201008 American Renaissance

8/8/2019 201008 American Renaissance

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/201008-american-renaissance 1/16

American Renaissance - 1 - August 2010

Are You Surprised or Angry?

Vol. 21 No. 8

There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world.— Thomas Jefferson

August 2010

American Renaissance

Different races appear toread faces differently.

by Robert Henderson

The liberal internationalist dreamof one big happy human familydivided only by cultural

differences recently took aknock. Research publishedin the September 29, 2009issue of Current Biology by ateam at Glasgow University inScotland suggests that whitesand East Asians interpret facialexpressions in significantlydifferent ways. The ndingshave sobering implicationsfor inter-racial understandingbecause they raise the pos-sibility that different racesinterpret the most important

non-verbal human signals—facial expressions—eitherdifferently or with differentdegrees of accuracy.

The research samples weresmall—just 13 Europeans and 13 EastAsians, of which 12 were Chinese andone was Japanese. The subjects wereshown photographs of both white andAsian faces expressing emotions thatwere classied as Happiness, Surprise,Fear, Disgust, Anger, Sadness, andNeutral. The emotions were categorizedaccording to the Facial Action Coding

System (FACS), that is, according to thefacial muscles that are used.The research found that the whites

and Asians differed signicantly bothin the way they scrutinized faces and inhow well they identied the emotions.Whites correctly interpreted all the ex-pressions all the time, but one third of thetime Asians confused fear with surprise,and disgust with anger. Interestingly,they were less likely to make mistakeswhen they were shown photographs of

Asians rather than whites. There was nodifference in the way whites and Asiansinterpreted faces expressing sadness,happiness, and neutral feelings.

Fear and surprise, and disgust andanger are related pairs. Indeed, theymay be experienced at the same time orin rapid succession. Probably because

they are emotional cousins, they resultin similar and perhaps confusing facialexpressions. Happiness and sadness,on the other hand, are diametrically op-posed, and are presumably more easilyrecognized.

The Glasgow University team tracked

the subjects’ eye movements, and foundthat the two groups looked at faces dif-ferently. Asians concentrated mainlyon the eyes while whites concentratedequally on the eyes and mouth. Asians

therefore have difculty distinguishingexpressions in which the eyes take onsimilar appearances. Whites, who usetwo reference areas, are better at inter-preting such expressions.

The difference in the way the twogroups scan faces may explain whywhites and Asians use different emoti-

cons (typed characters that

represent emotions). Whitesuse parentheses to representthe mouth: Happy is :) and :(means sad. Asians representthe eyes, with ^.^ mean-ing happy and ;_; meaningsad.

The Glasgow researchersconcluded that culture ac-counts for how Asians andwhites scan faces. Perhaps.Some group differences inbehavior are clearly cul-tural and not inherent: For

example, for Chinese andJapanese, the color of deathis white but for Europeansit is black. However, theway we interpret emotions

from facial expressions is unlikely to beculturally determined. We do not haveto be taught to recognize expressions;we understand them without thinkingabout them. It may be that as a childdevelops, he associates certain expres-sions with certain types of behavior,but this would not explain the differentways in which Europeans and Asians

scan faces. It is hard to think of a cul-tural practice that would lead Asians toconcentrate on the eyes, and a differentcultural practice that would encouragewhites to concentrate on both eyes andmouth. It is not clear how such a culturaldifference would operate because scan-ning faces is so natural even very youngbabies do it.

But if there is a genetic racial differ-ence in the way people scan faces, how

Continued on page 3

Science continues to raiseuncomfortable questions

about the mixed-raceworld our rulers are plan-

ning for us.




Letters from ReadersSir — If Americans paid more atten-

tion to history, the fate of the Comanche(see “War With the Comanche” in the

July issue) would serve as a stark re-minder of why allowing an alien peopleinto one’s territory is a bad idea. Whentwo species compete for the same re-sources, one of them eventually—andinevitably—is displaced. This is knownas the Competitive Exclusion Principle,or Gause’s Law, and we white Califor-nians are living it every day.

Art Hansen, Chatsworth, Calif.

Sir — I was pleased to see a men-tion in your July cover story of one of

my favorite characters from Americanhistory: Quanah Parker (1852 – 1911).His mother, Cynthia Ann Parker, wascaptured at age nine by Comancheswith whom she lived for 24 years. Shemarried a Comanche brave, and Quanah(meaning “fragrance”) was the rst-bornof her three children. Texas Rangerslater “rescued” her and a daughter andforced them to live with her white fam-ily, but she always wanted to return tothe Comanche. She starved herself todeath shortly after her daughter diedof disease.

Quanah became a chief and was theleader of the last Comanche band tosurrender to the US Army and go on thereservation. He was named chief of thereservation and was a capable leader,respected by both whites and Indians.He was a successful rancher, investedwisely, and may have been the richestAmerican Indian of his time. He wenthunting several times with TheodoreRoosevelt. He had at least ve wives andwas one of the founders of the Native

American Church, which uses peyote inits services. His many descendants holdan annual family reunion and powwowin his honor.

Parker is an example of contact

between whites and natives that turnedout reasonably well. Most of the time,contact meant tragedy.

Sarah Wentworth, Richmond, Va.

Sir — The June issue featuring thecover story on “Black Metal Ethnona-tionalism” is my favorite so far—andI’ve read nearly every one. I’ve been adevoted follower of Black Metal (BM)since 1985. I’ve been “in the scene”continuously, and have conducted manyinterviews with BM musicians. I can at-

test to the fact that most BM musiciansand fans are, either overtly or covertly,100 percent racially aware. While somemusicians express white racial con-sciousness in their lyrics, others do soprivately. I’ve had many off-the-recordconversations with BM musicians thatmake it clear where they stand.

Many of these bands put principleabove financial success. I know of two Virginia bands—Arghoslent andGrand Belial’s Key—that are so goodthey have received glowing reviews in“mainstream” metal publications. For

example, Metal Maniacs magazine (nowdefunct), which had a circulation of 30,000 and could be picked up at every7-11 and supermarket, said of both thatif they would just abandon their racial-ism they could achieve stardom in the“normal” metal world. They refused.

Eric Schroeder, Lawrenceville, Va.

Sir — Your review of Nell Painter’sexecrable new book (see “Whiting

Out White People” in the July issue)exposes the fraud of what passes for“scholarship” in so-called “white stud-ies” programs. Isn’t it interesting thatwhereas black studies, Chicano studies,women’s studies and all other manner of “studies” of and for the aggrieved seekto build their self-esteem by blaming allof their problems on the white man, thepurpose of “white studies” is to lower the self-esteem of impressionable youngwhites. Mr. Sims must have a thick hideto have slogged through that intellectualfever swamp.

Carter Phillips, Ann Arbor, Mich.

Sir — I spent an hour today discussingpolitics with a man from the DemocraticRepublic of the Congo, who said someinteresting things. Not surprisingly, hestarted in about how racist white people

were, and that we were to blame for thesorry state of Africa today. I replied thatEuropeans brought schools, a writtenlanguage, and the rule of law to Africa.He said Africans didn’t need any of those things—I agreed with that. Hetold me he was getting a PhD here inthe United States and was going backto Africa afterwards because someonehad to help Africa.

He said he didn’t want to stay in theUS because he could see that Americansociety was failing. You know thingsare bad when someone from such a

wretched place as the Congo says that.He told me whites were quickly becom-ing a minority and he thought that oncethe “Latinos” and blacks took over therewas going to be a dictatorship becausewhites at least try to be fair.

He added that whites are in troubleand will not be able to hold on to powerbecause we aren’t reproducing. I agreedwith that, and we talked about feminism,which I believe is one of the principalcauses. He said that when whites losepower it will be time for everyone todo to the whites what whites have been

doing to everyone else. He said he wassure that there was going to be a racewar eventually. He asked me why lib-eral whites are always in Africa tellingAfricans how to behave when whitesaren’t even intelligent enough to keeptheir own race from dying out. I toldhim I didn’t know. I suspect his viewsare not that different from those of othereducated Africans.

Name Withheld, Southern MethodistUniversity




did it arise? Perhaps Asian languagescause speakers to move the mouth less

energetically than do European lan-guages. Perhaps the range of physicalexpression in Asian faces is less aroundthe mouth than it is in whites. If thatwere so, the most efcient thing forAsians to do would be to concen-trate on the eyes.

If this is true—and, indeed,this is highly speculative—it mayexplain the age-old Western com-plaint that Asians are “inscrutable.”If they are actually less expressivethan whites in the region of themouth, it would mean that whites,

who scan the mouth as carefully asthe eyes, are searching in vain foremotional cues that are not there.

On the other hand, it may alsobe that Asians have other waysto detect emotion and have less needto read faces. As any dog or cat ownerknows, animals can be very sensitiveto non-verbal signals that indicate hu-man emotional states. The ancestorsof homo sapiens must have interpretedemotions the same way. Their languagewas primitive, and interpreting non-verbal signals of all kinds, including

facial expressions, would have beenmore important than such abilities areto modern men living in sophisticatedsocieties.

People read emotions through bodylanguage, and the nuances of speech.They may also use less obvious clues,such as pheromones. The Glasgowresearch measured only one way of interpreting emotions. It seems to haveuncovered a racial difference that issignicant as far as it goes, but it did not

go into the whole range of verbal andnon-verbal clues people can use. It maybe that Asians, while less accomplished

than whites at pure facial recognition,are just as good or even better thanwhites at identifying emotions in real-life situations in which the full range of emotional clues is available.

Or it could be that Asians are con-sistently less able than whites to reademotional clues correctly, whether theybe facial expressions, body language, ortone of voice. It is not out of the ques-tion that detecting emotions was simplyless important in the social environment

Asians built for themselves.

Patterns of misidentication

There is a suggestion of this possibil-ity in another important nding by theGlasgow researchers: that there was apattern to the way Asians misidentiedthe expressions. They showed a biastowards the softer, less threateningemotions. Given a choice between fearand surprise they chose surprise, and

between disgust and anger, they chosedisgust.

The researchers again concluded thatthis tendency was culturally determined,but this is not necessarily so. Studies of twins and other siblings have repeat-edly shown that personality is subjectto genetic inuences (see “Genetics,Personality, and Race,” AR, Aug.1993). Personality is therefore subjectto natural selection, and different racesdiffer in what could be called “averagepersonality” as much as they do in av-erage intelligence (see “A New Theoryof Racial Differences,” AR, Dec. 1994;“Race and Psychopathic Personality,AR, July 2007).

Asians could be genetically slantedtowards interpreting facial expressionsin less threatening ways, and these dif-ferences seem to be consistent with whatappear to be innate racial differences in

behavior. A quarter of a century ago, inhis seminal book Sociobiology (abridgededition, p. 274.), Edward Wilson re-ported on infants:

“[Studies have]demonstrated markedracial differences in locomo-tion, posture, muscular tone andemotional response of newborninfants that cannot reasonably beexplained as the result of trainingor even conditioning within thewomb. Chinese-American new-borns, for example, tend to be lesschangeable, less easily perturbed

by noise and movement, betterable to adjust to new stimuliand discomfort, and quicker tocalm themselves than Caucasian-American infants.”

More recently, Professor Phil Rush-ton has written:

“Temperamental differences, mea-sured objectively by activity recordersattached to arms and legs, show up inbabies. African babies are more activesooner and develop earlier than whitebabies who, in turn, are more activethan East Asian babies. Motor behavior

is a highly stable individual differencevariable. Even among whites, activitylevel measured during free play showshighly signicant negative correlationswith IQ: more restrained children aver-age higher intellects (“Solving the IQConnundrum,” Vdare.com, Aug. 12,2004).

In my American Renaissance articleof October 2009 (“Why Have AsiansNot Dominated?”) I wrote:

“Despite their higher average IQ,

Continued from page 1

American Renaissance is published monthly by the

New Century Foundation. NCF is governed by section501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code; contributionsto it are tax deductible.

Subscriptions to American Renaissance are $28.00 per year. First-class postage isan additional $8.00. Subscriptions to Canada (rst class) are $40.00. Subscriptionsoutside Canada and the U.S. (air mail) are $40.00. Back issues are $4.00 each. Foreignsubscribers should send U.S. dollars or equivalent in convertible bank notes.

Please make checks payable to: American Renaissance, P.O. Box 527, Oakton, VA22124. ISSN No. 1086-9905, Telephone: (703) 716-0900, Facsimile: (703) 716-0932,Web Page Address: www.AmRen.com

American Renaissance

Jared Taylor, EditorStephen Webster, Assistant EditorRonald N. Neff, Web Site Editor

Examples of Asian faces expressing fear andsurprise that were used in the study.




Asians have failed to become the cultur-ally dominant race, probably becauseinnate personality traits work againstthem. Compared to Europeans, they arepassive, unquestioning, and lacking ininitiative.”

If a society favors the quiescent per-sonality—one that interprets facial ex-pressions as softer and less threateningthan they really are—those with genesthat tend towards such personalities willbe favored, but that raises the questionof why a society would favor particularpersonalities. This could conceivablybe a blind throw of the genetic dice,but personality is such a central part of human society that it is difcult to seehow natural selection would have pro-duced such a trait accidentally, or as aconsequence of some other evolutionaryadvantage that was even more importantthan personality. The answer probably

lies in the implications of being a socialanimal.People have many opportunities to

remodel behavior, and recent ndingssuggest that evolution has been veryrapid during the last few thousand years(see “Science Refutes Orthodoxy—Again” AR, May 2009). Those whobecome powerful can destroy theirenemies and promote their friends, anddo it on a scale—including genocide—not possible for any other social animal.For several thousand years, East Asianshave lived in circumstances in which a

ruler or small group could assert powerover large populations. Any encourage-ment of specic character traits by thedominant members of society wouldhelp spread the genes for those traitswithin the population.

At the same time, certain evolvedAsian character traits may have directlyinuenced the kind of societies Asiansbuilt. From the beginning of historicaltimes there appears to have been a cleardifference in mentality between Europe-

ans and East Asians.In Europe there were always strong

tendencies to resist absolutism and cen-tralization of power, a fact even the mostpowerful rulers had to take into accountif they were to survive. Twenty-ve

centuries ago, the Greeks demonstratedover and over their refusal to acceptautocracy. Even at their most despotic,Roman emperors found it politic to keepat least the forms of the power-sharingstructures of the Roman Republic and to

appease the masses with breadand circuses.

The post-Roman Europeanworld was not a world of dic-tators, but of monarchs pre-cariously sitting on their thrones.Mediaeval Europe saw the wide-spread rise of representative as-

semblies, and even the powerful,so-called absolute monarchiesthat crushed or emasculatedtheir assemblies between the late16th and late 18th centuries were

unable to change the general mentalityof their people. They fell in the 19thcentury to democratic impulses andnational self-determination. Nor wereattempts to impose the divine right of kings ever successful.

Chinese history tells a different story.

It is a catalogue not just of autocracybut autocracy on a grand scale, a con-stant search for a central authority withunqualied power. That does not meanChina was always a single, centralizedstate.

The rst unication of China is usu-ally dated from the short-lived Chindynasty (221- 207 BC) and for ap-proximately half the period since thenthe country has been divided. Nonethe-less there have been many successfulattempts to establish autocratic, uniedcontrol, the last of which is the presentCommunist regime. Before the Com-munists, the last successful traditionalautocracy was that of the Manchu, whoestablished the Ching dynasty in 1644and who might still be ruling had Europeand the USA not intruded into Chinese

politics during the 19th century.In their long history as an indepen-dent people, the Chinese never devel-oped a political system that went beyondthat of the God-appointed/God-relatedruler—the Chinese emperor’s Mandateof Heaven. There were frequent rebel-lions, but even if they were not simplyuprisings by local warlords or disloyalimperial servants, they did not seek aform of government that spread powerto more people but the replacement of

The Great Helmsman: a reection of the Chinese personality?

Chinese soldiers.




a bad ruler with one considered just inthe Confucian sense, a ruler who wouldbehave temperately and for the good of those he ruled, but who would still bean absolute monarch. Confucianism is

an expression of submission, becauseit denes right conduct as submission:child to father, wife to husband, subjectto those higher in the hierarchy.

The experience of China in moderntimes reinforces the idea that Asians aremore prone to accepted social circum-stances that require submission. In 70

years, the country has moved from the

fractured quasi-colonial situation priorto 1949, through the madness of theMao dictatorship, to the present curioushybrid of capitalism and Communistpolitical and social control. What isstriking is not that through this periodthe governing ideology has changed

radically, but that the Chinese havenot seriously challenged the idea

of a central ruling power. Thepost-war Japanese experienceis somewhat different, but it

is a democracy with a distinctlyAsian avor of conformity, and be-

fore conquest and occupation by Ameri-cans, Japan was a highly structured andauthoritarian society that never devel-oped beyond the God-emperor stage.

Crosscultural communication

The Asian personality may be well

adapted to Asian societies but, assumingit reects racial differences that cannotbe easily effaced by cultural inuences,what does it mean for the current vogueof integration and multi-culturalism?The Glasgow University researcherswere brave enough to note that “ourresults question the universality of human facial expressions of emotion,highlighting their true complexity, withcritical consequences for crossculturalcommunication and globalization.”

Just so. If human beings do not havea common understanding on something

as basic as recognizing emotions, there

Another face from the study: a whitewoman showing fear.

is much scope for friction. It is alsosignicant that Asians were better ableto interpret emotions in the faces of fellow Asians. Misunderstandings aremore likely in multi-racial settings, andin racially mixed societies people tend toassociate with people of their own race.The Glasgow ndings suggest what oneof the reasons for that may be.

It will be interesting to see if theseresults are replicated with larger samplesand with different groups. A compari-son of Japanese natives with JapaneseAmericans, for example, would suggestthe extent to which the racial differ-ences the Glasgow team found can be

changed by environment. Comparisonsof black Americans, white Americans,and Africans might also yield interest-ing results. Science continues to raiseuncomfortable obstacles to the mixed-race, egalitarian world our rulers areplanning for us.

Mr. Henderson is a history and poli-tics graduate whose career was divided

between the public and private sectors.

Kicking the DeadWilliam H. Tucker, The Cattell Controversy: Race, Science, and Ideology

University of Illinois Press, 2010, 254 pp., $50.00.

A dishonest smear of a manwho cannot hit back.

reviewed by Jared Taylor

Although he was not well knownto the public, Raymond Cattell(1905 – 1998) was one of the

most inuential research psychologistsof the 20th century. He wrote 56 booksand more than 500 journal articles in theelds of personality, intelligence, andmultivariate analysis. He designed 30standardized tests for measuring intel-ligence and personality, some of whichare still in use.

During the course of this remark-

ably productive career, Cattell receivedmany honors and awards, and in 1997,the American Psychological Associa-tion (APA) announced it would pres-ent him with the association’s GoldMedal Award for Life Achievement.

The 92-year-old Cattell traveled toChicago from Hawaii, where he livedin retirement, to receive the honor, buttwo days before the ceremony the APAannounced that the award was to be“postponed.”

The reason? Two professional“racism”-hunters—Barry Mehler of Ferris State University and AbrahamFoxman of the ADL—had written theassociation complaining about Cattell’spolitical views. The APA announced it

would withhold the award until a BlueRibbon Panel had looked into “the rela-tionship between Dr. Cattell’s scienticwork and his views on racial segrega-tion.” This caused a furor, in the midst of which Cattell withdrew his name from

consideration. The panel disbanded andissued no report; a few months later,Cattell died.

The Cattell Controversy is a book-length account of Cattell’s career, withspecial emphasis on his little-knownpolitical writings that so exercised theanti-“racists.” The author, WilliamTucker of Rutgers University-Camden,is himself a professional anti-“racist,”who supported the witch hunt, and whoassures us that Cattell’s views were so




appalling that the APA would have dis-graced itself by giving him its top honor.Instead, it is University of Illinois Pressthat has disgraced itself by publishing avolume of transparent dishonesty

A remarkable scientist

Despite his obvious hatred for Cat-tell, Prof. Tucker admits that “almosteveryone who had worked with him,even for a short time, regarded Cattellwith a mixture of awe and gratitude forhis brilliance, his prodigious work ethic,and his ability to inspire others.” Prof.Tucker also concedes that Cattell wasadmired for “his good manners, senseof humor, and ability to treat everyonewith respect, no matter their status orbackground,” but warns us that evenNazi exterminators could be lovinghusbands and fathers, and that “it is

hardly unusual to find considerablepersonal charm and kindness coupledwith monstrous beliefs.”

Prof. Tucker also recognizes that Cat-tell was brilliant. He graduated at age 19from London University with top honorsin chemistry and physics. His interestschanged, however, after attending a lec-ture by Cyril Burt on Sir Francis Galton,the father of eugenics. As a boy, Cattell

had been deeply moved by the colossalmassacre of the First World War and thepoverty of London slums, and came tothe early belief that such horrors couldbe alleviated by eugenics. He came of age at a time of great enthusiasm for theview that by understanding and control-ling evolution mankind could enter agolden age. Cattell therefore abandonedthe physical sciences for the social sci-ences which, he believed, would be atthe forefront in guiding evolution in

fruitful directions.Cattell threw himself into the study

of personality because he understoodthat evolution works on all aspects of personality, not just intelligence, andthat any scientic eugen-ics program would have tomake careful choices aboutwhich traits to encourageand which to discourage.His Sixteen PersonalityFactor Questionnaire wasrst published in 1950 andquickly became a standardinstrument for assess-ing personality. What arenow known as “the bigve” personality traits—openness to experience,conscientiousness, extra-version, agreeableness,neuroticism—though not

developed specically byhim, are derived from hiswork.

Cattell also made im-portant contributions inthe study of intelligence.He recognized the need to measureinnate ability independent of culturalinuence, and his Culture Fair Intel-ligence Scales are still used today.

Cattell believed that if the traits andabilities of people could be measured atan early age, each citizen could be giventhe place in society in which he would

be happiest and most productive, andthat this would put an end to unearnedprivilege and class conict. As the greatBritish psychologist Charles Spearmanput it, “perfect justice is about to com-bine with maximum efciency.”

Personality assessment had otheruses. Cattell believed it could chart theprogress of mental therapy, with patientstaking periodic tests to see if they werebecoming more normal. He also thoughtthat if someone showed the qualities of agreat research scientist, for example, heshould be given considerable laboratory

resources even before he had producedanything important. He believed it waspossible to measure groups on suchscales as Good Internal Morality versusPoor Cultural Integration and Morale.He believed it would be instructive toevaluate a society every 100 years orso to see if it were moving in promisingdirections.

Cattell believed that the goal of lifewas “to strive upward,” and that moralbehavior was that which contributed to

the betterment of the species. Like Gal-ton, he did not think traditional religionswere reliable guides in this respect. Herecognized the importance of givingmeaning to life and of grounding men in

larger values, but he rejected universal-ist ethics that treated all men equally,despite vast differences in ability andcontribution. He was convinced thatscience, rather than revealed truths, wasthe proper basis for morality and, againlike Galton, thought that man’s religiousimpulses should be directed towards the

eugenic goal of improving mankind.Cattell shared his generation’s con-cern with dysgenic fertility, or the ten-dency of the incompetent to outbreedthe competent. He calculated that if Europeans reproduced indiscriminately,average IQ would decline about onepoint per decade and that “in three hun-dred years half the population would bementally defective.”

Having children was therefore “farfrom being a personal matter but mustadmit of ne regulation by the state onbehalf of the happiness of all.” “The

rst step of the nation” therefore, was“to control the number and quality of its citizens,” and Cattell’s personalityassessment tools would make it pos-sible to measure quality. Every citizencould then be assigned a fertility quotathat reected his abilities, and Cattellbelieved that with the right education,most people would understand the pro-found social implications of procreation,and would stay within their quotas. Hesuggested that the legislature should

Francis Galton.

First-World-War casualty: the horror Cattell wanted to prevent.




Africans with technology they could not have invented.

have a “house of scientists” that wouldoperate more or less like the Houseof Lords, and help make evolutionarychoices for society.

Cattell believed that it was best for anation to have high averages of intelli-gence and ability but without a great dealof variation. This would eliminate largeclass differences and would make realself-government possible. He did notthink democracy worked well in societ-ies with large variations in abilities, andthought no one with an IQ of less than90 should be allowed to vote. Cattellalso opposed excessive individualism,and wanted evolution nudged in thedirection of the man who was “capableof achieving his fullest expression onlyin groups.” He thought societies thatpromoted “sympathy, unselfishness,self-sacrice, and the capacity for en-thusiastic cooperation” were most likely

to succeed.Cattell assumed that different societ-ies would establish different evolution-ary goals. Some might prefer a widerange of abilities, with the recognitionthat this would result in castes andaristocracies that were not suited todemocracy. He also believed that sexualattraction was “a backward eddy in thestream of natural selection,” becauseit put a premium on certain physicalcongurations that had no real value.He even hoped for an anti-aphrodisiacthat would curb sexual urges, so couples

would be attracted to each other becauseof “congenial temperaments and com-mon purposes” rather than lust.

The importance of race

If Cattell had gone no furtherthan this, he probably would havegot the gold medal. His viewswere certainly open to criticism,especially on libertarian grounds,but compulsion is a specialty of theleft, and the idea of the authoritiesrunning our lives for us is conge-

nial to anti-“racists”—assumingthey are the authorities.Cattell’s unforgivable sin was to

see evolution working not just onindividuals but on races. In his view,racial differences were a great naturalexperiment in evolution. Nature hadgiven rise to groups with distinct tem-peraments and abilities, and it wouldspoil the experiment to mix the races.Cattell also noted the practical problemsof diversity:

Whenever a nation has been forc-ibly put together from differingraces, we find a social life un-necessarily disjointed, weak, andfeverish. There are thousands of misunderstandings, produced byindividuals working for differentgoals in different ways and at dif-ferent speeds.

Cattell thought racial consciousness

was a natural part of human nature, andthat the campaigns waged against it,generation after generation, were proof that it could not be eradicated. Societiesshould therefore adjust to it rather than

battle it uselessly, and the most obviousadjustment was to avoid unnecessarycontact between races.

Homogeneous societies were alsomore conducive to the best kind of group identication. Cattell thought thatan intelligent Scot, for example, wouldprobably be more comfortable with the

less intelligent members of his own racethan with an equally intelligent Chinese,because temperament and fundamentaloutlook differed between races. Cattellwanted citizens to feel they were part of an important group enterprise, a “super-individual consciousness” that wasstriving for biological improvement,and doubted that this feeling of solidar-ity could extend across racial lines. Itcould probably extend across national

lines so long as the nations were of thesame race.Ultimately, this sense of participa-

tion in the evolutionary improvementof one’s people was to play the role of

religion in rationally organizedsocieties. Cattell coined the term“Beyondism” for this new, sci-ence-based religion, which woulddirect man’s “upward striving”and give meaning to life.

What most enrages Prof. Tuck-er is that Cattell expected differ-ent racial and national groups to

evolve separately and competi-tively. Each group should prosperor stagnate in accordance with itsown powers rather than exploit

vulnerable groups or ask to be carriedon the backs of those that were moresuccessful. To Cattell it was clear thatcultures could not be imposed, willynilly, on groups that were biologicallyunsuited to them, but he went even fur-ther: scientic discoveries should notbe shared indiscriminately, because this

France discovers the joys of diversity: the riots of 2005.




Indiscriminate altruism?

would falsify the results in the greatexperiment in which races rose and fellin accordance with their gifts.

Here, therefore, was another objec-tion to indiscriminate altruism. Just asit was wrong, within a single society,to tax the productive to subsidize theprocreation of the unproductive, it was“biologically perverse” to extend altru-ism across national lines. If Somalis orCongolese, for example, could not buildsocieties that prevented starvation, itviolated the norms of evolution—and

therefore of scientically establishedmorality—for the French or the Japa-nese to feed them.

Beyondism

Cattell summarized his political/reli-gious thinking—as opposed to the per-sonality assessment work for which he isfamous—in two volumes: A New Moral-ity from Science: Beyondism, publishedin 1972, and Beyondism: Religion fromScience, published in 1987. Prof. Tuckercalls these “the most comprehensivestatement of his [Cattell’s] sociomoralbeliefs,” but he quotes from them brieyand selectively, with the clear intention

of discrediting them.The Beyondism books are hard tond, but a spot check of Prof. Tucker’scitations is disconcerting. He writes of Cattell:

[O]ther humanistic principles“such . . . as ‘social justice andequality,’ ‘basic freedom’ and‘human dignity,’ ” he dismissedas ‘whore phrases.’

Prof. Tucker clearly wants us to think

that Cattell had nothing but contemptfor “human dignity,” for example.However, in this passage, Cattell wascriticizing a governing ethos not basedon scientic principles and that has:

only a political, Humanistic rheto-ric in which such whore phrases as“social justice and equality,” “basic

freedom” and “human dignity”continue to prostitute their beautyto every imposter. ( New Morality,p. 411.)

In other words,t he se beau t i f u lconcepts become whore phrases inthe mouths of im-posters who ignoresc ience—some-thing completelydifferent from what

Prof. Tucker wantsus to think.Prof Tucker con-

tinues: “The notionof ‘human rights’was nothing morethan ‘an instance of rigid, childish, subjective thinking.’ ”Again, we are to

believe Cattell dismissedanything that could be described as hu-man rights. This is what Cattell actuallywrote: “The notion that ‘human rights,’

or any other ethical standards, are in-dependent of the circumstances of thegroup is an instance of rigid, childish,subjective thinking . . . .” (Beyondism,p. 88) Cattell is not denying humanrights at all; he is pointing out that theydepend on circumstances. Rights that areappropriate inpeacetime, forexample, maynot be possibleduring war. Bychopping upCattell’s sentences, Prof. Tucker utterly

distorts their meaning. If someone hadthe time—and the stomach—to checkall his citations there is no telling whathe might nd.

What most stimulates Prof. Tuckerto distortion, however, was what Cattellconsidered the logical consequence of competition between groups: that therewould be losers as well as winners.What happens when nature’s great ex-periment produces a failure? Cattell didnot believe that more successful groups

should keep less successful groups alivethrough foreign aid, and that undercertain circumstances some groups orraces might go extinct if left unaided.What should the more successful groupsdo about this?

Here, Prof. Tucker concentrates onessays Cattell wrote in the 1930s whenhe was in his early 20s, and which arenearly impossible to nd. Prof. Tuckerwrites this:

Cattell named “the negro” as oneof those races that, despite their“endearing qualities,” were ap-propriate candidates for a processof humane elimination, in which“by gradual restriction of births,and by life in adapted reservesand asylums, must the races whichhave served their turn be broughtto euthanasia.”

Why is this quotation chopped up?Is it a fair summary or a distortion?Prof. Tucker’s record (see more below)offers grounds for suspicion. He alsocites the following sentence fragmentfrom a 1933 publication: “[T]he lead-ing nations may attempt to reduce thenumbers of the backward people bybirth-control regulation, segregation, orhuman sterilization.”

Again, there is no way to know inwhat context Cattell said this or howhe might have qualied it. Prof. Tuckercannot nd similarly menacing material

in Cattell’s later, mature work, but hehas an explanation: “[I]t was unlikelythat Cattell’s views had changed, butin a more politically correct era, appar-ently he felt compelled to make a modestaccommodation to the changed zeit-geist.” It would be the rare man whose

views did not change fromhis 20s intoh i s 50s o r60s, but Prof.Tucker appar-

ently thinks he can read Cattell’s mind

from beyond the grave.It is important to know what Cattellreally thought—in the 1930s as well asin the 1980s—because Prof. Tucker,now in his own words, writes of hissubject’s views of blacks:

At the very least it would havebeen morally proper in Cattell’sanalysis to conscate their landand property and move them onto“reservations”—that is, into con-




How best to prevent this?

centration camps—where theywould be prevented from reproduc-ing as part of a systematic attemptto eliminate the black population.

Prof. Tucker even goes on to saythat Cattell would have countenanced“violent elimination” of blacks. Theseare very serious accusations, and shouldbe based on careful, extensive citation,not on out-of-context, unverifiablefragments from the 1930s. Prof. Tuckerconcedes that even in the 1930s, Cat-tell insisted that any steps taken byone group with regard to another mustbe taken with “kindness and consider-ation,” not exactly the language of massmurder.

How did Cattell treat this controver-sial question in his mature, veriableworks? Prof. Tucker expects the readerto be horried by the term “genthana-

sia,” which Cattell coined to describethe process whereby, in words quotedby Prof. Tucker, “a moribund culture isended, by educational and birth controlmeasures, without a single member dy-ing before his time.”

Prof. Tucker refrains from quotinga passage that continues onto the verysame page:

As regards animal species, we aretoday inclined, for aesthetic and

scientic purposes, to make sanc-tuaries and reservations for speciesobviously heading for extinction,and still more extreme and scrupu-lous consideration is indicated be-fore allowing a breed of humans—however maladapted—to becomeextinct. But it is realistically ques-tionable in both cases how muchspace the more vital species willcontinue to allow for museum

“storage.” The maintenance of thestatus quo cannot extend to makingninety-nine hundredths of the eartha living museum. ( New Morality,pp. 220f.)

These are the “reserves” that Prof.Tucker tells us are really “concentrationcamps,” but there is no hint of violence,of taking anyone’s property, or runningpeople off their own land. Cattell saysit would be impractical to set aside 99 percent of the world’s surface for failinggroups, but clearly huge expanses couldbe devoted to this purpose.

Prof. Tucker quotes further, expect-ing the reader to be horried:

Failing groups should either beallowed to go to the wall, or beradically re-constituted, possiblyby outside intervention. By con-trast, successful groups, by simple

expansion or budding, should in-crease their power, inuence, andsize of population.

Prof. Tucker fails to quote Cattell’sfollowing paragraphs:

This is the logic of the situation, but itleads to conclusionsthat run counter tothe habits of thoughtof the majority of people today. Theresult will be that

for them emotionwill add its luridtouches, and con-vert what has justbeen said into an al-leged advocacy of anightmare of ambi-

tious group self-seeking.Finally it will be dramatized thatall this must end in a nuclear ho-locaust. Actually this conclusion islogically, politically and emotion-ally false.

It was logically false because mostof relative success in survival had todo with “competition against nature”rather than against other groups. It waspolitically false because a sane societyavoids the lopsided requirements of arms expenditures that should be put toproductive uses.

Cattell continues:

It is emotionally false because theconcept of cooperative competition

implies a brotherhood in a com-mon religion of progress, in whichreal competition and objectivecomparison are an indispensablereality, but no cause for rancor.. . . [C]ooperative competition .. . is emotionally a very compli-cated balance, involving mutual

assistance and shared hopes andstrivings, along with inexorableregard for realities. It calls for

pressures toward re-direction notunlike those in a parent bringing upa child, or in true friendship. ( New Morality, pp. 95f.)

Prof. Tucker—a textbook case of thehysteria Cattell so accurately predict-ed—refuses to recognize that Cattell did not want any group to go to the wall. Hedid not want to see failing groups keptalive indenitely by articial means, butthe “pressures toward re-direction” inthe previous passage meant evolution-ary and eugenic advice that successful

groups should give to the less success-ful. Cattell even wanted a “world federalgovernment” that would be a clearinghouse for promising evolutionary in-formation to be made available to all.This government would also provideprotection to any subnational group thatwanted to seek its own evolutionarydestiny but was so small it might requiredefenses against larger neighbors. Fur-thermore, it is clear from these passagesthat expansion into the territory of oth-

They deserve our consideration, too.




ers would take place only after a failinggroup had depopulated it.

Cattell believed that with enoughcareful study and the proper assess-ment instruments, it would be possibleto devise a “probable survival index”for measuring the health of differentsocieties. Here is what Prof. Tucker saysabout the index:

A low value on this index wouldnot only eliminate “the need to waiton complete collapse” but, by pro-viding the opportunity to study “amisconceived racio-cultural experi-ment as it demonstrates its failure,”could lead to greater understanding

of the laws and principles of evo-lutionary advancement. (The twoquoted passages are inexplicablystitched together from pp. 91 and100 of Beyondism.)

The image is clear—ghoulish whitescientists taking careful notes as dark-skinned natives go through their deathagonies—but Prof. Tucker has it wrong.Cattell is talking about how evolution-ary criteria could be established. Oneway to learn what to avoid is to studysocieties that have gone extinct and

gure out why. Another is to study cur-rent societies and rank them accordingto a “probable survival index.” Cattellwrites: “Discovering such an index—thus eliminating the need to wait oncomplete collapse as the ‘criterion’[for policies to avoid]—will appeal tohumanitarian motives.” It will appeal tohumanitarian motives precisely becausecomplete collapse might be avoided if afailing society accepted timely eugenicadvice.

“Genthanasia” was a last resort forgroups that refused eugenic advice andcould not carry on. It was to ease the endof what Cattell called a “tragic” processand was, in this sense, the equivalent of euthanasia. To accuse Cattell—certainlythe Cattell of Beyondism—of counte-nancing mass murder is a vicious distor-tion, especially since Cattell repeatedlystressed that one of the purposes of science-based morality was to rise abovethe chance and cruelty that had governedevolution in the past.

Like all diligent anti-“racists,” Prof.Tucker cannot resist evoking the Na-zis. He tells us that Cattell praised theeugenic policies of the Third Reich inthe 1930s—at a time when WinstonChurchill himself expressed admira-tion for Hitler’s leadership. After thewar, however, Cattell wrote of “Hitler’slunacy,” and compared his regime to a

roving band of killers. He lamented thathis personality assessment tools had notbeen perfected and applied to politiciansbecause, if so, “Hitler would never havegot past the clinical psychologist.” Thisdoes not stop Prof. Tucker from writingthat “Cattell’s ideological thought . . .was essentially an intellectual justica-tion for the form of fascism adopted byNazi Germany.” By “fascism,” Prof.Tucker does not mean industrial or laborpolicy; he means extermination.

Guilt by collaboration

Prof. Tucker concedes that somehave argued that Cattell’s admittedlyextraordinary scientic contributionsshould be assessed without regard tohis political views, but says this wouldbe wrong, rst, because his views wererepulsive and, second, because he co-operated actively with wretches evenmore repulsive than he. There followsa long section of guilt by association, inwhich the reader is treated to amateurishsmears of such people as Roger Pearsonand William Shockley, and to such

howlers as the following:Alain de Benoit’s magazine NouvelleEcole is “a French version of the Man-kind Quarterly,” and his organization,GRECE, “placed particular emphasis onpre-Christian societies in which Aryanaristocrats ruled over inferior races.”Revilo Oliver’s America’s Decline is“a neo- Mein Kampf ,” and Wilmot Rob-ertson’s magazine, Instauration was “aslick periodical” (it always looked asthough it had been mimeographed). He

tells us Carlton Putnam’s two books onrace “described how Jewish scientistshad duped the nation into extendingpolitical equality to blacks” ( Race and Reason hardly mentions Jews, and Raceand Reality contains just a few refer-ences, most of them complimentary).

However, among all the scoundrelswith whom Cattell allegedly cooper-

ated, it was his association with theeditor of American Renaissance—thewriter of this review—that most clearlydemonstrated Cattell’s untness for highhonors:

Cattell would never have engagedin American Renaissance’s bla-tant racism yet did not hesitate tolend his prestige to a publicationfounded on the belief that blacksshould be deprived of their consti-tutional rights.

Here is Prof. Tucker’s example of AR’s “blatant racism:”

Until recently, the editor pointedout, there had been widespreadagreement that blacks were “a per-fectly stupid race,” and although

they could “neither be killed nordriven away,” no one expected“civilized white men” to workalongside them.

The quotation marks are clearlymeant to suggest that these are the edi-tors own words and sentiments. In fact,they are quotations from prominentAmericans, cited in an article aboutracial views from the past, (“The RacialRevolution,” AR, May 1999) and are not

The scientist.

The smear.




even from the same person; the rst twoare from Theodore Roosevelt and thelast is from Charles Eliot (1836 – 1926),president of Harvard.

Prof. Tucker warns that according toa 1997 survey of AR readers, AdolphHitler got the top score for ForeignersWho Have Advanced White Interests.He conveniently fails to report that half again as many AR readers said Hitlerwas the foreigner who had most dam-aged white interests.

And what about AR’s alleged denialof blacks’ constitutional rights? Prof.

Tucker refers to an article by the lateSam Francis (“Prospects for Racial andCultural Survival,” AR, March 1995):

[A]ccording to the magazine,blacks were entitled only to per-sonal liberty and the right tohold property, not to any of those“phony” rights to participate inthe polity and economy that hadbeen “fabricated” for them in the1960s.

Unfortunately for Prof. Tucker, Fran-cis wrote that equality before the lawdoes not mean:

the “right” to attend the sameschools, to serve on juries, tomarry across racial lines, to servein the armed forces, to eat at lunchcounters, to ride on buses, to buy a

house or rent a room or hold a job,to receive welfare, to be admittedto colleges and universities, totake academic degrees or to bepromoted.

All these are phony “rights” thathave been fabricated through thecorruption of our constitutional lawand our understanding of it, andno citizen of any race is entitled tothem. (emphasis added)

Isn’t it curious how the words “fabri-cated” and “phony” seem to have caught

Prof. Tucker’s eye?And how did Cattell “lend his pres-tige” to the lth you are holding in yourhands? In 1995, when he was 90 yearsold and in retirement, he gave an inter-view to the editor of AR that resulted in aone-page article. Nothing more. “This,”thunders Prof. Tucker, “is not guilt byassociation but rather guilt by collabora-tion.” It is the concluding, denitive ex-ample from Prof. Tucker’s list of the waysin which Cattell actively tried to bringabout the “common vision of an ethni-cally cleansed future” that he reportedly

shared with AR and all the other felonswith whom he allegedly cooperated andwhom Prof. Tucker caricatures.

What may yet be the pinnacle of Prof. Tucker’s mendacity, however, ishis claim to have described Cattell’sthinking “as fairly and accurately as myadmittedly imperfect ability will allow.”This ingratiating false modesty makesthe swindle all the more odious.

Prof. Tucker’s performance is sadly

typical of his kind, but why are anti-“racists” incapable of taking theiropponents as they are? Perhaps theyare so blinded by hate that they trulycannot understand the words they arereading. More likely, they just can’tresist the thrill of a distortion that turnsan opponent into Hitler and eugenicsinto genocide. This shoddy behaviordirties the name of a respectable aca-demic press.

One can perhaps understand thetemptation to misquote (if, in fact, Prof.Tucker has done so) obscure publica-tions from the 1930s that no one cancheck, but the back issues of American Renaissance are a few mouse-clicks

away on the Internet. Why risk expo-sure? Is it because Prof. Tucker believeshis colleagues are no more scrupulousabout the truth than he, when it comesto ghting “racism”?

All things considered, however, it

is good that this book was written. Itreveals—as if any additional proof wereneeded—the low character of our oppo-nents. More signicantly, if it stimulateseven a little interest in the work of aman who had the vision to care aboutthe destiny of fellow men who wouldlive 1,000 years in the future, it willhave rendered good service—a servicefar different from that intended by itscontemptible author.

What may yet be the pin-nacle of Prof. Tucker’smendacity is to claim to

have described Cattell’sthinking “as fairly and

accurately as my admit-tedly imperfect ability

will allow.”

The Galton Report

The mysterious Flynn Ef-fect

by Hippocrates

The Flynn Effect (FE) has becomethe accepted term for the increasein IQs that has been reported in

many developed countries during the

20th century. The FE has also recentlybeen reported in two developing coun-tries, Dominica and Sudan.

In fact, the term Flynn Effect is amisnomer, because the rise of IQs wasrst shown in the United States in 1948by Read Tuddenham, in a comparisonof the IQs of the military drafts in 1917and in World War II. In 1949 a similarrise of IQ, from 1932 to 1947 was re-

ported in Scotland. These increases weresubsequently found in a number of othercountries before Professor James Flynn,emeritus professor at the University of Otago in New Zealand, rediscoveredthem in 1984. An IQ increase was re-ported for Japan in 1982 by ProfessorRichard Lynn and the rise has some-times been called the Lynn-Flynn Ef-fect. Use of the term “the Flynn Effect”








gular, a Liberian immigrant who arrivedas a child. “It happens through personalconnections.” As in Lewiston, no oneknows just how many live in Minnesota.State ofcials put the number of Soma-lis at a few thousand, for example, butSomali community leaders claim morethan 50,000. What is known is that of the18,020 legal immigrants to Minnesotalast year, 9,579 were African.

Many Minnesotans hope the inuxwill reverse the depopulation trend in25 of the state’s 87 counties. Minnesotaschools, for example, enroll 70,000 fewerstudents from native, English-speakinghomes than they did ten years ago. Manypeople leave Minnesota because of theharsh winters. “No one comes here tobask in the snow,” says demographicsconsultant Hazel Reinhardt. “We eithermust attract whites the way we did inthe ’70s and ’80s—or attract a large

number of minorities.” [David Peterson,African Inux Reshapes Immigration toMinnesota, Minneapolis Star Tribune,May 15, 2010.]

AZ Democrats Squirm

Polls continue to show overwhelmingnational support for Arizona’s SB 1070,which allows state and local policemanto enforce federal immigration laws, andseveral states are considering passingsimilar laws. The Obama administrationis still dithering over whether to sue

Arizona, although all indications arethat it will—much to the dismay of thestate’s three Democratic congressmen,all of whom are facing tough reelectionghts. “I believe your administration’stime, efforts and resources would bemuch better spent securing the borderand fixing our broken immigrationsystem,” Rep. Harry Mitchell wrote toPresident Obama in June.

“Congresswoman [Gabrielle] Gif-fords wants more federal agents on theArizona border, not federal lawyers incourt arguing with state lawyers,” says

a spokesman. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrickagrees: “I am calling on the presidentand the attorney general to abandonpreparations for a lawsuit againstArizona, and to recommit to nding anational solution to xing this nationalproblem,” she says. [Sean J. Miller,Arizona Dmocrats Urge Obama Not toSue Over Controversial ImmigrationLaw, The Hill (Washington, DC), June23, 2010.]

Meanwhile, the lawmakers respon-

sible for SB 1070 aren’t resting on theirlaurels. This fall, Republicans plan tointroduce a bill to deny US citizenshipto children of illegals born in the state.Arizona state senator Russell Pearce,

the driving force behind SB 1070, saysillegal immigrants have “hijacked” the14th Amendment, which was written togrant citizenship to former slaves. Sen.Pearce is undeterred by arguments thatany attempt to undo birthright citizen-ship would be unconstitutional, saying,“We will write it right.” He says the ideais to make the citizenship process soonerous that illegal immigrants will giveup and go home. A recent poll found that

58 percent of Americans are opposed tobirthright citizenship.Some Arizonans, however, want to

undo Mr. Pearce’s good work. SusanVie, a naturalized citizen from Argenti-na, leads a group that is hoping to collectenough signatures to put an initiative onthe ballot that would repeal SB 1070and put a three-year moratorium on allstate laws on immigration. She wants togive the Obama administration enoughtime to get amnesty for illegals. [AdamKlawonn, Arizona’s Next ImmigrationTarget: Children of Illegals, Time, June

11, 2010.]

Loving Day

On June 12, 1967, the US SupremeCourt—in a unanimous decision—struck down Virginia’s 305-year-old lawbanning miscegenation. The case was Loving v. Virginia , and for several yearsnow, mixed-race couples and familieshave been quietly celebrating June 12 as“Loving Day.” Time magazine considers

critics aren’t impressed, dismissingit as “conventional” and deriding itsmessage of “racial reconciliation” as“simplistic.” Lead producer Sue Frostsays that doesn’t matter because theshow is having a big impact “on a widecross section of people who feel thatBroadway isn’t usually for them.” She isproud to note that Michelle Obama andher two daughters saw the show.

Despite the Tony and unprecedentedefforts to get blacks to shell out $94 aticket, “Memphis” continues to struggleat the box ofce and is a long way fromturning a prot. [Patrick Healy, Broad-way Sees Benets of Building BlackAudience, New York Times, June 27,2010.]

Africans in Minnesota

Africans, most from Somalia, Kenya,

and Liberia, now account for half of the immigrants to Minnesota. They saythey are attracted to Minnesota for theusual reasons—quality of life, goodschools—but also because Minnesotahas a growing reputation in parts of Africa as receptive to immigrants. “Min-nesota holds a very prominent place inthe minds of Liberians,” says AhmedSirleaf of something called Advocatesfor Human Rights. “I’ve heard peoplethere say that Minnesota is one of thevery few states where an immigrant withan accent can be hired to work in his

chosen profession. In other places, mostpeople have to stay in odd jobs.”Barbara Ronningen, an

analyst for the Minne-sota State Demograph-

i c Cen t e r ,a g r e e s :

“Oncey o u

have a certain number here,they just keep coming.” Likethe Somalis in Lewiston, Maine,an African refugee living in St. Paulsends out word that Minnesota is a niceplace and soon the rush is on. “No one issitting in Africa suddenly thinking, ‘I’mgoing to Minnesota,’” says James Sani-




Richard and Mildred Loving.

the day the perfect occasion to throw “anawesome, inclusive party.”

Loving Day was started by KenTanabe, a half-white, half-Asian graphicdesign student who made it part of hissenior thesis. Mr. Tanabe had neverheard of the Lovings—the couple whobrought the case—when he was grow-ing up, so he started a website to teachthe history of mixed-race marriage inAmerica and to encourage miscege-

nation. In 2004, there were two large“Loving Day” celebrations, one inNew York City and one in Seattle. Theidea caught on and now Loving Dayis supposedly “the biggest multiracialcelebration” in the US, with publicevents in most large cities. Since2007, Washington, DC sponsorsLoving Day celebrations but it isnot a holiday.

In 1958, Richard Loving, whowas white, made Mildred Jeter,

who was black and Indian, preg-nant. Since it was illegal for thecouple to marry in Virginia—andin 21 other states—they got marriedin Washington, DC. A few weekslater, back in Virginia, they werearrested for “cohabiting as manand wife, against the peace anddignity of the Commonwealth.” A judge sentenced them each to oneyear in prison, but told them theycould avoid prison if they movedto Washington and did not returnfor 25 years. The couple became

homesick after a few years andbrought the case that ultimatelyoverturned all state laws banninginterracial marriages. In 1975, theLovings were in a car crash thatkilled Richard Loving and left his wifeseverely injured. She never completelyrecovered, and died in poverty in 2008,despite earning some money from a1996 cable television movie about hermarriage. [Christopher Shay, Lov-ing Day, Time, June 11, 2010. Neely

Tucker, Mildred Loving Followed HerHeart and Made History, WashingtonPost, May 6, 2008.]

In 1961, the year Barack Obama’sparents married in Hawaii, 96 percentof Americans opposed interracial mar-riage. By 1987, most Americans stillopposed it, but just four years later, op-position had slipped into the minority.More recent polls have found that largemajorities accept intermarriage—or

at least tell pollsters they do. Thenumbers are skewed by age. Accord-ing to the Pew Research Center, 80percent or more of people in their20s approve of miscegenation, butonly about one-third of those 65 orolder do. [Meredith Moss, YoungerPeople Least Likely to Object toInterracial Marriage, Dayton DailyNews, June 12, 2010.]

Road to Recovery?The US Census Bureau estimates

230,000 Haitians died in the earthquakethat struck Port-au-Prince in January,but the bureau expects Haiti to surpassits pre-quake population of 9.5 million

in 2012. By 2050, it projects a popula-tion of 13.4 million. Haiti is alreadyovercrowded; one of the reasons theJanuary earthquake killed so manypeople is that there is so little space forbuilding that Haitians stack ramshackleconcrete homes on top of each other.

During the quake these homes collapsed,crushing the occupants.

While there will be more Haitiansin the world in the year 2050, therewill be fewer Swedes and Belarusians.Both countries currently have about thesame number of people as Haiti, but thepopulation of Sweden is expected to fallslightly by mid-century, while that of Belarus will plunge by nearly 2 million,or 20 percent. Many white countries willsee their populations fall, most notablyRussia, which will go from 139,390,000to 109,187,000. In contrast, while theUS population will increase from 310million to 439 million, virtually all of thegrowth will come from non-white birthsand immigration. Non-whites are a thirdof the population, and are expected tobe the majority in just over thirty years.[US Census: Haiti Population BoomingAfter Quake, AP, June 28, 2010. US

Census Bureau, International Data Base,www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/.]

No Truth, Please

Last year, Thilo Sarrazin, a boardmember of Germany’s central bank,

gave an interview with a Germanfinancial newsletter in whichhe described Muslims as an“underclass” not t for much morethan “fruit and vegetable selling.”“I don’t have to accept someonewho lives off a state they reject,

doesn’t properly take care of theeducation of their children—andkeeps producing more little girlsin head scarves,” he added. “Thatgoes for 70 percent of the Turk-ish and 90 percent of the Arabicpopulation of Berlin.” Although heis a Socialist, the German left de-nounced him as a “right-winger”and a “Nazi,” and the Berlin publicprosecutor considered charginghim with Volksverhetzung or “ra-cial hatred.”

Amazingly, Mr. Sarrazin man-

aged to hang onto his job withthe Bundesbank. He may not beso lucky this time. In June, the65-year-old banker expresseddismay at the dysgenic effect of

immigration on Germany.“There’s a difference in the reproduc-

tion of population groups with varyingintelligence,” he said, singling out im-migrants from “Turkey, the Middle Eastand Africa.” Unlike Germans, who havethe lowest birth rate in Europe, these



Thilo Sarrazin.

immigrants have many children, whichcauses “a different propagation of popu-lation groups with different intelligencebecause parents pass their intelligenceon to their children.” Germans are there-fore “becoming dumber.”

Critics are, of course, demanding Mr.Sarrazin’s head. A spokesman for a Ber-lin Muslim group calls him “a tired oldwhite Christian male full of prejudiceand few ideas.” So far, he is refusingto apologize and many Germans agreewith him. [Allan Hall, Migrants ‘MakeGermany Dumb’ Says Central Bankerin Astonishing Outburst, Daily Mail,June 12, 2010.]

Rent-a-White

Indian companies that want to project

an image of success have taken to hir-ing Europeans to pose as employees orforeign partners. Having white peoplearound is supposed to make Indianbusinesses look “international” andimpress clients. A Polish woman, forexample, picks up money on the side,working as window dressing for anadvertising company. She accompaniesthe manager to meetings as his “Polishbusiness partner” and shakes hands withpotential customers. The company givesher fake business cards and tells her tokeep the chit chat to a minimum, lest

she be exposed.Indians like their white womenblonde and attractive. Angie Silva, anolive-skinned Australian of Portuguesedescent, got an actual job working for areal estate company. It didn’t last long.“I felt like the other employees and myboss were a bit disappointed with thelook of me, saying that I looked Indian,”she says. “My boss actually told me hewould pay me to dye my hair blonde.”He told her that a pale, blonde Czech had

been a better investment. [Pallavi Polan-ki, Whites Only Please, Open Magazine(New Delhi), May 29, 2010.]

In China, they call the practice of hiring whites to pose as companyemployees “white guy window dress-ing,” “a white guy in a tie,” or just “aface job.” It’s been going on for years,and Chinese companies do it for thesame reasons as the Indians: It makesthe rm look international. JonathanZatkin is an American actor who livesin Peking and occasionally works as a“rental foreigner.” Last year he posed asthe vice president of an Italian jewelrycompany that had supposedly been inbusiness with a Chinese jewelry rm fora decade. The company paid him $300to attend the grand opening of one of its stores. “I was up on stage with themayor of the town, and I made a speechabout how wonderful it was to work

with the company for 10 years and howwe were so proud of allof the work they haddone for us in China,”he says.

There are simplerules for a rent-a-white:1. Be white. 2. Do notspeak any Chinese, orpreferably, don’t speakat all, unless asked. 3.Pretend you just gotoff of an airplane yes-terday. [Lara Farrar,

Chinese Companies‘Rent’ White Foreign-ers, CNN, June 29,2010.]

Black and Bleu

When the French national soccerteam, known as “Les Bleus” because of its blue uniforms, won the World Cupin 1998, it was heralded as a shiningexample of “diversity” because manyof its star players were non-whites.National Front leader Jean-Marie Le

Pen earned the ire of French lefties forcomplaining that the team was “insuf-ciently French.” The 2010 team is evenless French—13 of the 22 players on thesquad are non-white, including eight of the 11 starters—but it is still a modelof diversity. Only now it is showcasingdiversity’s disadvantages.

French fans had high hopes for thisyear’s World Cup. Instead, the teamexited the tournament without winninga single game. After a lackluster perfor-

mance in their opening game with Uru-guay, players began grumbling aboutthe way coach Raymond Domenech wasrunning the team. Things came to a headafter an embarrassing loss to Mexico,when star player Nicolas Anelka cursedthe coach, who then cut him from thesquad and sent him back to France. Therest of the players went on strike, refus-ing to train for a day, and there wererumors some members would refuse toplay. Les Bleus lost their next game toSouth Africa and were eliminated.

France was horrified. The mediahighlighted the “selshness, indiffer-ence and indiscipline” of the players,and accused them of humiliating the na-tion. Because the coach is white, and themost troublesome players are black, thecriticism soon turned racial. PhilosopherAlain Finkielkraut compared the playersto Parisian ghetto rioters, telling a radio

interviewer, “We now have proof that

the French team is not a team at all, buta gang of hooligans that knows only themorals of the maa.” Politicians calledthe players “scum,” “little troublemak-ers” and “guys with chickpeas in theirheads instead of a brain.” Marine LePen, vice president of the NationalFront and daughter of Jean-Marie LePen, speculated that many of the players

failed to play hard for France because“they are a part of another nation or haveanother nationality in their heart.”

Fadela Amara, a daughter of Algerianimmigrants and a junior minister in Pres-ident Nicolas Sarkozy’s government,worries that all the “racially-charged”criticism is “building a highway forthe National Front.” [Steven Erlanger,Racial Tinge Stains World Cup Exitin France, New York Times, June 23,2010.]

The “French” national soccer team.

Documents

201008 American Renaissance