.

.

POSTS BY SUBJECT

POSTS BY SUBJECT

''ESTONIA'' (15) "Hindenburg" (2) “Yom Kippur” War (1) 2017 Westminster attack (1) 20th_Century (3) 7/7 London bombings (38) 911 (390) A.H.M. RAMSAY (2) Abu Ghraib (1) ADL (1) ADOLF_HITLER (23) ADVENTURE (1) Affirmative Action (1) Afghanistan (7) AFRICA (45) African Origins (1) Agriculture (3) AIDS (24) Al Azhar University (1) Alain de Benoist (15) Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (34) Alois Irlmaier (1) AMAZONIA (3) America (4) American Islamization (21) American Universities (2) American_Indian (1) Ancient Egypt (1) ANCIENT_CIVILISATIONS (2) Angels (1) Animal_Rights (6) ANTEDILUVIAN_CIVILISATION (15) Anthony Blunt (1) Anthony Ludovici (3) ANTHROPOLOGY (7) Anti-Semitism (3) Antifa (2) Apartheid (1) AR. LEESE (4) ARCHAEOLOGY (3) Argentina (1) Armenia (4) Armenian Genocide (1) Art (15) Arthur Koestler (1) Astronomy (30) ATHEISM (1) AUSTRALIA (2) AUSTRIA (1) Ayaan Hirsi Ali (3) Baha'i faith (1) BALI (1) Balkans (4) Bangladesh (2) banned_weapons (1) Barbarossa (2) BELGIUM (2) Benjamin Freedman (1) BENJAMIN SOLARI PARRAVICINI (11) Beslan (1) Bill Clinton (1) Biological Warfare (2) Black America (1) BLOOD PASSOVER (12) BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION (15) Book purge (1) Boycottage (1) Brainwashing (1) BRAZIL (1) Brigitte Gabriel (1) British politics (1) Buddhism (5) California (1) Cambodia (8) CANADA (9) CANCER (40) Carolina bays (1) Celebrities-Show Business (3) Cell Phone towers (6) Censorship in Europe (7) CENTRAL_ASIA (1) Central/South America (1) Ch. Bollyn (30) Charles Tart (8) Charlie Hebdo (1) Che Guevara (2) CHEMTRAILS (13) CHINA (6) Christian Zionism (1) CHRISTIANISM (46) CHRISTIANISM in EUROPE (1) Churchill (7) CINEMA (2) Circumcision (10) CLIMATE (7) Climate Change (8) cluster bombs/mines (2) Cold Fusion (1) COLD_FUSION (1) COLONIALISM (1) Colonization of Europe (26) Commerce (1) Communism (49) CONGO (5) Consciousness (9) Conspiracies (8) Consumerism (1) contemporary society (8) COPTS (1) Cosmogony (1) Crime (5) Criminal_Sciense (1) CRIMINALITY (1) crop circles (5) CUBA (16) Cultural Marxism (7) DARFUR (3) Dead Sea Scrolls (1) Death penalty in ISLAM (1) Death-Bed Visions (1) DECADANT_ART (1) Deir Yassin (8) Democracy (1) DENMARK (3) Depleted uranium (6) DIAMOND CARTELS (1) DIANA (10) DIETRICH ECKART (1) DILUVIUM (5) Disney (2) DOGS (1) Donald TRUMP (4) Dönmeh (1) Doppelgangers (1) Dresden (6) DRUG ADDICTION (1) E.U. (11) Eastern Europe (1) ECHELON (1) ECONOMY (14) EDUCATION (4) Egypt (11) Eisenhower (4) El Inglés (2) Elie Wiesel (1) Elite_Child_Sex_Rings (16) Elizabeth Taylor (1) ENERGY (9) Enoch Powell (1) environmentalism (10) Ernst Zundel (1) EUROPE viz. ISLAM (8) EUROPE's FUTURE (7) European Parliament (1) EUROPEAN UNION (10) EUROPEAN_IDENTITY (4) Eustace Mullins (10) Evidence for the Afterlife (2) EVOLUTION (9) EXPLORATIONS (1) Ezra Pound (1) Facebook (1) FALSE_HISTORY (2) Fascism (4) Fashion industry (1) FATIMA (9) Female Genital Mutilation (2) FEMINISM (14) FINLAND (2) Fjordman (7) Flight 007 (1) Fluoride (1) Food (11) FRANCE (29) FRANCE viz. ISLAM (2) Francis P. Yockey (5) Frankfurt School (1) Franklin D. Roosevelt (6) freedom of speech (1) Fukushima (2) G7 (1) Gas chambers (1) Gaza (1) Geert Wilders (9) GENDERISM (1) genetically modified organisms (GMO) (8) Georges Bensoussan (2) German National Socialism (14) GERMANY (43) GERMANY viz. ISLAM (2) Gilad Atzmon (11) Global warming (2) Globalism (5) Great Britain (58) Great Pyramid (16) GREECE (2) GREENPEACE (3) Guatemala (1) Guillaume Faye (1) Gulag (3) Gulf War (1) Gulf War Syndrome (1) Guylaine Lanctot (2) HAARP (10) Hans Günther (8) Harry Potter (1) HEALTH (114) HEMP (1) Henry Makow (2) Hidden History (15) HIDDEN HYPNOSIS TECHNIQUES (1) Hiroshima (4) Historical Review (67) History_of_IDEAS (3) HMS Hampshire (3) Hollow Earth (22) Hollywood (11) Holocaust (138) HOLODOMOR_1932-33 (17) Homosexuality (6) Horst Mahler (4) Howard Hughes (1) HUMAN_ORIGINS (1) HUMAN_RIGHTS (2) Humorous (2) HUNGARY (2) HYPERBOREA (7) IAN STEVENSON (13) ICELAND (1) Image of Guadalupe (2) Immigration (15) IMPORTANT (5) INDIA (24) IndoEuropean (12) Indonesia (4) Infrasound Weapons (1) Intellectual_freedom (1) Intelligence (15) Intelligent design (8) International Criminal Tribunal (3) INTERNET (2) INTERRACIAL_RELATIONS (1) INTIMIDATION (3) INVENTIONS (3) IRAN (11) Iranian regime violence (1) IRAQ (21) IRAQ_war (11) IRELAND (1) ISLAM (325) Islam in Europe/America (92) ISLAM in RUSSIA (1) ISLAM propagandists (4) ISLAMIST INTIMIDATION (24) ISLAMIST_VIOLENCE (40) ISLAMIZATION OF EUROPE (65) Islamophobia (6) ISRAEL (127) Israel Supreme Court (1) ISRAEL-ARAB RELATIONS (9) ISRAEL's_ATOMIC_BOMB (4) ISRAEL/EU RELATIONS (1) ITALY (7) J.Kaminski (4) Japan (2) Jewish History (1) Jewish Question (1) JEWS (110) JEWS/ISRAEL-USA_relations (53) JFK Assassination (27) JFK/RFK (1) Jihad (15) Jo Cox (6) Joe Sobran (4) John Bryant (17) John Lear (3) Journalists (2) Julius Evola (38) Jyllands-Posten newspaper (1) Kafirs (1) Karl Marx (1) Katie King (1) Katyn (11) Kevin MacDonald (37) KHAZARs (1) Knut Hamsun (1) Kurdistan (1) KURDS (1) Lasha Darkmoon (13) Laurel Canyon (4) Layla Anwar (4) LEBANON (3) LEFT (16) Liberalism (1) Lord Kitchener (4) Lord Northcliff (1) Lost Civilisations (2) Lost Technology (1) LYDDA (1) MADELEINE McCANN (4) Magic (1) Magnesium (7) Mahathir (1) Mahatma Gandhi (4) Malaysia (2) Manchester terrorist attack (11) Manipulation (69) MAPS (1) Mark Weber (10) Mass immigration_Multiculturalism (20) Mass_Media (3) Mass-Psychology (3) Massacres (1) May-June 2017 London Jihadist attacks (4) Medjugorje apparitions (3) METEMPSYCHOSIS (17) MEXICO (1) MH370 (2) MIDDLE EAST (44) Military Tribunal at Nuremberg (10) MIND CONTROL (23) MONEY-Banking (8) Monsanto (9) Morality (1) Mormonism (1) Mortacracy (6) MUSIC MAFIA (2) Muslim Brotherhood (5) Muslim Honor Killings (1) Muslim Persecution of Christians (2) MUSLIMS IN EUROPE (71) Mussolini (3) Mysterious (69) Mysterious_SKY (1) Nathuram Godse (3) National Memorial and Arboretum (1) Native Americans (1) Neapolis (1) NESSIE (17) Netherlands (10) New World Order (4) NEW_ZEALAND (1) NGOs (2) Nicolai Sennels (1) no-go zones (2) NOAM CHOMSKY (4) Nonie Darwish (12) North Africa (3) NORWAY (1) Norway massacre (5) NUCLEAR (11) Nutrition (20) Obama (2) Occult Symbols (21) Oklahoma City bombing (7) OLYMPIC_GAMES (13) OPINION (9) Orel_Yiftachel (5) Organized Jewry (6) P. Buchanan (26) PACIFISM (1) PAEDOPHILIA (15) Paganism (2) PAKISTAN (2) PALESTINE 1944-1948 (1) Palestinians (18) PARIS (1) Patrice Lumumba (1) PATRICIA HEARST (2) Patton (2) Paul Craig Roberts (1) Paul Weston (9) PEARL HARBOR (1) Persecuted Christians (7) PERSONALITIES (1) Philosophy of Civilization (1) Photographic_Archive (1) Photography (2) Physics (9) POLAND (5) POLAR REGIONS (30) Poliomyelitis (8) Political Thought (52) Pollution (3) Polynesia (25) Pope Benedict (1) Pornography (2) PORTUGAL (6) PREHISTORY (28) propaganda (3) Prophecies (14) Psychedelics (64) PSYCHIATRY (10) Psychical Research (124) Psychology (6) QATAR (2) QUEBEC (1) Queen Victoria (1) R.R.Rife (10) Race (126) Racism (4) RED_Alert (4) Religion (27) René Guénon (1) Revilo Oliver (16) Richard Dawkins (1) Riyadh address to the Muslim world (1) Robert Faurisson (1) Rockefellers (1) Roger Garaudy (6) Roman Catholic Church (12) Ron Paul (7) Rudolph Hess (1) Ruling_by_CORRUPTION (14) RUSSIA (8) RUSSIAN REVOLUTION (1) RWANDA (31) S. H. Pearson (1) Sabra-Shatila massacre (10) Sandy Hook (1) Sanskrit (1) SAUDI ARABIA (6) Savitri Devi (27) Scandinavia (1) SCIENCE (45) Secret Military Technology (14) Secret weapons (10) Sedition Trial (1) SERBIA (1) sexual freedom (6) Sexualization of Culture (5) Sinister sites (11) Skepticism (1) Slave trade (1) SOUTH AFRICA (4) Space/Apollo_Hoax (54) SPAIN (2) Spengler (6) Spirituality (1) Srebrenica (1) STALINISM (1) State_criminality (8) Steganography (16) Steven Yates (7) STRANGE SOUNDS (4) Subterranean_world (10) SUDAN (2) SUPERNATURAL (16) Surveillance (1) SWASTIKA (33) SWEDEN (11) Switzerland (1) SYRIA (8) Taj Mahal (13) Ted Kaczynski (1) Terrorism (42) TESLA (6) The 1001 Club (1) The Celts (1) The Cultural Integration Initiative (1) The Frankfurt School (1) The Great Flood (8) The Irish Savant (9) The Mass Rape of German Women by the Red Army (1) The Nuremberg Trials (4) The plutonium injections (4) Theo van Gogh (1) Thought of the Right (63) TITANIC (72) Tommy Robinson (1) Torture (1) Tradition (5) Transatlantic Slave Trade (1) Transcendent Experience (6) Tunguska (1) Tunisia (2) TURKEY (7) TWA flight 800 (1) U.S.A. (143) U.S.A. ARMY CRIMINALITY (18) U.S.A. Foreign policy (13) U.S.A. Military (2) U.S.A._HISTORY (2) U.S.A._POLITICS (8) U.S.A._SOCIETY (6) U.S.A.-CIA (12) U.S.A.-Power Structure (6) U.S.S. Liberty (7) UFOs (166) Ukraine (15) United Church of Christ (1) United Nations (3) UNKNOWN_EARTH (2) USA (3) USA_Press (2) USA/USSR_relations (2) USS San Francisco (1) USSR (54) Vaccination (1) VATICAN (12) Vatican II (3) VELIKOVSKY (2) Vernon Coleman (14) Voynich_manuscript (15) WAFA SULTAN (1) War Crimes (35) water (2) Wayne MADSEN (2) WEST (14) WEST viz. ISLAM (10) WEST/ISLAM Relations (22) WESTERN_ELITES (3) White Guilt (1) White phosphorous (1) White Race (2) WILD_LIFE (1) Wilhelm Reich (4) William Gough (10) wind farms (1) Wm F. Koch (8) Women in Islam (7) World Wildlife Fund (8) WORLD_ORDER (57) WWI (6) WWII (98) WWII Aftermath (42) WWIII (1) Younger Dryas Ice Age (4) Yugoslavia (8) ZIONISM (11)

Saturday, August 2, 2014

Race and Crime: An International Dilemma

Source: Society, Jan-Feb 1995
Race and Crime: An International Dilemma
By Rushton, J. Philippe
In their magisterial Crime and Human Nature, J.Q. Wilson and R.J. Herrnstein noted that the Asian underrepresentation in U.S. crime statistics posed a theoretical problem. The solution proposed by criminologists as early as the 1920s was that the Asian “ghetto” protected members from the disruptive tendencies of the outside society. For blacks, however, the ghetto is said to foster crime.
The overrepresentation of blacks in U.S. crime statistics has existed since the turn of the twentieth century. The census of 1910 showed more blacks than whites in jail, in the north as well as in the south. Official figures from the 1930s through the 1950s showed that the number of blacks arrested for crimes of violence in proportion to the number of whites ranged from 6:1 to 16:1. These statistics have not improved in the interim.
Breaching a long taboo, liberals from Bill Clinton to Jesse Jackson have recently made it respectable to theorize about “black-on-black” crime. Conservative magazines like the National Review have also begun to discuss aspects of the race/crime link (see “Blacks… and Crime,” May 16, 1994; “How to Cut Crime,” May 30, 1994). What is yet to be acknowledged, however, is the international generalizability of the race/crime relationship. The matrix found within the United States, with Asians being most law-abiding, Africans least, and Europeans intermediate, is to be observed in other multiracial countries like Britain, Brazil, and Canada. Moreover, the pattern is revealed in China and the Pacific Rim, Europe and the Middle East, and Africa and the Caribbean. Because the “American dilemma” is global in manifestation, explanations must go well beyond U.S. particulars.
I emphasize at the outset that enormous variability exists within each of the populations on many of the traits to be discussed. Because distributions substantially overlap, with average differences amounting to between 4 and 34 percent, it is highly problematic to generalize from a group average to a particvular individual. Nonetheless, as I hope to show, significant racial variation exists, not only in crime but also in other traits that predispose to crime, including testosterone, brain size, temperament, and cognitive ability.
The global nature of the racial pattern in crime is shown in data collated from INTERPOL using the 1984 and 1986 yearbooks. After analyzing information on nearly 100 countries, I reported, in the 1990 issue of the Canadian Journal of Criminology, that African and Caribbean countries had double the rate of violent crime (an aggregate of murder, rape, and serious assault) than did European countries, and three times more than did countries in the Pacific Rim. Averaging over the three crimes and two time periods, the figures per 100,000 population were, respectively, 142, 74, and 43.
I have corroborated these results using the most recent INTERPOL yearbook (1990). The rates of murder, rape, and serious assault per 100,000 population reported for 23 predominantly African countries, 41 Caucasian countries, and 12 Asian countries were: for murder, 13, 5, and 3; for rape, 17, 6, and 3; and for serious assault, 213, 63, and 27. Summing the crimes gave figures per 100,000, respectively, of 243, 74, and 33. The gradient remained robust over contrasts of racially homogeneous countries in northeast Asia, central Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa, or of racially mixed but predominantly black or white/Amerindian countries in the Caribbean and Central America. In short, a stubborn pattern exists worldwide that requires explanation.
Testosterone and the Family
The breakdown of the black family and the strengths of the Asian family are often used to explain the crime pattern within the United States. Learning to follow rules is thought to depend on family socialization. Since the 1965 Moynihan Report documented the high rates of marital dissolution, frequent heading of families by women, and numerous illegitimate births, the figures cited as evidence for the instability of the black family in America have tripled.
A similarly constituted matrifocal black family exists in the Caribbean with father-absent households, lack of paternal certainty, and separate bookkeeping by spouses. The Caribbean pattern, like the American one, is typically attributed to the long legacy of slavery. However, the slavery hypothesis does not fit data from sub-Saharan Africa. After reviewing long-standing African marriage systems in the 1989 issue of Ethology and Sociobiology, anthropologist Patricia Draper of Pennsylvania State University concluded: “coupled with low investment parenting is a mating pattern that permits early sexual activity, loose economic and emotional ties between spouses… and in many cases the expectation on the part of both spouses that the marriage will end in divorce or separation, followed by the formation of another union.”
The African marriage system may partly depend on traits of temperament. Biological variables such as the sex hormone testosterone are implicated in the tendency toward multiple relationships as well as the tendency to commit crime. One study, published in the 1993 issue of Criminology by Alan Booth and D. Wayne Osgood, showed clear evidence of a testosterone-crime link based on an analysis of 4,462 U.S. military personnel. Other studies have linked testosterone to an aggressive and impulsive personality, to a lack of empathy, and to sexual behavior. Testosterone levels explain why young men are disproportionately represented in crime statistics relative to young women, and why younger people are more trouble-prone than older people. Testosterone reliably differentiates the sexes and is known to decline with age.
Ethnic differences exist in average level of testosterone. Studies show 3 to 19 percent more testosterone in black college students and military veterans than in their white counterparts. Studies among the Japanese show a correspondingly lower amount of testosterone than among white Americans. Medical research has focused on cancer of the prostate, one determinant of which is testosterone. Black men have higher rates of prostate cancer than do white men who in turn have higher rates than do Oriental men.
Sex hormones also influence reproductive physiology. Whereas the average woman produces 1 egg every 28 days in the middle of the menstrual cycle, some women have shorter cycles and others produce more than one egg; both events translate into greater fecundity including the birth of dizygotic (two-egg) twins. Black women average shorter menstrual cycles than white women and produce a greater frequency of dizygotic twins. The rate per 1,000 births is less than 4 among east Asians, 8 among whites, and 16 or greater among Africans and African-Americans.
Racial differences exist in sexual behavior, as documented by numerous surveys including those carried out by the World Health Organization. Africans, African-Americans and blacks living in Britain are more sexually active, at an earlier age, and with more sexual partners than are Europeans and white Americans, who in turn are more sexually active, at an earlier age, and with more sexual partners than are Asians, Asian-Americans, and Asians living in Britain. Differences in sexual activity translate into consequences. Teenage fertility rates around the world show the racial gradient, as does the pattern of sexually transmitted diseases. World Health Organization Technical Reports and other studies examining the worldwide prevalence of AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, and chlamydia typically find low levels in China and Japan and high levels in Africa, with European countries intermediate. This is also the pattern found within the United States.
International data on personality and temperament show that blacks are less restrained and less quiescent than whites and whites are less restrained and less quiescent than Orientals. With infants and young children observer ratings are the main method employed, whereas with adults the use of standardized tests are more frequent. One study in French-language Quebec examined 825 four- to six-year olds from 66 countries rated by 50 teachers. All the children were in preschool French-language immersion classes for immigrant children. Teachers consistently reported better social adjustment and less hostility-aggression from east Asian than from white than from African-Caribbean children. Another study based on twenty-five countries from around the world showed that east Asians were less extraverted and more anxiety-prone than Europeans who in turn were less outgoing and more restrained than Africans.
Behavior Genetics
Differences between individuals in testosterone and its various metabolites are about 50 percent heritable. More surprising to many are the studies suggesting that criminal tendencies are also heritable. According to American, Danish, and Swedish adoption studies, children who were adopted in infancy were at greater risk for criminal convictions if their biological parents had been convicted than if the adopting parents who raised them had been convicted. In one study of all 14,427 nonfamilial adoptions in Denmark from 1924 to 1947, it was found that siblings and half-siblings adopted separately into different homes were concordant for convictions.
Convergent with this adoption work, twin studies find that identical twins are roughly twice as much alike in their criminal behavior as fraternal twins. In 1986 I reported the results of a study of 576 pairs of adult twins on dispositions to altruism, empathy, nurturance, and aggressiveness, traits which parents are expected to socialize heavily. Yet 50 percent of the variance in both men and women was attributable to genetics. The well-known Minnesota Study of Twins Raised Apart led by Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., has confirmed the importance of genetic factors to personality traits such as aggressiveness, dominance, and impulsivity. David Rowe at the University of Arizona reviewed much of this literature in his 1994 book Limits of Family Influence. He explains how siblings raised together in the same family may differ genetically from each other in delinquency.
Genes code for enzymes, which, under the influence of the environment, lay down tracts in the brains and neurohormonal systems of individuals, thus affecting people’s minds and the choices they make about behavioral alternatives. In regard to aggression, for example, people inherit nervous systems that dispose them to anger, irritability, impulsivity, and a lack of conditionability. In general, these factors influence self-control, a psychological variable figuring prominently in theories of criminal behavior.
Behavior genetic studies provide information about environmental effects. As described in Rowe’s book, the important variables turn out to be within a family, not between families. Factors such as social class, family religion, parental values, and child-rearing styles are not found to have a strong common effect on siblings. Because individual minds channel common environments in separate ways siblings acquire alternative sets of information. Although siblings resemble each other in their exposure to violent television programs, it is the more aggressive one who identifies with aggressive characters and who views aggressive consequences as positive.
Within-family studies show that intelligence and temperament separate siblings in proneness to delinquency. It is not difficult to imagine how an intellectually less able and temperamentally more impulsive sibling seeks out a social environment different from his or her more able and less impulsive sibling. Within the constraints allowed by the total spectrum of cultural alternatives, people create environments maximally compatible with their genotypes. Genetic similarity explains the tendency for trouble-prone personalities to seek each other out for friendship and marriage.
One objection sometimes made to genetic theories of crime is the finding that crime rates fluctuate with social conditions. Generational changes in crime, however, are expected by genetic theories. As environments become less impeding and more equal, the genetic contribution to individual difference variation necessarily becomes larger. Over the last 50 years, for example, there has been an increase in the genetic contribution to both academic attainment and longevity as harmful environmental effects have been mitigated and more equal opportunities created. Thus, easing social constraints on underlying “at risk” genotypes leads to an increase in criminal behavior.
Intelligence
The role of low cognitive ability in disposing a child to delinquency is established even within the same family where a less able sibling is observed to engage in more deviant behavior than an advantaged sibling. Problem behaviors begin early in life and manifest themselves as an unwillingness or inability to follow family rules. Later, drug abuse, early onset of sexual activity, and more clearly defined illegal acts make up the broad-based syndrome predicted by low intelligence.
Racial differences exist in average IQ-test scores and again the pattern extends well beyond the United States. The global literature on IQ was reviewed by Richard Lynn in the 1991 issue of Mankind Quarterly. Caucasoids of North America, Europe, and Australasia generally obtained mean IQs of around 100. Mongoloids from both North America and the Pacific Rim obtained slightly higher means, in the range of 101 to 111. Africans from south of the Sahara, African-Americans, and African-Caribbeans (including those living in Britain) obtained mean IQs ranging from 70 to 90.
The question remains of whether test scores are valid measures of group differences in mental ability. Basically, the answer hinges on whether the tests are culture-bound. Doubts linger in many quarters, although a large body of technical work has disposed of this problem among those with psychometric expertise, as shown in the book of surveys by Snyderman and Rothman. This is because the tests show similar patterns of internal item consistency and predictive validity for all groups, and the same differences are to be found on relatively culture-free tests.
Novel data about speed of decision making show that the racial differences in mental ability are pervasive. Cross-cultural investigations of reaction times have been done on nine- to twelve-year olds from six countries. In these elementary tasks, children must decide which of several lights is on, or stands out from others, and move a hand to press a button. All children can perform the tasks in less than one second, but more intelligent children, as measured by traditional IQ tests, perform the task faster than do less intelligent children. Richard Lynn found Oriental children from Hong Kong and Japan to be faster in decision time than white children from Britain and Ireland who were faster than black children from Africa. Arthur Jensen has reported the same three-way pattern in California.
Brain Size
The relation between mental ability and brain size has been established in studies using magnetic resonance imaging, which, in vivo, construct three-dimensional pictures of the brain and confirm correlations reported since the turn of the century measuring head perimeter. The brain size/cognitive ability correlations range from about 0.10 to 0.40. Moreover, racial differences are found in brain size. It has often been held that racial differences in brain size, established in the nineteenth century, disappear when corrections are made for body size and other variables such as bias. However, modern studies confirm nineteenth-century findings.
Three main procedures have been used to estimate brain size: (a) weighing wet brains at autopsy; (b) measuring the volume of empty skulls using filler; and (c) measuring external head size and estimating volume. Data from all three sources triangulate on the conclusion that, after statistical corrections are made for body size, east Asians average about 17 c[m.sup.3] (1 cubic inch) more cranial capacity than whites who average about 80 c[m.sup.3] (5 cubic inches) more than blacks. Ho and colleagues at the Medical College of Wisconsin analyzed brain autopsy data on 1,261 American subjects aged 25 to 80 after excluding obviously damaged brains and reported, in the 1980 issue of Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, that, after controlling for age and body size, white men averaged 100 grams more brain weight than black men, and white women averaged 100 grams more brain weight than black women. With endocranial volume, Beals and colleagues computerized the world database of up to 20,000 crania and published their results in the 1984 issue of Current Anthropology. Sex-combined brain cases differed by continental area with populations from Asia averaging 1,415 c[m.sup.3], those from Europe averaging 1,362 c[m.sup.3], and those from Africa averaging 1,268 c[m.sup.3].
Using external head measurements I have found, after corrections are made for body size, that east Asians consistently average a larger brain than do Caucasians or Africans. Three of these studies were published in the journal Intelligence. In a 1991 study, from data compiled by the U.S. space agency NASA, military samples from Asia averaged 14 c[m.sup.3] more cranial capacity than those from Europe. In a stratified random sample of 6,325 U.S. Army personnel measured in 1988 for fitting helmets, I found that Asian-Americans averaged 36 c[m.sup.3] more than European-Americans who averaged 21 c[m.sup.3] more than African-Americans. Most recently, I analyzed data from tens of thousands of men and women aged 25 to 45 collated by the International Labour Office in Geneva and found that Asians averaged 10 c[m.sup.3] more than Europeans and 66 c[m.sup.3] more than Africans.
Racial differences in brain size and IQ show up early in life. Data from the National Collaborative Perinatal Project on 19,000 black children and 17,000 white children show that black children have a smaller head perimeter at birth and, although they are born shorter in stature and lighter in weight, by age seven “catch-up growth” leads them to be larger in body size than white children, but still smaller in head perimeter. Head perimeter at birth correlated with IQ at age seven in both the black and the white children.
Origins of Race Differences
Racial differences exist at a more profound level than is normally considered. Why do Europeans average so consistently between Africans and Asians in crime, family system, sexual behavior, testosterone level, intelligence, and brain size? It is almost certain that genetics and evolution have a role to play. Transracial adoption studies indicate genetic influence. Studies of Korean and Vietnamese children adopted into white American and white Belgian homes showed that, although as babies many had been hospitalized for malnutrition, they grew to excel in academic ability with IQs ten points higher than their adoptive national norms. By contrast, Sandra Scarr and her colleagues at Minnesota found that at age 17, black and mixed-race children adopted into white middle-class families performed at a lower level than the white siblings with whom they were raised. Adopted white children had an average IQ of 106, an average aptitude based on national norms at the 59th percentile, and a class rank at the 54th percentile; mixed-race children had an average IQ of 99, an aptitude at the 53rd percentile, and a class rank at the 40th percentile; and black children had an average IQ of 89, an aptitude at the 42nd percentile, and a class rank at the 36th percentile.
No known environmental variable can explain the inverse relation across the three races between gamete production (two-egg twinning) and brain size. The only known explanation for this trade-off is life-history theory. A life-history is a genetically organized suite of characters that evolved in a coordinated manner so as to allocate energy to survival, growth, and reproduction. There is, in short, a trade-off between parental effort, including paternal investment, and mating effort, a distinction Patricia Draper referred to as one between “cads” and “dads.”
Evolutionary hypotheses have been made for why Asians have the largest brains and the most parenting investment strategy. The currently accepted view of human origins, the “African Eve” theory, posits a beginning in Africa some 200,000 years ago, an exodus through the Middle East with an African/non-African split about 110,000 years ago, and a Caucasoid/Mongoloid split about 40,000 years ago. Evolutionary selection pressures are different in the hot savanna where Africans evolved than in the cold arctic where Asians evolved.
The evidence shows that the further north the populations migrated out of Africa, the more they encountered the cognitively demanding problems of gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, making clothes, and raising children successfully during prolonged winters. The evolutionary sequence fits with and helps to explain how and why the variables cluster. As the original African populations evolved into Caucasoids and Mongoloids, they did so in the direction of larger brains and lower levels of sex hormone, with concomitant reductions in aggression and sexual potency and increases in forward planning and family stability.
Despite the vast body of evidence now accumulating for important genetic and behavioral differences among the three great macro-races, there is much reluctance to accept that the differences in crime are deeply rooted. Perhaps one must sympathize with fears aroused by race research. But all theories of human nature can be used to generate abusive policies. And a rejection of the genetic basis for racial variation in behavior is not only poor scholarship, it may be injurious to unique individuals and to complexly structured societies. Moreover, it should be emphasized that probably no more than about 50 percent of the variance among races is genetic, with the remaining 50 percent due to the environment. Even genetic effects are necessarily mediated by neuroendocrine and psychosocial mechanisms, thus allowing opportunity for benign intervention and the alleviation of suffering.
SUGGESTED READINGS
Richard Lynn. “Race Differences in Intelligence: A Global Perspective.” Mankind Quarterly, 31 (1991), 255-296.
Richard J. Herrstein and Charles Murray. The Bell Curve. New York: Free Press, 1994.
David C. Rowe. The Limits of Family Influence. New York: Guilford, 1994.
J. Philippe Rushton. “Race and Crime.” Canadian Journal of Criminology, 32 (1990), 315-334.
J. Philippe Rushton. “Cranial Capacity Related to Sex, Rank, and Race in a Stratified Random Sample of 6,325 U.S. Military Personnel.” Intelligence, 16 (1992), 401-413.
J. Philippe Rushton, David W. Fulker, Michael C. Neale, David K.B. Nias, and Hans J. Eysenck. “Altruism and Aggression: The Heritability of Individual Differences.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 (1986), 1192-1198.
Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman. The IQ Controversy, the Media, and Public Policy. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1988.

The Meaning of Affirmative Action


The Meaning of Affirmative Action


Source: Free Speech September 1997 Volume III, Number 9

The Meaning of Affirmative Action

by Dr. William Pierce

It has been interesting watching the television commentators and other minions of Political Correctness wring their hands and moan about the falling enrollment of Blacks in some of America’s universities and professional schools recently. Black undergraduate enrollment has fallen by one-half in some branches of the University of California. The number of Blacks in the law schools of the University of California and the University of Texas has fallen even more drastically. Until recently these schools had been very proud of themselves for having a higher percentage of Blacks among their students than in the general population, and now they have lost nearly all of their Blacks. The media spokesmen and the Clintonistas are wailing about the loss of “diversity.”
And they all know who is to blame for this dreadful turn of events: it is those hateful people who have forced the scuttling of affirmative action programs in some areas. It is “White racism” which is keeping Blacks out of the schools.
The truth of the matter, of course, is that it was affirmative action programs which were keeping Blacks in the schools, and when those programs were ended the Black enrollment plummeted. What the diversity-mongers really are alarmed about is that what has happened where affirmative action programs have been dropped exposes their lie of racial “equality.” What we see in California and Texas now is that when the prop of affirmative action is taken away the artificial “equality” it had been supporting collapses. This is something the media bosses and the Clintonistas really don’t want us to see, because it exposes the artificiality and the lack of viability of the multiracial society they have been trying to ram down our throats for so long.
We were told many years ago, when affirmative action programs first were imposed on us, that they were necessary to compensate for “White racism” — that Blacks were being kept out of universities and professional schools by “racist” officials, that Blacks were being denied employment, promotions, and other opportunities by “racist” employers, and so on. We were told that we needed to end this so-called “racial discrimination” and extend a helping hand to Blacks, so that they would have an “equal opportunity” to become lawyers, doctors, and business executives. The tacit assumption was that Blacks are “equal” in ability to Whites, and that if they were given an equal chance they would succeed equally. We were told that affirmative action programs would provide this equal opportunity.
Of course, equal opportunity was never the intention of the media bosses and the other promoters of affirmative action. Their aim was to give Blacks more opportunity than Whites. Their aim was to ensure that Blacks would succeed equally, regardless of what had to be done, regardless of how much extra opportunity had to be given to them in order to achieve this.
There was very little if any “White racism” holding down Black enrollment in American universities even before the government began enforcing affirmative action programs. University officials already were very liberal and were happy to have more Blacks. They didn’t get many Blacks because, in the first place, not many Blacks applied, and in the second place, most of those who did apply could not compete effectively with the White students. There is a very substantial average difference in IQ, in problem-solving ability, in intelligence, between Whites and Blacks, and it shows up very significantly on examinations and in success rates.
Affirmative action programs require school officials and employers to ignore these differences in ability between Whites and Blacks and to recruit Blacks at all costs. Affirmative action requires school officials to boost Blacks ahead of Whites, to give them economic rewards not available to Whites, to give Blacks preferential treatment in order to get them into school and to keep them in school.
Affirmative action requires employers to behave similarly by offering Blacks more than they offer Whites, and by hiring and promoting Blacks who are less qualified than Whites. The government wants schools to graduate a certain percentage of Blacks, and it doesn’t care how they achieve this result. The government wants employers to have certain percentages of Black employees and Black executives, regardless of how many Whites have to be trampled on in order to achieve this. And so for many years school administrators and business executives have been almost pulling Blacks out of trees and graduating them or putting them in the boardroom in order to keep the government happy.
There’s been a great deal of deceit involved in these affirmative action programs from the beginning. The government and the media tell us that they don’t involve quotas or racial preferences, when they clearly do. The government and the media tell us that affirmative action does not hurt Whites at all; it merely helps Blacks — it gives Blacks a little boost without taking anything away from Whites. That is simply a lie, although many Whites have been willing to swallow it rather than seem to be “racist.” The media have deliberately insinuated that any White person opposed to affirmative action is a “racist.”
Now a few White people in California and Texas have rebelled and have managed to get themselves out from under the yoke of affirmative action. In fact, a few Blacks have rebelled too, because they are unhappy about the resentment against them which is being caused by affirmative action. And the media and the government are screaming about how this very small rebellion is destroying “diversity,” about how this is taking us back to the bad, old days of segregation, and so on.
The thing for us to understand is that affirmative action is only one part of a much larger scheme which has been imposed on us. The aim of the media bosses and their hangers-on in the government is a multiracial society: a society in which Black teachers and Black professors teach White students; a society in which Black athletes become heroes and role models for young Whites; a society in which Black brain surgeons, Black rocket scientists, Black astronauts, Black Army generals, and Black political leaders are prominent; a society in which Black drill instructors lord it over White recruits; a society in which Blacks and Whites mix intimately and intermarry with each other at every social level.
The media bosses have been very successful at creating the illusion that we have such a society. The news, entertainment, and advertising we see on television are all designed — very carefully and skillfully designed — to support this illusion. The TV world is an artificial world. On television we see Blacks behaving like Whites, speaking like Whites, and showing themselves equal or superior to Whites in every way, including intelligence, creativity, industry, morality, civility, and sense of responsibility. The agencies on Madison Avenue which design advertisements for television carefully cultivate this illusion. Blacks are just like Whites, except for being a little darker — and perhaps a little smarter, a little more civilized, and a little better dressed. Black families are just like White families, except for being a little warmer and more loving and taking a little better care of their yards.
The scriptwriters in New York and Hollywood who give us our entertainment are engaged in exactly the same sort of deception. If there’s a White male Southerner in a film, for example, the chances are about nine out of ten that he’ll either be a despicable bigot or he’ll be a credit to his race by standing up against the despicable White bigots all around him. If there’s a Black in a major role in the film the chances are good that he’ll be brighter, more resourceful, braver, and more moral than the Whites around him. The first commandment of casting in Hollywood is, “Thou shalt not portray a person of color in a negative light.”
The same racial slant is found in the treatment of the news. Any White-on-Black crime gets star billing and is repeated endlessly, while Black-on-White crime, even of the most atrocious sort, is ignored if the media bosses think they can get away with it and buried as soon as possible if they feel obliged to mention it. The shooting of a convicted Black drug dealer and his girlfriend by a boozed-up White soldier at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, a little over a year ago was hyped and kept in the headlines for months in order to create the impression that murderous White racists were taking a terrible toll among innocent Blacks. I’m sure you’ve heard about it — many times. But just three months after the Fort Bragg shooting — in March of last year — a non-White sergeant at Camp Pendleton, the big Marine base in southern California, shot his White executive officer to death and tried to kill his White commanding officer while shouting anti-White gibberish, and hardly anyone outside the San Diego area heard of it, because the media bosses decided it wouldn’t be good for their racial program to report it.
The unfortunate fact is that today the artificial world of television shapes most people’s ideas and attitudes even more than the real world around them does. Nevertheless, the real world won’t go away, and so reality has a nasty way of contradicting the fantasy world of television and deflating the multiracial pipe dream constructed by Hollywood’s scriptwriters and Washington’s spin doctors. The way to make the real world conform to the fantasy is affirmative action. If real-world Blacks aren’t quite up to the standard of the television world, then have the government give them a boost with a little affirmative action. Make sure that White university students see plenty of Black students around them. Make sure that the Black students get grades at least as good as those of the White students. Then have an appropriate quota of Blacks in caps and gowns at graduation, even if it means trashing academic standards.
But now a few rebels in California and Texas have forced the schools in their states to deal honestly with students for a change, and reality has reared its ugly head, spoiling the carefully constructed illusion of racial equality. As soon as the prop of affirmative action was removed, the illusion simply collapsed. Black enrollment plummeted. And now there is a real danger that Whites in California and Texas may realize that when Blacks must compete on an equal basis with Whites they lose consistently, except in those areas of physical activity — basketball, boxing, ear-biting, sprinting, and jumping — to which they are especially suited. This is the reason that the Clintonistas are so desperate to keep the affirmative action props in place everywhere. This is why Mr. Clinton was so upset about the dropping of affirmative action at the University of California that he made a special trip to California in an effort to keep the illusion propped up.
I’ll recapitulate what I’ve said so far, because it’s quite important for us to understand what’s happening and to keep it in mind. There are people who desperately want all of us to believe that everyone is born with equal ability, regardless of race, color, creed, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, etc., and that the only reason some people are less successful than others is because they aren’t treated fairly: in other words, because of racism, sexism, homophobia, or whatever.
Some of the people who are desperate to have us believe this actually believe it themselves. They have watched so much television that they have fallen under its spell, and they feel guilty for being White. The only way they can escape their guilt is to strive for a world in which there is no inequality, and in which, therefore, no one can be guilty for being more successful, more intelligent, more civilized, or more beautiful than anyone else.
But the people who control television and who want us to believe in equality certainly do notbelieve in it themselves. They believe that they are a Chosen People, ordained by their tribal god to rule over all the nations of the earth. Their strategy for ruling is to destroy the sense of identity and nationhood of other nations by mixing them all together and convincing them that they are all the same. They use television and the other media they control to create the illusion of equality. They present us with an image of a world in which Blacks are at least as capable as Whites in all the arts of civilization and also at least as foresighted, self-disciplined, and moral as Whites. In fact, they generally overdo it, and present us with a fantasy world in which Blacks are morally superior to Whites if not intellectually superior.
But because what they present us with is a fantasy and is contradicted by reality, they use their influence over the politicians to promote government programs, such as affirmative action, which obscure reality, which conceal it from White Americans. Since most Blacks simply are not capable of succeeding in a White society, the equality-mongers give them an artificial sort of success through affirmative action.
And when the affirmative action is suddenly taken away, reality reasserts itself, and the illusion of equality is shattered. The fakery is exposed. The phony world of successful, affluent, attractive, creative Blacks collapses. That’s what has happened at the University of California and at the University of Texas law school. That’s why Mr. Clinton is running around the country giving speeches in favor of more affirmative action, while the Hollywood and Madison Avenue Jews crank out more fantasy.
The reason why all of this is so important, the reason why I’m so concerned about it, is not because affirmative action takes away from Whites and gives to Blacks. And it does do that, regardless of the lies of its promoters to the contrary. But if that’s all it did I’d be in favor of it, because the resentment it generates among Whites will be very useful in bringing about the restoration of our society some day. But unfortunately that’s not all affirmative action does. One of the other things it does is bring about a lowering of the average proficiency in the skills needed to sustain our civilization. The more that we force an artificial equalization of Blacks and Whites in our society, the closer we approach to the sort of skills and standards we can see in Tanzania, Zaire, or Rwanda. Actually, I guess that Zaire is no longer called Zaire, since the latest Black dictator and generalissimo-for-life took over a while back.
The advances in technology we have made in this century tend to obscure the effects of this lowering of standards, because a few very bright people now can carry the problem-solving load for a much larger number of people than in the past, but the effects of affirmative action are still visible and still increasing. They are especially noticeable in such things as growing bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption. In some areas of the United States local government operates on the level of a banana republic. Washington, DC, with its exceptionally high degree of affirmative action, is an outstanding example.
Another effect of affirmative action — and in the long run it is the most catastrophic effect — is the social and economic equalizing of Blacks and Whites. In the past the lower success rate of Blacks tended to keep them socially and economically separated from Whites, even without any legal barriers between the races. This social and economic separation resulted in a relatively low rate of miscegenation, of sexual mixing between the races. A few Black athletes — O.J. Simpson, for example — became wealthy enough to acquire White wives, but the overall genetic mixing was relatively minor. By artificially boosting Blacks economically and socially, affirmative action has greatly increased the rate of miscegenation. It was planned that way from the beginning by the equality mongers.
This is why we must regard every advocate of affirmative action as an advocate of genocide against our people and why we must hold these advocates accountable for their actions.

The Jewish Civil Rights Movement

The Jewish Civil Rights Movement

Source: The Boston Book Review | August 7, 2001
A Review of the Book:
Jews Against Prejudice:
American Jews and the Fight for Civil Liberties
by Stuart Svonkin
Reviewed by Noah J. Efron
Most of what I know about Martin Luther King, Jr., I learned in yeshiva. A poster hanging in my third-grade classroom showed him sermonizing a sea of people surrounding the reflecting pool. Alongside the picture were the words of the “I have a dream” speech; I read them over and over until I knew them by heart. Next to that was a photo of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel striding alongside King in Selma. When King was shot, class was canceled and a man came to tell us about civil rights. He said that King’s greatest allies had been Jews. Together they fought to make sure that everyone–Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, everyone–had a chance to better themselves, and to be treated with dignity. The man described how Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner had been shot dead, fighting for blacks. Jews helped blacks because they need us, he said, even though nobody had helped us when we needed them in Germany.
The message was complicated for a seven-year old who’d never met a black, but I grasped much of it. In that annus mirabilis from the Six-Day War to the Chicago Seven, I learned that Jews had to look out for their own welfare, and also for that of other persecuted people. That summer, my twelve-year-old sister found in a shop on the Lower East Side a poster of a Chasid in a phone booth, pulling off his heavy coat to expose a bright blue and red costume, with the letter “shin” stitched on his chest. For me, that Superjew was Moshe Dayan capturing Jerusalem, Heschel marching on Selma, and Abbie Hoffman demanding an end to the Vietnam war, all rolled into one: wherever injustice is found, Superjew will be there.
I later learned that this image of Jews as defenders of the rights of all downtrodden had been carefully cultivated. The MLK poster, for example, was distributed to schools by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of Bnai Brith, together with handbooks about teaching tolerance. The prominent billing given the ADL made it clear that the poster had two points: one, racism must end and, two, Jews are leading the fight to end it. The ADL was not alone. Since the end of World War II, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) and American Jewish Congress (AJCongress), as well as the ADL, had each set aside cash and hired bureaucrats and experts to devise ways to “eliminate prejudice and discrimination against racial, ethnic and religious minorities.” Svonkin calls this “collaborative battle against bigotry” the “intergroup relations movement.” Each group came up with its own strategies, which were then coordinated with the other groups, Christian groups like the National Council of Churches of Christ and secular groups like the ACLU. These strategies changed over time, but they had two basic thrusts. One was education. The other was legal action. The educational activities included highbrow initiatives like commissioning Theodor Adorno to write The Authoritarian Personality, and lowbrow efforts like radio and television commercials, and distributing posters like the one that hung in my third grade. They also printed teaching guides for teachers, sensitivity guides for police officers, and so on. The legal initiatives included challenging restrictions against African-Americans in housing projects that received government assistance and unfair hiring and university admissions practices, as well as helping draft and lobby for more potent civil rights legislation, and so forth.
In Jews Against Prejudice, Stuart Svonkin describes these efforts. This story has been told many times before, but never in such detail. Svonkin has painstakingly examined the archives of the three organizations he chronicles, as well as the massive published literature, and stitched together a measured account of how they devised strategies, implemented them, and revised them as circumstances changed. In so doing, Svonkin demonstrates how the campaigns waged by these organizations “helped to shape the way in which American liberals thought about fundamental questions of race, ethnicity, liberty, and equality.”
Jewish devotion to fighting discrimination in the years after the war was extraordinary, as Svonkin makes abundantly clear. Aside from the efforts of the Jewish organizations Svonkin chronicles, many individual Jews also joined in. Just under two-thirds of the whites who participated in the perilous 1964 Freedom Rides into the Deep South were Jews. Over half the money donated to secular civil rights organizations in the early 1960s came from Jews. What accounts for this extraordinary devotion? Why did yeshiva buchers like me learn that civil rights was a Jewish production? Why did American Jews, immediately after the Holocaust, complain less and less about anti-semitism, and more and more about the one-level-more-abstract bigotry and toleration? Why did they stop clamoring for a fair shake for Jews and start clamoring for a fair shake for everyone?
Svonkin does not have much of an answer to these questions, and what little he does write is circumspect. “The primary objective of the Jewish intergroup relations agencies after 1945,” he writes, “was to prevent the emergence of an anti-Semitic reactionary mass movement in the United States.” They believed that they could achieve this goal through the intergroup relations movement, according to Svonkin, because they believed that their parochial interests–making Jews safer, wealthier, more socially mobile–were in perfect accord with universalist principles that guided the civil rights movement. “For these communal leaders and their constituents Jewishness and Americanism truly were equal and complimentary commitments,” Svonkin writes, “…what it meant to be ‘Jewish’ sometimes seemed virtually indistinguishable from what it meant, for most postwar liberals, to be American.”
But the idea that Jewish and liberal American values and interests are perfectly harmonious is a vast and self-serving oversimplification. It is almost an article of faith among liberal Jews that some combination of Jewish “prophetic” heritage and the empathy borne of pogroms and the Holocaust left Jews preternaturally sensitive to the suffering of others, and that this combination explains why Jews naturally embrace liberal values, and why they were so disproportionately involved in the mid-century struggles against bigotry and racism. Paul Berman put it like this, “Slavery is Nazism; lynchings are pogroms; Jim Crow is czarist anti-Semitism, American style; Mississippi is Poland; bigotry is bigotry. I am with you! I understand your plight.” For many Jews, such sentiments were genuine. But these sentiments alone do not explain why Jewish individuals and organizations devoted themselves to fighting discrimination and racism. The notion that it was just high-minded empathy and altruism that motivated Jews is, as Julius Lester once complained, “a little self-righteous.” If Jews were acting out of empathy and altruism, why did they energetically fight some sorts of discrimination and racism (discriminatory housing practices, discrimination in hiring or discriminatory voting policies, for example) while tolerating some other forms of discrimination and racism (such as red-lining, discriminatory pricing in black neighborhoods, or rampant, racially-motivated police brutality)? The answer is that something other than empathy and altruism also motivated Jews to fight discrimination, and something other than empathy and altruism helped determine which fights Jews got involved in, and how they got involved. Jewish interests often diverged from those of blacks and other minorities, and from those of other liberals. Not surprisingly, Jewish organizations usually got involved in those fights against discrimination and racism from which they too benefited.
There were, in fact, many different sorts of benefits. Some were “internal,” affecting the standing of these groups within the Jewish community itself. The post-war era was a transitional period for organized American Jewry, with leadership passing from patrician German Jews to children of erstwhile Ostjuden. What better way to solidify the social standing and political viability of such Jews within the Jewish community, than to become involved in a cause that would allow them to traffic with august Protestant and Catholic leaders, with governors, congressmen, and senators? The new Jewish leadership was also overwhelmingly secular. Engaging in a cause that transcended Jews and Judaism, a cause grounded in “Judeo-Christian” ethics, was a way for lay leadership to establish its primacy over rabbinic leadership. Rabbis were incensed when the House Committee on Un-American Activities decided to meet with the “leaders of all three religious faiths,” and invited the secular AJC to represent the Jews. Embracing the struggles for civil rights and civil liberties allowed an emerging cadre of new leaders to sweep aside generations of leaders whose legitimacy rested on the twin pillars of fighting anti-semitism and purveying old-time religion. Also, at a moment when actual anti-semitism was clearly on the wane, the new focus on civil rights and libertie–which effectively bundled anti-semitism with more blatant and heinous bigotries against African-Americans–made “intolerance” seem like more of a threat to Jews than it otherwise might, thereby increasing the motivations (and contributions) of their constituents. For all these reasons, fighting for civil rights and liberties–instead of challenging anti-semitism and discrimination against Jews–enhanced the stature of the ADL, AJC and AJCongress within the American Jewish community.
Fighting for civil rights and liberties also advanced the interests of the Jewish community as a whole in American society. Bundling anti-semitism with racism allowed Jewish leaders to bring the moral gravitas of African-American suffering to bear on issues of particular relevance to Jews. Though Jews were excluded from some neighborhoods and denied some jobs, the discrimination against Jews was–at least by the mid-1950s–subtle and intermittent enough as to make it difficult to rally politicians to legislate against it and district attorneys to prosecute it. Fighting the far more blatant discrimination against African-Americans was a way to fight Jewish battles by proxy and in extremis. It was thus a way to remove social and economic barriers faced by Jews, without appearing merely self-serving. This accounts for why Jewish civil liberties organization hewed close to issues that were in principle relevant to Jews–free access of “minorities” to jobs, housing, social clubs and organizations–while they steered away from the sorts of economic restructuring that might greatly benefit African-Americans but offer no gains for Jews.
Paradoxically, taking a commanding role in the civil rights movement may also have increased the already growing perception of Jews as whites. While Jews seem obviously white today, at the end of the war many (some polls reported most) Americans viewed Jews as a race apart. By embracing the implicit ontology of the civil rights movement–society splits into white and black–Jews became for the first time clearly and unassailably white. That Jews went after the war from being a persecuted minority to being part of the majority was reflected in the increasing discomfort of African-American leaders with the Black-Jewish alliance. Jews were increasingly seen as paternalistic because they were increasingly seen as white. This change too proved beneficial to Jews, who found themselves ever more accepted in white, Christian society.
The fact that there were self-serving reasons for Jewish organizations to fight racism does not diminish the fact that sincere idealism was also a motivation. American Jews after the war had good reason to be sensitive to bigotry, and to regret their quietist response to Nazi anti-semitism and bigotry not many years earlier. Many Jews did feel real empathy for persecuted blacks. Also, the fact that Jewish efforts helped Jews is not damnable. Idealism and self-interest are not always at odds, and even if Jews benefited by fighting racism this does not mean that their commitments were not heartfelt or that their efforts were not valuable. It is often the case, as it was here, that real sensitivity and altruism are enmeshed seamlessly in a ravel of parochial interests and concerns.
Untangling this knot is important, in part because the history of the Jewish “struggle against prejudice” has become encrusted with piety in a way that makes it almost impossible to understand what has happened within the Jewish community since the early 1960s. Dozens of recent books chronicle and lament what one called the “Broken Alliance” between Jews and African-Americans. Many Jews oppose affirmative action, a position emblemized by the Bakke case. Jews are also increasingly opposing welfare and entitlements, separation of church and state (as in the Kiryas Joel controversy) and other liberal-left positions that were once assured of Jewish support so solid that it approached consensus. Many American Jews also support Israel’s steadfast repression of Palestinian civil rights and liberties without regret or ambivalence, perhaps suggesting that their commitment to these rights and liberties is not as sweeping or steadfast as it once was. Among Jewish leftists, these trends are decried as the evaporation of “Jewish values,” whatever those might be. Some mainstream Jewish leaders often claim that these trends show that Jews have been alienated by ungrateful and anti-semitic black leaders like Louis Farrakhan. Some African-Americans see these trends as an abandonment and as a sign of growing Jewish racism. But the Jewish Neoconservatives writing for Commentary (which is published by the AJC) may have a point when they argue that some liberal-left causes–like affirmative action–never had much support among Jews and that most of the changes in Jewish positions simply reflect changes in Jewish interests. In the post-postwar generation, Jews have gotten progressively richer and whiter. Many (though not all) of the reasons why it made sense for Jews fight racism and discrimination simply do not apply anymore.
One might expect a book about organized Jewish efforts to fight discrimination and bigotry to address some of these issues, and it is disappointing that Jews Against Prejudice does not. Svonkin has instead provided an extravagantly-researched, tightly-focused survey of the internal development of three important Jewish organizations fighting discrimination and racism at a crucial time. He chose not to describe the knot of interests and concerns that motivated them, or to explain how these efforts helped the American Jewish community to reconstitute itself in a new image, or how they speeded the absorption of the “Hebrew” race into white America. There is a fascinating and important story behind the bureaucratic history Svonkin has recounted. Regrettably, that story remains to be told.
Noah J. Efron is a Research Scholar of the Department of History of Science of Harvard University and a Visiting Fellow of Dibner Institute for the History of Science and Technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The Race War of Black Against White

The Race War of Black Against White

Source: Sydney Morning Herald, May 20, 1995
The Race War of Black Against White
By Paul Sheehan
The longest war America has ever fought is the Dirty War, and it is not over. It has lasted 30 years so far and claimed more than 25 million victims. It has cost almost as many lives as the Vietnam War. It determined the result of last year’s congressional election.
Yet the American news media do not want to talk about the Dirty War, which remains between the lines and unreported. In fact, to even suggest that the war exists is to be discredited. So let’s start suggesting, immediately.
No matter how crime figures are massaged by those who want to acknowledge or dispute the existence of a Dirty War, there is nothing ambiguous about what the official statistics portray: for the past 30 years a large segment of black America has waged a war of violent retribution against white America.
And the problem is getting worse, not better. In the past 20 years, violent crime has increased more than four times faster than the population. Young blacks (under 18) are more violent than previous generations and are 12 times more likely to be arrested for murder than young whites.
Nearly all the following figures, which speak for themselves, have not been reported in America:
* According to the latest US Department of Justice survey of crime victims, more than 6.6 million violent crimes (murder, rape, assault and robbery) are committed in the US each year, of which about 20 per cent, or 1.3 million, are inter-racial crimes.
* Most victims of race crime — about 90 per cent — are white, according to the survey “Highlights From 20 Years of Surveying Crime Victims,” published in 1993.
* Almost 1 million white Americans were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by black Americans in 1992, compared with about 132,000 blacks who were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by whites, according to the same survey.
* Blacks thus committed 7.5 times more violent inter-racial crimes than whites even though the black population is only one-seventh the size of the white population. When these figures are adjusted on a per capita basis, they reveal an extraordinary disparity: blacks are committing more than 50 times the violent racial crimes of whites.
* According to the latest annual report on murder by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, most inter-racial murders involve black assailants and white victims, with blacks murdering whites at 18 times the rate that whites murder blacks.
These breathtaking disparities began to emerge in the mid-1960s, when there was a sharp increase in black crime against whites, an upsurge which, not co- incidentally, corresponds exactly with the beginning of the modern civil rights movement.
Over time, the cumulative effect has been staggering. Justice Department and FBI statistics indicate that between 1964 and 1994 more than 25 million violent inter-racial crimes were committed, overwhelmingly involving black offenders and white victims, and more than 45,000 people were killed in inter- racial murders. By comparisons 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam, and 34,000 were killed in the Korean War.
When non-violent crimes (burglary, larceny, car theft and personal theft) are included, the cumulative totals become prodigious. The Bureau of Justice Statistics says 27 million non-violent crimes were committed in the US in 1992, and the survey found that 31 per cent of the robberies involved black offenders and white victims (while only 2 per cent in the reverse).
When all the crime figures are calculated, it appears that black Americans have committed at least 170 million crimes against white Americans in the past 30 years. It is the great defining disaster of American life and American ideals since World War II.
All these are facts, yet by simply writing this story, by assembling the facts in this way, I would be deemed a racist by the American news media. It prefers to maintain a paternalistic double standard in its coverage of black America, a lower standard.

Right and Wrong Racism

Right and Wrong Racism

Right and Wrong Racism
by
Richard McCulloch

Reductionism and extremism both try to keep things simple. Reductionism attempts to reduce the complex to the simple, both in matters of type, kind or form, and causality. Where there are many types or forms, differing in both minor and major degrees, reductionism — unable or unwilling to make distinctions — claims there is only one type or form. Where there are many different causes combining to produce an effect, reductionism insists there is only one cause. Extremism, the other product of simplistic thinking, defines an issue only in terms of its two extreme positions, denying the possible existence of alternative positions between the two extremes. For the extremist there is no middle ground, only one extreme or the other. Non-support for one extreme position is equated with support of the opposite extreme position. The problem with simplistic thinking, whether reductionism or extremism, is that in a world of almost infinite complexity and variety it rarely provides an accurate or truthful portrayal of reality.
This problem is particularly acute in the fields of definition and categorization. For example, racism — the subject of this chapter — is a term that is frequently subject to simplistic definitions. It is common to define racism as having only one cause and existing in only one form, or being of a uniform type. Definitions that describe a wide variation in types of racism, and a great diversity in causes or motives for racism, are conspicuous by their absence. Furthermore, the single uniform type that racism is usually reduced to in these simplistic definitions is almost always of an extremist character. In the hope of correcting the distortions, misconceptions and inaccuracies inherent in simplistic definitions, a more complete definition of racism, in its variety of forms, kinds and types, causes and motives, will be presented here.
Racism can be broadly defined as including any ideology — or system of ideas, values, ethics and beliefs — in which race and racial differences are recognized and regarded as valuable and important. It can also be defined as the opposite of racial nihilism, which denies race and racial differences and regards them as being without value or importance. In terms of causality or motive racism can be based on a wide variety of opposites, as can its own opposite — racial nihilism. It can be based on love or hate, knowledge or ignorance, idealism or realism, loyalty or envy, benevolence or malice. [Note 1] These different bases, causes or motives can themselves interact and blend in such a wide variety of combinations that it is often difficult to determine which cause is primary and which secondary. In sum, the motives or reasons for racism are as varied and complex as anything involving humanity is likely to be. But for purposes of discussion they can be divided into the following categories — factual beliefs, ethical beliefs, values and emotions.
Racism based on factual beliefs includes the racism based on the belief that one race is superior to another, as the belief in racial superiority — whether factually right or wrong — is a factual belief. (This factual belief is often improperly criticized on ethical rather than factual grounds by racial egalitarians who demand that all factual beliefs conform to their ethical beliefs.) Also included in this category is the racism based on the factual belief in significant racial differences and variation — independent of issues of superiority or inferiority — coupled with the factual belief that it would be biologically beneficial for life and humanity to preserve that diversity. The racism based on a religious conviction that it is fulfilling the divine will is also included in the category of factual belief.
Racism based on ethical beliefs includes the racism that supports racial rights and affirms the right of all races to life, independence (racial self-determination or liberty) and the conditions of racial separation required for both. At the other end of the ethical spectrum, but also included in the category of racism based on ethical beliefs, is the racism which rejects and denies racial rights in favor of a racial competition for territory, dominance, mastery and existence — a struggle for racial survival unrestricted by moral considerations. This form of racism — here designated as immoral racism — is based on the ethical belief that there are no racial rights. This belief makes it the opposite of the racism — here designated as moral racism — that is based on the ethical belief in racial rights. Ironically, racial nihilism — the opposite of racism in terms of its denial and rejection of the importance and value of race — also denies and rejects racial rights, sharing this belief in common with immoral racism, and as a consequence also favors conditions (specifically, multiracialism) in which racial existence is not protected or secure, but is threatened with destruction by racial competition, replacement and intermixture.
Racism based on values includes the racism which regards the qualities of one race — usually one’s own — as more important or desirable than those of other races. Values both influence and are influenced by — and are closely connected with — emotions, feelings and esthetic sensibilities that are deeply rooted in the human psyche, often subjective, and perhaps partially innate or genetic in origin. These can be either positive or negative. There are innumerable gradations or degrees of both positive and negative emotions, with love being the most positive and hate the most negative. There are many different definitions of both love and hate, but for general purposes love can be defined as a strong positive emotion or feeling and hate as a strong negative emotion. In terms of causality, the critics of racism commonly define it as motivated or caused exclusively by hate, or even as synonymous with racial hate. But there is both more than one type of racism and more than one cause. Each type has its own cause, and each cause creates its own type or form.
The emotions of love and hate are often the positive and negative poles of the same emotion, for as it is normal to love that which represents one’s values, so it is also normal to hate that which represents the antithesis of one’s values. Similarly, it is normal to hate that which threatens one’s values with harm or destruction. This type of hate is a derivative emotion of love, with love being the originating, primary, active and determining emotion, motive or cause and hate being a derivative, secondary and reactive response to perceived threats. These two emotions, the one derived from the other, are often confused as to primacy, but they are different poles of the same emotion, their existence inseparably connected.
Although the role of love as a cause of racism is seldom admitted by its critics, who prefer to define racism in strictly negative terms, the fact is that the forms of racism based on values are most commonly caused or motivated by the positive emotion of love. Probably the most common form of racism may be simply defined as the love of one’s race, a positive emotion which evokes feelings of loyalty to the interests of one’s race and a desire to preserve it. Since the critics of racism presently enjoy a status of cultural dominance, and usually deny the possibility of any positive motivation for racism, the existence of the form of racism based on love for one’s race and loyalty to its interests is not generally recognized. Therefore the most common form of racism is not recognized as such, and its existence is largely unconscious and invisible, repressed by cultural norms that discourage the expression of love for one’s race.
The person who loves their own race may or may not love other races also, but if they do it need not be expected that their love or positive emotions for other races should be equal to what they feel for their own. It is normal to have a wide range of different emotions and feelings for different things, including different races, to value some more than others, to have preferences, likes and dislikes, and to discriminate on the basis of those preferences. It is abnormal to have the same or equal feelings or emotions for all things, including all races. Yet this is the egalitarianism of emotions, feelings and esthetic sensibilities, or emotional reductionism — the reduction of a complex and diverse variety of different types, intensities and degrees of emotion to a single, uniform emotion in accordance with the egalitarian principles of agapic love — that racial egalitarianism requires. It opposes the valuing or loving of one race — normally one’s own — more than other races, and condemns as immoral any person who values or loves one race — normally their own — more than other races, or who values or loves different races unequally, or in different or unequal degrees.
Racism caused by values and love also includes the racism that values or loves human racial diversity and consequently supports racial preservation, and which may or may not love and value all the diverse races equally in accordance with the egalitarian principles of agapic love. The love of racial diversity is a love of humanity which has much in common with the love of nature. The love of humanity does not require that all the parts of humanity be loved equally, just as the love of nature does not require that all the parts of nature be loved equally. Love is not a level emotion, but an uneven emotion of infinite degrees and variety. Every individual loves different things differently. It is one of the things that defines individuality. But it is most natural to love most that part of nature to which one belongs, the part of which we ourselves are a part.
As the causality of racism cannot be reduced to a single cause, so racism cannot be reduced to a single form. The forms of racism are as varied as the causes. Each cause results in a different form, each with its own goals and methods, ends and means. For the moral forms of racism the goal is racial preservation and continuation, independence and liberty. For the immoral forms the goal is racial supremacy or mastery — the ruling, controlling or subjugation of other races — often attended by exploitation, victimization or, in the most extreme versions, genocide or racial destruction.
The most important distinction between the different types or forms of racism is the one based on morality. This moral distinction is determined by their different ethical beliefs, goals or ends, and methods or means of achieving those goals. There are moral and immoral ethical beliefs and values, moral and immoral goals or ends, and moral and immoral methods or means. Morality, like human rights, is a social construct. It is willed into existence by the members of a society. Its purpose is to direct and regulate behavior and relationships so as to serve and promote the general good, the interests of the society or racial continuum as a whole. Morality can be positive, requiring certain actions, or negative, forbidding certain actions, but its purpose remains the same. In practice morality can be defined as constructive behavior which promotes the preservation and continuation of life. Immorality is behavior that is destructive, either of oneself or others, or of one’s own race or other races.
A fundamental principle of morality is respect and support for the legitimate rights and interests of all, of others as well as oneself, the famous “Golden Rule” of reciprocity. In terms of morality, the primary distinction between the different forms of racism is between those which recognize, affirm, respect, support and promote the legitimate rights and interests of all races — the “Racial Golden Rule” — and those which do not. Moral racism does, immoral racism does not. The distinction between moral and immoral racism is similar to the distinction between moral and immoral individualism. The defining characteristic of individualism is the assertion and promotion of individual rights and interests. The defining characteristic of racism is the assertion and promotion of racial rights and interests. The difference or distinction between the moral and immoral forms of individualism and racism is that the moral forms respect and promote the rights and interests of all individuals and races, while the immoral forms only respect the rights and interests of the subject’s own self and race. This excessive subjectivity results in the denial and violation of the rights and interests of other individuals and races.
Moral racism can be defined as the recognition, affirmation and promotion of legitimate racial rights and interests, [Note 2] especially the primary or vital — or life-essential — right of a race to racial life (continued existence or preservation) and independence (control of its own life or existence in all spheres — political, social, economic and cultural). Immoral racism and racial nihilism can both be defined as ideologies that deny and violate racial rights, the difference being that the immoral racist violates the rights of other races — sometimes as an end in itself, but more commonly as a means to the end of benefiting their own race — while the racial nihilist denies and violates the rights of all races in general, and of their own race in particular.
The forms of racism that have traditionally been defined, recognized, promoted and practiced as racism generally do not recognize or promote racial rights. Specifically, they have not upheld the rights of different races to life (continued existence), liberty (independence) and the pursuit of their own evolutionary destiny, or to the exclusive possession of their own territory as required for the realization of these rights. In fact, the forms of racism that have traditionally been defined and practiced as such have denied and violated these rights. The extent of their violation and denial of the rights of other races has varied. Some have been restricted or governed in some degree by moral considerations, so their violation of the rights of other races has not been total, while others have been virtually unchecked by such concerns. Moral racism has not yet been practiced as the guiding principle of racial relations.
Before moral racism can be practiced its existence — or at least its possibility — must first be generally recognized. But the very concept of a moral form of racism is viewed with suspicion and doubt, or outright denied, in a culture long conditioned to racial nihilist ideology. The only forms of racism commonly recognized as existing, or even being possible, are immoral forms, and these usually of the most extreme varieties. As a result, and fully consistent with the tenets of reductionism and extremism, the recognized alternative positions on racial matters have been reduced to the two extremes of racial nihilism and immoral racism, both of which deny and violate racial rights.
Extremism views a given matter as limited to two opposite extreme positions without other alternatives, as one or the other, either-or. Both extremes on the issue of race claim that there is no alternative to their position other than the opposite extreme, and deny or ignore other alternatives, insisting they do not really exist, or even that they cannot exist. Thus racial nihilism claims that the only alternative to its multiracialist version of racial destruction and violation of racial rights is the supremacist version promoted by immoral racism, and that any deviation from racial nihilism leads by inexorable extremist logic to acts of genocide against other races. Likewise, immoral racism claims that the only alternative to its supremacist version of racial destruction and violation of racial rights is the multiracialist version promoted by racial nihilism, and that any opposition to immoral racism is the equivalent of promoting multiracialism and racial destruction by intermixture and replacement.
Both claims are typical of the simplistic reductionist view of causality and form, reducing the complex and diverse to the simple and uniform. Neither will consider or admit the existence of an alternative that promotes racial rights, preservation and independence. Consequently, the racial issue has only been presented and defined in the form of its two opposite destructive extremes, with other alternatives or choices denied and excluded from consideration. The only choice offered is between different versions of racial destruction. But human racial diversity needs another choice, a better choice, an alternative that recognizes and defends racial rights and promotes racial preservation.
The distinction between morality and immorality often coincides with the distinction between preservation and destruction. Moral actions and ideas tend to preserve life. Immoral actions and ideas are more likely to be destructive of life. Races are living things, forms of life and continuums of life composed of generations of living things. Therefore those ideas and actions which promote racial preservation should be presumptively regarded as moral (i.e., should enjoy a presumption of morality) and those which promote racial destruction should be presumptively regarded as immoral. Immoral racism and racial nihilism both promote racial destruction, although the motive, the method of destruction, and the identity of the race — or races — marked for destruction are different. Moral racism is the only ideology that promotes the preservation of all races.
Moral racism is the preservationist middle way, the “golden mean” between the two opposite destructive extremes. It charts a racial preservationist course between the Scylla of immoral racism and the Charybdis of racial nihilism. It is the alternative choice, the conservationist choice, the position that affirms racial rights, especially the right of all races to life, liberty (freedom) and independence (control of its own life). In this it clearly differs from the two forms of racial extremism — immoral racism and racial nihilism — which deny and violate racial rights. Immoral racism violates the racial right to freedom and independence by the practice of racial supremacism, in which one race rules over, controls or is master of another, and — in its extreme forms — violates the racial right to life by acts of genocide. Racial nihilism violates the same rights by the practice of multiracialism, in which the different races are denied the condition of racial separation required both for continued life and for control of their own lives.
The existence of moral racism is not generally recognized for two main reasons. The first is the unwillingness of either of the two extreme positions on race — immoral racism and racial nihilism — to admit the existence of alternative positions. The second reason is that moral racism — the ideology of racial rights, preservation and independence — has not yet been consciously defined and conceptualized, intellectually purified and morally transvalued. This is a process that all values must go through before being recognized and persistently practiced — and thereby “socially constructed” — by a “critical mass” of persons, or a powerful and influential minority, sufficient to make them normative or dominant. Individualism and individual rights, as well as environmentalism and conservation, went through this process before being recognized as values, and so must moral racism, with its concepts of racial rights and racial conservation.
The essential process of definition and conceptualization, purification and moral transvaluation, requires above all that moral racism be clearly distinguished from all other positions on race, especially the various forms of immoral racism. In this the situation of racism is similar to that of individualism. The word individualism can be applied to any ideology that affirms the value and importance of the individual. It is generally recognized that there are many forms of individualism, both right and wrong, moral and immoral. They are distinguished by their different attitude toward the rights of others. The moral or right forms of individualism recognize and respect the rights of both other individuals and the larger society or race of which the individual is a part. The immoral or wrong forms do not, but deny and violate them.
The fact that there are immoral forms of individualism does not usually cause people to consider all forms of individualism to be immoral. In spite of the immoral individualists the mainstream culture generally sees individualism as a positive value, as morally right and good, and regards its immoral practitioners as exceptions to the rule. In modern Western culture individualism is more likely to have a positive connotation than a negative, more likely to be regarded as moral than immoral. This is because the moral forms of individualism have been successfully defined as distinct from the immoral forms, and so purified of any association or confusion with them. The same should also be true of racism.
The name racism can be applied to any ideology — or system of ideas, beliefs and values — that affirms the value and importance of race, or that is based on racial considerations. Like individualism, racism can be either moral or immoral, depending on its attitude toward the rights of others. But unlike individualism, the fact that there can be moral as well as immoral forms of racism is not generally recognized. Consequently, racism has an almost exclusively negative image and is routinely regarded as immoral. To be morally transvalued, and so recognized as moral, the moral forms of racism need to be successfully defined and conceptualized as clearly distinct from the immoral forms, purified of any association or connection with them (other than the fact that they are both based on race), and thus morally evaluated by a new standard in place of the conventional standard based on the immoral forms. It will then be possible for moral racism — and its concepts of racial rights, preservation and independence — to be socially constructed as a normative or dominant value by the cumulative effect of the decisions, beliefs and actions of a sufficient “critical mass” or influential minority.
Individualism in general is characterized by the factual belief that the individual is unique, important and has value. Moral individualism adds to this the ethical belief that the individual has rights, among which are the right to life and the conditions required for life, the right to control his own life (to rule or govern his own life), the right to the product of his own labor (the wealth he has created), the right to his own home, and the right to reproduce his life, so long as the exercise of these rights does not conflict with the same rights of others. Racism in general can be similarly defined as the factual belief that races are unique, important and have value. Moral racism adds to this the ethical belief that races have rights, among which are the right to life and the conditions they require for life, the right to control their own life and destiny (independence and self-determination), the right to their own homeland or racially-exclusive territory, the right to the product of their own labor, and the right to reproduce their life and culture through their children, limited only by the provision that the exercise of these rights does not conflict with the same rights of other races.
The Lockian doctrine of individual rights holds that each person is a sovereign being, not to be ruled by or to rule over others, but to rule only their own life. It rejects the doctrine that some people are justified in ruling over, controlling or being the masters of others. This is a central concept of moral individualism. Similarly, moral racism holds that each race is a sovereign entity, with the right to sole power and control over its own life, existence and destiny, in all its aspects, not to be ruled by or to rule over other races. It rejects the doctrine of racial supremacism — typical of immoral racism — that some races are justified, or have a right, to rule over, control or be the masters of other races.
As stated above, racism has an almost exclusively negative or immoral image in the present culture, and for good reason, since the only forms of racism generally known or recognized are the immoral forms. It is associated with immoral means or methods, such as intimidation or physical violence. It is associated with immoral solutions, ends or goals, such as genocide or enslavement of other races, or mass expulsion of other races without adequate provision of a homeland of their own, all of which offend the most basic civilized sensibilities. Finally, it is associated with totalitarianism, with the rejection of the political morality of liberal humanism and its values of democracy, individual rights and freedom. With regard to immoral racism these associations are well-founded. With regard to moral racism, however, they are not, but represent the opposite of its principles, values and goals.
Racial nihilism often uses extremist logic to morally discredit all forms of racism by claiming that racism must, if taken to its logical extreme, result in genocide. Much of the population has been effectively conditioned to perceive racism only in this extreme and morally discredited form. This is combined with the use of reductionist logic to reduce racism to only one monolithic form — the morally discredited extremist form — and deny the possibility of any other form, especially a morally credible form. Both extremist and reductionist logic disallow any differentiation or distinction between different forms. In this matter the proponents of immoral racism are in agreement with racial nihilism, and are unwilling to accept the existence of an alternative moral form of racism. They both use extremist and reductionist logic to discredit efforts to promote a moral form of racism by claiming that, if taken to its logical extreme, it cannot be distinguished or differentiated from immoral racism.
One consequence of the general use of reductionist and extremist logic to portray racism as monolithic, reducing it to only one type which represents one extreme of the possible positions on race, is that the anti-racists who oppose racism rarely qualify their position by identifying which type or form of racism they are anti or against — the moral or right forms that promote racial rights, liberty and preservation, or the immoral or wrong forms that promote racial supremacy, exploitation, subjugation, slavery or destruction. If they are only against the immoral forms it should be explained that moral racism is also against, or anti , immoral racism. Only racial nihilism is anti or against both moral and immoral racism. For racial nihilism there is no right form of racism. By its standards all racism is wrong, for it seeks racial destruction and extinction to achieve its goal of Oneness, of one unified and uniform human race, and therefore opposes racial diversity, racial rights, preservation and independence — the principles of moral racism.
Another consequence of the tendency to portray racism as monolithic, or limited to only one form, is a tendency to provide only one definition for racism. Given the preoccupation of the currently dominant ideology with the promotion of racial egalitarianism, many of these simplistic definitions of racism place a great emphasis on the issue of racial equality. Typical of these is the definition of racism as “A strongly held belief in the ethnic superiority of one race over all others.” [Note 3]
The problem with the above or similar definitions is that they are based on a factual belief (in racial superiority) rather than an ethical belief — on what one believes to be factually true or false, not on what one believes to be ethically right or wrong — whereas moral racism is based more on ethical beliefs than factual beliefs. It is common for anti-racism to condemn the factual belief in racial superiority on ethical grounds by citing its use to justify unethical practices (such as slavery or genocide). By this logic one’s perception of facts should be determined by the effect one believes they will have on ethical conduct, and one should deny facts that seem to disagree with one’s ethical values. Ethical judgments should not be made on factual beliefs, but on ethical beliefs and behavior. Factual beliefs should be regarded as morally or ethically neutral, neither moral nor immoral in themselves. Only rigidly reductionist and extremist logic can assert that a factual belief in racial superiority necessarily leads to the violation of other races’ rights.
The definition of racism as based solely on a belief in racial inequalities (another word for differences) reflects the obsessive concern of racial egalitarianism with the enforcement of its central dogma of racial equality, and hence its practice of defining all ideas and beliefs in terms of their conformance to that dogma. Belief in racial equality is usually an act of faith. Unfortunately, as is so often the case with beliefs based on faith, the believers are intolerant of the nonbelievers, condemn their nonbelief on moral grounds, and focus exclusively on this heresy of nonbelief in their definition of them. Indeed, by their narrow definition of racism a person who supported racial preservation, independence and separation, but who did not believe in racial superiority, would not be considered a racist.
Moral racism is based on the ethical belief in racial rights, not on a factual belief in racial superiority or inferiority. The latter belief is irrelevant to moral racism, as it supports the same racial rights for all races regardless of whether they are superior or inferior in any trait. The factual belief in racial superiority is frequently used to justify racial mastery or supremacism, the rule of a supposedly inferior race by a supposedly superior race, whose “right” to rule is based on its supposed superiority. But an ethical belief in racial rights would prevent the promotion of supremacism even if it were combined with a factual belief in racial inequality.
Similarly, a race need not be superior or “special” to be entitled to racial rights, preservation and independence. Many racial preservationists wrongly assume — as do many of their opponents — that the case for preserving a race depends upon establishing its superiority or special value relative to other races. This false assumption is an all too common trap leading many to engage in a highly partisan criticism of other races and praise of their own in an effort to establish its greater value. Thus many of the claims regarding racial superiority and inferiority can be attributed to the false premise that the preservation and independence of a race can only be justified by its superiority to other races. Claims of racial superiority are necessary as a justification for racial supremacism, the rule of one race over others, but not for the advocacy of racial rights, preservation and independence, for which such claims are irrelevant. Under moral racism all races have an equal right to life and independence without regard to whether or not they are “special” or superior.
A person can be a moral racist whether they believe in racial equality or inequality, superiority or inferiority. Such factual beliefs are irrelevant to moral racism because it is primarily based on an ethical belief in racial rights rather than a factual belief in racial inequality. By its affirmation of the racial right to life and independence moral racism opposes any form of supremacism or rule by one race over another, regardless of whether one race is superior, inferior or equal to the other. Moral racism supports the above rights for all races, as moral individualism supports the same rights for all individuals, regardless of whether they are superior, inferior or equal. A moral racist may love, value and prefer their own race over others, and they may believe it is superior to others, but they recognize and support the same rights of life, liberty (independence) and preservation for all races, and expect this recognition and support to be reciprocated.
After the reference to a belief in racial inequality, the most common terms found in definitions of racism are prejudice, bias, discrimination, hatred, and the prefix anti (against). The first three terms — prejudice, bias and discrimination — are, like the belief in racial inequality, sins against egalitarianism, violating its demand that all be regarded and treated the same, without recognition of differences or variation of preference, love or value. There are many definitions of prejudice, but in reference to racial relations it often means no more than having a preference for one’s own race, for its traits, qualities and characteristics, and special concern for its interests. “Bias” is commonly used to mean the same preference, and the “discrimination” referred to is based on this preference.
From the perspective of racial nihilism, which denies the value or importance of race and racial differences and seeks to reduce them to zero or nothing (nihil ), any preference based on race is regarded as irrational and unreasonable, arbitrary and unfair, and, ultimately, as immoral. But all life, all living things, and all life-forms strive to live and to continue their life, and the life of their own life-form or kind. This is perhaps the deepest command of nature, and it presupposes an innate or inborn preference for one’s own life and one’s own life-form or kind. The absence of this preference should probably be regarded as a defect, potentially fatal to one’s own life and the life of one’s own life-form or kind. The existence of this preference should be regarded as harmful or immoral only to the extent that it exceeds the legitimate needs and interests of the individual or life-form possessing it and disregards and violates the legitimate rights and interests of other individuals and life-forms.
Hatred is the strongest of negative emotions, but negative emotions or opinions — including hatred — are not in themselves immoral. What is immoral is behavior that disregards, violates or causes harm to the legitimate rights and interests of others, or an ideology — or system of beliefs, values and ideas — that sanctions such behavior. Such behavior, and such an ideology, is immoral whatever its emotional or other motivation, regardless whether it is motivated by hate or love or anything in-between. In the present culture love for one’s race, preference for one’s race, or the desire to preserve and continue one’s race — including opposition to racial intermixture and support for the conditions of racial separation required for racial preservation and independence — are often wrongly described as hatred. In fact, much of the racism described as hatred is simply the unwillingness of members of one race to intermix with members of other races, and their resistance to this racially-destructive process, ultimately motivated by a desire — whether conscious or subconscious — for racial preservation and continuation, separation and independence. In the absence of any desire to harm the legitimate rights and interests of other races, this opposition to the destruction of their own race, or its loss of independence, would be more accurately, and more fairly, described as motivated by love for their own race rather than by hatred or ill-will toward other races.
The prefix “anti” means to be against. For the term to have any moral significance, to be “anti” or against a certain race or ethnic group must mean to be “anti” or against the legitimate rights and interests of that race or ethnic group, and to commit or promote harm to, or promote the violation of, those rights. An ideology or behavior which recognizes and respects the legitimate rights and interests of a race or ethnic group — especially its primary or vital (life-essential) rights to life, liberty and the conditions required for its continued existence and independence, specifically its own territory and government — cannot be accurately defined as being “anti” or against that race or ethnic group in any morally significant or meaningful sense. Also, to support, promote and advocate the legitimate rights and interests of one’s own race or ethnic group — such as its continued life or preservation, its racial liberty or independence, and its right to its own territory, country or homeland as required for its continued life and liberty — cannot be accurately defined as being “anti” or against any other race or ethnic group in any morally legitimate sense. Moral racism affirms and supports the legitimate rights and interests of all races or ethnic groups, and therefore cannot be accurately described as being “anti” or against any race or ethnic group in any morally significant or meaningful sense. It is immoral racism and racial nihilism that are “anti” or against — and which deny, violate or harm — the vital and primary rights and interests of races and ethnic groups.
Racism, nationalism and individualism all assert the importance and value of a specific and particular entity and its right to be separate, unique and differentiated from the mass rather than be absorbed into it. They each assert and affirm the identity and rights of the separate entity, including its right to life or existence, to independence or control over its own existence, and to freedom or self-determination, with the only limit on its rights being that it not violate the same rights of other races, nations or individuals. Thus one race, nation or individual does not have a right to cause death or diminishment of life to another, to rule over another, steal from another, or to invade or take from another the territory or property that it requires for its existence and independence. These three ideologies — or isms – are thus all contrary to the various universalisms of the Oneness creed, such as racial nihilism, which reject and deny racial and national identity, rights and independence and seek to absorb all the diverse races and peoples of humanity into one vast undifferentiated mass.
In racism, nationalism and individualism it is moral to act in one’s own interests provided such action does not violate the legitimate rights of others. This is the standard of morality differentiating their moral from their immoral forms. The moral forms respect the rights of other races, nations and individuals, the immoral forms do not. If taken to the extreme, immoral racism can promote genocide just as immoral individualism can promote murder. Genocide is to racism what murder is to individualism. They are the antithesis of moral racism and individualism.
According to the extremist forms of immoral racism we must choose between our race and other races, between destroying other races or their destroying our race. This is the adversarial concept of racial relations which typifies immoral racism. According to this concept (or perception) all races are seen as opponents in a hostile conflict situation similar to war, a zero-sum competition where if one race wins the others must lose. Thus immoral racism naturally assumes a very hostile stance toward other races, often expressing its attitude toward them in mean-spirited, hateful and critical terms that convey ill-will and an intent to cause them harm, to cause them to lose, and to violate their legitimate rights and interests rather than recognize and respect them. Like most extremist thinking it is not an accurate portrayal of reality, and begins and ends with a false premise. In reality there are other choices — moral choices — and other means — moral means — by which racial independence and preservation can be secured.
The most important consideration in the relationships between different races, as in the relationships between different individuals or nations, is that they recognize and respect the other’s rights to life, continued existence, independence and self-determination. For races, the fulfillment of these rights requires a condition of racial separation, with each race possessing its own exclusive territory with its own sovereign government. The recognition and respect of these rights must be regarded as the primary indicator of good will in racial relationships, to the extent that if this recognition and respect is not present good will cannot be present either. A race that denies these rights to another race, or violates them, cannot be regarded as having good will toward that race. To deny a race the conditions it requires for existence and freedom is to wish it ill. To recognize and respect the right of a race to the conditions it needs for life and independence is to wish it well.
Moral racism avoids the adversarial concept of racial relations. If racial rights are recognized all races would be winners in the sense that all would be secure in their independence and continued undiminished and undiluted existence in their own homelands. To seek the continued existence of one race does not require the nonexistence of another race. It is not either-or, rule or be ruled, kill or be killed — the position of extremist immoral racism. It is not a matter of choosing between the existence of one or the other. This is a false and unnecessary choice. We can choose for all races to exist in the future even as all existed in the past, by restoring and maintaining the conditions (territorial separation and reproductive isolation) they require for continued existence.
The mutual recognition of racial rights, the central principle of moral racism, would foster a cooperative relationship between races and a common effort to promote and protect racial independence and preservation. Whereas extremist immoral racism believes that other races must lose for it to win, moral racism believes that all races can win, that the interests of all can be served and protected, so that all can coexist — which first requires that they continue to exist — on the same planet in peace, each in their own homelands, each in control of their own destiny, each respecting the rights of the others in accordance with the Racial Golden Rule.
If there is such a thing as moral progress, and one should hope there is, then humanity can learn from past errors and enjoy progress in the moral or ethical sphere much as it has in the material, technical and scientific spheres. It would not be limited to the same standards of morality practiced by generations of past centuries or long-ago millennia. The pre-human law of nature, the brutal struggle for survival, of rule or be ruled, kill or be killed, has been superseded by the cumulative efforts of thousands of generations of humanity to rise above it through the recognition (or social construction) of human rights and the Golden Rule of live and let live. Immoral racism applies the law of pre-human nature to racial relationships. But the relationships between races can be raised above this brutal law by a morality that respects and affirms racial rights, just as the relationships between individuals have been raised above it by the morality that respects and affirms individual rights. There are limits to how far conduct can deviate from the laws of nature before the individual or race engages in conduct that is self-destructive, but within those limits humanity has sufficient leeway to create a just, humane and civilized society.[Note 4]
Racism is many different things. It covers a multitude of both sins and virtues. Racial supremacism is racist. Genocide is racist. But racial independence and preservation are also racist. So is valuing and loving one’s race, being loyal to its interests and desiring its continued existence and control over its own destiny. The extremist claim that all forms of racism lead to genocide, coupled with the reductionist assertion that there is only one — immoral — form of racism, is a preemptive accusation often used to discredit, suppress and prevent any consideration of alternatives to the present destructive course of racial nihilism, especially any attempt to promote racial preservation and independence.
Reductionist logic was typical of the dogmatic thinking of medieval times when all alternatives were reduced to a Manichaean choice between good and evil — either obeying church dogma or being in league with the satanic powers of darkness. In the reductionist logic of the dominant orthodoxy of the modern world all alternatives are reduced to a similarly Manichaean choice — either obeying the dogma of racial nihilism or being in league with the evil powers of racial supremacism and genocide. With all other alternatives eliminated by the successful use of extremist and reductionist logic to produce such powerful Manichaean imagery, racial nihilism has enjoyed a position of virtually unchallenged cultural dominance.
That the future existence of human racial diversity is now imperiled is largely due to the success of racial nihilism in denying the existence of any alternatives to itself other than immoral racism. People are limited by the choices they are given. They cannot choose a moral alternative if they are unaware that it exists or is possible. So it has been with much of the immorality of the past and the present. Only if a sufficient number of people are aware of real moral alternatives to the immoral status quo can the future avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.
Racial nihilism has a dream of a future in which race is not important, a dream in which separate races and racial diversity do not exist. It is the dream of Oneness, the merging or blending of all races into one uniform race where all the distinct traits and qualities created by divergent evolution — and whatever creative force, cause or purpose might be behind that evolution — would be destroyed. It is the ultimate reductionist dream, a dream of racial reductionism, of reducing the many different races to one race, the diversity of humanity to uniformity.
But racial nihilism is not the only possible dream of the racial future. There are other dreams. Moral racism also has a dream. It is a dream of racial preservation and independence, of continued racial existence and liberty, for all the diverse races of humanity, sharing the world together in mutual respect for the legitimate rights of their fellow races.
Moral racism supports friendly cooperation among races in matters of joint concern and mutual benefit. It also supports the right of each race to its own secure, separate and exclusive territory, country or homeland as required for its continued life and independence. It would encourage the diverse races of humanity to share the earth as good neighbors, recognizing that a good neighbor is one that respects the rights of others to the secure possession of their own piece of earth and to the conditions required for their continued existence. It is the racism that preserves, as opposed to immoral racism, the racism that destroys.
The dream of racial nihilism, the dream of Oneness, is a dream of racial reduction and destruction, promoted in the name of combating another form of racial destruction which is claimed to be its only alternative. The dream of moral racism is a dream of continued racial life and racial preservation. Moral racism — the morally right or righteous form of racism — is the alternative to racial nihilism that must be considered as a matter of the utmost urgency, as a matter of nothing less than racial life or death. It has not been practiced in the past, but in the moral development of humanity it must be hoped that a stage has now been reached where it can become the practiced morality of the present and the future. The future existence of at least one race depends upon it.
Notes
1. There are also false forms of racism that are motivated not by true racial concerns, but by economic or political concerns. These forms of pseudo-racism, as they are not really based on racial feelings or concerns, are only superficially racist. But racial nihilism, which evades the central concerns of race by denying their reality, prefers to attribute racism to non-racial motives, and can therefore only provide explanations that focus on such peripheral distractions. There are many different forms or types of racism, requiring many different definitions, but each form of racism should have at least one thing in common with all other forms — it should be based on real racial values and concerns.
2. Legitimate rights and interests are here defined as primary or vital (life-essential) rights and interests as well as those lesser — secondary or non-vital — rights and interests which do not conflict with the greater — primary or vital — rights and interests of other races. The legitimate rights of one race end where the equal or greater rights of another race begin.
3. This is the sole definition of racism given in a “special report” titled The New Racism , televised on The Family Channel, December 29, 1990.
4. Whenever humanity takes another bite from the fruit of the tree of knowledge it often happens that the newly acquired knowledge, at least for a certain period of time, increases confusion and error as much as understanding and wisdom. So it was with Charles Darwin’s epochal revelation of the mechanisms of biological evolution. Many learned the wrong lesson, or took the right lesson to excess, and rushed to apply the newly revealed practices and logic of pre-human evolutionary struggle or natural selection to human society. This school of thought, called Social Darwinism, wrongly assumed that the discovery of more ancient behavioral norms discredited and refuted more recent moral developments, and justified a rejection of the moral concepts of civilized existence in favor of a return to the morality that existed before civilization, or to the even earlier behavior of pre-human animal existence.
The ultimate purpose of morality is to promote and preserve life. Knowledge of the natural or pre-civilized state of existence should be used to identify and discard those distortions of morality which are destructive of life, not the advances in morality which serve to enhance and preserve life. Morality should seek to maintain a harmonious balance between the laws of nature and civilization that can accommodate both, reconciling the requirements of life and evolutionary progress with the desires of humanity for a secure and civilized existence.