We have addressed compulsive aspects of egalitarian thought in a number of essays. When we launched this web site in late 1998, we posted the "Compulsion For Uniformity." In at least two Chapters of the Conservative Debate Handbook, the argument rests primarily on fallacies in the notion or claim of human equality. It is part of the argument in several of the other Chapters, as well as in a significant number of the miscellaneous essays. Our purpose, now, is to further refine such argument by a purposeful assemblage of the obvious: To demonstrate conclusively that egalitarian efforts with respect to most areas of human social or economic condition, or achievement, are driven not by a compassionate or reasoned desire to alleviate want or injustice, but by compulsion. That as such they are destructive, not constructive; that they are deleterious to the real interests of every normal man or woman on this planet.
Whereas egalitarian rhetoric was once largely confined to revolutionary movements, such as the French Jacobins & Marxist Communists; today, it appears accepted by many in the political and social mainstream. Thus, there is scarcely a ripple among affluent viewers when a major "Liberal" broadcast media operation airs a program discussing the "need" and methods to "narrow the gap between the rich and poor" of this earth, despite the unspoken but obvious implications. Thus a President of the United States, who claims to be a "Compassionate Conservative," voices a similar objective, with scarce notice in a generally hostile media, which has no problem in mislabeling him and others of similar ideological ilk, as "right wing."
The true implications of such a goal are not, of course, the claimed altruistic pursuit of "social justice" or a fairer allocation of resources. They are the traditional Socialist and Communist mantra that those who succeed do so, in large measure, by exploiting those who fail--an ongoing slander, not only against this generations' affluent peoples, but against much that is noble in human history. The Leftist mantra depends not upon individual cases, where someone may indeed have taken an unfair advantage of another individual--a situation subject to case by case judicial resolution--but upon a presumption that all classes of persons possess basically the same aptitudes for success.
We have discussed both the absurdity of this assumption, and the damage it has already done to those whom this same theory would treat as victims, from a number of different perspectives at this web site, over our first seven years. Here, we are going to attempt to both tighten the focus of that argument, while still expanding the variety of examples, which illustrate that absurdity--a, perhaps, more eclectic evolution of what we attempted in our not too well read June "Letter To The New Graduate." The thesis there, that the typical College or University student has within his or her own ken--derived wholly from personal observation--sufficient data to absolutely refute the dogma promoted in the class room, will be applied here with more general applicability and, we hope, a more comprehensive and persuasive analysis.
The fact is that, despite over two centuries of rant, there is a total dearth of credible evidence for the claimed equality of human potential. Whether one views the anatomical studies of human types; the extensive and varied efforts to measure human intelligence and educability by psychological testing over the past ninety years; the observations of students of natural history and of the interaction of human types; the performance of biological crosses between recognized human types; the consistent manifestation of similar characteristics--including the incidence of special abilities--among definable groups and lines of descent (despite presence in varied social and economic environments in varied lands, interacting with different peoples); and both the consistency, and persistence, of the apparent traits in all such varied approaches; are only part of an analytic demonstration of the inequality of the human species and of all of its varied races and sub-species. The strongest and most compelling argument for rejecting the egalitarian mantra is that it is in total conflict with all relevant evidence from the botanical and biological worlds.
There is no equality in nature--not even in the more primitive forms of life. As the protagonist in our novel observes, no two apples on the same tree are ever precisely the same. Equality is not something which a rational person would expect to find in the higher, or more complex, forms. Nor, outside the world of insects, does an equality of condition make any sense. There is nothing compassionate about the life of a worker ant or a drone bee. Nor is there anything idealistic in stifling the potential of the unique individual.
The egalitarian argument, from the French Revolution onward, has been an emotional, not a rational one. The "equality of man" is a slogan; and as was well observed by the late R. Carter Pittman, involves an inherent attack on human freedom: Free men are never equal, and equal men are never free. With the emergence of the Boas school of Social Anthropology (typified by Boas' apostle Ashley Montagu, discussed at length in "Myths and Myth Makers" in the Conservative Debate Handbook), the slogans were supplemented by vicious ad hominem attacks on research scientists, whose studies refuted egalitarian dogma. This has been augmented since by almost hysterical aspersions against anyone who would even cite such work as authoritative. Yet no study has ever demonstrated equality. None ever will.
The argument against innate human differences in mental aptitude has never reached beyond the level of selective exception to, or mitigation of, small isolated segments of the available, if now neglected, data. Conveniently unaddressed, is the fact that all data from intelligence tests--not just the few selected for attack--is to much the same effect; demonstrating significant class and racial differences, both qualitative and quantitative, in measurable forms of intelligence. Similarly unaddressed, in the attack on anatomical studies of brain size, shape and development, are that the implications, being assailed, closely parallel and would appear to corroborate the observed differences in the performance and achievement of the various sub-species of Man. Nor does the gratuitous Egalitarian Environmentalist attack on the motives of selected scientists come to grips with the fact that many unmentioned investigators, who reported data remarkably similar to that of those attacked, were actually trying to find evidence of an environmental--rather than innate--factor, to explain the differences being observed and analyzed.
Ignoring available research, which does not fit the Egalitarian pursuit, is the most egregious example of the intellectual dishonesty of its adherents. Our intention, here, is certainly not to emphasize the once well studied differences between Whites and Negroes, as opposed to those between human races and classes, in general. But consider the virtually total neglect, today, of the work of E. B. Reuter (The Mulatto In The United States; Boston: Richard G. Badger: 1918; Race Mixture; New York: Whittlesey House, McGraw Hill: 1931), who studied and catalogued the preeminence among leading American Negroes of the 20%, who had the most noticeable White genes.
Reuter found that this group accounted for over 89% of the recognized leaders of the race, with even higher percentages in the very highest categories, where the average admixture was between 3/4 and 7/8 White. While this finding may be consistent with the results of academic intelligence tests, over the two to three generations since, we would be the first to admit that both the tests and Reuter's analysis of leadership, would be from the perspective of a people living and conforming to a largely White defined culture. But the point is that Reuter was not trying to establish anything in terms of what is innate. He confessed, at the time, that his personal bias was in favor of an environmental, rather than hereditary explanation, of the data. He did not set out to prove human inequality. And neither did many others who studied and reported findings, in various academic disciplines, contributing to the totality of the case from a great variety of perspectives.
That, without a shred of evidence, there are still so many who will proclaim, not only the "equality" of mankind, but will still spew indignant venom at those who dissent, hardly demonstrates compassion. Let us now explore more closely the nature of the compulsion involved, with a brief analysis of just how irrational--and anti-social--it really is.
[N.B. In the following analysis, it is necessary to discuss some aspects of the evolutionary process--those affecting selective breeding and natural selection. Because of considerable passion stirred over the Creation and/or Evolution debate, it is advisable that we clarify an essential point. It is not necessary to accept Darwinian theories on the evolution of Man to recognize that after Creation--whatever your theory or belief as to that Creation--there is an evolutionary process within any particular species (not necessarily a "morphing" into another species), which will reflect the interactive effects of selective breeding, mutations and various factors which, in any particular situation, determine those most likely to survive & reproduce in the population under consideration. Within the past few hundred years, there have been enormous changes in the characteristics of domesticated animals, illustrative of this phenomenon.]
To begin a new analysis of Egalitarian compulsion, we will again refer to the Ashley Montagu rationalization, previously discussed in both Chapters 5 & 16 of our Conservative Debate Handbook:
. . . 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.
The argument is absurd on its face. The notion that even if all peoples had a common origin as homo sapiens, at the same point in history--a premise not accepted by all physical anthropologists--that those separating would be so alike in every relevant respect that they would retain equal innate mental capacity over a thousand or more generations is lunacy, not reason. The very concept of educability as a general trait needs to be carefully and specifically examined. Applied to creatures as mentally complex as any of the definable sub-species of Mankind, it is an impressive conceptual stretch.
Consider the canine species, where human manipulation of breeding patterns--within a comparatively few generations (compared to the number of generations that the races of Man have been developing apart)--has resulted in a number of very specialized types. Yet a propagandist, such as Montagu, could certainly assert that all retain a general trait of educability. But a sheep dog and a hunting dog, bred to be "equally" educable, are hardly equal. The one has been bred to be more easily educated in one set of skills, the other in another. One may arbitrarily seek to equate the value of their specialties--or subjectively declare one superior to the other--but neither approach offers anything of value. Their real significance lies precisely in the special traits, which Montagu would trivialize. Is there anything in reasoned analysis, which would suggest a more simplistic expectation for the more complex mental traits of men?
We should note, in passing, the implications of Montagu's focus on mental development--as though it could be somehow divorced from the over-all biological or physiological development of a subject type. The brain directs the body, and if all peoples actually had the same mental capacity, with respect to educability, there would certainly be no equality. Under such a premise, those with the greatest range of physical attributes would clearly be superior. Yet this is not what is urged by the Egalitarians. Perhaps one of the things we see here, is Montagu's disrespect for the traits which actually make other peoples unique; those which have enabled them to survive through the ages. Egalitarianism, in such cases, may actually mask an arrogant disdain for those being patronized. But we will examine Montagu's evolutionary concept from various perspectives.
Numerous studies have verified the almost incredible similarity of identical twins--whether raised together or raised apart--in both aptitude and personality, as well as in appearance. These have long offered one of the most compelling arguments for the predominance of hereditary traits over environmental, in human development. But are first cousins, where each has a parent who was the identical twin of one of the parents of the other, nearly so similar as were their twin parents in aptitude or personality traits? By the third generation, how similar are the second cousins?
Yet with lineage, immediately descended from identical twins, selective breeding pressures on those maturing in the same culture would be remarkably similar--nature and nurture both pushing in the same direction. A fair degree of similarity should survive several more generations, even though the near actual equality of the twin progenitors would not. Such is certainly not the situation with the diverse races and sub-races of Man. Consider the vast array of factors that rapidly come into play, as a tribe moves from one region to another. Climate, terrain, neighbors, as well as cataclysmic events peculiar to the passing of time in a particular location, must all be considered.
While Egalitarians would not deny effects of climate on long term human development, they generally seek to confine the subject to such superficial categories as skin color. Selective effects upon the evolution of respiratory systems would be about as far as many would want to go. Yet far more significant would be the likely connection between climate (and its influence upon mate selection and child survival) on mental traits. Montagu's generalization notwithstanding, climate can be a very powerful determinant (incentive) to the selection of very specific forms (special traits of educability.) So, too, can the other suggested factors, in both positive and negative senses.
It is well to remember that the earth was not always so thickly populated with human types. Over many millennia (whatever other dangers they might encounter), a tribe living in a tropical area with adequate rainfall could ordinarily rely on a sustained supply of food, with no particular need to improvise or engage in long range planning. By contrast, a tribe living in a temperate zone, where the seasons radically effect what grows, and there are winters where much of the game hibernates and birds fly South--where the adequacy of the growing season, itself, fluctuates widely with the levels of temperature and rainfall--has a far less predictable existence. Under such conditions, those so placed might be expected to develop very selective breeding patterns (preferences) within quite few generations--whether consciously, or simply as a consequence of who would survive the harsher winters and periodic famines.
Thus, all else being "equal," there is a reasonable expectation that such tribes and races, evolving in a temperate zone, will tend to be more "educable" in the ability to grasp long term reasoning and abstract subjects; that they will also gravitate towards the special trait of innovation. By contrast, a tribe evolving over thousands of years in a lush tropical climate would be far less driven to develop in the innovative arts or in the pursuit of long range abstractions. There the social pressures, suggesting the ideal mate, would be more towards "educability" in the immediate and concrete, rather than multi-dimensional or abstract. Such might also, if relevant factors once pushed them in that direction, tend to be more sociable (on average) than their contemporaneous temperate zone counterparts. Those immediately around one are part of the concrete world one knows. Without the distraction of vague worries over next year's food supply or the adequacy of winter shelter, recreational social interaction (as opposed to that directed towards a long term purpose) is easier and more natural--far less likely to endanger survival.
Of course, all else is never quite "equal." The neighboring humans, if any, may determine not only the tribe's immediate survival. If they are a threat, they may have one type of influence on which traits survive through the generations; if friendly neighbors, accepted on the basis of mutual respect, a more subtle influence; if no threat, but instead of being treated with respect are subjugated by our subject tribe, still another--if yet more subtle--long term influence, with respect to surviving traits in the dominant tribe. Such is likely to be more subtle because, unlike the reality in the immediate threat-laden situation, where specific genes may be culled from the pool by sudden, conflict related, deaths; the possible loss of competence in the manual arts, in the last hypothetical situation, would probably only take place through a gradual shift in what might be seen as desirable in a mate.
In considering cataclysmic events, it is fairly certain that those exerting the most powerful influence on the evolutionary progress or regression of a human type would be the "man-made" ones. The more random elimination of persons, likely in a natural disaster, would tend towards a more neutral effect. There would be a partial exception to this, in the modern age, in the now common phenomena that the poor live under far more crowded conditions, often in more vulnerable locations from which escape may be difficult, than is the case with the more affluent. This exception might prove particularly applicable in case of pestilence.
Through the ages, the man-made catastrophe has been far more likely to be group specific, to impact a specifically definable group with distinctive inheritable traits within a more general population, and thus directly effect what genes survive. Such "events" may actually span generations. Moreover, the phenomena involved do not necessarily have to be the work of outsiders. The decline of Rome is an excellent example. At the time of the fall of the Western Empire, virtually no descendants remained from the old Roman stock, which had built Roman civilization. Rome was no longer really Roman. How had this come to pass?
The later Roman dependence upon foreign labor, soldiers and servers, is well known. But the explanation is not just "liberal" immigration policies--such as those, which in the Clinton/Bush era allow a migratory flood of incongruous types, seeking to perform the "jobs, which Americans do not want to do." The birthrate of the upper classes--originally composed largely of that early Roman stock--fell off dramatically, even during the later Republican days. Was this simply a parallel to what we have seen in recent decades in modern Western nations?
S. C. Gilfillan researched Roman history and habits, and in 1965 advanced the theory ("Roman Culture and Dysgenic Lead Poisoning," The Mankind Quarterly, Vol. V, No. 3, January-March, 1965), that for over six centuries, affluent Romans were accidentally poisoning themselves. They used lead containers to store both food and wine, as well as lead drinking and cooking utensils. If not necessarily causing early death, the practice resulted, at least, in wide-spread sterility. By contrast, the less Roman lower classes used earthenware containers and utensils, without harmful effect on longevity or fertility. Gilfillan extrapolated from his researched data to suggest that the same phenomena might well explain the sudden collapse of Greek civilization, earlier.
Our essay on "How The Welfare State Works," shows how modern America is "achieving" similar demographic damage to the quality and character of her populations, without a daily intake of lead, simply by embracing and implementing the ideological poison in Socialist Egalitarian notions and practices. The argument, there, may be linked below.
The slaughter of many of the best of British youth, in the then still all volunteer Army, during the first years of World War I, was long recognized as a major adverse turning point in the history of the British nations; that is, before egalitarian fanaticism so greatly inhibited studies of class differences, in the inheritance of basic traits, as to shut down almost all such discussion. Similar demographic disasters, often on a much smaller scale, have been endlessly repeated in the human story. Consider, for obvious example, the damage to the surviving tribal entity of one of the American Indian Nations, whose culture had required that the best and brightest of its young braves lead the charge against the vastly greater fire power of an advancing American settlement.
Yet few, if any, of such other "man-made" catastrophes will ever even approximate the level of genetic damage wrought in the aftermaths of the Mongol conquests of Mesopotamia in 1258 and at the end of the Fourteenth Century. Prior to the Mongols, Baghdad had been perhaps the most advanced center of science and medicine in the pre-Renaissance world. But at the beginning of the 15th Century, the conquerors systematically slaughtered nearly everyone in sight, effectively eliminating the educated--and most "educable"--upper classes. And six centuries later--whatever the wishful thinking of the Bush Administration--there is little real evidence of genetic recovery.
A more recent example of a "man-made" genetic disaster, with recorded results, would be the Bolshevik Communist slaughter of millions of Russian "Kulaks" around 1930. The "Kulaks" were the Russian and Ukrainian farmers who resisted collectivization--the farmers with sufficient competence ("educability" in the agrarian arts) to be confident in their own ability to succeed. While the event may be still too recent to accurately gage the permanence of the damage to the residual societies, the brutal outrage was unquestionably a major factor in the fact that--despite all of the technological innovations in agriculture in the interim--Russian agriculture in 1953 substantially lagged where it had been under the Czar in 1913. Apparently, the surviving rural populations were not so "educable" as the theorists had hoped.
We suspect that an Egalitarian theorist might argue that we beg the question by treating the class structures of various peoples, as reflecting levels of innate ability. But do we? Socialism is premised--as are most theories of tribal or racial equality--upon the belief that the socio-economic environment is the principal determinant of (rather than merely a secondary influence on) the relative level of any human groups' contemporary performance. Hence, they assume that simply by improving that environment and creating new educational and employment opportunities for the poor, one may substantially close the performance gap between socio-economic classes. Yet here, as with their racial theories, there is a virtual absence of corroborative data. Indeed, the clear supremacy of the market system, which gives the advantage to individual initiative and responsibility over social engineering, should demonstrate the fallacy of all such theories. Ours is an infinitely better working hypothesis than theirs. It explains, rather than obfuscates, the observable data.
Indeed, many studies of academic aptitude--as measured by intelligence tests--have identified significant differences in socio-economic class levels, often in a futile effort to prove the environmentalist contention. In so doing, they have actually verified, within each race or sub-race being studied, a graduated range of ability, which correlated fairly closely with a class structure based largely upon utilized intelligence. Generations of social experiments have been unable to reverse these patterns to demonstrate Montagu's theory of an equality of educability.
Against Montagu's fanciful speculation as to how Man might have developed equally, and his and others' argument by exception and in mitigation of the works of those actually seeking truth, we find perfect consistency between what reason suggests as the probable course of human genetic progress or regression, and the observed result. To begin to grasp the enormity of the distortion being offered by the Egalitarians, one would do well to become familiar with Anthropological debates of the pre-Darwinian period in America. Almost all of the modern Egalitarian arguments were raised before 1854, and were effectively refuted by the data already available to the contemporary students of the Natural History of Man. There was already a mountain of evidence consistent with our humble suggestions as to the actual effect of natural selection on the development of special traits, although before Darwin the greater emphasis by those seeking truth was on Louis Agassiz's postulation of a close relationship between the different types of Man and distinct Natural Provinces in the animal world, which suggested the possibility of a separate Creation in each of the eight major regions.
Yet whether Man evolved over hundreds of thousands of years--as most believe today--or resulted from a more recent series of separate Creations, the historic record shows a persistence of quite recognizable characteristics of definable races throughout the historic period. It is not a random or chance thing that most of the world's modern inventions come from people whose ancestors successfully dealt with changing seasons; nor is it a coincidence only, that the greatest distance runners in the world come from lands where their ancestors had to chase game for great distances over tropical grass lands. People are not inter-changeable. Egalitarianism is an insult to all of us; a neurotic denial of much of what makes each of us unique.
There are many ways to check whether or not a particular theory of the nature of Man, and the degree and significance of his variations, fits the observable data. For example, consider the development of language--particularly the development of written languages and the particular concepts and perceptions that are articulated and emphasized in each. A written language would be far more important to a people planning ahead; to a people engaging in abstract analysis to address a concrete, long term, problem. The concepts most reflected in a language would also indicate specific characteristics effecting the nature and specifics of any tribe or race's "educability." Such philological considerations would certainly appear to support the division, we have suggested above, in the development of innovative traits.~
Most readers will, at one time or another, have encountered someone who, while completely ignorant of a particular subject, when once instructed on that subject, instantly grasped the essence of what he needed to know or needed to do. By contrast, many others--even when almost endlessly tutored on the same subject by one acquaintance after another--finally had to give up the particular pursuit, perhaps in a mild despair. Yet others may master the subject, but with far more difficulty than the first. People are not interchangeable.
As a child on the play ground, the reader will remember those who quickly mastered certain physical skills (and that means the specific mental capacities involved in mastering those skills), as well as others who--try as they might--simply could not. Whatever the subject, whatever the pursuit, there are different levels of achievement, different levels of application, different time frames for any particular level of result, for every individual. Save for those identical twins, no two of us are alike. No two of us ever were, or ever will be. Why would anyone ever need to pretend that we were?! People are not interchangeable.
That behind the Egalitarian argument is compulsion, not reason, should be clear both from the almost hysterical cant of its adherents, and from their persistent use of far-fetched arguments, whose premises have been refuted over and over again, down through the generations. It should also be clear from the fact that their dogmatic conclusion helps no one. On the contrary, since it is at war with reality, it retards more legitimate efforts to improve any part of the human condition.
In urging that Egalitarians, who argue for an undifferentiated humanity--or the near equivalent--are compulsion driven, we have no particular desire to include those hapless folk who may get caught up in one of the facets of what one might describe as an "Emperor's New Clothes" manifestation. Certainly, fawners, who may feel an almost compulsive need to impress others by demonstrating a commitment to the stated beliefs of those whom they perceive to be an "in crowd," are a factor. So, too, are those who feel too insecure to trust their own perceptions, when they conflict with what others appear to believe.
But the human foibles captured in the Hans Christian Andersen fable are common to many situations in the human comedy. The elements of compulsion, reflected, are very mild. The compulsion that is our subject may seek to intimidate others into conformity, but it is not driven by a need to feel accepted or to appear "normal." Rather it reflects a deep fear of the actual "diversity" of the human species, with its seemingly inevitable conflicts. This fear spawns a neurotic need to try to deny reality, resulting in an intense effort to control that reality by forcing what may be perceived as an 'antiseptic' interpretation of "diversity" on others. The modern Egalitarian would not be silenced by a young boy speaking the truth. He would, instead, seek to silence the truth speaker; and then, if possible, to force him into some form of counseling or sensitivity training, while seeking to utterly discredit him in every way possible.
If the Egalitarians were not compulsion driven, they would surely modify their mantra in the face of generations of evidence that it is destructive to human potential. In Chapter 5 of the Debate Handbook, we examined in detail the cruel and disastrous effects of compulsive Egalitarian environmentalism on minority youth in American public schools under the title, "The Rape Of Tolerance." We cited the work of Dr. Clairette P. Armstrong, for twenty years the Chief Psychologist of the Children's Court and Domestic Relations Court of New York City. In a 1964 article ("Psychodiagnosis, Prognosis, School Desegregation and Delinquency," Mankind Quarterly, Vol. V, No. 2, October-December, 1964), Dr. Armstrong discussed a study, which she had conducted of 15 year old delinquents from integrated schools in 1945:
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. 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.
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.
These were, and are--for the dogma driven practices continue--real youth being sacrificed to dogma; the dogma of compulsion driven neurotics, unable to accept and tolerate the true diversity of human types and abilities. Ignoring all of the observable data over the generations, believing that they can somehow abolish human conflict by imposing the sterile bonds of uniformity upon all Mankind; Egalitarian fanatics, determined to force the acceptance of what is neither wise nor true, cannot make exceptions for the idiosyncrasies of actual people. What the phenomena which Dr. Armstrong describes suggests, in practical terms, reveals the hideous under-belly of compulsion driven contemporary social theory. Consider its effect upon millions of American youth, who do not have high academic aptitudes, but do have superior mechanical skills, over the past two generations:
Instead of a school curriculum responsive to the students being instructed, these students were offered one which humiliated and alienated them, leading to an anti-social orientation, delinquency, crime, and a life-time of anger and resentment. Instead of becoming skilled mechanics, able to hold their heads high, marry and raise families steeped in the true value of honest labor; they have clogged the Welfare rolls and prisons, while conceiving many millions out of wedlock; children with no understanding of either the traditional family or of the joy of a job well done--the vast majority destined to repeat the same cycle. Instead of being able to contribute to a healthy society, these victims of Egalitarian dogma have been turned into a gargantuan drain on that society's resources.
Again, Egalitarianism is not compassion driven. It is compulsion driven in much the same sense as was the mob that cheered every time a young girl, whose only crime was to have been born into a family that had played an illustrious part in the French past, was beheaded before the Paris City Hall during the "Reign of Terror." You could have seen its like repeated in the waves of purposeful savagery, unleashed in Russia by the Bolshevik Communist Revolution. Yet again, among the massed, uniformed, automatons cheering in staccato unison in the stands at Nuremberg, as the Fuehrer ranted about the glories of the new "Classless, Casteless" Germany, acting with one "Will," under one Leader.
Nor is there anything idealistic about an effort to reduce the rich and varied tapestry, the quite diverse tribes and nations of the earth, to the culture of some form of insect, where all but the Queen live uniform, completely structured lives, with no expectation of individual character or identity--no possibility of ever rising above the masses.
Finally, we seriously doubt that the Egalitarian approach to the Science of Man really reflects any genuine belief in human equality. If the Egalitarians actually believed that all peoples had even a semblance of equal potential, would they continue to employ the tactics that they do? Continue to argue by exception and in mitigation, by ad hominem attacks on all who dissent?
The advances in medicine and in the forensic sciences would surely offer improved methods for testing their hypothesis. Would not Montagu's assumed equal development in general "educability"--if it actually existed--show up in racial comparisons of electrical activity in the various regions of the human brain--particularly under controlled conditions, under various measurable forms of stimulation? Such a study could shed a great wealth of information as to the respects--if any--in which we are nearly all alike; or in just what respects we differ significantly--and to what extent--in various cerebral functions.
Anyone seriously committed to advancing human understanding--to dealing with the real problems of the real world--should certainly welcome any chance to increase actual understanding of just how each of us is "wrapt." But do not hold your breath until the Egalitarians actually seek to advance human understanding. They remain too committed to be bothered with facts.
Total words in the language; the ratio of concrete to abstract terms; the ratio of terms denoting subjective as opposed to objective perceptions, to concepts pertaining to the immediate as compared to the remote; the comparative uses of each by each definable ethnic group speaking the language; the increase or decrease in each category, as well as in total working vocabularies, for each group, in each generation measured. The usage measures might be culled from scans of the most widely read books & periodicals, in each time frame by each identified ethnic group, to the extent such data could be obtained.
Such a study might reveal a great deal about differences in the psychological dynamics of various peoples, offering a useful tool for promoting a better, truth based, level of understanding between nations.]