Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Gold Is Sterile

Gold Is Sterile
Thomas Allen

    Some opponents of the gold standard claim that gold is a sterile commodity with little real value. Gold as money is barren, unproductive, and offers a “yield of nil.” Unlike land, it produces nothing. Thus, it is highly undesirable — that is, it is undesirable in the hands of the people. It is so undesirable in the hands of the people; the U.S. government, like all communist and most other authoritarian governments, denied private ownership of gold between 1933 and 1974. It like other despotic governments tried to monopolize every ounce of gold.
    Monopolistic ownership of gold gives a government and its banking collaborators in crime unchecked power to manipulate the money and the people. Such control is what fiat money advocates want, except many would cut the bankers out of their criminal deal. Under a gold-coin standard with unrestricted ownership and usage of gold, the people own and control the money.
    Many of these opponents of gold ignore gold’s important industrial uses, such as its use in electronic devices and jewelry. Gold’s nonmonetary uses and its use as a store of value in part gives gold its monetary value. Its use as money also imparts value to gold.
    Under the gold standard, gold can offer a yield. Gold bonds pay interest in gold just as fiat-money bonds pay interest in fiat money.
    Gold is not sterile because it renders a service to the holder. If it did not, no one would exchange any nonmoney good or service for it. About the sterility or unproductivity of gold as money, Hutt writes, “The essences of all these services [of money] is availability. . . . [M]oney assets are not unemployed or resting when they are in our pockets, or in our tills, or in our banking accounts, but in pseudo-idleness, like a piano when it is not being played, or a fireman or a fire engine when there are no fires.”[1]
    Money, whether in the form of gold, silver, or fiat currency, is never idle in the economic sense. Whether being spent or saved, it is always performing a monetary service. Hoarded money merely serves a different purpose than circulating money.

1. William Harold Hutt, Individual Freedom: Selected Works of William H. Hutt, editors Svetozar Pejovich and David Klingaman (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1975), pp.207-209.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Monday, February 20, 2017

The Best and Worst Presidents

The Best and Worst Presidents
Thomas Allen

Below are my lists of the ten worst presidents beginning with the worst and the ten best presidents ending with the best. Along with the name of the president, his party, years of his term, and a brief reason for inclusion on the list are given.
The hardest part about compiling these lists was deciding whom to leave off the worst list and whom to include on the best list. These lists are not partisan. Five Republicans and five Democrats are identified as the worst presidents. One Federalist, two Democratic-Republicans, two Whigs, three Republicans, and two Democrats are named as the best presidents.
The presidents named in the list of the worst presidents not only ignored their oath of office, they also grossly violated it. However, the presidents in the list of the best president strove to keep their oath of office to defend the Constitution.
With this revision, Jackson has been removed from the list of best presidents and Cleveland has been added to the list of best president. The ranking of the best presidents has been reordered. Revisions have been made to Lincoln, Roosevelt, Johnson, Wilson, Bush, Nixon, Obama, Jefferson, Tyler, Washington, Coolidge, and Monroe.

The Worst Presidents
1. Abraham Lincoln, Republican, 1861-1865: destroyed the Constitution; caused the death of more than 600,000 men to impose his protective tariff; gave the country legal-tender paper fiat money; established the imperial presidency; gave the United States their (“its” in his mind) first conscription law; committed treason according to the Constitution when he levied war against States that he calmed never left the union; suppressed opposing opinions even with imprisonment without trial.

2. Franklin Roosevelt, Democrat, 1933-1945: brought fascism to the United States; ruled like dictator; virtually destroyed the family farm with his regulations; stole the people’s gold (real money); lied the United States into World War II; placed the United States economy on a wartime footing from which they have never left; recognized the Soviet Union and thus aided Stalin in his tyranny and butchery and gave Eastern Europe (really Central Europe) to the communists; laid the framework for the United Nation and the globalist foreign policy that followed.

3. Lyndon Johnson, Democrat, 1963-1969: brought the civil rights act, war on poverty, the welfare state, an immigration law that favored non-Whites while discriminating against Whites, and other programs to enslave Blacks and to bring down Whites; enacted the Gun Control Act of 1968; reduced the States to mere provinces of the federal government; lied the United States into an expanded war in Vietnam; probably the meanest president ever and a co-conspirator in the assassination of Kennedy.

4. Woodrow Wilson, Democrat, 1913-1921: brought the interventionist foreign policy to the United States and thus globalism to America, the federal reserve system, direct election of senators (17th Amendment), the income tax (16th Amendment), and draconian laws that destroyed free speech and other liberties in the name of national security; lied the United States into World War I; dictatorially controlled the United States economy and nationalized the railroads and radio broadcasting to control information; established the regulatory state where regulatory agencies enacted rules (legislative), enforced their rules (executive), and decided if their rules had been violated (judicial).

5. George W. Bush, Republican, 2001-2009: allowed 9-11 to happen, established the Department of Homeland Security, with his war on terrorism brought the police state to the United States and sweeping spying on the American people; lied the United States into a war with Iraq; bailed out the big banks; gave the American people Agenda 21 by which they will lose all control of their property.

6. Richard Nixon, Republican, 1969-1974: ended the last connection that the dollar had with gold; recognized communist China and, by that, began China’s growth into a major world power; extended the Vietnam War for political purposes and abandoned American-Vietnam-War prisoners of war in Laos, adopted guaranteed income; imposed wage and price controls; created the EPA and OSHA; enforced force busing, ushered in affirmative action and racial quotas.

7. Barack H. Obama, Democrat, 2009-2017: destroyed what little the previous presidents had left of the United States, thus fundamentally transformed the United State; according to the Council on Foreign Relations, his was the “most multilaterally-inclined US administration in history;” made appointments without the advise and consent of the Senate.

8. William McKinley, Republican, 1897-1901: lied the country into war with Spain and made the United States an imperialistic country with the Spanish- American War and thus overthrew the tradition of the American foreign policy of nonintervention.

9. Ulysses S. Grant, Republican, 1869-1877: resided over most of Reconstruction with one of the most corrupt governments the country has ever had; brought the Long Depression, 1873-1879, which by some measures was worst than the Great Depression; accepted Sherman’s genocide of the plains Indians; ended the free coinage of silver, i.e., the Crime of ’73 (he claimed that he did so unknowingly, but he did not try to correct the problem once he became aware of it — a problem that was never corrected).

10. Jimmy Carter, Democrat, 1977-1981: probably the most incompetent president ever, admitted before he was elected that his presidency would be a failure (he said that if any Trilateralists were found in his administration that it would be a failure; then he proceeded to fill his administration with Trilateralists); established the Departments of Education and Energy.

The Best Presidents
10. James Monroe, Democratic-Republican, 1817-1825: was the last one standing after all the others were eliminated; generally followed Jefferson’s philosophy of government.

9.  John F. Kennedy, Democrat, 1961-1963: must have had something going for him since the CIA, FBI, military industrial complex, Lyndon Johnson, the Texas oil men, the Israelis, French, South Vietnam (Diem regime), Cubans (Castro), Russians, and others wanted him dead.

8. Warren G. Harding, Republican, 1921-1923: said no to the bankers when they wanted him to intervene to assuage the Depression of 1920-21, which was more intense than the Great Depression, for them; unlike the presidents who followed Franklin Roosevelt, he took the country off a wartime footing; eschewed the imperial pretensions of Woodrow Wilson; launched a disarmament movement that resulted in reducing the world’s navies and the Kellogg-Briand treaty to outlaw war.

7. Rutherford B. Hayes, Republican, 1877-1881: ended Reconstruction, though it was a political deal to give him the presidency at least he kept his word; ushered in returning to the gold standard (although the law to do so was enacted during the Grant administration).

6. Calvin Coolidge, Republican, 1923-1929: proponent of limited government,  protected the balance between the federal and State government, last president who truly favored States’ rights; pushed to reduce or eliminate the war taxes and unconstitutional regulations enacted during the Wilson administration; opposed farm subsidies because they were unconstitutional and would destroy the farmer’s independence and would increase supply while decreasing consumption; supported permanent peace and therefore opposed foreign adventurism and entangling alliances and thus opposed entering the League of Nations and refused to join the world court; the last president who tried to save the country; the last president to believe the Constitution as ratified.

5. George Washington, Federalist, 1789-1797: a republican at heart; could have been king but chose not to; set a policy of not entering into any entangling alliances; avoided getting involved in the war between Great Britain and France; thought that the veto should be reserved only for unconstitutional enactments.

4. Grover Cleveland, Democrat, 1885-1889 and 1893-1897: the last Jeffersonian president; attempted to return the country to constitutional government, vetoed more unconstitutional laws than any other president, took his oath of office serious; supported limited government, frugal government, sound money, honest and responsible public servants, limited corporate privileges; opposed the federal government usurping powers reserved by the States or the people, handouts to special interests, the annexation of Hawaii against the will of the Hawaiian people; appointed Confederate veterans to his administration; refused to intervene to support the banks and big businesses that suffered from the Panic of 1893

3. John Tyler, Whig, 1841-1845: Abandon the Whig’s government-business partnership philosophy and adopted a strong states’ right philosophy (he became the president without a party); adhered to the Constitution better than any other president (no other president took his oath of office as seriously as he) and, therefore, some consider him to be the best president ever; supported secession; vetoed unconstitutional bills for a central bank, internal improvements, and protective tariffs (all of which were Whiggish programs); opposed patronage, i.e., the spoils system; presided over the annexation of Texas.

2. Thomas Jefferson, Democratic-Republican, 1801-1809: perhaps had the most frugal government of all presidents; perhaps came closer to obeying his oath of office than any other president (at least during his first term); believed in executive restraint, rejected the notion that the president should be involved in legislation (the president job is limited to making recommendations, Congress and not the president should the primary body for setting policy); opposed the Supreme Court usurping the authority to declare a law unconstitutional; opposed centralized banking.

1. William Henry Harrison, Whig, 1841: was not in office long enough to do any damage.

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Articles on Politics.

Friday, February 10, 2017

Review of The Biology of the Race Problem

Review of The Biology of the Race Problem
Thomas Allen

    The following is a review of The Biology of the Race Problem by Dr. Wesley Critz George. It is a report prepared by the Commission of the Governor of Alabama in 1962. My comments are enclosed in brackets. I have provided references to pages in his book and have enclosed them in parentheses.
    George’s report was written in response to school desegregation orders of federal courts. It is a concise, cogent, convincing argument. The information presented is correct. Therefore, this review contains many quotations from his report with some summaries. Only a few commentary remarks have been added, and these mostly support George’s arguments.
    George briefly overviews the Supreme Court’s desegregation decision, Brown vs. Board of Education. “Support for that decision and adherence to or rejection of the programs that it imposes should be based upon the most complete and reliable knowledge and understanding that it is possible to obtain” (p. 1). [Proponents of this decision base their support mostly on Marxist egalitarian emotionalism. Although many opponents based their opposition on emotionalism, many based theirs on science and history.] He notes, “There is no record that the Court or the Federal government has at any time sought to get that knowledge and understanding, although the opinions of certain ‘authorities’ were cited as justification for the ruling” (p. 1). [These authorities were Marxist sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologist. They believed the Boas’ dogma that environment makes the man; heredity, genetics, is irrelevant.] When the Supreme Court abandoned former legal precedence and the historic meaning of the Constitution and based its decision on “science” and the opinions of “authorities,” it made the validity of its ruling dependent on the truth and the validity of its scientific material (p. 5). [This may be true for the rational mind. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court had an agenda: to integrate American society and by that bring down America, the White race, and Western Civilization. It had to be highly selective in its “science.” It selected Marxist “authorities” who supported racial integration and reject all other scientists and authorities.]
    George remarks that one of the most important problems facing America is, “Shall we pursue programs that would result in mixing the genes of the Negro race with those of the White race and so convert the population of the United States into a mixed-blooded people” (p. 1)? [The ruling elite knows that adulteration of the gene pool of the White race would bring it and America down. Mixed-blooded people are easier to control than the pure White race. Although interracial mating increased rapidly after 1960, it did not increase near enough. So, the ruling elite began flooding the country with non-Whites to make Whites a minority in their own country.]
    George states that some fundamental questions need to be answered before adopting a program to integrate the races. Some of these questions are:
    1) Are babies born equal in the biological sense, or are there significant differences between them before environment plays a part in molding them?
    2) What is the mechanism of biological inheritance?
    3) Is the difference between the White and Negro races primarily a “paint job” or are there differences of such fundamental nature and significance that they should be taken into consideration in deciding upon social and educational policies involving the relations of the races?
    4) Are significant differences in individuals and in races hereditary or are they produced anew in each generation by environmental influences?
    5) What should we expect to be the long range results of a program that would lead to racial amalgamation (p. 2)?   
Most of his report deals with answering these questions.
    Environmentalists “promote the idea that all babies born into the world arrive with essentially equal endowments and that subsequent differences are the result of forces outside the individual” (p. 2). [The Supreme Court based its desegregation ruling on environmentalism and rejected heredity, i.e., genetics.]
    George adds, “This question [of environment versus heredity] probably seems absurd to all parents who have reared two or more children and have had opportunity to observe and compare them from birth” (p. 4). They know that babies are not uniform and equal in endowments when they are born. He quotes several authorities who argue that each baby is born genetically unequal and with different endowments and capacities. They differ in physiques and in biochemical and physiological peculiarities (pp, 4-7).
    Environmentalists argue “that all babies are very much alike at birth, and that the differences which become apparent as they mature are due to conditioned reflexes” (p. 4). Hereditarians argue that infants differ from all other infants and that infants are just as much individuals as are adults (p. 4). [Environmentalists maintain that environment determines a person’s intelligence, character, temperament, personality, etc. Genetic influences are insignificant. Hereditarians maintain the genetics play an important role, and often a dominant role, in determining a person’s intelligence, character, temperament, personality, etc. They do acknowledge that environment has varying amounts of influence.]
    George quotes Dr. Gesell, a child development expert: “Every child is born with a naturel which colors and structures his experiences. . . . He has constitutional traits and tendencies largely inborn, which determine how, what, and to some extent even when he will learn. These traits are both racial and familial” (p. 5). “[F]eatures of individuality begin to be recognizable long before birth” (p. 5). Again, George quotes Dr. Gesell: “Racial differences are recognizable by the fourth fetal month. . . . The musculature of the Negro fetus is more compact and coarsely bundled than that of the white fetus of similar age” (p. 5).
    George cites Dr. C.D. Darlington, a professor of botany, identifying a long list of properties that are genetically controlled and determined (p. 6).
    Next George discusses the mechanism of heredity (pp. 7-9).
    Then he proceeds to answer the question: Are there fundamental differences between the White and Negro races (pp. 10-12). Policies and programs should depend on the correct answer to this question (p. 13). [Policy makers ignore this question because the correct answer does not support their policies.]
    “Many integrationists have been persistent advocates of the dogma that there are no significant differences between races that changes in the environment will not eliminate” (p. 13). [Programs and policies adopted by the U.S. government during the last 60 years have been based on this erroneous premise. And they have been a complete failure in achieving their ostensible purpose. If their real purpose is to destroy the White race and by that bring down America and Western Civilization, they have been highly successful.]
    George quotes several authorities who refute the environmentalist premises (pp. 13-16). “Charles Darwin writes, ‘The races differ . . . in constitution, in acclimatization, and liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are also very distinct (pp. 13-14).’” Dr. Mildred Trotter, an anthropologist and a professor of gross anatomy, found that “. . . bones of the Negro skeleton are denser than bones of the white skeleton. . . . Another example of the pervasive influence and expression of race is found in the fact that individuals of the White and Negro races differ in the protein components of the blood serum. This is hereditary, the mode of inheritance being a two allelic system without dominance” (p. 14).
    George quotes professor Robert Gayre, who states, “Thus the typical Negroid has, among other characters peculiar to himself, a dark skin, dark non-straight and non-wavy hair, dark eyes, a strong tendency to prognathism, thick everted lips, broad, flat and open nostrils, and generally a long skull (although there are also broad skulled Negroes as well)” (p. 16).
    Next George discusses non-morphological racial difference (pp. 16-18). He cites Dr. J.C. Carothers, who notes that Negroes are governed more by emotion than intellect, whereas Whites are governed more by intellect (p. 18).
    George discusses the results of intelligence tests (pp. 18-22). These test “show that the mean achievement of Negro groups is considerably below the mean achievement of comparable White groups” (p. 19). He quotes Dr. Audrey Shuey’s  summary of Dr. Henry E. Garrett’s work:
    1) The I. Q.’s of American Negroes are from 15 to 20 points, on the average, below those of American whites.
    2) Negro overlap of white median I. Q.’s ranges from 10 to 25 per cent — equality would require 50 per cent.
    3) About six times as many whites as Negroes fall in the “gifted child” category.
    4) About six times as many Negroes as whites fall below 70 I. Q. — that is, in the feeble-minded group.
    5) Negro-white differences in mean test score occur in all types of mental tests, but the Negro lag is greatest in tests of an abstract nature — for example, problems involving reasoning, deduction, comprehension. These are the functions called for in education above the lowest levels.
    6) Differences between Negro and white children increased with chronological age, the gap in performance being largest at the high-school and college levels.
    7) Large and significant differences in favor of whites appear even when socioeconomic factors have been equated (pp. 19-20).
    George adds, “The claim that Negro-White differences in mental tests would be eliminated if educational and other cultural factors were equalized has little validity. On the contrary, the available evidence demonstrates the improbability that equalization of cultural factors would ever equalize average test scores” (p.20). He supports his conclusion with the testing done by Tanser in 1939 of Negroes in Kent County, Ontario. Blacks have lived here for more than a century in an integrated community with integrated schools; they have had every political and social advantage as Whites. Tanser found that the intellectual capacity of these Blacks to be significantly below that of Whites. [Studies done since George wrote affirms his conclusions. Moreover, after 60 years of programs designed to make Blacks intellectually equal to Whites have done little to reduce the gap between the intelligence of Blacks and Whites.]
    George concludes his discussion on intelligence with a quote from Pitrim Sorokin, chairman of sociology at Harvard:
The environment of either the Russian peasantry before the annihilation of serfdom, or of the mediaeval serfs, or of the Roman and the Greek slaves was probably not any better, if indeed it was not worse, than the environment of the American negro before 1861 or at the present moment. Yet these slaves and serfs of the white race, in spite of their environment, yielded a considerable number of geniuses of the first degree, not to mention the eminent people of a smaller caliber. Meanwhile, excepting, perhaps, a few heavyweight champions and eminent singers, the American negroes have not up to this time produced a single genius of great caliber. These considerations and facts seem to point at the factor of heredity, without which all these phenomena cannot be accounted for (p. 22).
    Next George discusses race and crime (pp. 22-25). He admits that environment is a major contributor to crime. However, race is also an important contributor and should not be ignored. “Records show a much higher rate among Negroes than among Caucasians. This difference seems to bear some relation to differences in personality and behavioral characteristics of the two races” (pp. 22-23). George cites W.A. Bonger, a criminologist and FBI statistics to support his conclusions (p. 23). [The Color of Crime: Race, Crime, and Violence in America published by New Century Foundation supports George’s conclusion. Also see “The Dirty War: America’s Race War” by Thomas Allen.]
    George remarks that when Negroes were scarce in the North, Northerners who came South noticed a disproportionately large number of Blacks on road gangs and in prisons. They concluded, “that the predominance of Negro prisoners was due to Southern injustice and abuse of the Negro” (p. 23). As Negroes migrated to Northern cities in large numbers, they began to fill northern jails and prisons. Then the unbiased Northerners saw a relationship between race and crime. However, diehard integrationists refused to acknowledge any such relationship (pp. 23-25).
    George then discusses the physical basis for intellectual and behavioral differences (pp. 25-35). Most of this discussion is about the differences in brain weight and structure between Blacks and Whites. The average brain weight of Blacks is less than that of Whites. On average, the frontal lobes of Blacks are smaller than of Whites (p. 30). “‘The frontal lobes are the portion of the brain most essential to biological intelligence’” (p. 29).
    George quotes Dr. Robert Bean, an anthropologist and professor of anatomy, stating that “the Negro has the lower mental faculties (smell, sight, handicraftmanship, body sense) well developed; the Caucasian the higher (self-control, will power, ethical and esthetic senses and reason)” (p. 32). According to Dr. R.M. Yerkes, a professor of psycho-biology, “. . . the Negro, as compared with the white man of equal intelligence, is relatively strong in language, in acquaintance with verbal meanings, in perception and observation; and he is relatively weak in judgment, in ability to analyze and define exactly, and in reasoning” (p. 32).
    George cites F.W. Vint of the Medical Research Laboratory, Kenya, as stating, “The cortical measurements of the native [Negroes] show that, except in the visuo-sensory area (area 7), the lamina zonalis [a fiber layer] is in every case greater than in the European brain, whereas the measurement of the supragranular layer is smaller. . . .” (p. 33) George adds, “‘Hammarburg found that a comparatively small diminution in the development of the cortical cells was sufficient to reduce the intelligence to moderate imbecility. As the total weight of these cells is relatively so small, their moderate diminution would not reduce the brain-weight beyond a very moderate range of variation” (p. 34). “As demonstrated by Vint, they are reduced in Negroes by about 14% in the supragranular layers” (p 34).
    Next George discusses genetics, behavior, and breed differences in animals (pp. 35-45). He reviews studies on the relation of morphology to behavior traits in different breeds of dogs (pp. 36-44). These studies showed“that hybrids resulting from crossing strongly contrasting breeds often show physical and behavioral disharmonies” (p. 41). George quotes Dr. Stockard, the senior investigator of these dog studies, as stating, “The further these studies progress the more certain it becomes that along with structural qualities, the functions and behavior of individuals are the products of a definite genetic constitution interacting with a correlated chemical environment, regulated to an important degree by the endocrine glands” (p. 43). Thus, animal studies show “that qualities of mind and behavior are largely determined by heredity” (p. 36).
    He quotes Sir Julian Huxley, a biologist and often an icon of the progressives, who wrote:
The enormous phenotypic differences, in individual and social group achievement, are of course obvious. At the moment, it is socially and intellectually fashionable to minimize or even to deny such differences. This is sometimes done in the name of democracy, or because of the hypnotic effects of the ideas of the American and French revolutions concerning the equality of man, or as a misinterpretation of the Christian doctrine, or in natural reaction against the errors of racism, and of eugenics when treated as a dogma and not as an applied science (p. 35).
[Today, failure to deny racial difference is a quick road to ostracism and ruin, especially in academia, the media, and politics.]
    Next George discusses the inheritance of intelligence and behavior in man (pp. 45-58). He divides the discussion into four parts.
    First, he discusses the genetics of genius (pp. 45-49). George quotes several authorities whose observation and studies show that genius is inherited, i.e., genetic. “[A]bility is not distributed haphazardly, but it clings to certain families, as characteristic physical features do” (p. 48). Brilliance often runs in families.
    Second, George discusses the genetics of crime (pp. 49-50). “Evidence for the genetic factor in crime is presented by studies of twins” (p. 49). He cites several authorities to support the genetics of crime — the studies of twins being the most pertinent. [More recent studies support George’s argument.]
    Third, George discusses the genetics of mental abnormality (pp. 50-53). He notes that recognized genetic abnormalities exist, e.g., Down’s syndrome,  Klinefelter syndrome, infantile amaurotic idiocy (which occurs in about 1 in 50 Jews and 1 in 100 in non-Jews), and microcephaly. Schizophrenia occurs more frequently in blood relatives of schizophrenics than in the general population. He [rightly] asserts that if one accepts the correlation between these chromosomal and genetic irregularities, he must, if he is consistent, accept the notion that genetics is important in the origin of the human psyche (p. 50).
    He quotes Goodman and Herndon, who are geneticists:
Genetic factors play a role in the causation of many types of mental retardation and are contributory to many others. . . . Few persons would possess genes leading to the development of either high or low intelligence exclusively, and most would have about the average number. Parents who are mentally retarded have a higher proportion of genes for lower intelligence than do normal parents. Hence a higher proportion of the children of retarded parents are expected and observed to be retarded (pp. 51-52).
    George concludes, “When one sees at one end of the scale that genius runs in families and at the other end of the scale that microcephaly and amaurotic idiocy run in families, and remembers that crime does also, one can hardly avoid the conclusion that heredity is an important factor in determining the character of a population” (pp. 52-53). He adds:
While it is true that cultural factors influence men and do not influence animals, at least not to the same degree, it is likewise clear that cultures themselves are in part the products of differing genes. Population groups have the capacity for “adopting cultural patterns,” as equalitarian social and cultural agents express it, but in certain cases the adoption is parasitic and degenerative and without the capacity either to build or to sustain (p. 59, fn 82).
    Fourth, George discusses other witnesses to the hereditary basis for intelligence and behavior (pp. 53-56). He cites several authorities who refuted the assertion of integrationists and other egalitarians who claim “that no scientists hold the view that men are born with different hereditary talents” (p. 53).
    He quotes Fuller and Thompson’s book, Behavior Genetics: “In summary, it may be said that the data gathered with human subjects point to heredity as an important determiner of the intellectual level though certainly not the only one” (p. 34).
        He quotes R. Ruggles Gates, a professor of botany:
All those who have any respect for the facts, will agree that men differ in their mentality at least as widely as in their physique. . . . Those who study dispassionately the inheritance of mental differences, normal or pathologic, must conclude, I believe, that those differences are inherited in the same way as are physical (bodily) differences (p. 54).
    George quotes Carl Stern, a professor of genetics:
Men are born genetically unequal. This is a fact of nature, and quite independent of the conclusions which may result from its political and sociological interpretations. . . . If men are unequal genetically, then our actions and inactions are bound to influence the genetic composition of the future human populations (p. 54).
    Besides the above, George also quotes Dr. J.V.  Neel, professor of human genetics; Dr. James F. Bonner, professor of biology; Dr. Hermann J. Muller, Nobel prize-winning professor of genetics; and Dr. Arnold Gesell to support the notion that intelligence is not independent of genetics. [Today, if any professor states what these professors stated in an era of free speech, academic freedom, and non- politicized science, he would lose his job.]
    George concludes, “It is very unlikely, indeed, if any geneticist, speaking as a geneticist, would deny that genetics plays a major role in the determination of intelligence, personality, and behavior” (p. 56). He adds, “When the justices of the Supreme Court embraced the error of Myrdal without critical examination, they contributed to their own deception and deprived the people of the United States of their right to a firm foundation of truth for anything that purports to be the law of the land” (p 56). [Myrdal claimed that psychic traits, personality traits, and intelligence are not genetic; they develop through experience. He was a proponent of the Boas’ dogma.]
    Then George proceeds to answer the question: Are racial differences hereditary (pp. 57-64)? He concludes that they are. To support his conclusion, he  quotes Dr. David Rife, professor of genetics:
Sheer logic tells us that if individuals differ genetically with respect to intelligence, populations also must differ in this same respect. . . . [A] recognition of the biological basis of human differences can be an invaluable asset. All men are “brothers” but as any parent of two or more children will testify, brothers may differ greatly from one to another. Furthermore, many of these differences are more than skin deep, and go literally to the bone (p. 58).
    George adds:
As pointed out by Gesell, racial differences are determined in part by differences in the racial pools of genes and in part by differences in environment. The genes react with the substance of the body and the body reacts with the environment in accordance with the nature of the genes. Many genes in Negroes and Whites are common to both races, to all races of men. Many of the genes common to both races are unequally distributed in the two races. Many other genes, and the traits that result from them, are characteristic of one race or the other. The genetic behavior of some of these exclusive, or virtually exclusive, genes for one race, like the gene for the sickle-cell trait in the Negro, has been demonstrated (pp. 59-60).
[To repeat myself, studies done after George wrote this report add more support to his argument and conclusion.]
    Next George discusses the origin of racial differences (pp. 60-64). Primarily, he follows the theory of Carleton Coon, president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists. Coon argues that the modern races of humans began appearing at least 360,000 years ago in Homo erectus, and the Negro race is a relatively young race, which appeared about 200,000 years after the White race (p. 63). [For a polygenetic creationist view of the origin of the races of humans, see Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man and Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis both by Thomas Coley Allen.]
    Then George asks, Should we promote racial amalgamation (pp. 64-75)? To begin answering this question, he asks:
Since individual differences in structure, intelligence and behavior are in large measure genetic in origin and therefore transmissible from generation to generation, and since racial differences are due to differences in the pool of genes of the races, what should be our attitude towards the promotion of programs that would bring about protoplasmic mixing of the White and Negro races in this country (p. 64)?
    “[T]o answer that question by reassertion of the dogma of equality [or] with vague words about morality and social justice and brotherhood” (p. 64) as the integrationists and egalitarians do is insufficient. The facts need to be examined along with the anticipated consequences of the proposed action. The answer to this question should be based on knowledge and thoughtfulness rather than on emotional judgment. [The answer of integrationists and other egalitarians is based on emotional judgment. They give little weight to scientific facts probably because scientific facts do not support their predetermined conclusion, i.e., their prejudices.]
    In answering this question, George looks at the historical facts. The White race led the Agricultural Revolution and the Scientific Revolution followed closely by the Mongoloids (p. 65). The historical record of the Negro race is void of any important achievements (pp. 65-66). “In defense of this record and of Negro racial characteristics generally, two major arguments have been advanced: The ‘historical accident’ explanation and the ‘hot climate’ explanation. We will examine each of these in turn” (p. 66). Then, George explains the flaws of these two theories.
    The historical accident explanation fails for two reasons. First, “[i]t is not in accord with early history. The fact is that trans-Saharan Africans have been in contact with other peoples since the dawn of history through the migration of Negroes into Egypt and Ethiopia and through the explorations and commercial expeditions of Egyptians, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, and Asiatics into Africa" (p. 67).
    Second, “[i]t is not in accord with recent history. The Negro race in recent times has shown a resistance to creative urges from civilized contacts” (p. 67). The second is evident in the [then] segregated South where rural poor and inhabitants of city slums were predominately Black and the integrated North where the inhabitants of city slums were predominately Black. [Even today with forced integration of America with special Black privileges, Blacks are still the preponderant inhabitants of poor rural areas and city slums.]
    Also, George uses Haiti and northeastern Brazil as evidence that the historical accident explanation is false. Blacks have governed Haiti for more than a century, and it is “a national slum” (p. 68). [Sub-Sahara Africa is another example. As the White imperial powers withdrew from Africa the living standard of the common Black declined while that of the ruling elite and their favorites skyrocketed. Many countries collapsed back into barbarism. Most prosperity in Africa today results from the action of Whites and East Asians.]
    The hot climate explanation also fails. Under this explanation, hot steaming jungles of the tropics caused the African Negro backwardness. However, other races have developed advanced civilizations in similar environments, e.g., the Mayans in the tropical rain forests of Central America. Moreover, Africa is not all desert and jungle. Much of Africa is a high plateau that rises above the hot, humid coastal areas and river valleys (pp 68-70).
    However, climate may affect a population. Some argue that regarding intelligence and behavior:
where food is available for the gathering, and where foresight and protection from the rigors of winter are unnecessary, nature has not been effective in eliminating the improvident and the lazy or in selectively perpetuating the more intelligent, the foresighted and the industrious. In consequence, as generations have come and gone, there has been less selection than in more severe environments of a population with those qualities of mind and character which overcome hostile or unfavorable conditions of nature, terminating in civilized society (p 70).
[Thus, climate may have dulled the intellect of the Negro and may have sharpened the intellect of other races.]
    Next George discusses heredity versus environment in Negro history (pp. 71-75). About 1860, Francis Galton observed, “The Negro now born in the United States has much the same natural faculties as his distant cousin who is born in Africa; the effect of his transplantation being ineffective in changing his nature, but very effective in increasing his numbers” (p. 71). George adds, “After another hundred years that statement is still true in spite of some appearances of progress. Although Negro colleges and universities have been built, they have been built almost wholly with the white man’s money and the white man’s brains” (p. 71).
    With several examples, George shows that genetics makes the race and not the environment. First, he contrasts the United States with Brazil. According to George F. Carter, a professor of geography, Brazil has twice as much potentially useful land than does the Untied States, which have a mediocre environment at best. Carter states, “The difference is ideas — their spread, the acceptance or rejection of them” (p. 72). To which George adds, “The biologist might add that the primary difference is in the presence or absence in the population of the pool of genes necessary to produce the minds and the personalities that will find and make use of the ideas” (p. 72). [Moreover, Brazil has had a racially integrated society since slavery ended.]
    Next George compares the United States and Canada with Latin America. He writes:
    When the United States and Canada were being settled by people from western Europe, the settlers came to establish new homes, and they brought their women with them. They established homes and raised families and gave rise to succeeding generations of relatively homogenous people of English and European stock. They created a civilization of essentially European type because they had the pool of genes of European people as well as European memories and contacts.
     So far as Brazil is concerned, and much of Central and South America, the invading Europeans were not colonizers intent on establishing new homes in a new country; they were largely conquerors and adventurers. They did not generally bring their women, their families with them. They satisfied their sexual urges by interbreeding with the native Indian women and later on with Negro women too, after the introduction of Negro slaves. In consequence, they did not give rise to succeeding generations of homogeneous European stock such as that found in North America. The[y] produced a population composed of whites, Indians, Negroes, mestizos and mulattoes. Such is the contemporary "underprivileged" population of these underdeveloped, poor countries that look to the United States to raise their standards of living (p. 72-73).

    He quotes Dr. George E. Mowry, a professor of American history. In 1947, Mowry estimated the population of Latin America to be about 25 million Whites, 38 million mestizos, 17 million Indians, 25 million mulattoes, and 14 million Negroes. Most of the Whites lived in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, southern Brazil, and Costa Rica (p. 73). George concludes:
The facts of history in these countries virtually force us to the conclusion that the ability to develop a high culture is conditioned by the genetic endowment of a population group. Also, the facts of history throughout the world provide no justification for any faith that a mulatto population would advance our civilization in this country or would even maintain it. Experience has shown that Negroid peoples have the desire to utilize the products of a high culture but they seem not to possess the combination of human qualities necessary to originate them. Nowhere in the world have they demonstrated that they have the creative capacities (the intelligence, the industry, the drive, and the persistence) to make a civilization; nor is there an advanced civilization in any area where there has been a high degree of absorption of Negro genes into a white population (p. 73-74).
[So far, integrationists and egalitarians have not refuted George’s conclusions. When they cannot ignore them, they resort to emotional platitudes, meaningless or misleading phrases, name smearing tactics, threats, or violence because they cannot refute them intellectually with knowledge and facts.]
    On the importance of maintaining the race, George quotes Dr. James G. Needham, a professor of entomology, stating, “The road to social deterioration runs by way of continued breeding from inferior stock. . . .  Devastated cities may be rebuilt again by renewed labor and lost fortunes may be reestablished. . . .  But the powers of mind and character eliminated by bad breeding may hardly be restored” (p. 74).
    Next George offers recommendations for social justice and national greatness (pp. 75-78). They are:
    1) Avoid those actions and programs that seem destined to bring about deterioration in the quality of our genetic pool. More specifically, it means the avoidance of any compulsory programs that would tend to bring about the mating of well-endowed, potentially creative people with poorly endowed, uncreative people. [Avoid integration, especially forced integration, especially the forced integration of children.]
    2) Adopt programs that have good promise of raising the quality of our pool of genes and so increasing the number of able and wise people in our population, since the production of the maximum number of able and wise men seems the surest way to national greatness.
    3) Insofar as our knowledge, wisdom, and resources permit, improve the quality of our environment so as to permit and stimulate the fruition of all our good genetic potentialities in order to further increase the chances for the production of wise leaders and able people at all levels. In engineering this good environment, it is desirable for the social planners and politicians to remember that it is apparently more difficult to tell what is a good environment than it is to tell what is good heredity.
    4) White people should assist Negroes in providing as good an environment for their children as they are capable of creating; but for the federal government to compel White parents to send their children to school in as bad an environment as Negroes can and do create is neither social justice nor wise national policy (pp 75-77).
    To his recommendation, George adds advice giving by Dr. Charles Snyder, a professor of experimental physiology, who stated:
All history teaches us that stable representative democracies heretofore have been the rarest form of government and have been maintained only by very small segments of the earth’s total populations at any one time. . . . Therefore a people who are able to initiate, organize and maintain continually for a century or more a thorough-going representative government, and have been able to do so by virtue of their peculiar hereditary qualities (no matter what other unwonted or disadvantageous inborn qualities they may have), should never promote, and above all never legalize social integration with people who have never demonstrated such inborn capacities (p. 77, fn 112).
    Also, George notes:
Contrary to the allegations of many integrationists there is no intention upon the part of the majority of Southerners to “hold the superior Negro back” except in those areas of social integration that may lead to intermarriage. The able Negro still has every other area in which to exercise his business or intellectual ability among Whites, as well as the entire field of service to his own race. If this does not satisfy him, then there is a question as to whether he honestly wants legitimate “opportunity” or actually wants racial amalgamation (p. 78, fn 113).
[Marriage statistics support the notion that many Blacks wanted amalgamation. In 1960, 1.69 percent of Black marriages were interracial. In 2010, 14 percent of Black marriages were interracial.
    The primary objective of the civil rights movement and concomitant programs has not been to raise the Black man, but to bring down the White man. The primary objective of integration is to make interracial breeding acceptable. Its objective is to destroy the races.]
    George concludes with a discussion of Franz Boas (pp. 78-87). Boas is the father [if I may use such a politically incorrect term] of the dogma that asserts “the absence of important and innate racial differences” (p. 78). [This is the dogma that the federal courts have relied on in their “civil rights” related rulings. Most of George’s report is directed at refuting and disproving Boas’ dogma.] He explains how Boas’ dogma has become so widely accepted. It prevails because “1) The scientific evidence has failed to reach the public mind. 2) Error, presented as scientific truth and intermingled with scientific truth, has flooded the public mind” (pp. 78-79). [He fails to mention that the ruling elite supports and promotes the Boas’ dogma primarily through its foundations.]
    According to Boas, one of his objectives was breeding the American Negro out of existence [that is, genocide]. “In 1921 he wrote, ‘It would seem that, man being what he is, the Negro problem will not disappear in America until the Negro blood has been so diluted that it will no longer be recognized. . . .’ Therefore, the program of mixing children of all races in schools and playgrounds was devised as a means of bringing about interracial mixing of blood” (p. 82).
    [In summary, George was correct. Genetic studies and other related studies done since he wrote support his arguments. Unfortunately, George and hereditarianism have been ignored in setting race-related policies. Regardless what the science shows, the ruling elite is determined to integrate the races of the masses to destroy them so that it can more easily control what remains. If the real objective is to uplift the Black man, then both Blacks and Whites have to acknowledge the true nature of Blacks and their natural limitations. The Black man can never be uplifted by bringing down the White man, which is the current approached.]

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issue articles.