We have addressed compulsive aspects of egalitarian thought in many essays. When we launched this web site in late 1998, we posted "Compulsion For Uniformity." In at least two Chapters of the Conservative Debate Handbook, the primary argument rests on fallacies in the very notion of human equality. It is part of the argument in several other Chapters, as well as in a significant number of miscellaneous essays. Our purpose, here, is to further refine the 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 harmful to the real interests of every race & nation, indeed to every normal man & woman on earth.
Egalitarian rhetoric, once largely confined to revolutionary movements, such as French Jacobins & Marxist Communists, now appears accepted by many in the political & social mainstream. Thus, there is scarcely a ripple among affluent viewers when major "Liberal" broadcast media air programs discussing the "need" & methods to "narrow a gap between the rich & poor," despite the unspoken, yet obvious, implications. Thus a former American President, who claimed to be a "Compassionate Conservative," voiced a similar objective, with scarce notice in a generally hostile media, which had no problem in mislabeling him & the like-minded, 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 & Communist mantra that those who succeed do so, in large measure, by exploiting those who fail--an ongoing slander, not only against the affluent of this generation, but against much that is noble in human history. The Leftist mantra depends not upon individual cases, where someone may indeed have taken unfair advantage of another--a situation subject to case by case judicial resolution--but upon a presumption that all classes of persons possess basically similar aptitudes for success.
We have discussed the absurdity of this assumption & the damage already done to those, whom this theory would treat as victims, from a number of different perspectives, over the past decade. Here, we will attempt to tighten the focus, while yet expanding the variety of examples that illustrate that absurdity--hopefully, a more eclectic evolution of what was previously attempted. An earlier thesis, that the typical College or University student has within his or her own ken--derived wholly from personal observation--sufficient data to absolutely refute dogma promoted in the class room, will be applied with more general applicability & a more comprehensive analysis.
Despite over two centuries of rant, there is a total dearth of credible evidence for a claimed equality of human potential. Whether one views anatomical studies of human types; extensive & varied efforts to measure human intelligence & educability by psychological testing over the past century; the observations by students of natural history & human interaction; the performance of biological crosses between recognized human types; the consistent manifestation of similar characteristics--including the incidence of special abilities--among definable groups & lines of descent (despite presence in varied social & economic environments in varied lands, interacting with different peoples); and the consistency & persistence of apparent traits in all such varied approaches; are but part of an analytic demonstration of the inequality of the human species & its wondrous variations. The strongest, most compelling, argument for rejecting an egalitarian mantra, is that it is in total conflict with all relevant biological & botanical evidence.
There is no equality in nature--not even in the most 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, more complex, forms of life. 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 drone bee. Nor is there anything idealistic in stifling the potential of the unique individual of any race or culture.
The egalitarian argument, from the French Revolution onward, has been emotional, not rational. The "equality of man" is a slogan; and, as 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 (exemplified by Boas' apostle Ashley Montagu, dealt with in "Myths & Myth Makers" in the Conservative Debate Handbook), the slogans were supplemented by vicious ad hominem attacks on scientists, whose studies refuted egalitarian dogma. This has been augmented, since, by hysterical aspersions against anyone, who would 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 national, class & racial differences, both qualitative & quantitative, in measurable forms of intelligence. Similarly unaddressed, in an attack on anatomical studies of brain size, shape & development, are that the implications, being assailed, closely parallel and would appear to corroborate observed differences in the performance & achievement of the various sub-species of Man. Nor do gratuitous Egalitarian Environmentalist attacks on the motives of select 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 variations being observed & analyzed.
Ignoring available research, which does not fit an Egalitarian pursuit, is the most egregious example of the intellectual dishonesty of its adherents. Our intention is not to emphasize the once well studied differences between White & Negro subjects, as opposed to those between other races & classes. 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), which catalogued a preeminence among leading American Negroes of the 20% with the most noticeable White genes.
Reuter found that this group accounted for over 89% of the recognized racial leaders, with even higher percentages in the very highest categories, where the average admixture was 3/4 to 7/8 White. While this finding may be consistent with the results of academic intelligence tests, over the generations since, we would be the first to admit that both the tests & Reuter's analysis of leadership, were from the perspective of a people living & conforming to a largely White defined culture. But Reuter was not trying to establish anything in terms of the innate. He confessed, at the time, a personal bias in favor of an environmental, rather than hereditary explanation, of the data. He did not set out to prove human inequality. And neither did others, who studied & reported findings in various academic disciplines, contributing to the totality of data from a great variety of perspectives.
That, without a shred of evidence, there are still many who will proclaim not only the "equality" of Mankind, but will spew indignant venom at any who dissent, hardly demonstrates compassion. Consider the nature of the compulsion, involved; with analysis of just how irrational--how harmful to the interests of all peoples--it really is.
[N.B. In the following argument, we will discuss some aspects of an evolutionary process--those affecting selective breeding & natural selection. Because of the passion stirred over Creation vs. Evolution debates, we must 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 other factors which, at any particular time, determine those most likely to survive & reproduce in the population under consideration. Within a few hundred years, there have been enormous changes in the characteristics of domesticated animals, that illustrate this phenomenon.]
To begin analysis of Egalitarian compulsion, we look again at Ashley Montagu's rationalization, previously quoted in Chapters 5 & 16 of the 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 & 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 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. The 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 somehow be 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 still 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 Egalitarians. Perhaps one thing, we see here, is Montagu's disrespect for traits which actually make other peoples unique; those which have enabled them to survive through the ages. Egalitarianism, in such case, may actually mask an arrogant disdain for those being patronized. But consider Montagu's evolutionary concept from other 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 a predominance of hereditary over environmental traits, in human development. But are first cousins, where each had a parent who was the identical twin of a parent 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 for the immediate posterity of identical twins, maturing in the same culture, selective breeding pressures would be remarkably similar--nature & 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 & sub-races of Man. Consider the vast array of factors that come rapidly 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, are all involved.
While Egalitarians may 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 ever go. Yet far more significant would be the likely connection between climate (and its influence upon mate selection & child survival) on mental traits. Montagu's generalization notwithstanding, climate can be a powerful determinant (incentive) in the selection of very specific forms (special traits of educability.) So, too, can the other suggested factors, in both a positive & negative sense.
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 & 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 might survive harsher winters or periodic famines. [For more on these & other effects, see the late Prof. J. Philippe Rushton's clear exposition in Race, Evolution & Behavior, (2000).]
Thus, all else being "equal," there is reasonable expectation that tribes & races, evolving in a temperate zone, will tend to be more "educable" in an ability to grasp abstract subjects & long term reasoning; 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 innovative arts or to pursue long term abstractions. There, social pressures that suggest an ideal mate, would be more towards "educability" in the immediate & 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. Immediate neighbors are part of the concrete world one knows. Without distraction from vague worries over next year's food supply or the adequacy of winter shelter, recreational social interaction (as opposed to that directed towards future purpose) is easier & more natural--far less likely to endanger survival.
Of course, all else is never quite "equal." Neighboring humans, if any, may determine not only a tribe's immediate survival. If a threat, they may have one type of influence on which traits survive through the generations; if friendly, treating others on a basis of mutual respect, a more subtle influence. If no threat, but instead of receiving respect, they are subjugated by the subject tribe, still another--yet more subtle--long term influence on surviving traits in the dominant tribe. Such is likely to be more subtle because, unlike the reality in an immediate threat-laden situation, where specific genes may be culled from the pool by sudden, conflict related, deaths; or, in the second, added by inter-breeding; a 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 quite possible that those exerting the most powerful influence on the evolutionary progress or regression of a human type are the "man-made" ones. A more random elimination of persons, in a natural disaster, would tend towards a more neutral effect. There would be a partial exception to this, in modern times, in the common factor that the poor live under more crowded conditions, usually in more vulnerable locations from which escape may be difficult, than do the more affluent. This exception could prove particularly applicable in case of pestilence.
Through the ages, the man-made catastrophe has often been group specific, impacting a definable subset with distinct inherited traits within a larger general population--thus directly effecting which genes survived. Such "events" may span generations. Moreover, the phenomena involved do not have to be the work of outsiders or genocidal neighbors. The decline of Rome is an excellent example. At the time of the collapse in the West, very few descendants of the old Roman stock, which had built Roman civilization, remained. Rome was no longer really Roman. How had this come to pass?
The late Roman dependence upon foreign labor, soldiers & servers, is well known. But the explanation is not just "liberal" immigration policies--such as those, which from Clinton through Obama have allowed a vast inflow of incongruous types, seeking to perform "jobs, which Americans do not want." 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 among Western nations?
S. C. Gilfillan studied Roman history & habits, and advanced a theory ("Roman Culture & Dysgenic Lead Poisoning," Mankind Quarterly, Vol. V, No. 3, January-March, 1965), that affluent Romans accidentally poisoned themselves for over six centuries, by using lead drinking & cooking utensils, as well as lead containers to store both food & wine. While not necessarily causing early death, the practice resulted, at least, in wide-spread sterility. By contrast, the less 'Roman' lower classes used earthenware utensils & containers, with no harmful effect on longevity or fertility. Gilfillan extrapolated from this research to suggest that similar phenomena might explain an earlier sudden collapse of Greek civilization.
Our essay, "How The Welfare State Works," shows how modern America is "achieving" similar demographic damage to the quality & character of her populations, without daily intake of lead, simply by embracing and implementing the ideological poison in Socialist Egalitarian notions & practices. (Argument, linked below.)
The slaughter of many of the best British youth, in the then still volunteer Army, during the first years of World War I, was 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 example, the obvious damage to the surviving tribal entity of an American Indian Nation, whose culture had required that the best & brightest young braves lead the charge against the vastly greater fire power of an advancing American settlement!
Few, if any, such "man-made" catastrophes will ever approximate the level of genetic damage wrought in the aftermaths of 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 & 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. Now, six centuries later--whatever the wishful thinking of American Neocons--there is little real evidence of genetic recovery.
A more recent example of "man-made" genetic disaster, with recorded results, would be the Bolshevik Communist slaughter of millions of Russian "Kulaks" around 1930. The "Kulaks"--Russian & Ukrainian farmers who resisted collectivization-- were those with sufficient competence ("educability" in 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 residual damage, this brutal outrage was unquestionably a major cause for the fact that--despite major technological innovations 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.
An Egalitarian theorist might argue that we beg the question by treating human class structures, as reflecting levels of innate ability. Do we? Socialism is premised--as 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 to create better educational & employment opportunities for the poor, one may substantially close the performance gap between rich & poor. Yet here, as with their racial theories, there is a virtual absence of corroborative data. Indeed, the clear supremacy of the market system, to the extent that it frees individual initiative & responsibility from social engineering, should demonstrate the fallacy of all such theories. American history offers an infinitely better working hypothesis. It explains, rather than obfuscates, observable data.
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 an environmentalist contention. In so doing, they have actually verified, within each race or sub-race being studied, a graduated range of ability that correlated fairly closely with a class structure based largely upon utilized intelligence. Generations of social experiments have been unable to reverse such 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 the deceptive argument by exception & in mitigation of data obtained by 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 Egalitarian distortion, one should become familiar with Anthropological debates in the pre-Darwinian period in America. Almost every modern Egalitarian argument was raised, and effectively refuted, by data available to contemporary students of Natural History, before 1854. 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 was on Louis Agassiz's postulation of a close relationship between recognized types of Mankind & distinct Natural Provinces in the animal world, suggesting the possibility of a separate Creation in each ecological region.
Yet whether Man evolved over hundreds of thousands of years--as most now believe--or resulted from a more recent series of separate Creations, the historic record shows persistence of quite recognizable characteristics of definable races throughout the historic period. Is it a random or chance thing that most of the world's great inventions come from people whose ancestors successfully dealt with changing seasons? Or only a coincidence, 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, or the degree and significance of his variations, fits observable data. For example, consider the development of language--especially the development of written languages and particular concepts & perceptions, articulated & emphasized in each. A written language would be far more essential to a people planning ahead; to a people engaging in abstract analysis to address an expected, long term, problem. The concepts, most reflected in a language, would also indicate specific characteristics effecting the nature & extent of any tribe or race's "educability." Such philological considerations would certainly appear to support the etiology, suggested, in the development of innovative traits.~*
You 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, others--even when almost endlessly tutored on the same subject by one acquaintance after another--finally had to give up a particular pursuit, perhaps in mild despair. Still others may master the subject, yet with far more difficulty than the first. People are not interchangeable.
As a child on the play ground, the reader may remember those who quickly mastered certain physical skills (including 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 need to pretend that we were?! People are not interchangeable.
That behind Egalitarian argument is compulsion, not reason, should be clear, both from the almost hysterical cant of its adherents and from a persistent use of far-fetched arguments, whose premises have been refuted over & over again, down through the generations. It should also be clear from the fact that the dogmatic conclusions help no one. To the contrary, the ongoing war on reality 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 do not mean to include hapless folk, who demonstrate what one might describe as an "Emperor's New Clothes" manifestation. Certainly, fawners may feel an almost compulsive need to impress others by exhibiting commitment to the stated beliefs of those whom they may admire; so, too, those who feel too insecure to trust their own perceptions, when they conflict with what appears to be generally accepted.
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." It appears to reflect a deep fear of the actual "diversity" of the human species & the seemingly inevitable conflicts. This fear spawns a neurotic need to deny reality, resulting in an intense effort to at least 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 truth. Rather, he would seek to silence the truth speaker; and then, if possible, force him into some form of counseling or sensitivity training, while trying 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 the cruel & disastrous effect 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 Chief Psychologist of the Children's Court & 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 her 1945 study of 15 year old delinquents from integrated schools:
From equally deprived tenement homes, alike in low socio-economic level, each group, 200 Negroes and 200 Whites, was far below the average of unselected school children in intelligence and school skills. 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 or tolerate the true diversity of human types & abilities. Ignoring all observable data over the generations, believing that they can somehow abolish human conflict by imposing 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 social theory. Consider its effect upon millions of contemporary American youth, who did not have high academic aptitudes, but did 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 & alienated them, leading to an anti-social orientation, delinquency, crime, and a life-time of anger & 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 & prisons, while conceiving many millions out of wedlock; children with no understanding of either the traditional family or 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 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 French history, was beheaded before the Paris City Hall during the "Reign of Terror." We saw its like repeated in the waves of purposeful savagery, unleashed in Russia by the Bolshevik 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 a new "Classless, Casteless" Germany, acting with one "Will," under one Leader.
Nor is there anything idealistic about an effort to reduce the rich & varied tapestry, the quite diverse tribes & 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?
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 real problems in a 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 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, of concepts pertaining to the immediate as compared to the remote; comparative uses of each by each definable group speaking the language; the increase or decrease in each category, as well as in total working vocabulary, for each group, in every measured generation. Usage measures might be culled from scans of the most widely read books & periodicals, in each time frame by each identified group, to the extent such data could be obtained.
Such a study might reveal a great deal about differences in the psychological dynamics of those studied, offering a useful tool for promoting a better, truth based, level of understanding among nations.]