Intelligent people, in almost every field of human study, seek to acquire knowledge; to obtain the most information possible to evaluate prospects and avoid pitfalls. When one turns, however, to a study of the actual nature of Man, to attempts to understand variations in the species, one encounters a pattern of near hysteria. Our beloved third President, Thomas Jefferson, lamented in 1782: To our reproach it must be said, that though for a century and half we have had under our eyes the races of black and of red men, they have never yet been viewed by us as subjects of natural history. Over two centuries more have now passed, but very little has changed.
Certainly, there have been collections of data: A vast array of comparative psychological tests have been performed and catalogued; numerous studies of comparative anatomy and specialized studies of crania; analyses of comparative history, of comparative achievement; studies of racial crossing, of brain waves and the recorded responses to various stimuli; attempts to measure the differing levels and patterns of sociability. There have been other studies which follow a particular group of children through school and trace their respective maturation rates against their ultimate development. There is a great wealth of anecdotal observation, including observations as to how different groups have responded to social adversity. There are also studies that examine the same psychological test data, not from the standpoint of group averages--or from the standpoint of either means, medians or overlap--but from the perspective of the tendency of a definable reproducing group to produce exceptional individuals in various recognized fields of human achievement--including the relative distribution of geniuses and dullards.
The thrust of this considerable body of less than perfectly coordinated evidence is the exact opposite to the "politically correct" pseudo-scientific shibboleth that all have basically equal potential. Whether definitive or not, the data is certainly sufficient to require those, who would legislate or decree the forced acceptance of the "oneness" of humanity, to demonstrate the validity of their underlying assumption before they stigmatize others with the epithets of hatred, or dictate school enrollment, employment and housing patterns, or an educational curricula for the children of others.
Admittedly, in over 150 years of study as to this or that aspect of our differences or similarities, there has been far too little coordinated effort to determine to what extent the evidence from one academic or scientific discipline confirms the evidence from another--or even from varied approaches within the same discipline. [For example, do studies of the differing size, shape and configuration of various portions of the average brain of one group, when compared to another, correlate with previous studies of the function of those same brain portions and/or with psychological test results--whether measuring aptitude or personality;--correlate with brain-wave studies, with academic achievement, with historic data, with studies of intermediate (cross-bred) types, etc..] It is in the independent confirmation of phenomena by varied approaches from different directions, that we move towards greater certainty in sifting observations to reach usable conclusions.
A thought--not of caution, but of function and utility: In discussing groups and group statistics, one logical fallacy should be avoided. Statistics and averages can tell us what we may expect in the future, given the same ingredients as exist at the moment--or other time frame--in which the data was collected. But human interaction is never static; and yesterday's statistics will always be an imperfect predictor of tomorrow's data. More important, it must always be kept in mind what statistics actually tell us. They do not necessarily tell us anything of value about a particular individual within a group being studied.
Peoples, nations and races, only progress through the efforts of individuals. Group statistics but measure the combined achievement or measure of a whole; the averages (whether of achievement, aptitude or attitude) are but that combined measure, divided by the sum of its parts. (If 100 females of a particular tribe, during their times of fertility, give birth to 325 live babies, we can draw conclusions as to the tribal birth-rate during the period under review. But that study tells us little about the woman who had 11 children or the one that had none. Still, it will have value, under similar social conditions, in helping to predict the likely birth-rate in the immediate future, and in helping tribal leaders to determine tribal needs.)
The prevailing attitude in contemporary American academia is that Race is meaningless; that there are no meaningful racial differences. There are even statements which suggest that modern science has "proven" an equality of human potential; statements which treat all studies that seem to prove racial and ethnic differences, as "racist"--a word the proponents of this egalitarian orthodoxy prefer generally to hiss;--as conspiratorial attempts to hold back certain peoples or to advance others; as attempts to deny some ill defined sense of "fairness" or simply to promote hatred. We are told that "race" is just about "skin color"--and that we are all members of the "human race."
Yet one looking more closely, will find the claimed "proof" for "equality," only an argument by exception and in mitigation against a tidal wave of evidence of profound differences: Differences--on average--both between the primary races, and also between many racially definable sub-groups. It is a case that distorts questions, that go only to the difficulty in establishing precise measurements of traits and aptitudes, into a postulation that therefore we may safely assume that there are no meaningful differences in the incidence of those traits; a case that takes the factor of "overlap"--the tendency of one group to produce a certain percentage of individuals that overlap the norms of a comparison group--as disproving even meaningful norms.
By questioning the validity of old studies, and impugning the motives of those who conducted them, a "proof" is claimed for the "equality" of mankind without adducing any reliable evidence. In this posture, combining nit-picking with the grossest irrational overreach, the Academy disdains the very idea of further study designed to define the significance of racial factors.
Such almost compulsive "denial" is echoed in the media. And it is not confined to the "Liberals" and Socialists. There are Conservative talk show hosts, today, whose voices change like adolescent school boys' as they rush into fervent disclaimers whenever a caller even alludes to the possibility of a racial factor in human achievement or behavior. If a politician, running for high office, even appears in an institutional venue where there is a suggestion that race should be considered, there is a "feeding frenzy" among working reporters to force him to denounce the "bigotry" involved.
This hysterical reaction is no respecter of persons. Whether the would-be student of racial difference is a Nobel Prize winning scientist or a great Negro athlete and Christian evangelist, the reaction is much the same--similar to what a Russian academic in the 1920s might have expected, had he argued that there was evidence that the upper classes under the Czars were more intelligent than the peasants, or to propose a study of the Kulaks, targeted later, to determine whether they were not both abler and better motivated than their neighbors before they were summarily murdered. It is exactly what objective German Anthropologists actually did experience in the late 1920s and early 1930s (Fischer and Lenz for example), when they dared to suggest that German Jews represented a mentally gifted sub-population, that had earned their relatively high position in German Society--or to point out that the gentile population were not the racially homogeneous grouping suggested by Nazi propaganda.
It is incredible that a generation of Americans has grown up, convinced that the American Negro has been held back by White Society--not because the Left has destroyed his incentive, but because of a relatively lower incidence of Negroes in certain professions and at certain levels of the business hierarchy: A generation, who are not even aware that 84 years of intelligence and aptitude testing, involving millions of subjects and a great variety of different test media, administered in virtually every social environment that Americans have experienced in that time span, have demonstrated a consistent pattern as to the incidence of necessary aptitudes that closely correlates with the relative incidence of the races in occupational categories requiring those aptitudes. No amount of intellectual dishonesty can explain this consistency away. In short, Negroes are being taught to blame--even hate--Whites, and White youth are being deliberately given a guilt complex, because of conditions that spring not from injustice but from the relative distribution of types and levels of talent within the respective populations.
Manifestly, the demonization of racial studies begs many questions. More important, it assumes the absurd: That increase in knowledge will promote evil consequences; that knowledge of human differences will somehow promote ignorant behavior and intolerance; that we somehow insult other people by recognizing our differences; or that to study those differences implies acceptance of a value judgment as to an arbitrary hierarchy of human worth. The reality is very different.
There is no reason, in understanding how people differ, that need ever promote ill will or disrespect. There is no reason, why men and women of good will can not accept the vast array of their differing potentials and proclivities, study to what extent those differences correlate with genetic traits--with familial and racial inheritance--and reoccur in similar and differing patterns through the ages; and respect the unique qualities of every race, and every individual within each race, with a sense of awe and wonder at the infinite variety of God's Creation. There is no rational basis for such an acceptance or study to lead to antagonism or hatred, or to the denial of anyone's right to pursue happiness, as his unique nature and nurture inspire and allow him. Indeed, deeper understanding of the special aptitudes of other races should actually alleviate the ignorant stereotyping that often leads to mean spirited treatment.
Race is not about skin color--probably one of the least significant of all racial characteristics--but about many traits that can effect the happiness of each of us. Respect for others only starts when we try to understand them as they are; not remake them in our own image. Because one recognizes profound differences between Thoroughbred Race Horses and Clydesdales, does not imply a disrespect for either. The very need to reassure anyone on these points, bespeaks a great deal of the shallowness of Twenty-First Century American debate.
Charles Daniel Stuart, central figure in the contemporary novel, Return Of The Gods, put things in perspective:
It is no disaster that no two of us are alike. Were it otherwise, it would be a dull, uninteresting world. It is in our differences--our inherent inequalities--that we find our true natures.
Had the apostles of a new era--in that lusty America of long ago--been content to chide us, because we were not always kind to one another; to remind us that we sometimes went beyond an honest pride in whom and what we were, to be insensitive (and sometimes even cruel and punitive); that we could have been more tolerant and charitable to neighbors, and even those who lived across the tracks; no fair minded American could have faulted them. We do not elevate ourselves, demeaning others.
The rich man could have been more helpful to the poor, the disabled, the handicapped; the White man, kindlier to the Black and Red.
We were offered, instead, an egalitarian utopia; where distinctions based upon family, race and creed--even sex--would all be swept aside; where heritage was seen as something one did not talk about. We were expected to be ashamed that our forebears had prospered or that we lived on the wealthy side of town and accumulated portfolios rather than debts; or drew money from trust funds rather than Welfare.
Everything was turned upside down. And the negative motivators-- resentment, guilt and envy--became the dominant emotions in the political spectrum. The poor girl or boy was taught to resent the affluent, not to emulate, not to copy, not to apply himself fully to the often long slow path that others had followed; but to demand and to hate. Members of recognizable minorities were inspired not only to resent, but to blame--ever to blame--the more successful, for whatever failed aspirations the former might experience.
And while it remained acceptable for the poor to maintain ties of heritage and kinship for the purpose of keeping alive old grudges--of having someone to fault for every problem--for the purpose of demanding what was others'; it became synonymous with 'bigotry' for those others to even think in terms of pride in family, race or culture.
We became so fearful that we would be accused of hate, that we became afraid to love; so wary that we would be accused of exploitation, that we forgot how to honor the ethic that had made us strong--to cherish what we already knew. .....
While most Conservatives, of whatever variety, would prefer not to bring down the frothy invective of academics "in denial" upon their own heads, it is impossible for the would-be debater to do justice to a number of important contemporary issues, without some understanding of the anatomy of the centuries old controversy over the character and causation of apparent human differences. Why is this essential?
1. Understanding the nature and origin of human differences is vital to any assessment of programs designed to ameliorate those differences.
2. While Conservatives oppose collectivist social engineering on moral principles; we must often debate Utilitarians--ie. Secular Humanists, Socialists or modern "Liberals"--and understanding what can and cannot alter the human condition is fundamental to the question of whether Society should even consider their programs.
3. While understanding that peoples differ is no reason to deny opportunity to any individual able to perform at a desired level, regardless of origin; it is essential to offset the claims of demagogues, seeking to collectivize human society by arguing that because this or that group does better than another in a particular comparison, there must be an underlying injustice that requires societal intervention, or would justify that other's feeling "victimized" and abused. (Understanding that aptitudes differ need never repress the upward reach of an inspired individual. It can temper the sometimes devastating result of unrealistic expectations, often encouraged by saccharine assurances that each of us "can accomplish anything" we set our minds to. And it can certainly mitigate the demonization of success.)
4. Understanding human differences is essential to understanding other Nations; the nature of their potential, as friend or foe; the underlying realities of history; the potential for the future rise or fall of any people; certainly to questions of immigration. It is essential to the evaluation of treaties, alliances and foreign aid; even to the reasonable expectations from foreign investment or travel.
5. A fair study of our differences is conducive to mutual respect. It may lead to a better appreciation for why one of us displays a certain trait or prefers a certain surrounding. It can help to eliminate misunderstandings that spring from expecting others to be too much alike; while teaching us to honor the broad variety of God's Creation.
6. To the extent such study may pin-point genetically determined aptitudes, it will provide an immensely usable resource in knowing where to look in order to find the special skills needed in an ever more specialized economy. This is the positive flip side to the negative, demagogue serving assumptions that flow from the fantasy that we are all basically the same.
7. People with self-respect do not want to be part of an undifferentiated, functional ant hill. It is a positive factor to better understand both who we are, and from whence we come.
8. All of the great totalitarian movements of the 20th Century--Communism, National Socialism, and Modern "Liberalism"--are premised upon a claimed plasticity of human types. That claim has been used to justify their Collectivist dogma; exposed, it becomes their Achilles' Heel.
The term "race" has been used in many senses. It can mean identification or classification as one of the primary divisions of Mankind--another term for sub-species (some have even suggested species)--analogous to the distinctions between dog and wolf. It can also mean identification with one of the many sub-groupings within those primary races--analogous to the many "breeds" of dog. In both of these senses, it involves a major element of common descent, a common inheritance of biological traits. But race is often used more loosely--and here it is fraught with a greater possibility for being politicized--to refer to a coming together of people, originally more diverse, in a new ethnic grouping based upon common language and culture. This confluence in a cultural entity may, over generations, lead to a new biological sub-group as a result of a fusion from the mating patterns that develop within such group. But this is neither inevitable, nor is the phenomenon in any way a refutation or negation of the importance of the biologically definable races that have previously developed.
We should also analyze the aptitudes and propensities of such latter groups. There is no reason not to gather as much information as we can about every definable group, whether the principle measure of its definition is biological, cultural, geographical or social. This is no different than studying college graduates as a distinct class--or class by class;--or people who survive a particular event, or those in particular functional categories. Knowledge is strength. The principal reason for making the distinction we do between races as determined by biology and those more loosely defined by culture, is to help clarify some of the lingering confusion that has helped to obfuscate the subject.
For generations the argument within those academic disciplines that deal with the nature of Man, has been whether observed individual traits (including the psychological) should be attributed more to one's biological nature or to nurture--including not only family upbringing, but all of the environmental and cultural influences that might in any way contribute to development.
For two centuries, this debate--more political than scientific--has been between the followers and successors of an upper-class French theorist Jean de Lamarck (1744-1829), who postulated an evolution by the inheritance of acquired characteristics, on one hand, and Mendel, the successors of Benjamin Franklin in the Philadelphia scientific community, and a host of other objective scientists--who have tried to define the actual role of heredity in individual achievement--on the other.
The appeal of Lamarck to the far Left is obvious. Those who advocate an extreme application of Government to the social processes, need a philosophy--or at least a rationalization--which suggests that their applications will produce some benefit. The more plastic Mankind, the more viable Socialism. Hence the Communists adopted Lamarckism almost completely. So, to a large extent, have American academics on the Left, men who have come to lean very heavily on an environmental or "nurturing" interpretation for measured human differences. And some of their arguments have been truly far fetched.
Gunnar Myrdal, the Swedish Marxist who conducted a "study" (some would say smear) of American race relations, published in 1944 and cited by Chief Justice Warren in 1954 in the Brown vs. Board of Education decision, laments that Conservatives tend to reject the importance of environment as the determinant of human nature. He acknowledges that we could accept an environmental interpretation and still maintain our philosophy (p. 83)--which is, of course, true. Whatever the causes for human variation, they can provide no justification for an extension of the power of a collective to interfere with that variation--not if one accepts the moral premises of our heritage. But Myrdal was silent on the converse: If one accepts the role of genetically determined traits in the differing achievement levels of his subjects, but still advocates a Socialist egalitarian ethic, his true purpose becomes much clearer. It is not fairness or justice that is sought, but uniformity of achievement; not the celebration of truth, but a suppression of the reality of God's Creation.
One of the worst overreaches involved the Russian Theodosius Dobzhansky, arriving from the Red Paradise in the 1920s and immediately embraced by the Fabian pseudo-scientists, already in fashion in major American Universities. Dobzhansky found that by controlling the climate and diet of fruit flies--not exactly on the same biological plane as humans or other primates--he could equalize the size and appearance of normally quite different sub-species. His experiments were widely cited for decades, as though they were significant evidence of an environmental determinant for major racial differences.
But the answer to Dobzhansky, as one prominent European biologist pointed out at the time, was as simple as the Russian Lamarckist's own point, which was really no point at all. He had not established equality, because it was obvious that with anything actually resembling equal treatment, the larger race of fruit flies (being starved for the study) would again become the larger race of fruit flies; while the smaller, given the restricted diet that the larger had received, would have become even smaller than normal, the contrast even greater.
What is obvious to anyone, not caught up in a predetermined need to prove a point, is that both environment and heredity are significant factors in how any of us develop; and that the more complex the organism or the function, the more complex will be the interaction of the two. Basically, your environment acts upon your nature; influences how your natural aptitudes and personality traits develop. It is also obvious that some facets of human development will be more influenced by environmental factors than others; just as it is obvious that most aspects of the social environment reflect the nature, ie. the genetic proclivities of those who create that social environment. Because there is such vast array of potential variables in how environment and heredity complement each other; there is a wealth of material available to anyone who wishes to obfuscate the truth by finding reasons to doubt the results of almost any analysis. No one can give the would be Conservative spokesman an answer to every argument to which he may be subjected. We can, however, help define the dilemma and the disingenuous techniques of those who advocate an undifferentiated humanity.
Considering various studies of identical twins raised apart and compared to both identical and fraternal twins and other siblings raised together, a number of researchers have concluded that many basic mental traits are predominantly controlled by genetics, with only from 1/4 to 1/3 of the variations determined by environmental influences. While some have claimed the environmental factor might be as high as 1/2, we believe that such a projection can only be supported by a careful selectivity in the traits studied, and by ignoring the considerable factor that heredity plays in determining social environment. But given the variation in how each factor effects different traits, there is plenty of material available for anyone wishing to exaggerate the importance of environment. Admittedly, unrecognized variables within recognized variables may change the extent to which nurturing factors impact human development. For example, a person with relatively good genetic potential in the use of symbolism may be more dependent on his immediate environment to reach his potential skill level in a particular language (given the infinite variation in the uses put to language) than he will in reaching full potential in a computer game, where his skills may more easily be honed via trial and error--although genetic aptitudes involving hand and eye coordination may be more significant in the latter instance than in the former. (Of course, the biology involved in vision may dictate to an enormous extent the amount and type of outside "nurture" necessary for him to reach his potential in either pursuit.)
In both of the above developments, a certain training is necessary. It is the extent to which that training will require the participation of others that increases the variables. By contrast, examine a trait where the role of external "nurture" is clearly limited: The intense, self-sustained dedication of those Japanese soldiers, stranded on small islands across the Pacific at the end of World War II, who maintained solitary posts in caves or forests, to straggle out from time to time--15, 20, 25 and even 30 years, after the Emperor had surrendered. There is no way that anyone can be trained to perform in this manner, without external social reinforcement, for such time spans. While loyalty can be taught, so clear a demonstration involves traits that are either there or they are not. (Interestingly, there have been French and Belgian studies which, wholly independent of the above phenomenon, indicate that Mongoloid peoples have a greater capacity for self-motivation--less dependence on external reinforcement--than those of the other primary races.)
Further perspective may be obtained by considering the relevant nature vs. nurture, and nature + self-nurture vs. external nurture, aspects of various sports. For example, a weight lifter's achievement level will depend both upon his genetic ability to build bulk and sustain effective muscle on an adequate frame, and the nurturing effects of diet and exercise. But how he obtains that "nurture," and the quality thereof, will be heavily influenced by motivational factors that may be genetically influenced. Purely external environmental factors may or may not be present. (Imagine the motivational benefit of having a pretty well curved girl in very brief tight shorts, sitting on a gymnast's horse day after day while he lifts, as opposed to solitary sessions in a weight room! Individual personality traits will determine whether that stimulation proves positive or negative to his athletic goals.)
Clearly genes are the foundation. But even in the case of the weight lifter, what is done with genetic potential is crucial. Is it possible to define the respective nature and nurture coefficients in such a situation? Probably not. Yet that in no way invalidates a recognition that certain genetic types will do far better than others in the sport.
A differing complex of factors will effect the level of participation in every other pursuit. Consider a boxer. A really good one probably starts with a greater genetic dependence than the weight lifter. The sport not only requires a naturally sturdy physique, but a raft of other competitive physical qualities. Hand and eye coordination, reflexes, the structure of the jaw, the thickness of skull and skin, the type of nose--as well as the whole oxygen delivery system--the size of hands, length of arms, shape of foot; these and other inherent physical attributes will all influence how well or poorly he may perform in any contest. But how those physical attributes are schooled; how he is trained, from handlers to sparring partners, to the selection of foes; how he is "schooled," and the motivation he brings to that schooling--itself a complex of nature and nurture--will determine how close he will ever come to realizing his full potential.
Almost all physical activity involves a considerable mental coefficient. And so the converse: Primarily mental activities involve a considerable physical coefficient--such as our dependence on our senses, and above all, the nature and extent of the electrical and chemical capacities of our brains. While realizing full potential in any activity, physical or mental, involves training (ie. education), the extent to which one may train oneself is infinitely varied, depending upon the unique attributes of each activity. But in every case factors of motivation, which may be influenced greatly by both that which is innate to the individual, and by the external effect of his interaction with particular others, must be taken into account.
Thus, while a researcher comparing the tested math skills of identical twins living apart with those of fraternal twins and/or other siblings living together, might conclude that genetic factors contributed 65 or 75% of the tested aptitude; comparisons of lifetime achievement involve such an almost infinite variety of variables, that no mathematical quantification of the relative contributions of definable factors seems possible. Yet there is nothing in this chaos of variability that suggests in any way that any two of us, much less any two groupings of us, can possibly be equated in ability or potential, mental or physical.
You will note that some of the most important "nurturing" factors involve situations almost as unique to individuals as genetically determined biology; situations that involve deep personal emotions of both individuals and their loved ones, and the emotional motivations that spring from interaction. Can anyone draw conclusions from this scarcely even definable confluence of factors? Some, at least, are obvious. Environmental factors unique to an individual--including some that involve very subjective decisions--are no more suitable to the manipulation of a grasping Collective than are genetic factors peculiar to such individual. In reality, the "nature/nurture" debate is itself a "red-herring." Government planners can no more realistically improve one's effective environment, by legislation or decree, than they can alter one's genes.
There is a separate essay on the compulsion of many for a perception of uniformity in the human condition. (See link, below.) It is this compulsion that provides the great deterrent to objective study of racial or other definable class differences. It is also this compulsion that adds much of the real ugliness to inter-group relations, and probably has through most eras of the human experience. Certainly, there is no reason to hate those we find different. We certainly perceive vast differences with other species. Do we hate them because they differ from us, or one from another?
No one suggests that understanding the innate characteristics that distinguish different breeds of dogs or horses poses a threat, or provides reason for hating any of them. No one appears to have a great emotional need to suppress study of inherited traits in the different breeds of cats or sheep. But for two generations, anyone offering analysis of the obvious differences between definable breeds of men has risked the "slings and arrows" of slogan spewing fanatics, prattling egalitarian shibboleths reminiscent of the crowds gathered to see the young daughters of French aristocrats beheaded; or to storm the Winter Palace, or to demand death for the Kulaks, or to cheer Hitler's call for a "Classless, Casteless" Germany at Nuremberg.
There are so many fallacies involved in modern racial analysis--or more often the deliberate avoidance of it--that no one can cover them all in a single chapter. The greatest fallacy is that which leads to what we have labelled, "The Rape Of Tolerance." It is the idea, implicit in the attitude of most of Academia, most of the media; screamed in the rhetoric of activists and politicians: That the motive for understanding racial, ethnic and class difference, is an intention to abuse those who may seem to be "inferior." While, this concept--premised on the idea that those who wish to follow Jefferson's suggestion, stated at the outset, are "racist bigots" bent on hurting the innocent--may be at the core of the convictions of a great many people who are no part of any Leftwing plot (indeed many are conservative on other issues); it is virtually the exact opposite to reality. The bigots here, as always, are those who glorify their own stupidity.
A thorough study of any race, would reveal not only areas where its members may be relatively less endowed, but areas where they are in fact better endowed. No one loses in a fair study. No one. If a smaller percentage of one race qualify as nuclear physicists, that takes nothing away from the one who does; adds nothing to the several in another racial group who obtain the same or a higher level. Put another way, the superb trained hand, leg, and eye coordination combined with incredible jumping skills demonstrated by Michael Jordan, are in no wise diminished if one observes what few would deny: That a much higher percentage of Negroes approach his skill level--even if none quite equal--than the percentage of equivalently gifted Whites. Nor does that latter fact--even acknowledged by Hollywood--detract in the slightest from the efforts or achievements of White athletes like Larry Bird and John Stocker, who managed to achieve at least competitive skills--if again, not quite equal to Michael's--in the same era.
We could just as easily pick any other activity known to man and make a similar point. Truth hurts no one but liars.
The history of recent centuries bears terrible witness that it is ignorance of the innate merit of achievers, not knowledge of the limitations on those less gifted, that leads to almost every instance of sustained brutality directed at a recognized racial or ethnic minority within a common political Society. Indeed, most seem to follow a predictable formula:
1. A demagogue or group of demagogues--almost always from a leisure class, because those struggling for existence have neither the time nor capacity to plan uprisings--picks a highly successful group as a target, and then seeks to rally a mob of Society's under-achievers (forgive the umbrella euphemism for many conditions) as the cannon fodder for the attempted uprising in what is clearly a form of class warfare.
2. Lies--the more outrageous the more honored--are told about those being demonized, and then systematically spread among the susceptible. The demagogues never acknowledge any possibility that the targeted group deserve their high position. And the lies will be designed to suggest, at least, that the targeted group are somehow responsible for the misery of those being inflamed against them.
3. At an expedient moment, the orgy of hate is launched.
We do not suggest that there have not been other examples of riots stemming from inter-group antagonism. These seldom rise to the level of sustained fury found in those which illustrate the formula. Consider:
A. The Massacre & later Expulsion of Huguenots. While this, as Hitler's treatment of Jews a quarter of a millennium later, involved religious and other issues on the surface, both were instances of pure envy and contrived resentment. The Huguenots had enjoyed a preeminence in French commerce and science only comparable to what outside conquerors might ordinarily obtain. In driving the Huguenots out, France lost the potential to achieve an Industrial Revolution ahead of her British rival. The mob killing Huguenots on St. Bartholomew's Day were not killing people they believed "inferior."
B. The Anti-Catholic Riots in London, 1775, dramatized by Dickens in Barnaby Rudge. That these represented more economic class warfare than a theological dispute, despite the anti-Catholic slogans, is demonstrated by the fact that a great many of the participants were nominal Catholics; the targets being successful Catholics--people by any normal measure, better than those attacking them--their homes and Churches.
C. The French Revolution. While they shouted Liberty (our primary social value), as well as Equality and Fraternity (the values of the Left), there is no question but that the Revolution involved the most vicious form of class hatred. It was certainly not aimed at people deemed to be "inferior."
D. The Russian Revolution. Again the victims were among those most highly accomplished--even if some were corrupted (as in France) by too much leisure over too long a period. The initial onslaught against the upper classes was followed by a series of mass murders among the more productive of the intermediate classes--as in the deliberate starvation of millions of Ukrainians--which reflected the same contrived hatred of achievers.
E. The Nazi Takeover of Germany, with Isolation then Massacre of Jews. While the German Jews, demonized, had not achieved a level of economic prominence equivalent to that of the Huguenots in Seventeenth Century France, they were far ahead of their average neighbor--possibly only second to the Junker aristocracy in terms of achievement. That objective anthropology clearly recognized that this success was a result of merit not conspiracy or exploitation, see the English translation of Human Heredity, by Baur, Fischer and Lenz, Macmillan, New York, 1931. (It is interesting evidence of just how far Left the Nazis really were, that Hitler's first lieutenant thought that their next target would be the Aristocracy!)
F. The Cultural Revolution in China. Long after the massacres perpetrated on a grand scale in the original Communist takeover of China--in which many leading citizens and tens of millions of Chinese perished;--Chairman Mao had a mad spell, and ordered that intellectuals be uprooted from population centers and forced into remote areas, to labor as peasants without any of the comforts to which they had become accustomed. Those who resisted suffered the usual fate of high achievers demonized by Socialists.
G. Anti-Chinese Riots in Indonesia. From time to time, there have been brutal riots directed against the small Chinese minority in Indonesia. Here, again, a mob of comparative failures, whipped into a frenzy, attack not those deemed to be "inferior," but a wealthy and successful minority. While the Government has sometimes put these riots down, they are endemic whenever hard times hit the archipelago, for reasons psychologically similar to the other examples.
H. The Massacre of Tutsi in Central Africa. The Tutsi minority were the aristocracy in the former Belgian Mandate of Ruanda-Urundi, later divided into Rwanda and Burundi. The cold blooded slaughter of Tutsi represented an outpouring of contrived hatred reminiscent of the French and Russian Revolutions. (It should be remembered that the French and Russian Aristocracies were racially distinguishable from the rest of the population, although perhaps not so dramatically as the Tutsi from the Hutu.)
I. Systematic Assault & Murder of White Rhodesians. Recent reports from Zimbabwe on bloody assaults on members of the White Rhodesian minority--now less than one percent of the population--by organized followers of the Marxist demagogue Mugabe, provide the clearest possible example of the same principle. The White Farmers of Rhodesia did not seize land that the Bantu were using, when they settled. They developed farms in a sparsely populated country--the population only exploded after the Whites stopped the tribal warfare--in areas where no one was even living. What makes the reports most disturbing is the nature of the Rhodesians. Drawn from the very best that the British races have produced--you could scarcely find a male over 40 at the time of U.D.I. that had not been at least a Field grade officer in World War II;--in better days, they represented a truly exceptionally gifted population.
In the 1960s, Nathaniel Weyl made an extensive study of the propensity of different ethnic populations to produce gifted progeny in various fields. He concluded that the White Rhodesians are an outstanding intellectual elite. They are in all probability the most intelligent people in the world today. He went on to show that the Rhodesians produced 2 to 3 times as many children with I.Q.s over 130, per capita, as were found in the White populations of the United States, Great Britain and New Zealand; and that of those in that plus 130 range, a significantly higher percentage of Rhodesians scored in the genius category at 180 or better than Californians scoring at 170 or better. He summed the point up:
Another way of putting the matter is to observe that one out of every thousand White Rhodesian children had an I.Q. of 180 or better, whereas the statistical expectation is that only one out of every thirty thousand will have an I.Q. of 160 or higher.
All Socialist movements involve some form of demonization of the successful. All are at least in part premised upon the idea that those who succeed under Capitalism or Freedom have somehow exploited those who have failed or been significantly less successful. Such movements are born in hatred; live in hatred! On the other hand, from the days of the Chivalric Noblesse Oblige, through the Old South, through the Industrial Revolution, the moral leaders among the high achievers have viewed the relative failures either with a benign paternalism, or in a quest to find what work they could master that would be mutually beneficial.
We have not explained all inter-group brutality. Certainly there have been terribly cruel wars over religious and ethnic differences and over rival dynastic ambitions. Often the most brutal conflicts are between those with roughly equal levels of achievement, as in the present conflict in the Balkans. And some of the most brutal struggles have involved the clash of rival tribes/races over the right to settle in a given area. There have also been atrocities committed by the former victims of cruelty; a form of "pay back," or revenge. But the ugliest forms of internal ethnic hatred, among groups reflecting different levels of achievement within a unified political system, invariably originate in demagogues inciting failures by demonizing achievers.
The four great lies of Socialism in 20th Century Academia are these:
1. Communism is a noble ideal, even if not practical. (It is idealistic only to those who would equate mankind with lichen!)
2. National Socialism was a movement on the Right. (It was by any objective measure second only to Communism at the farthest Left!)
3. Race and hereditary breeding patterns are meaningless. (They are in fact the key to history!)
4. Capitalism at the time of the Industrial Revolution was exploitation of the poor. (It was, in truth, the birth of opportunity!)
In a real sense, this whole essay is about how unidealistic is Communism; how truly perverse the concept of an equality of human condition.
The second lie has been used for generations to keep many who have the most to lose--who should know better--suspicious of the motives and intentions of Conservatives. We develop some aspects of this in the essay on Compulsion linked below. In addition, there is discussion of the Fabian Socialist techniques involved in Chapter Three of this Handbook, dealing with the assault on religious freedom. Basically, it is this fable that that virulently leftwing Socialist movement was on the Right, which has been used as a bugbear to keep millions of American Jews--a highly successful subset of the population with significantly above average levels of those types of intelligence that correlate with that success--voting for Leftwing candidates and accepting social and political concepts that are as absolutely contrary to their own best interest, as they are adverse to the interests of there being an American future for any of us.
The third lie puts all high achievers into a defensive posture against the basic claim of the Socialist demagogue: That the rich exploit the poor; that the achievers only succeed by the labor of the failures. That we are all basically plastic, to be molded for the "greatest good" by wise planners, directed by enlightened egalitarian theorists.
The fourth lie is the one that perhaps more than any of the others was used, in the early days of this century, to pry open the American Academy for infection by the Fabian virus. Skillfully manipulated, it was used to convince the sons and grandsons of successful entrepreneurs, sent to what were still perceived as bastions of "Higher Education," that their families had only succeeded by exploiting others; that "enlightenment" was synonymous with an acceptance of class guilt. While this virus was spread first in the Northern Ivy League centers among those derisively labelled "WASPS" (often by ingrates, who owed their own good lives to the kindness of those Americans of original Anglo-Saxon/Celtic stock, who had shared the free society with those of us who came after); it eventually spread into the South--as that region finally recovered--also; where, among the susceptible, guilt as to economic success was often wedded to a sense of racial guilt.
We will return to the Lies of Socialism in Chapter Seven.
It is common sense that a movement promoted by fear and guilt--or upon any non-rational basis--be challenged in the realm of deliberative reason before any part of its dogma is accepted.
We do not ask anyone to accept our conclusions without investigation. As in other Chapters, the would be debater is urged to evaluate our suggested approach with his or her own research and reflection. But a few words on a virtually suppressed scientific debate may be essential to understanding.
From World War II through the 1950s and early 1960s, the environmentalists used the spectre of Nazi "racism" to rally the forces of racial denial. In 1950, UNESCO issued a Statement on Race, prepared by a group of environmentalists, none of whom had apparently conducted any empirical studies. They offered this ex cathedra, but demonstrably false, pronouncement:
Whatever classifications the anthropologist makes of man, he never includes mental characteristics as part of those classifications. It is now generally recognized that intelligence tests do not themselves enable us to differentiate safely between what is due to innate capacity and what is the result of environmental influences, training and education. Wherever it has been possible to make all allowances for differences in environmental opportunities, the tests have shown essential similarity in mental characters among all human groups. In short, given similar degrees of cultural opportunity to realize their potentialities, the average achievement of the members of each ethnic group is about the same.
As Dr. Eugen Fischer, a distinguished German Anthropologist, who had stood up to both the Nazi and Communist racial distortions, already rampant at German Universities by the late 1920s, observed in commenting on the suitability of the UNESCO Statement:
I recall the National Socialists' notorious attempts to establish certain doctrines as the only correct conclusions to be drawn from research on race, and their suppression of any contrary opinion; as well as the Soviet Government's similar claim on behalf of Lysenko's theory of heredity, and its condemnation of Mendel's teaching. The present Statement likewise puts forward certain scientific doctrines as the only correct ones, and quite obviously expects them to receive general endorsement as such.
Without assuming any attitude towards the substance of the doctrines in the Statement, I am opposed to the principle of advancing them as doctrines. The experiences of the past have strengthened my conviction that freedom of scientific inquiry is imperiled when any scientific findings or opinion are elevated by an authoritative body into the position of doctrines.
Despite such protests by serious scientists, the politicization of racial science continued, with those in denial continuing to dominate--never with evidence;--always by taking exception to the actual data, by fanciful conjecture and by playing the "Nazi" fear card. One of the most notorious practitioners of this sophistry was Ashley Montagu, author of Man's Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race, who was in such extreme denial that he refused to even use the term "race"; employing instead the term "genotype" to define a population possessing a commonality of genes which distinguishes them from other populations. In 1961, Montagu offered this bit of pure conjecture, as his answer to those urging racial study:
...the authors have discussed the evolutionary factors which render it probable that in the course of human evolution natural selection has favored the behaviorally plastic or educable rather than those who were possessed of some special trait. All the evidence at our disposal supported this interpretation of the evolutionary process with respect to the evolution of man's mental capacities, and the conclusion that was drawn, namely, that because natural selection put a premium upon the general trait of educability rather than upon any special trait, the mental capacities of mankind probably did not differ in any marked way among any of its genotypes.
Any parent, who has worked at all closely in educating two or more children, can probably refute the error in that statement from his or her own experience.
In 1967, the National Academy Of Sciences issued a statement that clearly sought to avoid the issue: There is no scientific basis for a statement that there are or there are not substantial hereditary differences in intelligence between Negro and white populations. It then went on to reject the appeal of Dr. William Shockley--a Nobel Prize winning Physicist, who had challenged entrenched dogmatism--for the Academy to seek a new approach to resolve uncertainty in the environment/heredity debate: None of the current methods can produce unambiguous results. To shy away from seeking the truth is one thing; to refrain from collecting still more data that would be of uncertain meaning but would invite misuse is another.
Can anyone imagine a greater MISUSE than that to which the Left has put its never proven environmentalist assumption! Traditional achievement patterns, attitudes, culture and a moral code that holds the individual responsible, have been under incessant assault for generations by those who seek to justify ever more intrusive political intervention into all our lives; intervention based almost entirely upon the pure conjecture of a never proven level of human plasticity! Shockley--who at this time was being shouted down on American campuses by pseudo-intellectual bullies using tactics right out of Adolph Hitler's 1930 handbook--answered this politically correct mindset, in an address to the Academy in April, 1968:
Man is a mammal and subject to the same biological laws as other animals. All animals, including man, have inheritable behavioral traits. The concept of complete environmental plasticity of human intelligence is a nonsensical, wishful-thinking illusion.
At the time when neo-Nazis, calling themselves "Liberals," were shouting Shockley down, the most complete compilation of data on comparative Caucasian/Negro performance on intelligence tests was the 1966 The Testing Of Negro Intelligence, by Dr. Audrey M. Shuey. After reviewing a vast array of tests, administered over 50 years to millions of subjects, under extremely varied circumstances and controls, Professor Shuey concluded:
The remarkable consistency in test results, whether they pertain to school or preschool children, to children between Ages 6 to 9 or 10 to 12, to children in Grades 1 to 3 or 4 to 7, to high school or college students, to enlisted men or officers in training in the Armed Forces--in World War I, World War II, or the Post-Korean period--to veterans of the Armed Forces, to homeless men or transients, to gifted or mentally deficient, to delinquent or criminal; the fact that the differences between colored and white are present not only in the rural and urban South, but in the Border and Northern States;......the fact that Negro school children and high school pupils have achieved average IQ's slightly lower in the past twenty years than between 1921 and 1944; the tendency toward greater variability among whites; the tendency for racial hybrids to score higher than those groups described as, or inferred to be, unmixed Negro; the evidence that the mean overlap is between 7 and 13 per cent; the evidence that the tested differences appear to be greater for logical analysis, abstract reasoning, and perceptual-motor tasks than for practical and concrete problems; the evidence that the tested differences may be a little less on verbal than on nonverbal tasks; .... the fact that differences were reported in practically all of the studies in which the cultural environment of the whites appeared to be similar in richness and complexity to that of the Negroes; the fact that in many comparisons, including those in which the colored have appeared to best advantage, Negro subjects have been either more representative of their racial group or more highly selected than the comparable whites; all taken together, inevitably point to the presence of native differences between Negroes and whites as determined by intelligence tests.
Note, Dr. Shuey did not claim that every type of intelligence had been tested in the data gathered over the fifty year time frame. Her conclusions were only in terms of what was being tested. [One of the strawmen, those in denial love to set up, is that there are many types of intelligence. No one denies that. Indeed, the enormous variability of innate human traits and aptitude, is one of our points. But that fact does not lessen in anyway the importance of the types of intelligence that were being measured.]
In 1969, Arthur R. Jensen, challenged the voices of denial with a long analysis of new data, How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? published in the Harvard Educational Review, which offered additional evidence of the same points. And in 1971, Frank C. J. McGurk revisited his 1951 investigation (in which he had carefully matched White and Negro samples on the basis of socio-economic factors in a study that refuted the environmentalist hypothesis), reviewing 1720 articles published in the intervening twenty year period. In conclusion, McGurk defended Jensen:
If we are really interested in helping the Negro, we must face the fact that the environmental manipulations which have been tried have not resulted in any improvement in Negro intelligence test performance. We need to try something else. We must also face the fact that false argument and suppression of data about the importance of heredity cannot make environmental manipulation work any better.
In 1994, Herrnstein and Murray published a widely discussed book, The Bell Curve, which again updated the data, and offered additional arguments to support the obvious heritability of intelligence. Predictably, the book was immediately assailed by the forces of denial, relying again on the technique of arguing by exception, in mitigation and by conjecture, and by viciously impugning the motives of others. In place of reason, they offered the usual hissing epithet of "racist," citing for proof the fact that Herrnstein and Murphy had used material from earlier investigators who had once testified against the claimed benefits of compulsory mass school integration.
To most, it is a bogus argument to attack someone who does not share your premise, for opposing the conclusions you draw from that premise. But to the compulsive Modern "Liberal," there is no such thing as "begging a question," and no argument can be too circular. If a researcher denied their racial theories in the 1960s and actually offered the results of his or her own research in a public debate against the "Liberal" position; he, and all who ever associate with him ever after that, are damned. That is the argument of the charlatan and demagogue, not the argument of anyone seeking truth on a sensitive subject.
The real issue remains. Who should bear the burden of persuasion, the burden of proof? Is it too much to expect that those who deny meaningful human differences, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of such differences, prove their point before they are allowed to disrupt the lives of others? That before we allow the mob to cut off heads, murder an elite on their farms or in their shops, strip away their heritage, send them to death camps, or simply make their lives unbearable, we demand that the manipulators of the mob actually prove their point--at least to the extent that they offer some hard evidence that those who succeed really are holding back those who do not!
While one of the great racial misconceptions--deliberately nourished and embroidered by theorists on the Left--is that to study and define the differences between peoples, especially mental differences, is tantamount to encouraging hatred and bigotry; just the opposite is true. In the field of racial relations, as elsewhere in the human experience, the more knowledge people have, the better people act.
This has always been obvious to anyone not driven by compulsion. Knowledge has always been the antidote for bigotry. As former Senator James A. Reed of Missouri--an obvious favorite at this web site--once said, "Draw me the radius of any man's intellect and I will describe the circle of his tolerance." (He was not, of course, suggesting tolerance for people who flaunt their anti-social tendencies or offensive behavior in other people's faces. He was not speaking of turning the other cheek, but of recognizing and accepting our differences. We are, very simply put, not all alike.) And nothing is more truly intolerant and insulting in its implications than the compulsive fear to look closely at our differences.
One may contrast the good-hearted anecdotal racial views of Reggie White, with the pretentious distinction that the Swedish Socialist economist Gunnar Myrdal employed to besmirch American medicine for not joining the "social sciences" in increasingly giving the preponderance to environment instead of to heredity. Of course, Reggie White was seeking understanding. But you can judge what Myrdal was seeking, when he thus discussed the medical refusal to deny the genetic role in human pathology:
The biological sciences and medicine, firmly entrenched much earlier in American universities, had not yet, the same close ideological ties to the American Creed. They have been associated in America, as in the rest of the world, with conservative even reactionary ideologies. (Page 91)
One can imagine the mess that medicine would be in, if physicians showed the same compulsion to deny genetically based idiosyncrasies that effect human pathology, as Leftwing Educationalists exhibit in denying genetically based idiosyncrasies that effect the learning processes. American Doctors do not need a Swedish Marxist to define something he chose to call the American Creed. Nor do the rest of us. Yet the one question remains, just who, besides the Socialists who want to dictate to others, is supposed to benefit from this pursuit of ignorance?
Certainly not the American Indians, who have been largely ignored in the century or more of debate on Negro/White differences. Because the Indians comprised not one Nation, but many with a wide variation in custom and life style, the rational assumption would be that there would be different frequencies of useful aptitudes from tribe to tribe. Even a few generations of assortative mating can produce considerable variation within any species, as witness the great changes achieved in the breeds of domesticated animals within quite short time frames. But generally, the "Liberal" race theorists have been content to leave American Indians in a condition of perpetual dependence; even denying them the basic respect due a conquered people who fought a brave fight.
The smug, patronizing term Native American, seriously analyzed, tells much about the level of respect that those seeking to tell others how to live, actually have. The very term American is a White European term; a term adopted from the name of an Italian explorer by White European settlers of the "New World." But it was not at the time a "new world" for members of the Indian Tribes (traditionally referred to as Amerindians or some form thereof by White Anthropologists, to distinguish them from the people of India, many of whom are racial Caucasians despite some skin pigment). [Race is only about skin color to "Liberals" seeking to deny it.].
What the Indians most certainly were not, then, were "Americans," the name assumed by those who sometimes seized their lands. The term Native American has itself gained favor among the "Liberal" "politically correct" as a form of racial denial, because it identifies by geography rather than by genes. That it is an insensitive term, when applied to peoples whose ancestors died trying to hold the Americans off, goes without saying. But then one should not expect much empathy from those who make a calling out of the denial of reality.
What the Indians also were not, were united. They were divided into a great number of small tribes, with great variations in life style and means of survival. They fell into different language groups, and formed rival confederations and alliances; probably as varied as the peoples of Europe. Unlike Europeans and their own Central and South American cousins, the North American Indians--with few exceptions--showed little tendency for urbanization. On the other hand, they were not without demonstrated skills, introducing a number of significant agricultural products to the World's diet and recreation. They also revolutionized Warfare.
In place of an Indian policy that would allow each tribe to develop in ways that maximized the natural potential of its members--as defined by themselves;--we have a hodge-podge of half thought out concepts, with scandal ridden old programs the primary items in the news; and the nose of Washington into even something as immediate and idiosyncratic as the education of Indian children. This essayist does not pretend to be well informed on either Indian policy or its results. But we did witness one experiment in trying to fit Indians into Collectivist dogma, rather than revise the dogma to fit reality:
About 1960, there was an experimental project to attempt to assimilate a group of Western Reservation Indians into a Cincinnati life style. We do not recall the tribe or State they came from. But we witnessed a group of about a dozen of these in several Bars, over a period of a few months. That sample, at least, fell into the worst possible company, held their liquor no better than in the old stereotype, and rapidly degenerated into a most deplorable state. It was too small a sample for anyone to generalize about the race. But this had been announced as an experiment intended to improve opportunity for the subjects. And they had obviously not been screened for the corrupting possibilities of urban life. We wonder whether anyone had even tried to evaluate their suitability for the experiment before someone, intent on "doing good," had thrown them to the wolves.
To understand some of the many ways by which the American Left has set back the American Negro, as well as some Indians, we recommend the essay on Welfare linked below. The theory behind the Welfare State is, of course, part of the same compulsion being discussed in this Chapter; the hope that it might have worked better than it has, premised on the same environmental illusions that feed that compulsion. But perhaps an even more telling argument may be garnered from considering the situation in many public schools.
Clairette P. Armstrong served for many years as Chief Psychologist of the Children's Court and Domestic Relations Court of New York City. As such, she had a critical opportunity to observe first hand how well the "Liberal" New York environment worked in upgrading educational potential, or to flatten the normal distribution curve of intelligence among either White or Negro children. She wrote in 1964:
Rarely indeed does improved opportunity raise an I.Q. of a normal child irrespective of color, nor does classroom mixing of low and high I.Q.'s improve the dull--by contagion. A stimulating atmosphere does not change the normal distribution curve of intelligence, with the majority in the middle range, the lower and higher ends each trailing off in diminuendo. Sometimes siblings, all superior, may differ twenty points or more despite the same parents, same homes, same environments, same schools and same tests, keeping practically their original I.Q.'s, even fulfilling throughout their careers the early psychological evaluations from their abilities and temperaments. Then there are some who despite every advantage of family, finances and environment have I.Q.'s perhaps consistently above average, even "superior intelligence," but still insufficiently high to graduate from college.
Dr. Armstrong discusses her own study of 15 year old delinquents from integrated schools:
From equally deprived tenement homes, alike in low socio-economic level, each group, 200 Negroes and 200 Whites, was far below the average of unselected school children in intelligence and school skills. [Note, "school skills" reflect a separate category of aptitude.] But the Negroes, with a Stanford Binet mental age of 11 years 10 months, and I.Q. 79, .... were statistically inferior to the Whites, with a mental age of 12 1/2 year, and I.Q. 85.... In arithmetic the Whites were more than four years retarded, the Negroes over five. Nearly half the Negroes and a fourth of the Whites could not read at all; their small advantage over the Negroes means little. But on a test of simple mechanical ability (Stenquist) both groups were above the test norms, the Whites nearly at the top third, somewhat above the colored, and each group showed ability with simple objective situations which could be capitalized for satisfactory adjustment.
Furnishing a child with opportunity for success is good mental hygiene. More manual training and trade schools are important. [But contrast her conclusion as to the consequences of environmentalist denial:]
School misgrading, that is over-age child for grade, and the reverse mentally, often causing shame and grief to those of low intelligence irrespective of color who cannot fit the procrustean bed of the three R's, often leads to truancy, running away and multiple delinquencies. At the root of this logical enough sequence is escape from odious comparison with brighter pupils. Children ruthlessly ridicule their backward classmates who may recognize their incapacity and lament it. Class dunces are unhappy children. [This alienation of minority students continues in inner city schools today.]
In suggesting the benefit of trade schools and manual training, Dr. Armstrong was not suggesting taking any educational opportunity away from anyone, Negro or White, able to benefit from it. But the hysterical egalitarian mindset that alienates those whose aptitudes are not for the academic is not only one of the many outrageous by-products of the denial of reality. It serves a function also in condemning the scholastically alienated to a larger class of those alienated by an other Socialist instilled mindset: One that blames every failure in life on someone else, and looks to the collective to solve almost every personal problem.
This lawyer sees examples of the alienation that Dr. Armstrong studied and explained, almost daily; yesterday's juvenile delinquents now adult convicts, with documented anti-social careers going back to the school-age profiles that she describes. Many continue all their lives as expensive burdens on the Social structure, not even counted as "unemployed"; the pathetic harvest of a lie.
Coming from different directions, a half century apart, both Dr. Armstrong and the great Negro educator, Booker T. Washington, recognized the compelling case for each child to find what he could do best, and to develop his aptitudes, step by step. In the corrupting message of the Socialist demagogues, millions of American Negroes--even many who did well in school--have abandoned the wise concept of self-help in that step by step process, to favor demands for "equality now"--an abstract pursuit of that never yet seen in human history. The result, of course, is resentment, hatred and envy; in short, the essential ingredients for continued dependent servitude to the Left.
The bottom line is that not only are we all different; it is in those differences that each of us becomes unique and significant. Who benefits from the Socialist compulsion for Human oneness? Only the demagogue! It is the ultimate disparagement of all that nature and nurture have worked in each of us; that which gives each of us identity. It is the dogma of the ostrich, his head thrust deeply into the sand of self-inflicted ignorance. No solution is possible for any problem premised upon a deliberate denial of that problem's cause.
Once again, the compelling wisdom in George Washington's loving admonition, that honesty is always the best policy, is all too clear. In its absence, a witches' brew of neurotic compulsion, fear, guilt and misplaced altruism has worked a cruel deception on Western Society. Its victims, as always, include the very people it was supposed to benefit!