A TROUBLESOME
INHERITANCE: GENES, RACE AND HUMAN HISTORY
(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.
Protestors 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