, 1997.)
Meanwhile, a recent poll finds that up to half the Asian immigrants to New Zealand are thinking of leaving. They complain of bad job prospects and a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment. Even the government, which had previously courted Asians, has instituted an English-language test that has cut Taiwanese immigration from 12,325 in 1996 to 659 in the first half of 1997. Where would the dissatisfied Asians like to go? Australia or the United States. (David Barber, Migrants Feel Cold Shoulder, Sydney Morning Herald, Aug. 16, 1997.)
Nothing Seems to Work
A company called Manpower Demonstration Research Corp. has just announced the almost complete failure of an attempt to improve the lot of Detroit welfare mothers. Over a period of 18 months between 1989 and 1991, it spent approximately $9,000 on each of 2,300 mothers to teach them family planning, child care, job training, etc. After a 3-1/2-year follow-up period, the women are virtually indistinguishable from controls who did not get the training. Seventy-five percent of both groups are still on welfare. The only difference is that program participants were slightly more likely than controls to get a GED.
“I think I was surprised by the number of challenges these women have in their lives and how difficult it is for them to stay in jobs in the labor market,” observes Robert Granger, director of the program. (Tim Whitmire, Associated Press, July 2, 1997.)
For years, California resident Judy Ann Petty has had her initials, JAP, on her purse, check book, and other personal items. Since her husband’s name is Robin Arnett Petty, she has vanity license plates that say RAPNJAP. Now the California Department of Motor Vehicles says her plates have to go because of the letters JAP, which offend Japanese. Harvey Horikawa, the Japanese-American lawyer who prodded the department into action, says “I would think it would be sufficient to go with “JP and RP.’” Mr. and Mrs. Petty have vowed to fight the ruling. (Minerva Canto, “JAP’ Initials on License Plate Called a Racial Affront, Associated Press, Aug. 27, 1997.)
LaTonya Green of Detroit is a black lady bank robber. Her May, 1996, conviction was upheld despite a complaint that there were not enough blacks on the jury. Now, it has come to light that the Detroit jury pool in federal cases has been juggled for years to keep it majority black. So many blacks are in jail, fail to appear, or are unqualified as jurors that the courts were discarding the names of many whites to ensure “appropriate” black representation. What did Miss Green’s lawyers decide to do when this practice became known? Ask for a retrial because whites had been improperly kept off the jury. The appeal failed. (David Josar, Whites’ Exclusion From Juries Questioned, The Detroit News, Aug. 3, 1997, p. 5B.)
Blind Deer Hunters
Michigan has become the sixth state to allow the blind to go deer hunting. They may hunt with otherwise illegal laser sights, which throw a dot of light on the target. Blind hunters will be accompanied by someone who can see, who will quietly whisper instructions like, “Up a little, a bit to the right. Now fire.” (Eric Sharp, Blind Deer Hunters to Take Aim This Fall, Detroit Free Press, May 9, 1997, p. A1.)
Just Making Ends Meet
Antonio Ortiz used to live in Trenton, New Jersey. In June, his neighbors heard “a gunshot and a thump” in his apartment but found his door locked. When police arrived they found Mr. Ortiz, a drug dealer, still alive but with a mortal gunshot wound to the head. Since there were no weapons in the disordered apartment, police thought they had a murder on their hands. They changed the report to suicide and burglary when other witnesses explained that two black teenagers had jumped over Mr. Ortiz’s second-floor balcony immediately after he shot himself. They ransacked the apartment, stole Mr. Ortiz drugs and weapons, and escaped before the police arrived. (Chris Dolmetsch, Street Scavengers, The Trentoninan, June 22, 1997, p. 5.)
Pope John Paul II has denounced Western nations for cutting back on immigration, saying they have a moral duty to care for the needy — including the duty to let them in. “Who is my neighbor?” he asked. “The neighbor is every human being, without exception. It is not necessary to ask his nationality, or to which social or religious group he belongs. If he is in need, he must be helped.” (Frances D’Emilio, Associated Press, Aug. 22, 1997.)
|LETTERS FROM READERS|
Sir — In the latest AR I found the Con article about Christianity much more convincing than the Pro article. Mr. Masters is right. Christianity is a religion of losers. What he didn’t say is also true: Judaism is a religion for winners. If your race is to survive, it must demand an eye for an eye, not turn the other check.
My wife is a very pure symbol of all that is best and most suicidal about the white race. Although she claims to not like Christians, whom she calls “Bible thumpers,” she has a strong moralistic, for-the-common-good, do-the-recycling, have-no-more-than-two-children, pay-your-taxes, redistribute-the-wealth kind of mentality. She is burdened with (an excess?) of conscience, she feels that to think in racial terms is evil (otherwise she might not be married to a non-white — me), and has incredibly strong maternal instincts. She also refuses to think logically, which is not so much a characteristic of the white race as it is of people who have strong material instincts.
Name Withheld, New York City
Sir — Thanks for printing the debate on Christianity and the race. Victor Craig made a tremendous effort, but he didn’t salvage the Cross for this racialist loyalist. He should be more careful about using phrases like “the faith of our European ancestors” — surely Asatru/ Odinism deserves that tag more than the Asian cult imported from the Levant?
The Era of Christianity that we are exiting was an era of stronger, bolder, more courageous men (and women) than we. That strength is what made their “Christendom” so magnificent. For a strong man, a toxin taken in small doses may even be a tonic, but when a man becomes weak and flabby, the toxin shows it true nature and overwhelms his system.
Steven Meisenbach, San Francisco
Sir — While I applaud Mr. Master’s pleas to purge America’s liberal churches of multiculturalism, I think a return to “old-time religion” is a mere aspirin for our symptoms and a cure more lethal than the disease. Traditional Christianity is a history of Church suppression of freedoms, while its “white supremacy” was not racial loyalty but part of a generalized subjugation of all. Moreover, supremacist versions of “old-time religion” toy with catastrophe since they ignore the fact that tens of millions of non-whites would revolt violently against any attempt to “take back the country” (from them). Reasonable compromises of limited and peaceable separation of the races seem a more workable path to white preservation.
Jim Owens, Arlington, Va.
Sir — While Mr. Masters justly criticizes misguided altruism and universalism, he gives them unmerited dignity by calling them Christian. Real Christianity has always limited its altruism. Christ died for my sins and my brother’s. We are therefore bound by His example to love each other regardless of race but not those outside the church. Biblical universalism is limited to the church. When Mr. Masters writes that “the New Testament opens the doors to universalism” he would, to be consistent, have to claim the U.S. Constitution “opens the door to Miranda and affirmative action.”
As Mr. Craig writes, Christianity and Western civilization are inseparable. Alert students of Western civilization should learn to separate wheat (biblical Christianity) from chaff (liberal pseudo- Christianity).
John Taylor, Royal Oak, Mich.
Sir — In his letter in the September issue, Cullen Atwood expresses dismay that anyone should think that Adolf Hitler was good for the white race. Mr. Atwood knows little about Hitler and his times. He seems to think multiculturalism had no agenda prior to Hitler, or would have flourished had it not been for Hitler and the Second World War. Maybe in his next letter he can explain to us the benefits of America’s having shaped our times, and how Western civilization has been “improved” since 1945.
Joseph Kubicek, Cicero, Il.
Sir — One of your July-August O Tempora items notes that a Texas prison refuses to let in AR, which it describes as an “unsuitable publication.” As an inmate employed in the prison library, I see first hand what the prison authorities think suitable. The library subscribes to Ebony, Jet, Black Beat, Black Enterprise, Hispanic, and Native Peoples, but even considers American Spectator unacceptable, despite prisoner requests. The books on the shelves reflect the same thinking. We have Frances Cres Welsing’s The Isis Papers [reviewed in AR, Sept. 1997], Shahrazad Ali’s Are You Still a Slave?,Eldridge Cleaver’s Soul on Ice, and books by James Baldwin. Paved With Good Intentions, which was donated to the library, has been rejected. Likewise, cultural study groups are offered to everyone except whites and Asians. Whites are told that they learned enough about their culture and history in public schools.
Matthew Harrington, St. Cloud, Minn.
Christianity, continued . . .
The previous issue’s debate about Christianity continues on the AR website. Edwin Clarke, author of The Roots of the White Man (AR Nov. & Dec. 1996), takes Victor Craig to task for claiming that Christianity and Western Civilization are inseparable, and for recommending a return to traditional forms of belief. Twentieth-century man, he argues, no longer has the pre-scientific mentality necessary for Biblical faith.
George McDaniel, editor of the AR Web Page, put Christianity in historical context, showing how, as it became European, it adopted the forms and customs of pre-Christian paganism. In his view, Christianity did not create the West nor is it destroying the West. It is a reflection of Western man, and can be no more vigorous than the people who practice it.