We revisit subjects covered in detail earlier, but with more emphasis on the tactics and direction of those who promote Academic mythology rather than on the errors in the myths that they promote: In short, a review of issues covered in the Introduction and in Chapters 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 13, 14 & 15, from a slightly different frame of reference. We will focus on four widely acclaimed spokesmen for the Twentieth Century Left--each with a special niche in the Fabian Socialist world--and return briefly to the argument in Chapter 3 on the ACLU and American Religious Freedom. In considering the methodology of myth creation, we will be dealing with the activities of the four in the fields of economic theory, anthropology, intergroup relations, and the perception of a National purpose; and in the case of the ACLU, in undermining respect for religion, itself. This eclectic grouping is intended to demonstrate the complexity of the many faceted attack upon our heritage.
While we prefer to discuss issues without resorting to ad hominem attacks, the four individuals (selected here to illustrate the tactics of deception) were each sufficiently skilled in the Fabian art of issue manipulation, to justify this personal attention.
We start with Britain's Lord Keynes, the economist most often associated with the absurd idea that Governments can solve cyclical economic problems. The definitive expose' of Keynes' sophistry and flawed methodology was a book by the economic journalist and writer, Henry Hazlitt, The Failure of the "New Economics" [Princeton, 1959], a step by step dismantling of Keynes' logical errors and pretensions. The Conservative intending to debate economic issues, particularly those involved in the concept of Government fiscal stimuli, would do well to acquire a copy. Hazlitt carefully analyzes Keynes' work and demonstrates that far from being the great Economic trail-blazer, acclaimed in Academia, Keynes produced nothing that was both true and original; that what he offered that was true was not original, and that what he offered that was original was not true. Indeed, much of Keynesian economics was neither true nor original.
Keynes was the basic guru for FDR's "New Deal," which far from curing a Depression, as claimed, only succeeded in prolonging it. Thus America still had massive unemployment at the beginning of World War II. But whether valid in its presumptions, or simply a form of economic quackery, Keynesian theory had already become dominant in most American Universities by that time. And, however often debunked, it remains very significant among those on the campus Left, today.
Keynes, as the exponent of fiscal measures to manipulate an economy, called for Governments to run large deficits, to increase spending in times of recession, as a prop to economic activity. In theory, at least, the Government would then control the excess in an economic boom by increasing taxes, to pay down the debt incurred in fighting the recession. The widely held misconception, that a people can simply spend themselves out of a recession, is Keynesian. But Keynes did not even attempt to disguise some of the least ethical aspects of this approach.
He openly discussed the use of the inflationary aspects of the proposed fiscal stimulation as a device to reduce the relative cost of labor, in order to redress an excess in the supply by misleading workers as to their actual pay in real terms.
The great Austrian economist Ludwig Von Mises, in his classic Treatise on Human Action, sarcastically addressed Keynes' approach to a "gradual and automatic lowering of real wages as a result of rising prices," as a substitute for honestly recognizing the problem:
However, the success of such a cunning plan would require an unlikely degree of ignorance and stupidity on the part of the wage earners. As long as workers believe the minimum wage rates benefit them, they will not let themselves be cheated by such clever tricks.
In practice, all these devices of an alleged full employment policy finally lead to the establishment of socialism of the German pattern.[Third Rev. Edition, 1966, p. 777.]
Von Mises comments elsewhere on the Keynesian notion that you can solve economic problems by increased spending, generated by expansionist policies:
The favor of the masses and of ..writers and politicians eager for applause goes to inflation. With regard to these endeavors .. three points. First: Inflationary or expansionist policy must result in overconsumption on the one hand and in malinvestment on the other. It thus squanders capital and impairs the future state of want satisfaction. Second: The inflationary process does not remove the necessity of adjusting production and reallocating resources. It merely postpones it and ...makes it more troublesome. Third: Inflation cannot be employed as a permanent policy because it must, when continued, finally result in a breakdown of the monetary system.
A retailer or innkeeper can easily fall prey to the illusion that all that is needed to make him ... more prosperous is more spending on the part of the public. In his eyes the main thing is to impel people to spend more. But it is amazing that this belief could be presented to the world as a new social philosophy. Lord Keynes and his disciples make the lack of the propensity to consume responsible for what they deem unsatisfactory in economic conditions. What is needed, in their eyes, to make men more prosperous is not an increase in production, but an increase in spending. ...to make it possible for people to spend more, an "expansionist" policy is recommended.
This doctrine is as old as it is bad.[Ibid, p. 432.]
Later, Von Mises nails down the restrictive effect of Keynesian intervention: At the bottom of the interventionist argument there is always the idea that ...government or the state is an entity outside and above the social process of production, that it owns something which is not derived from taxing its subjects, and that it can spend this mythical something for definite purposes. This is the Santa Claus fable raised by Lord Keynes to the dignity of an economic doctrine and enthusiastically endorsed by all ...who expect personal advantage from government spending. As against these popular fallacies there is need to emphasize the truism that a government can spend or invest only what it takes ...from its citizens and that its additional spending and investment curtails the citizens' spending and investment to the full extent of its quantity. [Ibid, p. 744.]
It was because of Keynes and his disciples' pretensions in suggesting a scientific basis for their macroeconomic theories, that various departments of the Federal Government of the United States embarked on their present, politically useful but often economically grossly misleading, penchant for compiling macro statistics as a basis for predicting trends and formulating economic policy to deal with those trends. While certainly not totally denying the validity of all such statistics, the typical College student should know from his own experience many of the obvious pitfalls in trying to gather correct macro economic data. Indeed, how many of his or her personal economic activities are actually so measurable? If a student earns some money helping his neighbor in the yard, or from a part time job with a neighborhood business, just how would he even imagine those earnings would show up in a month or so, in a report of the previous month's data?
There is a huge array of economic activity that is almost completely off the table, so far as reports to any Governmental agency are involved; much more that defies easy classification, and will be at least partially distorted. This will include such varied items as those half day jobs in a student's own neighborhood, that almost no one would report as taxable income or for any other purpose, and the medical services that Doctors provide to each other as "Medical Courtesy"--although some of the gifts that sometimes follow, with no real relationship to the value of those services, might be reported. (That is only one variety of the infinite potential for barter type arrangements or understandings with economic significance, which never even appear on a private balance sheet, or profit and loss calculation--much less on any measure of income, production or productivity.)
Illegal activities, by their nature, must hide an enormous quantity of economic data that can at best only be guessed at. In addition to gambling, drugs and prostitution, the student will be aware of other unreported activity very close to home; activity virtually never even considered.
When a group of underaged students pool their resources to send out one of their number, with knowledge and connections, to buy alcoholic beverages; the buyer is engaging in an enterprise not appreciably different economically than that of the Manager of a Bar or Restaurant, who may be buying supplies from the same source, also for the eventual consumption of other people. But the activity of the latter is far more likely to show up in some statistic related to the activity of middlemen, than that of the former. A conceptually active student can doubtless conceive of a host of other situations, where it is virtually impossible that a Governmental agency would have the ability to obtain an accurate measure, from home grown foods, to driving a friend to work, through the whole gamut of the normal daily activities of average Americans.
Note that all of the myriad of not readily measurable activity, referred to, goes to the actual supply and consumption of goods and services. Professor Reuven Brenner of McGill University, in his essay on bad social science (Extracting Sunbeams out of Cucumbers: What is Bad Social Science, and Why Is It Practised?, Queen's Quarterly 98/3, Fall 1991, pp. 548 - 9) described the influential interpretation of Keynes's General Theory Of Employment, Interest & Money as
one of the clearest examples of the consequences of combining shallow, obscure, new terms with both shallow mathematics and prejudice. The message of Keynes's book has been translated into two trivial equations with two unknowns that were supposed to describe the working of a whole economy. Nobody knew what Keynes's new terms meant... and few bothered to investigate what was hiding behind the mathematical symbols "C" and "S" in the equations, which stood, respectively, for "consumption" and "savings." Thus, although the algebra was correct (and trivial), the use of the mathematical language obscured the fact that nothing was well-defined.
Professor Brenner (Sciences Of Political Lies. Or Governments And Markets Of Ideas, Advances in Austrian Economics, Vol. 2B, J A I Press, 1995, p. 354), offers some insight as to why so many economists are willing to endorse Keynes's pseudo-scientific attempt to establish his theories of macroeconomics:
I do not want to imply what Schopenhauer says about Hegel and his followers that Keynesians were charlatans, but merely say that economists, like anyone else, respond to incentives. Once they do, delusions can be powerful, especially when they serve one's interests, and I have no doubt that, as a result, many economists became sincere Keynesians.
People in general, academics in particular, invent and manipulate symbols when responding to incentives. Later, they shape their behavior in response to the ideas and symbols they have invented. ...the market of ideas works like any other market with which people respond to incentives. When monarchs believed in astrology, ....there were many astrologers who wrote mathematical treatises on the subject and checked predictions of their models. Some also believed, sincerely or not sincerely, that what they did was scientific. A few confided in ... private correspondence that they were in this business for the money, though they did not believe a word of their astrological forecasting. ... Maybe someone will discover in the future how many Keynesians, or economists for that matter, really believed in what they were doing during the last fifty years.
Was Keynes a benefit or a burden to the economy of his times? The best way to answer that is to look at the most plausible explanation for the enormous success and flexibility of the American economy in the first century and half of the Republic. That explanation is found in the approach of the Founding Fathers, clearly reflected in the Constitution.
The entire thrust of the delegation of domestic powers falls not in the range of economic problem solving, but of removing barriers to individual initiative. Thus the Federal Government was trusted to provide for uniform weights, measures, and bankruptcy laws, and for a common and stable currency. The States, for their part, were specifically forbidden to cheapen the currency or impair the obligations of Contracts. The whole thrust and, however since distorted, the obvious intent of the Commerce clause as well, was directed towards providing predictable measures, and for insuring good faith in private transactions; to keep any political meddling at an absolute minimum. It was not surprising, that this system brought out the best in all participants. The fact is that every ethnic group that came here, did better in America in terms of economic productivity, than their ancestral cousins had ever done in their ancestral homeland.
We had economic cycles, to be sure. We had "booms and busts." But the first twelve year depression that America ever had was when the politicians abandoned the wise system of the fathers and embraced the economic quackery of Lord Keynes. In place of putting all of us on our mettle to solve the problem, as we individually had to face it and could deal with it most effectively, we substituted macro planning and pseudo-science; employing economists not in productive pursuits but in compiling statistics that by their nature could never be precise, and relegating decisions, which should have been made by the people most directly involved, to committees of bureaucrats in distant offices.
To the extent that Keynesian nostrums diverted men from productive paths, or impeded the rapidity with which individuals could adjust to changing circumstances on the ground, where they were and are best understood, they were a disaster.
Ashley Montagu, onetime head of the Department of Anthropology at Rutgers University, and a product of the Boas school of Cultural Anthropology at Columbia, spent virtually his entire career in trying to explain away the significant realities of human difference. Where the more objective of his contemporaries sought to understand and define, he sought to deny and obfuscate. In this, he was perhaps a sort of point man for the next two subjects. While certainly not the only disciple of Boas, active at the time an environmental explanation for human differences became accepted dogma on most American campuses, Montagu was both the most effective and most determined proponent of the sophistry involved.
While Lord Keynes had sought to market a pseudo-scientific reliance on very questionable formulae and statistics, as a scientific approach to economics, Montagu sought to deny the scientific basis for every objective finding that did not fit his almost obsessive egalitarian dogma.
Montagu's best known work was the book, Man's Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy Of Race. First published in 1942, a 6th (Abridged Student) Edition was published in 1997. In this and other writings, Montagu skips back and forth in his argument between raising legitimate questions as to what various tests, studies and observations actually show, to impassioned flights that reveal his emotional--and clearly unscientific--commitment to the concept of an undifferentiated humanity. We dealt briefly with Montagu in Chapter 5, where he arbitrarily chose to use the term "genotype," where anyone else would use the term "race," and embarked on a wild ex cathedra speculation--without a shred of evidence to support the flight--that because all "genotypes" would have been induced by the same natural forces to develop in the same direction (towards greater educability rather than towards any one specialized trait), that the mental capacities of mankind probably did not differ in any marked way among any of its genotypes.
To understand just how preposterous this argument is, one needs to consider that he is talking about the most complex creatures on earth, people; sub-types of which have developed separately over tens of thousands of years. Within a few centuries, modern man has achieved enormous variability in the simpler traits of virtually every domesticated species or breed (race) of animals by selective breeding. Even Montagu would acknowledge that there are major cultural differences between different peoples. Anyone who understands human propensities, at all, would have to admit that culturally derived preferences influence mate selection (breeding patterns) in every society. What the master of racial obfuscation is advancing as a serious theory, is that after thousands of years, distinct peoples--who really could not have started out the same even if all Mankind had a single common ancestor (by no means a given), because no two siblings in the same family, with the exception of identical twins, are genetically alike-- have somehow ended up with the same mental aptitudes, so far as those aptitudes are genetically determined!
Montagu has no evidence for this. Rather, he advances it as a leap of faith in his lifelong assault on the studies of others, who have attempted to catalogue and demonstrate the very real differences that have been observed to exist among the types of Mankind.
Montagu's usual response to the evidence of different aptitudes, which recognized races demonstrate when measured by a variety of psychological tests and morphological studies, is to smear the messenger. Thus in the 5th Edition of Man's Most Dangerous Myth, 1974, Montagu has this to say about the 1969 study of Professor Arthur R. Jensen, reported in the Harvard Educational Review, entitled "How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement?":
With rather monotonous regularity there appear, at almost predictable intervals, elaborate studies which purport to show that certain racial or ethnic or social groups of other kinds are, on the whole, poorer learners and achievers and score significantly lower on IQ tests than the group to which the investigator happens to belong. Such reports ...are lauded by those who prefer to believe what these studies purport to demonstrate, and are severely criticized and condemned by the experts (sic). [An "expert" to Montagu is one who shares Montagu's environmental fanaticism] ...In the meantime, aid and comfort has been given to racists, segregationists, those who perhaps should know better, and serve to fortify ... the half educated and many who have been "educated" beyond their intelligence.
The latest work of this kind is by Arthur R. Jensen, Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of California... Jensen argues that it is "a not unreasonable hypothesis that genetic factors are strongly implicated in the average Negro-White intelligence difference"... Jensen then proceeds to show what everyone has known since the initiation of intelligence testing, namely, that Blacks on the average do not do as well on such tests as Whites. As others have done before him, Jensen attributes this difference largely to the operation of genetic factors, believing as he does that the IQ test constitutes the best available method of measuring the genetic contribution to intelligence.... In brief, whatever it is that intelligence tests measure is, according to Jensen, intelligence. This is, of course, a circular definition, and therefore no definition at all. And the writer goes on to "suggest" and "wonder" at some length in the same vein; basically claiming that what IQ tests measure represents the expression of the interaction between ...genetic potentials and the nutritional, socioeconomic, emotional, motivational, and schooling experience of the individual. [Pages 400 & 401.]
Thus Montagu dismisses the consistent results of what, at that time, were 60 years of conscientious effort on the part of intelligent and respected psychologists to measure the types of intelligence that relate to academic aptitude. Many of these investigators, including Jensen, sought to eliminate the very socio-economic variables that Montagu cites, but they are lumped together under Montagu's insulting umbrella, because they cared enough to seek to obtain information that could help identify the actual aptitudes that children have, rather than what Montagu and other Social engineers would like to pretend that they have. (Frank C.J. McGurk, for one, had absolutely demolished Montagu's hypothesis in the 1950s.)
No one has really suggested that IQ, or any form of Scholastic Aptitude Test, measures intelligence as an absolute. One may be certain, Montagu understands that. He is simply being disingenuous in the Fabian manner. If one wanted to assess the ability of a Bushman or and Australian aborigine to locate water in a desert, they would obviously not employ a test designed to determine the subject's potential to develop the math or language skills, seen as desirable in a Nineteenth or Twentieth Century Western Society. But because a particular measure of some aspects of intelligence is not a measure of everything that might be lumped under the term, does not invalidate its value as a measure of what it does in fact measure. Nor does the presence of unmeasured variables, which might alter the result if the inquiry was broadened, invalidate what has been measured.
Indeed, if scientific investigation of phenomena were to be terminated, whenever there remained unmeasured variables, virtually all science would grind to a halt. The true scientist takes what may be measured, and then seeks to better understand and eventually measure what cannot be measured initially. Scientific method is an approach, a step by step learning and elimination of error, not a result.
In trying to understand the nature and extents of human intelligence, you have to start with what is known, and build on that. Montagu is deliberately blowing verbal smoke in the eyes of the intellectual world. He plays down, or wholly ignores, the fact that some of the same group differences, found in the least culturally controlled tests, show up as being almost as pronounced in some of those where the investigator has gone to the greatest length to eliminate socio-economic distortions; that in racial studies, intermediate types tend to test in an intermediate range between the constituent stocks; that the psychological tests tend, virtually without exception, to confirm the observations of those actually interacting on a daily basis with the subjects; that those tests tend to confirm the results of morphological studies of the brain, and vice versa.
If Montagu had any real interest in pursuing the path to truth, rather than diverting it, he would surely join in an appeal to have public schools set up a data bank to collect the results of electroencephalographic studies of individuals subjected to a variety of external stimuli. Such a data bank could then be indexed by race, education, socio-economic status, and whatever anyone might suggest might be a factor in determining mental development, and we could see how any of such possible varied factors did or did not correlate with differences in electrical activity within the subjects' brains. Of course, such a study would not measure the worth of the subjects, only their brain activity. It would be a threat to no one but the dissemblers.
Montagu relies on the ex cathedra statement more perhaps than anyone else in the field of pseudo-science--unless it is our next subject. Thus he announced in the same version of Myth:
The English until very recently were the most notoriously unmusical people of our age. Yet in Elizabethan times they were among the most musical... What had happened? Had the "musical part" of the English brain atrophied? We can be certain that it had not. The cultural and economic development of the English had simply led in a direction away from such interests to other pursuits. Brain had nothing to do with the matter, culture everything. [p. 100.]
The student debater might amuse himself, or amuse a party, by seeing how many ex cathedra pronouncements are contained in that short paragraph from this scientific poseur. But the shameless Montagu continues:
In short, it is culture which makes "brains"; not brains, culture. [We would suggest that this statement is not only absolutely untrue, but demonstrates a denial of the most significant trait of all species of Mankind. We create our cultures, reflecting our mental idiosyncrasies, rather than simply inherit them as is the case with social orders of other species.] If this were not so, then the Amahosa of Africa, who have few cultural opportunities but more brains by size than whites, with 1,490 cc. as compared with 1,400 cc. for European males and 1,300 cc. for females, would be culturally and intellectually superior to whites, as would the Buriats, 1,496 cc.; the Iroquois, 1,519 cc.; the Eskimos, 1,563 cc.; and the Mongols, 1,570 cc.... There is no evidence that any people is either biologically or mentally superior to any other people in any way whatever. [Ibid.]
Montagu goes from there to a rather fast verbal shuffle, where he slightly changes what he has been talking about, to offer once again his theory that "race" is a "myth"; but the part quoted will provide good insight into the absurdity of his argument. We have pointed out the ex cathedra nature of this; but consider also the two most egregious of the over-simplifications offered as serious argument on that single page:
Musical genius has not been seen as an isolated quality. From at least the time of Sir Francis Galton (Hereditary Genius, Rev. Ed., 1892), it has been recognized that certain identified families produced a grossly disproportionate number of those with musical or mathematical talent in Great Britain. If at one period, societal influences induced more of those people to go into mathematical than musical pursuits, it would argue not in the slightest for Montagu's theory (really only a slightly different version of the Lamarckian one adopted by the Bolshevik Communists). The genetic basis of the aptitude, Galton discusses, would still be clear.
Montagu's comments on brain size are even more ridiculous. In earlier comparisons of human crania, the considerations were always size and shape. In measurements of the brain itself, the interest was always in size and structure. No one ever suggested that size alone was the determinant of capacity. Montagu sets up a straw-man and then attacks his own creation. Were he to take all aspects of brain studies into account--which he does not do--he would destroy his claim that there is no evidence "that any people is either biologically or mentally superior to any other people in any way whatever."
The fact is that all of the evidence we have, supports the relative superiority of this or that people in terms of specific traits. It may not always be conclusive, to be sure. But there is absolutely no evidence for the equality of types for which Montagu contends. As for a cultural determination of the observed phenomena, consider if you will what possible cultural trait would make the descendants of West African Negroes, attending the same integrated University, absolutely dominant in the short distance track and field events over Whites and Asians, while losing out both to the descendants of European Whites and the descendants of East African Negroes in the more distant events.
Montagu's point grows no stronger in the likely interpretation that the Scandinavians and East African Negroes may each have had to run longer distances to secure food or survival through the ages. That is quite probable; and that survival trait led to highly selective breeding patterns, resulting in the present aptitude. That does not mean that it does not have a genetic base. Can any rational person, actually seeking truth, question that even had the races started equal--something which would seem an extreme stretch--that similar breeding patterns would not have caused many of the observed differences that show up in various psychological test results?
We have already devoted the longest Chapter (#5) of this Handbook to compelling evidence that the Montagu approach actually victimizes those minorities, he claims to protect, by obfuscating the subject of mental aptitude. The result is that actual aptitudes are neglected, while many are alienated from both the American mainstream and any constructive purpose in their own lives.
Montagu jumps nimbly from attacks on the motives of others, to arguments in mitigation of facts he does not like and arguments by exception to an otherwise consistent array of data. Wherever he can cite some unknown variable, not fully accounted for, he seeks to discard what can in fact be measured, seeking to abandon the quest to learn more, for a deliberate pursuit of ignorance and denial. While the man has great familiarity with the actual data, he seems obsessed with preventing an objective analysis, always arguing the possibility of any conclusion that he resists being used by evil men, for very nasty ends.
This confusion of the scientific quest with the possibility of ulterior non-scientific purpose, is Ashley Montagu's basic stock in trade. In the Sixth (Abridged Student) Edition of Myth, 1997, he reveals the bias of a lifetime, in what can be only described as pure rant:
The psychometricians of humankind involved in such pernicious activities [trying to measure the learning abilities and aptitudes of potential students] have rarely exhibited the least concern for the victims of their labors, but have often claimed, as in the latest case by the authors of The Bell Curve, that their findings are for the good of us all.
The reprehensible thing about these taxonomists of the mind is a cluster of traits they generally display which disqualifies them from having any valid opinion on the nature of intelligence, especially when that opinion affects blacks. These traits include but are not limited to: obvious bias; general insensitivity; close-mindedness; failure to even consider the evidence opposing their views; citation of views favorable to their kinds of arguments, though such views have long been discredited; and, abysmal ignorance of biological and cultural anthropology..., etc. (p. 280). [A description, far more clearly applicable to Montagu himself than those whom he insults.]
Further addressing The Bell Curve, the rant continues on page 281: such authors are most interested in the use of such devices as IQ tests to represent social and political inequality as the unavoidable and ineradicable consequences of natural differences. One wonders why these so-called scientists have never tried standing the argument on its head by considering the possibility that, far from being due to natural differences, the differences are largely due to social and political inequalities? And that race is a product of the social history of an individual or group, not of nature?
When one considers that the measurable qualities that Montagu is virtually screaming a denial of, have been observed for thousands of years; that at all times in the human experience, there have been social and political inequalities; that the specific traits observed in the subdivisions of humanity today, whether you call them races, sub-species, genotypes or whatever, have been observed as to those sub-divisions, in a great variety of social environments, throughout the historic period; might it not be the more plausible explanation--if one is not trying to force some form of Communist dogma on Mankind--that there really are natural differences in human aptitudes, just as there are natural differences in the aptitudes of the observed specimens of every other form of higher life on this planet?
Montagu continues by wondering why those studying racial aptitudes do not highlight Negro achievements; implying that to try to understand why some fail is to disparage those that succeed. But, of course, that is absurd. It takes nothing away from anyone of any race, who achieves and contributes in a socially positive way, to seek to understand why others fail, or to seek to find what those who have failed could do to have a better chance at success. Montagu's approach is a dead end for those who do not have the aptitudes he imagines; a cruel hoax that we have explored in depth in Chapter 5.
He goes on: Blindness is not the affliction from which these enemies of humanity suffer. [Remember, this is the way this supposed scientist is describing his opponents in what is supposed to be an academic debate! Do you think Professor Montagu respects the concept of Academic Freedom?] Rather, they suffer from an attitude of mind, however acquired, which causes them to perceive members of another group as belonging to a different race and thereby as inferior. These members of different races are considered to be threats to the continued integrity and welfare of society. [Note this is Montagu putting thoughts into the minds of the investigators whom he flays. None of these people have said what he is saying they were thinking. They were, again, merely trying to determine if the educational policies, which Montagu's friends on the Left have foisted on America's school systems, are ever going to work. Rather than debate the point, Montagu prefers to smear.]
Our subject then chooses to talk about Hitler! We have dealt with Hitler at some length in Chapter 7. We will merely point out here that one of the things which enabled Hitler to distort Anthropology and ethnic science in Germany was the intimidation of the real scientists in Germany, in the late 1920s, by the ranting both of her own Ashley Montagus, on the one side, and some equally distorted theorists on the other. These took a war in the streets between two leftwing factions (Communists and Nazis) onto the University campuses, where anyone trying to actually understand the diverse German population was shouted down. [See Baur, Fischer & Lenz, Human Heredity, McMillan, 1931.] Then Montagu offers this gem:
In America, the myth of race has been endemic for several centuries, and remains America's primary public health problem. [Apparently, this apostle of understanding thinks that those, who do not share his views, need treatment.] Just what does Montagu propose for the future:
We have a big challenge before us; namely, the complete revision of education and its replacement by a system that meets the basic needs of humanity. ...it has become imperative for each of us to care for others and think of the world not as full of strangers, but as full of friends we have not yet met.
To love our neighbors as we love ourselves is not enough. We must love others more than we love ourselves. for that is the true measure of love. In a world in which there is so much unloving love behind the show of love, it is necessary today more than ever before to understand that racism, in whatever form it may assume, represents and motivates the continuing dehumanizing loss of involvement in the welfare of our neighbors. [Ibid, p. 287.]
This is patently not science. Is the man a visionary? Perhaps, but only in the sense that Lenin and Hitler may also have been visionaries. If they were not mere power seeking fanatics, their reform visions were certainly flawed.
Ashley Montagu's vision does not solve any problem for anyone among us, whether Caucasian, Negro, Mongoloid, Amerindian, Eskimo, etc.. To the extent his war on real science prevails, we fail to study and understand the factors that can create problems or enable solutions. In his success--and the success of those who think as he does--we see the reason so many minority students are alienated in the public schools; the basis for the success of those, who exploit their failures as an excuse to promote strange and socially destructive agendas.
Ashley Montagu and his ilk make the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, possible. Theirs is the "vision" of blaming others, rather than doing one's best; of dependence on a collective, rather than the dynamic of individual effort. Because of such "vision," the actual potential of two generations of American Negroes has been underfulfilled. Many, who could have had decent, happy lives, have been sucked into crime and degeneracy. As we wrote over a generation ago, in conclusion to a study of the effect of the application of environmentalist policies on ethnic crime patterns:
The mixed application of environmentalist principles and programs in America, as well as excuses for misconduct which assume a plasticity of human characteristics never demonstrated, has adversely affected American society by greatly increasing the incidence of anti-social behavior among the American population, often in direct relationship to the extent each segment (White or Negro, Northern or Southern) is afflicted by such application, and indeed in proportion to the extent of the community-wide acceptance of such application. It seems obvious that the one sort of environment which does tend to induce conformity to ...established social norms--that is the one type of "environmental" approach that actually succeeds--is that which holds the individual and not his environment, responsible for his .. personal conduct.
In assuming a culturally controlled plasticity of the human type, which apparently does not exist, American environmentalists are rapidly destroying the genuine cultural gains of many centuries. The saddest victim of their deception has been the American Negro. [The Mankind Quarterly, Vol. VI, No. 4, April-June, 1966, p. 211.]
We have discussed the tactics of the ADL (Anti-Defamation League), both in Chapter 13 and in a separate essay on Civil War, Reconstruction & Creating Hate In America Today. We have suggested that that Fabian Socialist organization might be deliberately trying to stir up antagonism against American Jews--by making exaggerated, broad-brush accusations, and employing the most outrageous vilification by association--in the guise of fighting anti-semitism, in order to promote a Socialist agenda. But the ADL is an organization. Its antics, for good or ill, represent a collusion of various players. It can to some extent hide behind the committee approach to policy. Harvard Professor of Psychology Gordon W. Allport personified the same tactic, but with more finesse; and sought to give it intellectual respectability.
In this it must be observed that not all of Allport's approach is flawed. He is effective because he uses some credible analytic techniques, but then interjects other assumptions that only seem to flow from them. Yet there is evidence, a plenty, that the Professor is NO unprejudiced student of "prejudice" or, as is more often the case in what he is really talking about, of human preferences.
In his book, The Nature Of Prejudice, Addison-Wesley, 1954, 1966, Professor Allport offers some clear insights as to his attitude towards social issues: ... we stated briefly ... the Marxist view that prejudice is fostered by capitalists in order to keep control over the proletariat which they exploit. This theory improves in credibility if we enlarge it to mean that exploitation occurs in many ways in addition to the economic and that any form of exploitation brings prejudice in its train.
He tells us: The fact is that not all communist values are opposed by all Americans. On the contrary, "better economic and social conditions" are desired by most. Sensing the fact that some Russian reforms were both desirable and successful, many American intellectuals, especially during the 1920's, were enthusiastically pro-Soviet. Their ardor cooled as it became evident that civil liberties were nonexistent within what was presumably a democratic people's movement. (p. 256.) [Just a harmless error, the Professor suggests, being aligned to people who started out by murdering the old leadership, and progressed by starving to death perhaps 10,000,000 farmers, whose only crime was a desire to farm their own land. But Communism from its inception was about seizing other people's property. No one who thought that that would result in better economic and social conditions understood or believed in the American system.]
The Professor, of course, decries "guilt by association" at some length, where it derives from association with Communism. Yet we shall see that he is not so scrupulous where guilt is associated on other bases. But he sums up the immediate point:
Finally, reds are scapegoats because of the specific exploitative advantage that can be obtained from that arrangement. A demagogue deliberately excites rage and fear against communists in order that people may rally round the demagogue to secure safety and protection. (p. 257.)
Allport acknowledges that some of those who are intolerant of what he deems "intolerance" are themselves zealots, and distinguishes between vigor of conviction and prejudice (p. 430)--although he is never so sensitive about the possibility that those whom he treats as "bigots," may also have conviction rather than prejudice. He goes on to state, Whether the tolerant person is militant or pacifistic, he is very likely to be liberal in his political views. Prejudiced individuals are more often conservatives.... A "liberal" is a person who is critical of the status quo, who wants progressive social change. He de-emphasizes the importance of rugged individualism and business success; he would diminish the power of business by increasing the role of labor and of government in economic life. (p. 431.) [In other words, a Socialist! Allport's description of such person as "liberal," clearly demonstrates the Fabian approach.]
The Professor goes on to distinguish the radical as the person more motivated by hatred of a system than a "desire to improve the condition of minorities." On the other hand, The liberal-equalitarian may feel that improvements are needed in order to reinforce respect for the person, whether the person is suffering from poverty, ill health, or the handicap of minority group membership. ....The fact that liberalism and radicalism both correlate positively with ethnic tolerance places a strong weapon in the hands of bigots (who are likely to be political conservatives). (p. 432.)] [Try to persuade any Virginia or Carolinian Caucasian that the virtually incessant attack on his ethnic heritage, in recent years, comes from "political conservatives." Try to find an attack on any ethnic heritage, which originates with political conservatives, at all comparable in pure venom, with the abuse that has been heaped on those who honor the cultural, religious and ethnic traditions of the Old South in America!]
Allport shows no understanding that the American ethic, which his version of "Liberalism" rejects, actually does more towards accomplishing those "liberal-equalitarian" objectives than any form of Socialism yet devised. But he gives more insight into his own bias:
The person with character-conditioned prejudice likes order, but especially social order. In his clear-cut institutional memberships, he finds the safety and the definiteness he needs. Lodges, schools, churches, the nation, may serve as a defense against the disquiet in his personal life. To lean on them saves him from leaning on himself. [This patronizing view of normal people, does not square with that opinion, above, as to the unprejudiced "liberal" being the foe of rugged individualism.]
Research shows that, by and large, prejudiced people are more devoted to institutions than are the unprejudiced. Anti-Semitic college girls are more wrapped up in their sororities; they are more institutionally religious; they are more intensely "patriotic." (p. 404.) [And of course, whether those sorority girls are actually "prejudiced" and "Anti-Semitic," might just depend upon the subjectivity of the investigator studying their responses to perhaps very loaded questions. We are not privileged to know whether Allport's investigator talked to one or two, or many in each sorority; whether this "anti-semitism" was expressed in some egregious form, such as a wish for death camps in America, or for the confiscation of Jewish property, or the exclusion of Jews from the professions; or simply in an individual coed's stated preference for her own Faith, or her rejection of a particular suitor. We are not told whether any of the girls had even expressed a dislike for Jews, or merely a preference for gentiles. In short, all we have is a vague aspersion, which serves no purpose but to alienate those Jews who have feelings of insecurity from mainstream values.]
Schools have always inculcated patriotism, but the terms of allegiance are often narrowly conceived. The fact that loyalty to the nation requires loyalty to all subgroups within the nation is seldom pointed out. [Nor does such suggestion make any sense, beyond a possible reciprocity of respect. Did Allport feel loyalty to some of the Conservative-American groups, whom he aspersed; or is he admitting that he felt no loyalty to America?]....The teaching of exclusive loyalty, whether to nation, school, fraternity, or family--is a method of instilling prejudice. (p. 513.)
There is an incredible arrogance in calling other people's normal human preferences "prejudice" and "bigotry." When Allport lumps devotion to family and nation ("exclusive loyalty") with "prejudice," he gives the game away. What he is attacking is not "prejudice," but a rational recognition of a sense of kinship and common interest and purpose--the sort of preference, which rational people have recognized as normal allegiance since the dawn of history.
Allport and those, who continue to this day to foist his dogma upon inexperienced undergraduates, are the bigots. Their cause springs from an almost pathological mindset, which seeks to redefine reality, and force normal people to accept a contrived dispensation that denies the natural ties, which provide personal identification and sustain a sense of ongoing purpose. The real target of Professor Allport was the freedom of the individual human to make distinctions and form alliances, important to that individual. In a very compelling sense, that target was freedom itself.
As the Veritas Foundation Staff stated in its excellent book, The Great Deceit--Social Pseudo-Sciences, Veritas Foundation, 1964, p. 114:
Using the symbol of "social science" to combat "patriotism" and "loyalty" is a crude attempt to implement the old socialist-communist line of undermining patriotism and family loyalties.
Absent a very tightly defined and controlled study, against clearly measurable evaluations of both the persons being judged and those who are accused of misjudging them, terms such as prejudice, bigotry and exploitation, always involve very subjective judgments. Since such controlled studies are virtually never attempted, opinions such as those of Professor Allport habitually beg the questions being addressed, and are dependent upon tactics that play upon the fears and doubts of the susceptible.
What Allport repeatedly cites in place of such controlled study are the instances of individuals and groups, where someone actually does cross a line and indulge in a rant against some ethnic group or religion, as extreme as one of Ashley Montagu's against scientists studying racial difference. He then implies that there is an affinity between such individual feelings of animosity and those who merely agree with the one obsessed on other issues. This is "guilt by association" with a vengeance. While it was not acceptable to this apostle of "tolerance" that people lump those who thought Communism idealistic, with the actual Communists; it is apparently quite all right to lump people, who merely agree with someone who has Conservative views on other issues, with an off-the-wall opinion that that person may also hold.
[Yet Communism starts--it does not just include--a complete denial of the most basic of all Civil Liberties, the right to pass on the fruits of one's own labor to one's family. No one embraced Communism, or travelled along a sympathetic road, who did not at some time reject that most basic of all civilized rights. That is quite a different thing from being stuck with the untoward opinion of someone, you may happen to agree with on other issues.]
Allport's is the ADL technique, adverted to earlier, and it is the most successful method ever devised to increase the amount of real prejudice in our Society. People being smeared do not respond with goodwill; nor do people being frightened by "evidence" that others hate them.
Consider a multiple choice question. Which result could NOT be expected from Professor Allport's approach to the psychological dynamics of inter-group relations:
A. Confident American Conservatives will experience increased negative perceptions of minorities.
B. Members of minorities will experience increased suspicion and hostility towards Conservatives.
C. People lacking self-confidence will experience increased guilt and doubt, with a decrease in their commitment to family values.
D. There will be an increase in good will and mutual respect among all Americans.
While Academia is full of those who allow fear or guilt to override better judgment--dysrons, born with normal intelligence but rendered dysfunctional by their compulsions--Gordon Allport is not of their number. Professor Allport understood exactly what he was doing. In the same book, he tells us at page 43:
Such an image implies that a world-loyalty is the most difficult to achieve....There seems ...special difficulty in fashioning an in-group out of an entity as embracing as mankind. Even the ardent believer in One World has trouble....After all, his nation's way of life is his way of life--and he cannot lightly abrogate the ground of his whole existence. Such almost reflex preference for the familiar grips us all. ...artificial props are needed. They require symbols... in order to make the human in-group seem real. Nations have flags, parks, schools ... holidays, armies, historical documents. Only gradually and with small publicity are a few of these symbols of unity evolving on an international scale. They are greatly needed...to provide mental anchorage points around which the idea of world-loyalty may develop. (p.44.)
The Professor had earlier left a considerable track record to help identify his ideological roots. He showed up as early as January, 1933, in signing a Petition of the Fellowship of Reconciliation calling for the recognition of Communist Russia. He appeared on the letterhead of an interesting sounding group, the Medical Bureau and North American Committee to Aid Spanish Democracy, as a member of a psychologists committee, in July, 1938, in support of the Communist side in the Spanish Civil War. He was reported on January 2, 1939, in the Communist newspaper, the Daily Worker, as a supporter of a conference of the North American Committee to Aid Spanish Democracy. And when it was clear that the Communists had been defeated in the Spanish Civil War, he appeared as a sponsor of the Medical Aid Division of the Spanish Refugee Relief Campaign, on November 16, 1939, in aid of the defeated Leftists.
Professor Allport's name showed up in numerous other reported involvements with pro-Communist and other extreme Leftwing causes, which had nothing to do with any sincere interest in improving inter-group relationships within the United States, long before his widespread acceptance in academia as an expert on "prejudice."
Norman Cousins was well known as the honorary President of the United World Federalists, the leading organization openly promoting World Government in the decades after World War II. So there was no secret agenda involved in his activity. It was his approach that should have caused alarm.
Your guide first encountered Norman Cousins early in his Freshman year in College. Cousins, then Editor of the Saturday Review, was the speaker at a student assembly, and appeared as a proponent of World Government. It was clearly a formula presentation, but it was a very, very effective one. He began by taking his audience on a verbal tour of Hiroshima in the aftermath of the bombing; of the deformed and those dying from atomic radiation; of tens of thousands vaporized without a trace in the actual blast and the immediate firestorm, created; above all, of the danger that it could happen here, etc.. It was only when he had achieved maximum effect, with most of the coeds terrorized and the boys speechless, that he introduced the message, his prescription for the future.
Cousins' solution dove-tailed nicely with the perversion of the Academy by men like Professors Montagu and Allport. In the future, he urged that we concentrate not on the differences between peoples, but on the traits they had in common. The idea was that you would eliminate War by eliminating those things, or concepts, for which people were willing to fight: In effect, he was calling for surrender by subterfuge. But he tried to make it sound as enlightenment; as a new idealistic vision for the future. No where in the address did he even deign to acknowledge the traditional values of America. Like that mythical ostrich, its head buried deep in the sands of self-inflicted ignorance, America would forget the things which had made her unique--the qualities for which better men had been willing to die--and we would all embrace this new dispensation: A World Government based upon the pretense of an undifferentiated humanity.
For years, Cousins employed the same formula for speeches before Academic audiences, and before conventions of various local affiliates of the NEA. In Cincinnati and Virginia, there was considerable opposition in the early 1960s; but one can only shudder at how well his "message" was received in more "Liberal" venues.
It is obvious that a policy promoted by fear and despair is not a policy that ought to appeal to the rational. If Cousins' world view could not pass the test of reason, it should have been rejected. The idea that people in a panic have better insights than the calm and deliberate, is not sustainable. On the other hand, what people have been calmly willing to die for, may just be worthy of dying for. In this latter category, we would certainly include America.
There has been a deliberate attempt on the Left to suggest that the essence of America lies in Democracy and equal opportunity; that if we can just promote Democracy everywhere, and open America to all people in a multi-cultural society, we can somehow create the basis for a new world order. In a material sense, our immigration policies since 1965 have embraced the Cousins' concept. So too, does the growing deemphasis on traditional American and Anglo-Saxon culture in public school systems. It is not that anyone has said in so many words, "Let us do it Cousins' way." It is more a reflection of the success of a general promotion, the embracing of a form of cultural nihilism on the Left, for which he was once the most articulate spokesman.
That such an international Government, as Cousins envisioned, would not end conflict in the world, is perfectly obvious. Virtually no State or nation in human history, no matter how well conceived, how harmonious its people at its inception, has ever remained free of internal conflict--and civil strife is often the most brutal, the most unforgiving. But for Americans, that really should not be the point.
The genesis of the American concept, of both the several States and the Federal Union, involved deliberate decisions. The Declaration Of Independence, linked below, expounded in quite clear English, one of those decisions. George Washington discussed his long term vision, both as to that decision and the subsequent decision involved in our Federal Constitution in his Farewell Address, which may be accessed from our Intelligence Center menu. In Chapter 10, we quoted James Madison's explanation of the need for Constitutional checks on majority rule in the Federalist Papers, warning against the dangers of the sort of unrestrained democracy, presently in fashion in much of the technologically advanced world.
Not only did a great deal of thought go into the achievement and direction of American independence; those, who made that achievement possible, explained both their purpose, their reasons and their hopes in clear terms; setting forth their guiding concepts with apt references to the whole panoply of past human experience.
Even if Norman Cousins and his followers felt no personal loyalty to their homeland--which lack would certainly define their "morality"--there is no way that Cousins' appeal to naked fear can equate to reasoned argument. To surrender what better men risked everything to achieve, without ever even acknowledging the Fathers' reasoning--which alone was refutation of the idea of an undifferentiated humanity--goes beyond mere intellectual dishonesty. To evoke fear to paralyze reason is the ultimate demagoguery. This is not ameliorated by endless references to the horror of modern war, or to man's capacity for self-destruction. Those would be arguments for America's building the ultimate missile defense system, not surrendering her heritage.
The men who gave us our freedom gladly risked their lives because they believed the objective worth the price. While not so dramatic as the mushroom cloud over Hiroshima, death was death in 1776, no less than in 1945 or 2001. And while dying from radiation may be sure "Hell," dying from rot and sepsis, after taking a large musket ball in the gut, was no picnic. And make no mistake, had those frontier lads not returned home after the Revolution, there is great doubt that many of their women and children would ever have survived. The mettle, which caused them to settle on that frontier to begin with, clearly distinguished them from those who, in the pursuit of "peace," would seek to submerge us all in an internationalist day dream.
This generation of Americans may or may not measure up. We are surely not so debased, as to surrender that which was won for us with brains, courage and dedicated purpose, without a shot being fired or even an appeal to dispassionate reason being advanced.
The only thing which much of the world has in common, culturally or ideologically, is a common envy of our wealth and a mutual misunderstanding and rejection of our values. Foremost among those values, would be those principles of individual liberty and the limitations on Government, so well enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, so well reflected in the Constitution. Fundamentally, they involve our own rejection of the utilitarian collectivism, so popular in the twentieth century.
Ironically, those who would sacrifice traditional America on the fatuous altar of denial and cowardice, in a fear of the future, could be destroying the world's last, best hope for actual peace with dignity. It was the traditional American foreign policy, which treated all nations with respect, demanding only respect in return; which respected the very real differences between peoples, in a true spirit of "live and let live"--tolerating no interference in our affairs, and offering none in theirs;--which offered the only path to peace with honor and dignity, this world has ever known.
Those, who seek to change the world, have the rational, moral and ethical duty to justify their proposed changes, not by demagoguish appeals to fear or greed, resentment, envy or any other base emotion, but by actually discussing real issues. They hardly gain credibility by seeking to silence opposition through the imposition of a sense of contrived guilt for normal human feeling, or by suppressing the pursuit of truth in the analysis of problems or the understanding of achievement.
Readers will recognize that the stifling Academic prescriptions promoted by Professors Montagu and Allport--aided and abetted by the lecture circuit fear mongering of Norman Cousins--provided a rationalization for the "politically correct" mindset that today dominates American campuses. (The radical Feminists have simply jumped on the train of coerced egalitarianism, that such Fabians promoted. Indeed, the upside down pronouncements of Professor Allport and others, who deliberately develop and play on the doubts of the insecure, have probably played a significant role in breaking down feminine self-confidence, rendering more young women susceptible to the Feminist poison.)
From a Nazi like suppression of publications, the shouting down of Conservative speakers, to the forcing of alien value structures on campus organizations, we see the not so brave nor so new world of the Fabian Mythmaker. It bears striking similarities to what long sapped the intellectual potential of Eastern Europe, before the collapse of Communism. The mainstream American, with traditional values, is learning what it must have been like to be a Christian Armenian in Turkey during World War I, or a Ukrainian Farmer in the late 1920s, or a German Jew under the National Socialists, or, in more recent days, a Buddhist pilgrim under the Taliban. The myth makers are not the voices of toleration, but of social destruction; and their real target is increasingly obvious: It is the free, sovereign and independent America, true to a heritage of individual responsibility and achievement, whose very existence is a refutation of the sham economics, science and philosophy of the Collectivists of this earth.
The ACLU's antics have been dealt with elsewhere, particularly in Chapter Three, where we addressed their deliberate distortion of the traditional American view on religious expression in public places. The reason for including them again here, is because they have provided the missing link in a comprehensive assault on the ramparts of the American tradition; and because an enshrinement of their tortured view of the separation of religious sentiment from public life, has proceeded to such a degree on so many campuses, that it must be considered another of the Myths of American "Higher" Education. Few students or faculty will openly challenge it. Yet, one need look no further than the words of Thomas Jefferson, quoted in the above Chapter, for total confutation.
In 1786, Jefferson authored the Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom, the greatest single landmark on the road to full religious toleration in America. As quoted in the above Chapter, Jefferson commenced the accepted draft of the Act with these carefully selected words:
Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who, being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do;
There are two possible reasons why those, who support the ACLU position against the expression of any religious sentiment by those acting on behalf of public institutions, fail to acknowledge that our traditional support for unfettered religious freedom in America, is itself premised on an acceptance of the Authority of an Almighty God. They are either so enamored with their own sloganized shibboleths, that they have never bothered to even casually research the principles, which they claim to be upholding; or they are deliberately misleading the public for an agenda that has nothing whatever to do with preserving "Civil Liberties." You do not withhold vital information on any subject, if your goal is freedom of conscience, free inquiry or the integrity of either the system or the educational processes.
We venture to suggest that even as little as a one half hour session, during Freshman orientation on a typical campus, would be sufficient for one instructor with integrity to put the issue of religious expression, in and around public facilities, into a far clearer light. But such an attack on the ACLU promoted myth that freedom depends upon a species of antagonism between Faith and State, is not likely, given the enormous influence of the Fabians in Academia today. The same forces that want a controlled, managed economy, and a population divorced from its traditional patterns of personal identification, also want an American people, who are not sustained by the Faith of their fathers.
While seemingly coming from different disciplines, with different areas of focus and different functions, all of our myth makers served a common end: The pursuit of the managed population; where the Government decides what is important for both the whole and all its parts, and focuses the resources--even the thoughts--of the people. But none of the pillars that have been artificially created to sustain this attempted restructuring of Human Society will bear serious examination. They are all flawed beyond possibility of redemption.
In the end, truth remains: You cannot solve problems caused by economic imbalances by spending other people's money. You do not solve problems arising from the differences in human ability, by pretending a long disproven equality. You do not improve inter-group relations by making people ashamed of their normal identifications and allegiances. You do not build a better, more peaceful world, by pretending that what has always been important, really doesn't matter. You do not protect the right to dissent, by suppressing the right to affirm.