Featured Post



Sunday, October 26, 2014


      (I copied this from vdare.com---Hugh Murray)

Manufacturing Dissent—The Ruling Class’s Saul Alinsky Strategy in Ferguson MO

Manufacturing Dissent—The Ruling Class’s Saul Alinsky Strategy in Ferguson MO
The past and much-anticipated future riots in Ferguson, Missouri aren’t spontaneous civil disorder—they are an example of how the U.S. is governed in the multicultural, post-American age. Undeterred by the Trayvon Martin farce, the Main Stream Media, professional racial activists, and Obama’s Justice Department are implacably committed to the story that police officer Darren Wilson murdered “Gentle Giant” Michael Brown, regardless of the facts. And the riotswidely predicted if Darren Wilson isn’t indicted are less a protest against police misconduct than a ginned up attempt to ensure black voter turnout. It’s not a protest against the system—it’s the system working as designed.
We’re certainly getting enough advance notice of the riots. Michael Brown’s aunt is promising that Officer Wilson will “feel and see the wrath of God’s vengeance come… in a mighty way, just as he promised all who do evil in his sight.” [Brown’s Aunt Warns Officer Wilson Will ‘Feel the Wrath of God’s Vengeance,’ CBS St. Louis,October 22, 2014] Oddly enough, the usual suspects eager to mock Christianity when it is expressed by white conservatives seem silent about these Westboro Baptist-type promises of divine retribution.
Amy HunterProtestors are vowing that if there is not an indictment, “all hell is going to break loose.” This includes professional racial profiteers like Amy Hunter [Email her] “racial justice director” of the YWCA St. Louis. Hunter (pictured right) coos that
Everybody is planning for whatever the grand jury decides… Certainly there are lots of us that are planning peaceful protests should it not be indicted. Certainly there are other people that have other ideas at hand.
What those “other ideas” entail, only Ferguson small business owners can know for sure.
The riots in Ferguson never really stopped—they just transitioned into a permanent campaign by extreme Left activists. “Ferguson October” is the latest attempt by several organizations to capitalize on and continue social unrest. And these organizations are exactly what you expect– a grab bag of explicitly anti-white and anti-American groups like the New Black Panther Party in alliance with various Palestinian solidarity organizations, Socialist splinter groups, and MSM-approved “moderates” like the NAACP.
The MSM’s willful blind spot is vital to this movement’s success. Remember, patriotic protests are regularly sabotaged by reporters who play guilt by association, smearing protests because of the attendance of “extremists” the MSM doesn’t like—even to the point of playing guilt by association with no actual association.
However, when it comes to anti-white or anti-American movements, the participation and even leadership of protests last summer by openly racist and anti-Semitic figures such as Malik Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party was calmly excused and even praised by “mainstream” outlets. [No headline can prepare you for Infowars’ Live Ferguson Coverageby Matthew Phelan, Gawker, August 19, 2014]
Nor were any eyebrows raised about the sponsorship of groups like the “Universal African Peoples Organization,” which receives fawning coverage from the National of Islam’s Final Call and praises the late Black Nationalist mayor of Jackson, Mississippi, Chokwe Lumumba as an example to follow. [Universal African Peoples Organization celebrates 25 years of serviceby Saeed Shabazz, Final Call, April 10, 2014]
These black nationalists were reinforced by out-of-town white Leftists. The results were predictable. In a kind of living metaphor, screaming protesters interrupted a protest by the St. Louis Symphony with their own ululations about Michael Brown. [Michael Brown protesters interrupt St. Louis Symphony Orchestra concert, by Steve Giegerich, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, October 6, 2014]
Whites who wanted to attend a baseball game suddenly found themselves confronted by screaming protesters. If they expressed anger against the people rioting in defense of looting and lynch mob justice, fans suddenly found themselves labeled as “ugly” byclickbait-seeking pseudo-reporters. [Cardinals Fans Get Ugly In Clash With Ferguson Protestorsby Tony Ley, Deadspin, October 7, 2014]
Protests have continued at sporting events, featuring blacks shrieking obscenities and spitting on and attacking whites. One white man who tried to save an American flag that was being waved upside down was attacked. Needless to say, the MSM decided this was simply a “brawl.” [Rams fans and protesters brawl after game,by Anthony Kiekow, Fox St. Louis, October 20, 2014]
A few days later, protesters in St. Louis decided it would be a good idea to burn the American flag.
These kinds of tactics come out of Rules for Radicalsthe now-legendary handbook of social agitation penned by professional agitator Saul Alinsky. A great deal of Alinsky’s tactics focused ondisrupting the routines of the “white middle class” by preventing whites from escaping what author Paul Kersey has termed the “Black Undertow,” the chronic crime and dysfunction of black “communities.”
For example, Alinsky famously suggested that a group of a 100 urban blacks attend a symphony after a three-hour preconcert dinner at which they would be fed nothing but baked beans—with obvious disruptively flatulent consequences throughout the performance, a tactic that “connected with their hatred of Whitey.” (p. 141)
Alinsky also suggested blacks protest in white neighborhoods because whites were so racist that they would cave to any demands in order to keep their neighborhoods white. (p.144)
Of course, the reality today is these kinds of racially driven protests pit “one aggressive, unified side against an opponent that is totally unable to articulate a defense for itself, or even see itself as a side at all,” as Radix’s Michael McGregor puts it. [The One Sided Battle,October 14, 2014] Either way, the effect is the same—whites will not be allowed to escape.
The irony is that all this is happening as the martyrdom of Michael Brown is suffering complete Narrative Collapse.
What’s more, some of the protesters and even Michael Brown’s family members can’t keep themselves out of trouble. One Jamilah Nasheed, a black Democratic state senator, was arrested in Ferguson for failure to obey police officers and refused a breathalyzer after officers smelled “intoxicants.” She was also carrying a 9mm pistol and ammunition—which is legal under concealed carry laws but ironic because Nasheed usually votes against gun rights. [Just Guess What Ferguson Police found on Missouri Democrat Who Has Sponsored Several ‘Anti-Gun’ Billsby Jason Howerton, The Blaze,October 21, 2014]
And Michael Brown’s family is providing unintentional comedy, as his mother, cousin, grandmother, and several others reportedly engaged in a violent brawl over $1,400 of revenue from selling Michael Brown T-shirts. This culminated in Brown’s cousin being struck in the face with a “metal pipe or pole” and going to the hospital. [Police investigating assault and theft following argument between Brown family relativesby Chris Hayes, Fox 2 News, October 22, 2014]
Nonetheless, the Department of Justice is doubling down on the Brown story, condemning leaks from the Grand Jury investigating Darren Wilson. [Justice Department condemns Ferguson leaks as effort to sway opinionby Matt Pearce, Los Angeles Times, October 22, 2014]. And the fact that the prosecutors in the Grand Jury may take the “unusual” step of not recommending a specific indictment means that the door is open for Darren Wilson to be hit with a lesser charge like involuntary manslaughter in order to satiate the mob. [What the Ferguson Leaks Tell Us About Michael Brown’s Deathby Alex Altman, Time, October 23, 2014]
Furthermore, the Democratic Party is shamelessly using the Michael Brown shooting to promote black turnout, for example in the close Georgia Senate race. The Democrats are essentially suggesting to black parents that Republicans want to shoot their children.
And, in what will surely delight white commuters who were forced to move away from Atlanta, protesters blocked traffic on the Downtown Connector. Needless to say, no one was arrested. [Protesters temporarily block Downtown Connectorby Ben Gray and Jon Gargis,Atlanta Journal-Constitution, October 22, 2014]
The truth is that such leniency reflects the larger reality that the American political system is now utterly dependent on anti-white race baiting.
A media which can’t be troubled to expose the massive lawbreaking of the Obama Regime audaciously promotes stories about white racists hunting down innocent “black bodies” even though these morality plays are revealed to be a hateful lie time and time again.
A vast assemblage of “nonprofit” organizations and “anti-racist” campaigns survive on whipping up racial hysteria, even as the supposed communities they claim to speak for merrily butcher each other in formerly American cities like Chicago.
And the Democratic Party, beset by Ebola, foreign policy disasters, and voter anger at immigration lawlessness, now relies upon anti-white racism as the core of its program, memorably described by one Republican Congressman as a “War on Whites.”
A real government would actually try to maintain public order and enforce the law with ruthless coercion when necessary. Unfortunately, we are ruled by racial socialism. Promoting hatred against the historic American nation and demanding handouts is a feature, not a bug, of our system of government.
As the late Sam Francis described, the Ruling Class actually benefits from social dysfunction, and so there is no reason to believe this will end anytime soon.
The only question is what will end first—the United States itself, or the historic American nation’s toleration of what has become an enemy occupation.
James Kirkpatrick [Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc.

Friday, October 24, 2014


IN EXILE: The History and Lore Surrounding New Orleans Gay Culture
 and Its Oldest Gay Bar (Hurlford, Scotland: LL-Publications, 2012)
Rev. by Hugh Murray
            This book helped me learn of events in gay New Orleans that followed my departure. In the late 1960s I was teaching at a Black university in New Orleans as news blared the latest information about District Attorney Jim Garrison’s prosecution of local businessman Clay Shaw for partaking in a conspiracy that resulted in the assassination of Pres. John Kennedy.  A colleague, Annette, dismissed the entire investigation, “How could Shaw be involved?  He’s a homosexual!”  I was shocked that someone could be judged innocent of murder simply because he was gay.  The implication was that a gay was too frilly, too frivolous to be involved in anything serious like an assassination.  As the legal maneuvering continued over months, Annette, who would later marry a psychiatrist, added that she had heard the reason for the prosecution was that Shaw would not let Garrison into Shaw’s gay circle.
            One of the big issues nationally in the late 60s was the case of Garrison against Shaw.  And it was not merely Shaw in the spotlight.  Local attorney Dean Andrews claimed that Lee Oswald had come to his office in the early 1960s accompanied with a bunch of gay Latinos.  Others suspected of being involved in the plot included David Ferrie, a pilot fired from Eastern Airlines after being convicted of sex with a male teen.  Suddenly, there was so much gay gossip and allegations in the national news – news stemming from New Orleans.  And this at a time even before the Stonewall riots in New York.  Yet, all the attention to gay New Orleans barely makes a ripple in the Perez/Palmquist book.
            Their view is one heard in the 60s – Garrison, a closeted gay, persecuted the innocent Shaw for a variety of reasons, mostly which a psychiatrist might have to unravel.  The anti-Garrison position was presented in the huge volume by James Kirkwood published in 1970, American Grotesque, a book quite sympathetic to homosexuals.  Partisan, one-sided, the point was that Shaw was prosecuted for this crime only because he was gay, a one-sided view boiled down to some 3 pages In Exile.  Of course, one would not expect the Kennedy assassination and the case against Shaw to consume a book on gays in New Orleans, but the authors downplay how New Orleans gay circles became the center of national attention.  Worse, the authors assume that Shaw was innocent because the jury did not convict him.  But the authors say nothing of the attempts by the Federal Government to obstruct the entire proceedings and derail the trial against Shaw.  Indeed, shortly after Garrison announced his charges against Shaw, the US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark responded to the national TV reporters stating that the federal government had already investigated Shaw and he was not involved in any conspiracy.  The feds cooperated with the media and friendly reporters to undermine the Garrison case, his witnesses, the use of hypnotism, and when witnesses fled Louisiana, other governors like California’s Ronald Reagan, refused to extradite them back to New Orleans.
            I am a native New Orleanian and attempted to be as closeted as possible.  Rather than a sexual deviant, I was a political deviant.  My first year at Tulane, 1956-57, I excelled in my American History class.  Some 80 students packed the classroom in the old barracks, and 2nd semester, I befriended two non-natives.  Tom C., another A student in the class (there were only 4 of us), was from a posh Houston suburb, a fellow Unitarian, and a member of the Beta fraternity.  The other non-native was Al C., who was not a A student, but the 3 of us began to hang out some.  My parents had given me a car, and I took them like a tour guide to some places beyond the campus.  Once we went to a public swimming pool in the spring of 1957, and I suddenly realized how scrawny my body was compared to Tom’s big chest, muscular arms, blond hair, and blue eyes.  Al had black hair but he too had a barrel chest and strong arms.  Al was a native of Central America, and knew Spanish.  I did not see them at all during the summer of 1957.
            In September with the beginning of the new university year, I received a call from Al, who was back in town.  “I would like to talk to you about something.”  “Go ahead.”  “Not on the phone.”  With that phrase, I guessed something, as it had happened before.  I met Al and he told me in the summer he had stayed at Tom’s home in Houston.  They were visited by agents of the FBI to talk about me.  By then I had a policy when this arose: if people wanted to break off from me, I would not try to stop them.  They would have to call me again.  Neither Tom nor Al did, so the friendships ended.  I did hear that Al had found a new group, he had joined the Pikes fraternity.
            Months passed.  In the spring of 1958 I chanced upon Al on campus.  It was a Monday.  I suddenly felt I had been wrong, that I should have made an effort to continue our friendship – after all, he had phoned me to tell me of the agency’s investigation.  I suddenly tried to make up for my mistake.  “Oh Al, where are you going?”  “To my dorm,” he replied unenthusiastically.  I was effusive, trying to be as friendly as possible.  I kept chatting as we walked cross campus to his dorm.  He was rather sullen.
            We arrived at his room and conversed only slightly when another student arrived, another Pike I assumed.  Suddenly, I was left out of the conversation as Al and the frat brother went to a corner of his room to speak in whispers.  I found this rude.  After a short time, Al walked toward me and said, “Would you mind leaving?”  Well, I thought, I had made an effort.  Our friendship was over.
            I think it was the next day when I read of Al’s arrest.  He and other Pikes had gone to the French Quarter to “roll a queer.”  They went to Lafittes in Exile and other gay spots, enticed a 26-year-old Mexican to go with them, and then they beat, robbed, and killed him in Pirates Alley, near St. Louis Cathedral.  Reading newspaper accounts, they met the next day in Al’s room to discuss how to dispose of the victim’s wallet.  They were charged with murder.  Months later, I was walking on Canal Street in January 1959 and heard a loud ruckus behind me in the distance.  “Open season on queers!”  “Kill all the queers!”  In Exile notes that there was celebration inside the courtroom when the defendants were found not guilty.  The celebration continued in a cavalcade of cars riding from the Quarter across Canal St. and thence probably to Tulane and the Pikes place.  The book is good at describing this murder of Fernando Rios by Al Calvo and his fraternity buddies.  It said something about the atmosphere of intolerance.
            I was living at home with my parents, and it was about this time that they became aware that the two ladies on the other side of the duplex house were “bull dykes.”  The women, Leah and Kitty, must have had some thoughts about me, too, for one suggested that I go to a bar in the Quarter, The Fencing Masters, and “I think you will like it.”  They never said explicitly what kind of bar, but I could guess.  I might well have liked it, but I was too scared to go.  In 1960 after I was arrested in the first lunch-counter sit-in in New Orleans (then, the largest city in the South), my name was plastered on page. 1 of the local papers.  I moved out from my parents for their safety.  But they were receiving threatening and nasty phone calls all through the night.  My dad told me much later that my parents were relieved that the two women did not complain to the landlord about the phone’s ringing because he might have evicted my parents.
            There is another weakness in this book – the authors center their volume on Lafittes in Exile because it was the oldest, and the most prominent gay bar in New Orleans.  I think this can be challenged, depending on your definition of gay bar.  I think the best known homosexual outlet in the 1940s and 50s (and perhaps into the 60s and early 70s) was the Club My-O-My.  Although it began in the French Quarter, there were so many hassles with police that the club moved out of New Orleans, to West End.  Perez/Palmquist write that it was built on pilings above Lake Pontchartrain waters separating Orleans and Jefferson Parishes (counties).  But the entrance was in Jefferson.  The club’s entertainment usually included burlesque, a comedian, a novelty act, but the main attractions were the beautiful women who performed, singing with their own voices (no lip sinking).  There was a 4-piece band which on occasion included Al Hirt.  Of course, all these beauties were men in drag.  The club attracted natives and tourists, and in the audience there might be actors like Alec Guinness, Carmen Miranda, Robert Cummings, aviator Howard Hughes, northern Mafia figures like Frank Costello and the brother of Al Capone, or other celebrities visiting the Crescent City.  Because the local newspapers refused ads from the club, news of attractions spread through word of mouth.  Grayline busses transported loads of tourists.  The club was so well known that in the touristy post-card racks at drug stores like Walgreens and K & B, one could purchase cards with pictures of about 6 beauties in drag advertising My-O-My.  The club burnt in 1972 and was not rebuilt.  (Of course, if the main image of homosexuals in New Orleans in the 1950s was men in drag, it made many less reluctant to be known as gay.) 
            At the other end of the parish border between Orleans and Jefferson Parishes, quite near the Mississippi River, but on the Jefferson side of the line, stood the Beverly Country Club.  In an era when gambling was illegal, the Beverly was considered the place to go.  It was not far from the world-famous Ochsner Clinic.  The word was that the Beverly was run by NO Mafia boss Carlos Marcello.  Did he also run the Club My-O-My?  And what about bars, straight and gay in the French Quarter?  I don’t think Perez/Palmquist sufficiently describe the Mafia’s role – for good or evil – in protecting “vice” in its various forms from the authorities.
            It was Mardi Gras 1963 and as a native I was showing 2 friends from North Dakota the varied ways to celebrate America’s most unique holiday.  They were a married couple; he was a graduate student of history as was I, and she had recently had a baby.  I led them first to uptown St. Charles Avenue where families lined the neutral ground, and then to Jackson and Dryades to see some Mardi Gras Indians in full regalia.  Next down town and Canal Street to view the Krewe of Rex and the unending floats that followed.  Then over to Bourbon Street in the Quarter.  After many blocks, we were engulfed in a crowd surrounding a stage on the street.  I had never seen anything like this before, and wanted to move on, but Ramona preferred to stay and see what would happen.  Suddenly on stage, it seemed like a Mardi Gras costume contest, with contestants competing in elaborate attire.  I recall a handsome young man dressed as a Renaissance gentleman, reminiscent of a famous picture I had seen.  These were not the simple costumes of the children of uptown St. Charles.  Then there was a beauty contest for women.  Ramona nudged me, “Look at the legs on that one.”  Then I became aware – those were the legs of a football player.  Those were not women in the contest.  In 1963 in the open street on a stage, before hundreds of spectators, gay men were showing their wares.  Where else in America could such a contest be held in 1963?  Perez/Palmquist mention the beginnings of the Bourbon Street Awards program (I assume this is what we saw then) but they do not elaborate or emphasize how unique this openness was.  In the summer of that year my Dakota friends told me they heard the strangest radio program  - a guy from New Orleans who was a Marxist and had lived in Russia was interviewed.  I often listened to that current affairs program, but had missed the WDSU broadcast the night the guest was Lee Oswald.
            E.K. was a graduate student at Tulane in the business department who had been arrested when the new District Attorney, Jim Garrison, began his crusade against vice.  Even the “naughty” pictures of scantily clad strippers at the straight clubs had to be covered.  The clubs found an ingenious way to circumvent the anti-vice police; the nearly nude girlie pictures remained outside the clubs facing the sidewalk, but parts of the women’s bodies were covered with a curtain of beads.  Any passerby could see the full picture by using his hand to open the bead curtain.
            Years later, after I finally came out, I chanced upon E.K. in the Tulane cafeteria and we chatted.  I asked about his arrest.  He stated that any single male could be picked up in the French Quarter during Garrison’s crusade.  (I doubt this, because in the straight area of the Quarter, many men going to the strip joints would have been single men, and arresting them would have caused an outcry.  But E.K. may have been walking in another part of the Quarter or near a gay bar.)  E.K. told me what a disappointment that arrest was, because he had come to New Orleans in 1960 because he thought it was such a tolerant place for gays.  I asked where he was coming from.  He answered, San Francisco!  Was New Orleans, as late as 1960, the premier city for gay freedom?  (I do not use the word gay liberation because that has more political connotations.)
            From the mid-1950s on, I was active in the Unitarian Church.  A teenage girl joined our youth group, and I have forgotten the details, but there was some kind of family troubles – perhaps her father had died.  Her father had owned a bar in the Quarter, Lafittes something.  And though I did not go, I did suggest it to others.  A friend later commented that I had been outing myself without knowing it.  It was not until the murder of Rios by Al Calvo and the Pikes that I learned that her dad’s bar was gay, and it was Lafitte’s in Exile.  The daughter then told some other stories about residing in the Quarter.  She was straight, married quite young, and stopped coming to the church.  Reading this book, a straight man with the same last name as hers, is listed among the owners of Lafittes in Exile.
            When Katrina struck near New Orleans in 2005 and the levees broke, the city sank below the waters.  I recall listening in the North to a radio call-in program as a listener explained that the storm was God’s punishment for all the homosexual activity and other vice.  He compared it to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.  I called.  I informed the listeners that the area least flooded, least devastated by Katrina was the French Quarter, the gayest part of New Orleans.  Since the least gay areas of the city had been most devastates, perhaps God had changed his mind about gays since the days of Sodom, and was now saving the gayest part of the New Orleans.

            Most of those interviewed for this book were not native New Orleanians.(p. 141, 175)  I think that that skews the book toward more recent residents and more recent times.  Those were important times too, like the 1973 fire at the UpStairs Lounge in the Quarter in which over 30 people were burned to death, the development of gay Mardi Gras groups, and the acquisition of political rights.  My review stresses the earlier periods.  I left New Orleans in 1969 when a police helicopter followed my car and arrested the passenger when I stopped to let him out.  He was to be deported.  I decided it was time to go – into my own exile.        

Monday, October 13, 2014


     Why?  Read my review of Nicholas Wade's book on human genetics.  Wade was the science editor of the New York Times for 30 years.  His book is politically incorrect.  In my review, "Wading in the Gene Pools," I present my reasons for celebrating Columbus as an heroic figure, and a pivotal one in human history.  ---   Hugh Murray

Thursday, October 9, 2014


(New York: Penguin Press, 2014) by NICHOLAS WADE
Rev. by Hugh Murray
            There seems little dispute that evolution has occurred in human times.  Thus, corn and other grains have been bred by humans and evolved so that they are now considerably different from their ancestors.  But the official line on mankind is that there has been no significant evolution since homo sapiens emerged.  Wade challenges that orthodoxy.
            Political expediency explains why human exceptionalism enjoys the status of scientific orthodoxy: one cannot allow that humans evolved significantly after groups left Africa, and maintain the ban on the taboo subject of racial differences.  The politically correct (p.c.) who run the academedia complex assert dogmatically that races do not exist.  Race is a social construct, they say; no important differences between or among large gene pools (one of the euphemisms for “race”) can be detected.  If any differences are found, they are judged inconsequential.  According to the orthodoxy, human groups are interchangeable.  Any significant group differences are solely due to culture, not genetics.
            Wade’s argument is that evolution did not stop when humans left Africa to roam and populate the planet.  Human evolution continued both in Africa and beyond as tribes of humans had to adjust to changing conditions.  The politically correct (p.c.) view is that all of these adaptations over thousands of years were cultural – the humans who departed Africa (perhaps 50,000 years ago) are the same as those who remained and the same as the drifters who moved to other continents.  Wade disputes this.  One example he gives is that of Tibetans who have evolved to breathe easily at high altitudes.  Wade is silent about Bolivians, but if  their genes have been similarly modified to the life in the Andes, then that would be an even more recent example of human evolution.
            Wade contends that the 3 main races evolved to adapt to the different conditions which each encountered.  (Wade includes Middle Easterners and Indians among the Caucasians).  In northern climes, the lack of strong sunlight for much of the year led to the genetic mutation that resulted in lighter skins for most Caucasians.  The same need led to genetic mutations that resulted in lighter skins for Northern Asians, but with them the process involved a different set of genes and nearby fields (alleles), and these resulted in changes beyond skin color.  Because these changes in the population were found advantageous, those who had them were more likely to reproduce so the original beneficial mutation spread to most of the population in that group.
            One experiment absent from Wade’s book is one I saw on a television science program.  Daniel G. Freedman and his Chinese wife observed new-borns in hospital cribs.  When placed in position, Black babies would stir, move about, try to turn.  They were obviously upset when someone, using a cloth, sought to close the nostrils to make them breathe through their mouths.  White babies, by contrast, were less active, but they too fought against the cloth on the nose.  Asian babies, when placed in the crib, generally just lay there.  When the cloth obstructed air to the nostrils, they were slightly annoyed, but quickly adjusted to breathing through their mouths.  All of these were babies 1 or 2 days old, so the differences are most likely the result of nature, not nurture; genetics, not culture.  There were other tests, like holding the baby to have it walk in the crib.  The African babies could even high-step; the Asian ones did not walk, their feet dragging along the sheets; and the whites were in between, neither dragging nor high stepping, but walking.  This experimental evidence reinforces the hypothesis that races exist and have traits that express genetics, not simply culture.
            As America slides into an anti-scientific, politically correct, orthodoxy, there are surprising examples of good scientific work that was conducted even in a more oppressive, egalitarian tyranny.  In Stalin’s Soviet Union, the Communists decided and declared that Mendelian genetics was false, and all scientists were required to accept the view of Lysenko that characteristics acquired in a lifetime could be passed onto the next generation.  Lysenko’s experiments in agriculture suggested higher crop yields for the Soviets, so only an enemy of socialism and the state would challenge such a promising approach.  At least one scientist who did was executed.  The egalitarian Soviets also banned IQ tests.  For several decades, Lysekoism was the politically correct approach to inheritance in the USSR.
            In Novasibirsk, Siberia, Dimitri Belyaev accepted Mendelian genetics, but suggested experiments that did not appear to overtly challenge the Communist scientific orthodoxy.  He took silver wolves and used one trait to divide the group – aggressiveness.  The most aggressive males mated with the most aggressive females; the least, with the least.  Within only 6 generations, the gentle wolves were becoming less wolf-like, more dog-like.  Though they were bred only on one attribute, on the aggressiveness axis, other changes also appeared  – physical changes.  This collateral “damage” or “advantage” was inherited too, in a cluster of changes.  The skulls and heads of the gentle wolves became rounder, their coats lighter with some white fur.  Ears drooped on some and the tails of others curled or shortened.  So by looking at the physique of the animals, one could see a visible sign of a changed temperament.  One group would enjoy being around humans.  The snarling, threatening other group was unfriendly.
            Is this true of people?  While in the US, the p.c. “scientists” who dominate the social sciences proclaim that race does not exist, and that it is merely a “social construct,” Wade and others contend that human races do exist, and that there may be considerable and significant differences among them.
            Belyaev, in addition to experimenting in breeding wolves, also bred generations of Siberian gray rats.  Again, he divided them into 2 groups on the aggressiveness axis.  After several generations, some of the rats would place their snouts out their cages so humans could pet them.  The other group would jump at the cages trying to attack people who entered the compound.  All had the same genes, but the areas between those genes, the clusters of alleles were now different.
            Wade notes that a gene in humans is associated with aggression.  It may appear in almost all, but some have many controllers of the MAO-A gene to restrain its effects.  Humans with only 2 controllers are much more likely to be involved in violent crime.  Males with only 2 inhibitors are 0.1% of the white population, but 5.0% among Afro-Americans.  Thus, Afro-Americans are 50 times more likely to lack sufficient inhibitors of this gene than whites.  Though Wade does not explore this startling statistic, it might go a long way to explain the high violent crime rate among Black males, far more than the usual p.c. explanations that invoke “racism,” poverty, and unemployment.
            Wade contrasts humans with chimps, who he states are the closest primate relative to humans.  Chimps are territorial, selfish, warlike, and the females have as many sexual encounters as possible.  Humans in the hunter/gatherer stage were also territorial and warlike, but they tended to have one mate and knew (and presumably trusted) their relatives.  Society was egalitarian.  Wade says there were no priests, but I question this.  I suspect even such a primitive society required a shaman, who knew a bit of medicine, the story of the group, how to forecast weather, etc.).  With the development of agriculture, settlement followed, and with it hierarchy, inequality, a priesthood, trade, and the necessity to obey the boss and the military commander.  Because early governments are weak, the tribe remains important for meting out justice, and Wade maintains it is the default human institution, continuing into the modern state with nepotism.
            Stronger states had to overcome the exploitative nepotism of tribal traditions.  In China, this was accomplished through examinations, a necessary requirement to be inducted into the bureaucracy.  For over a millennium these examinations emphasized memorization, intelligence, and conformity.
            Later Islamic society achieved a strong state by creating bureaucratic slavery.  Because their religion forbade them enslaving fellow Muslims, they took teenaged boys from Christian families in provinces like Greece and Serbia, rode them off to be enslaved, converted and trained to work for the Islamic state.  They were not allowed to marry, but could rise in the military and bureaucracy on their own merits.  Having no families, they were less likely to be corrupt, and their loyalty was to their master, the head of state.  Wade is weaker in describing how the Muslim Mughal Empire in India handled the problem of overcoming tribalism.  He does make the well-known point of how tribalism among the Mongols prevented their march to the Atlantic Ocean through Europe, when the Mongol emperor died and had to be replaced.
            Wade also fails to describe a Western bureaucracy that could serve the state and other institutions instead of their families.  Catholic priests and nuns clearly provided civil services to European leaders at least from the time of Charlemagne.  Nepotism was reduced.  The churchmen did extract a price for this service that Wade does discuss, a price some might deem too high: namely that the ruler was to submit to Christian law.  Not even an emperor was above the law in Christian Europe (at least in theory).  Wade does emphasize that this is one feature that made Europe unique and aided its advance over other civilizations.  Another group that also provided civil services in some parts of Europe was the Jews.  In some places, they collected the taxes for the kings.  Everywhere, they were money lenders, bankers, doctors.  Unlike the vast majority of Europeans, most Jews could read.  Because of their professions, they had to learn math, even before the 0 was imported into Europe.
            Wade also contends that over the generations, the Chinese became both more intelligent and more conformist.  Those who passed the national examinations rose in rank, esteem, and wealth, and thus, had more children who would inherit their characteristics.  Over the centuries, the attributes for success in that culture became more widespread through inheritance.   Their success in commerce was evident throughout Southeast Asia, when many of the natives of Indonesia, Philippines, etc., became ever jealous of the Chinese success.
            Yet, the Chinese prescription for success in one area may have become a liability in another.  From about 1400 to 1435 the Chinese Emperors sent out large naval expeditions.  The best known was that of Admiral Zheng He, and it was enormous – some 30,000 men on 250 ships.  They traveled down SE Asia over to India, and then across to the Arabian Peninsula, the Red Sea, and East Africa.  They returned to China with giraffes, ostriches, and other exotic items.  Massive as Zheng He’s venture was, he basically followed well-known trade routes.  Although some speculate he may have sent smaller expeditions far beyond, nothing became of them.  Then, a new emperor came to the throne in China who was uninterested in such ventures.  He ordered the destruction of the fleet and of all ocean-going vessels.  Chinese exploration ceased.  By 1800, the Chinese empire stagnated.
            Around 1500 Christopher Columbus set sail from Spain for India.  His 3 ships were small and the crews totaled only 90 men.  Magellan’s fleet of 5 ships and 260 men would circle the globe, but only 1 ship and 18 men would make it back to Spain.  And it would be 80 years before Sir Francis Drake would accomplish the deed a 2nd time.  While it is now commonplace in the West for students to sneer that Columbus did NOT discover America, they are to be pitied for they illustrate the results of anti-Western, multicultural education.  Of course, others made it to the New World before Columbus.  But what the relatively tiny expeditions of Columbus and Magellan and the other European explorers accomplished – they united the world as never before!  They were the first globalists.  Henceforth, Old World and New would be part of the mental maps of sailors; they would be known, and better known in time.  What became of Zheng He’s massive expeditions?  Basically, nothing.  And many scholars in China at the time, sought to erase all history of his expeditions from the documents.  Forbid further exploration, burn the fleets, destroy the documents.  China did not require new knowledge.  By contrast, the explorations of the Europeans would unite the world in maps, and change the world in countless ways.
            One of the weakest examples Wade presents to bolster his argument for on-going human evolution is occurs on page 3.  Between 1799 and 1940 on an island near Quebec the age of reproduction of young women fell from 26 to 22 years.  I remain unconvinced that that proves genetic change, and suspect changes in the culture probably better explain the statistics (e.g., were there more nuns in the community in the earlier period?  How would they affect the average age?  What were the society’s views on sex, illegitimacy, etc.?)  I think Wade weakens a strong case with a weak example.
            Instead, Wade should have included the racial differences revealed in the crib studies of babies a few days old conducted by Dan Freedman and his Chinese wife.  Or he might have noted the racial disparity in twins – among Asians 4 per 1,000; among whites, 8; among Africans, 16.  Such evolution may not have been as recent as the Quebec studies, but it does indicate change after the 3 major races diverged (I prefer not to give a specific date for when this group left Africa, or when whites and North Asians split, because I think such dates are speculative and may well change with new discoveries.  The main point is that the 3 main races were separate enough to evolve with different characteristics, including rates of twins.)
            Wade assures his readers that races are so real that “By taking just a few measurements, physical anthropologists can tell police departments the race of a skull’s former owner with better than 80% accuracy.”(70)  “How could they identify a skull’s race so accurately if race doesn’t exist?”(70)  In July 1996 in the western US state of Washington, two men attending a hydroplane race stumbled upon human remains.  They informed the authorities, and the sheriff viewing some of the bones thought a white man had been killed perhaps a century ago.  Was it a case of murder?  The victim had been shot in the leg – but with an arrow.  The local authorities were perplexed, and asked university scholars for advice.  When the bones were tested for age, they were “one of the most complete ancient skeletons ever found; bone tests have shown it to date from 7300 to 7600 B.C.” as en.wikipedia described it.  Soon a political and legal battle erupted, with the local Amerindian tribes claiming the bones as those of their ancestors and seeking to rebury them.  This occurred during the Democratic Administration of Pres. Bill Clinton, and if there is a conflict between science and political correctness, Democrats trash science.  Clinton had the Federal Government bury the site where the bones were found to prevent any other finds that might offend the so called Native Americans. 
By chance, CBS TV’s Evening News of 7 October 2014 with Scott Pelley included a segment on Kennewick Man.  Note the omissions.  The “… skull was found in 1996, along the banks of the Columbia River near Kennewick, Washington.  Doug Owsley is the Smithsonian's top anthropologist.   Eighteen years ago he and a group of scientists sued the federal government and local Indian tribes for the right to study a 9,000 year old skeleton - known as ‘Kennewick Man.’….  Sculptors took months to build a likeness based on the shape of his skull and archival photos from Asian coastal people.  ‘Kennewick Man's’ bones have been locked away by the federal government, but Owsley says there's still so much to learn - including what finally killed him.”
Pelley never mentioned that the first impression was that the skull was that of a white man.  When sculptors sought to create a likeness of the dead man, they did not think European, but instead considered someone who trod the Bering Sea route.  Were they doing this because the skull appeared Asian, or because the orthodoxy is that all in the New World are derived from the Asian route?  How much time did the scientists have to examine the skeleton?  And the bones are now “locked away by the federal government.”  I ask, are they locked beside the “lost” emails of Lois Lerner and the autopsy files of JFK?
If whites were in the New World before the Asians, and killed and were exterminated by them, there would be less “white guilt” and consequently less support for preferences for Amerindians.  Law suits, courts, and years of contention followed this most remarkable discovery.  Some scientists finally concluded that the victim was an Ainu, whom some say is related to whites and/or Polynesians.  But the scientists were allowed only short periods to study the remains.  Bill Clinton’s view of science is similar to Stalin’s – the political trumps the scientific.  But if Kennewick man was just a regular white of European origin, as originally thought, how then explain that one of the earliest skeletons in North America, near the West Coast, is white?  Perhaps the population of the New World did not simply come from Siberia via the Bering Sea area.  Wade accepts the common view of the Bering crossings and includes genetic similarities between North Asians and Amerindians – hair and teeth - to support his view.  He also asserts: “Another two continents fell into the position of the pale-skinned northerners…for people living in Siberia…to Alaska they migrated southward to colonize…North and South America.”(81)  Are the Amerindians really the pale skins?
            Moreover, some of the early Olmec statues have Negroid features.  Were there seafarers from Africa who made it to the New World before Columbus?  And we now know that the Viking forays into North America were not merely myths.  Moreover, there are art objects in the New World where the faces appear Caucasian.  Perhaps there were more “pale faces” before Columbus than Wade is willing to recognize.
            Wade informs readers, “There are almost certainly genes that predispose people to regard incest as abhorrent,…”(250-251, and he makes a similar point on 237)  Although there is some dispute as to just what it entailed and how wide-spread it was, brother-sister marriage may well have been prevalent in Egypt for the thousands of years of its independence, down to the last Pharaohs when Cleopatra married her younger brother Ptolemy.  If this was the case, were the consequences so awful for a civilization that lasted and flourished for nearly 4,000 years?
            Wade describes the simple test of delayed gratification developed by Walter Mischel:  a child is offered a marshmallow now, or 2 marshmallows if he waits 15 minutes.(157)  Those who could wait, restraining their immediate impulses, tended to be more successful in later life.  Strangely, Wade omits mention of the racial differences in this experiment.  Generally, East Indians delayed, Blacks did not.
            Wade includes a terrific example of the contrasts among civilizations with his discussion of the telescope, invented in 1608 by the Dutchman, Hans Lippershey.  Within a few years, this invention was shown to leaders of the Ottoman, Mughal, and Chinese empires.  While the 2 Muslim empires grew ever more hostile to science, even banning the printing press in the case of the Ottomans, it was only the Europeans who used the new telescope invention to revise their view of the universe, and only the Europeans who improved the invention so it could be used not only to study the movement of the stars, but those of oncoming ships and the location of enemy troops.
            While little came from Zheng He’s massive naval expeditions, those of Columbus, Magellan, and the other Europeans changed the world.  Was the difference in the genes?  Was the failure of China due to inherited conformity, or cultural complacency?  The Chinese invented the printing press, and Muslims banned it under pain of death.  The Europeans embraced it.  Soon there were hundreds of presses in numerous European countries, encouraging literacy among the populace.  Who read the books printed in China?  In Europe, with its alphabets of about 30 letters, it was much easier to learn to read (and print) than in China, with its thousands of characters.  Literacy became a more democratic aspect of Western culture.
            Wade writes that the “theme of human history is that each race has developed the institutions appropriate to secure survival in its particular environment.”(136)  Is this true?  Wade devotes an entire chapter to the Jews, whose specialization in certain professions for more than a millennium, Wade contends, altered their genetic inheritance.  Unlike most others, Wade declares that it was not simply laws that banned Jews from farming and owning land and other occupations, but that money lending was quite profitable, which led many Jews to a profession forbidden to Christians (and Muslims) for centuries.  Over time, Wade contends, Ashkenazi Jews developed, bred for, and passed on higher IQs (along with collateral damage of diseases that afflict mainly Jews).  Because of Jewish ability to assess people (their creditworthiness) and manipulate numbers (even before the symbol of 0 was imported into Europe to simplify calculations), they thrived as capitalism developed.  Although only 0.2% of the world’s population in the first half of the 20th century, they won 14% of the Nobel Prizes; 29% during the second half, and 32% of those prizes from 2000 to 2007. (198)  Jewish success could be seen in numbers, too.  From a population of 1 million in 1500, they grew to 16.5 million in 1939.
            However, if Jews were genetically successful for adaptation to capitalism, this adaptation brought them to near extinction in Europe by 1945.  They seemed to have a harder time adapting to socialism.  When Europe was dominated by National Socialists, Jews were hounded for discrimination and later extermination.  The defeat of Hitler seemed to end that threat.  Although Jews thrived at first under Soviet socialism (see, Yuri Slezkine’s Jewish Century), the Soviet one-party dictatorship had second thoughts about Jews after WWII and the establishment of the state of Israel.  Some contend that Stalin was preparing a major round-up of Jews to be sent to camps within the USSR.  Only Stalin’s death aborted his plan to destroy the Jews under the Soviet version of socialism.  So, the Jewish genetic adaptation of intelligence, cleverness, and entrepreneurship was suddenly a burden, a badge of oppression when nations turned to socialism.  Thus, in 1934 Dr. Goebbels could proclaim that the age of over-refined Jewish intellectualism was at an end.  It was nearly the end of everything and everyone Jewish in Europe.  Genetic adaptation for one environment, might become deadly when that environment changes.  And for social animals like humans, society IS environment too.  Jews, well-adapted for capitalism, were nearly exterminated under socialisms.  However, their adaptation to capitalism led to another charge: was there anything to the claim that Jews used their “privileged” position in Germany – wealth, intelligence, culture, Nobel Prizes - to oppress the gentile population of the nation?
            Wade discusses the rise of the West and how its changed genetic composition contributed to this process – as Europe became less violent, more trusting, more literate, more work-oriented, more willing to delay gratification.  Wade contends there was almost a necessary genetic change before the Industrial Revolution could begin.  There was a dialectic between the genetic makeup of society leading to changes, which produces more wealth, and more children inheriting the newly correct genes, that could then continue to alter the general society.  Wade contrasts the necessity of a wider circle of trust of strangers for a modern state,  to the narrow range of trust found in tribal societies.  And this is one reason the institutions of modern states cannot easily be replicated in tribal societies like Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Middle-Eastern areas.  Tribal kingdoms tend to restrict trust within “the family.”
            “Western societies are well adapted to present economic conditions, which they have in large measure created.” (248)  Although in the same paragraph Wade notes possible changes in culture, he avoids the big question raised by his book.  In 1950 the US was 90% white, 10% African-American.  In less than a century the US white population will become a minority.  Hate-the-West, hate-whitey Democrats like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama cheer this prospect.  However, will there continue to be Western values in a Third World America?  Will the intelligence level be the same?  The work ethic?  The creative spark?  The language?  The crime rate?  Already sociologists (presumably, reliably left-leaning) note that in multicultural neighborhoods, there is a remarkable decline in trust, in community, and a rise in isolation, anomie.  And what is true of America is true of the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, England, and what is left of the “West.”  As non-Western genes begin to dominate Western nations, will the future of America and the West be Detroit?  And who opened the American borders so an invasion of millions could change the composition, and color, of the nation?  What privileged elite was able to use the values of the West – the greater trust of strangers – to import the Trojan horses of massive 3rd World invasion?  If the West is to survive as the West, it may have to shed some of these “genetic” values - and soon.
            I am less concerned about the rise of China, Japan, India, Brazil, or Nigeria, than I am by the decline of the West.  This decline is obvious in the demographics.  One value that helped build the West, a greater capacity to trust strangers, has been turned against us.  Our social immune system is now attacking our healthy cells, oblivious to the foreign elements.  How did this happen?  How can it be reversed?
            Wade is aware of some of the horrors that resulted from racism.  Several times he discusses the cost of such policies.  But he never raises the issue of the cost of anti-racism and egalitarianism.  What has been the cost of the equality ideology?  To abolish inequality and oppression, Cambodia, a land of about 8 million, killed off 2 million.  Under Mao in China, millions of Chinese were starved so socialism could be built.  Same under Stalin.  Same under Lenin.  Egalitarianism has cost the lives of up to 100 million people in the 20th century.  In America, the egalitarian, and excusiological approach to crime has undoubtedly encourage more crime, especially Black on white crime, murder, rape, etc.  Since 1960, how many innocent whites have been murdered by Blacks?  (The left may excuse or even deny that these are crimes, alleging that whites are by definition privileged and deserving of what punishment they receive from the Blacks, and Franz Fanon and his followers stressed the necessity of violence against the “oppressor”).
            Implementing egalitarian ideology has also extracted an enormous economic cost.  Massive aid to Africa has done little to raise the standards of living of its people, despite large deposits of natural resources.  Similarly, in much of the Middle East, the oil revenue has not brought wealth to many of the people living there.  In America welfare has waxed but the main result is more single mothers raising more children without fathers, without discipline, filled with resentment, on the track to pursue a life of crime.  More graduate from high school and even college, but many of them are barely literate.  Where instead should the money have been spent?
                        Some may read this review as an attack on Black people.  I have great respect for Blacks like Thomas Sowell, W. E. B. Du Bois, John Hope Franklin, Jackie Robinson, and yes, I admire the moral strength of Martin Luther King, Jr.  So what if King was given the name Michael; so what if he plagiarized some of his dissertation (if we perused all the dissertations in numerous subjects, I suspect considerable plagiarism would be revealed; so what if he engaged in some sexual romps while married; the point is that under enormous pressure and attempted blackmail from the US Federal Government {and undoubtedly local ones too}, King refused to yield, refused to cave, and kept fighting for what he believed right).  I admire many more Blacks, too, but this is not the place for such a list.  Surely some Blacks have enormous intelligence.  And creativity?  Just think of music?  Blacks may be as kind and friendly as any other.  They may well be stronger and faster.  If Black on white crime is high in the US, Black on Black crime is even higher.
            If Blacks are much more likely to inherit the MAO-A gene with few inhibitors, it does not necessarily mean they will become violent criminals.  And if all races inherit genes adapted to help them survive in changing environments, then will the MAO-A gene help Blacks survive in our changed environment?  As America and the West become ever more multicultural and multiracial, and as multicultural neighborhoods result in less trust, more distrust, more isolation, more anomie, as the cities of the West become more chaotic and crime-ridden, perhaps the MAO-A gene and its propensity to violence may be the best survival strategy in the new anarchical social environment.  What is maladjustment in one environment may become the best survival tactic in another.  Surely, Blacks have been reproducing at a faster rate, in Africa, and in America (with welfare), than whites.  Does the Black race have the best survival strategy of all the races during the 21st century?
            A somewhat related question is that of maturity.  Psychologists will recognize that a person who acts impulsively, who takes the marshmallow now rather than 2 later, who hits the guy he dislikes, that person is “immature.”   One aim of the psychologist is to help the client become “mature,” not necessarily old, but act in a more restrained, more controlled manner.  Yet, Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending in The 10,000 Year Explosion discuss how to tame animals is to take the juveniles and train them so that they retain those juvenile traits.  The adult animal is normally wild.  The mature animal is less likely to be tamed. (Cochran & Harpending, esp. p. 110-113)  The modern state desires tamed people, those more like juveniles those who can more readily remolded.  The modern state does not want mature, wild animals, mature wild people.  But as the modern state loses control over its neighborhoods and cities, perhaps the mature, wild people, maybe with few inhibitors to the MAO-A gene, will be the best adapted to survive, and thrive, in a new chaotic environment.  The tame ones, the psychologists who ask the mob politely to be mature, those are the ones who may be the most maladjusted in the new era.       
            The anti-imperialists raise the same charge against the West that the National Socialists  raised against the Jews: the Jews used their “privileges” (their intelligence, banking, publishing, films, etc.) to benefit Jews and oppress the gentiles.  The Left contends that the West uses its “privileges” (intelligence, science, military, banking, media, etc.) for the benefit of the West and to exploit the others.  Yes, the West gained wealth.  But so did the other nations, even the colonies.  By 1900 much of the world’s population, even many people in exploited colonies, was better off, than it was in 1800.  Not only did the West end slavery (which still continues in some 3rd World nations), but it opened opportunities to those, even in the colonies, who might work within the new system.  London, New York, Paris, Berlin grew richer, yes.  But the life-expectancy of many colonial people also increased with improved medicine, better infrastructure, and greater economic opportunity.  Perhaps, it is time to ask the critics of the West.  Is Nigeria better today than in 1960?  The Congo?  Zimbabwe (Rhodesia)?  Libya?  Algeria?
            Instead of destroying the West, perhaps the Left should begin to think about preserving the West, its genes as well as its culture, for the good of the planet.