Review of “‘Systemic Racism’ Theory is the New Political Tribalism”

Review of “‘Systemic Racism’ Theory is the New Political Tribalism”

Thomas Allen

The following is a review of “‘Systemic Racism’ Theory is the New Political Tribalism” (July 21, 2020) by Richard M. Ebeling of the American Institute for Economic Research. He is a Jew, a libertarian, a Dixiephobe, and a racial nihilist who adheres to the new morality. Like nearly all libertarians and most Yankees, he is a proponent of the atomistic autonomous individual devoid of any relationship with race, ethnicity (nation), or country. They are deplorable collectives.  In his article, he condemns systemic racism, which is used to cover all the world’s evil in a collective matter. Although he would staunchly deny it, Ebeling is a racist on multiple accounts (see “Are You a Racist?”).

Ebeling discusses what he considers progress out of American racist past. When the veneer is removed, what is considered progress is the replacement of White supremacy with Black supremacy. Progress is Whites hating their race or at least disliking it enough to consider it not worthy of preservation.

Next, Ebeling discusses how attitudes have changed for the better. For him, the growing acceptance of interracial marriages is a great leap forward. Why he hates the American Negro so much that he condones breeding him out of existence, he does not explain.

Perhaps, his ignorance or self-denial is so great that he does not recognize this genocide. However, Maurice Lindsay, a Negro and a student of religion and Black history and development does realize this genocide. He knows that interracial marriages will genocide the American Negro. Moreover, he is convinced that miscegenation is a plot by Whites like Ebeling to rid the country and then the world of Blacks. Thus, this Black man has a much greater understanding of the consequences of miscegenation than does Ebeling and, therefore, shows more intelligence than Ebeling. While Whites like Ebeling condemn White supremacy and the notion that Blacks are naturally inferior to Whites, they support the notion, most likely subconsciously, that Blacks need a strong infusion of White genes to raise them. By his approval of miscegenation and the growing number of mongrels, Ebeling reveals his hatred of the races and, by that, his hatred of humanity.

Like most libertarians, Ebeling believes that the government is the root of all evil. He blames the government for most racial differences in performance and outcome. That is, governmental policies are the cause of Blacks lagging behind Whites by most economic and social measures. He is convinced that such differences are definitely not genetic.

Governmental policies and even corporate policies discriminate against Whites, especially White males, by hiring and promoting less qualified Blacks over more qualified Whites. Many universities have procedures in place to admit less qualified Blacks over more qualified Whites. Whatever is holding Blacks back, it is not governmental policies because they are skewed heavily in favor of Blacks and against Whites.

Ebeling blames minimum wage laws as the primary cause of unemployment of young Blacks. Minimum wage laws are a significant contribution to Black unemployment. Attitude, character, temperament, and intelligence, which genetics highly influences, are other important contributors that he does not discuss — probably because he believes that genetics have little or no influence on these attributes. (Initially, the primary purpose of minimum wage laws was to price Blacks out of the Northern labor markets and keep them in their place, i.e., to keep them in the South.)

According to Ebeling, the difference between the unemployment rate of young Blacks and young Whites results from public schools. Public schools often pass Blacks to the next grade when they lack the skills to enter the next grade. (For fear of being accused of being a “racist” and, thus, losing their jobs, teachers have a strong incentive to pass unqualified Blacks to the next grade.) Thus, they graduate without the skills to qualify for starting employment. (However, quotas and affirmative action are designed to overcome this problem by requiring hiring less qualified Blacks over more qualified Whites. Ebeling fails to discuss quotas and affirmative action, which are highly invasive actions of the government.) Whatever the cause of the lower education of Blacks is, Ebeling seems convinced that it has nothing to do with Blacks having a lower IQ on average than Whites. He blames the difference on what is being taught and how it is being taught — although Whites are taught the same material in the same way.

Two laws that Ebeling ignores are the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. He should have focused his arguments against these two laws, the court rulings that have interpreted and misinterpreted them, the governmental agencies that enforced them, and the unethical Supreme Court ruling in the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, which was based on sociology instead of the Constitution and law. They are the cause of the problems about which he complains. Perhaps, he overlooks them because these two civil rights acts ended White supremacy, privilege, and power, with which he agrees. However, they replaced White supremacy, privilege, and power with Black supremacy, privilege, and power, with which he disagrees.

(Under Jim Crow, the segregationist had to accept equality before the law as the operative de jure principle. Under civil rights, Whites, especially White males, can be legally discriminated against with no recourse to the courts. In the civil rights era, Black privilege, i.e., Blacks have privileges denied to Whites, has replaced the concept of “all citizens are equal before the law.”)

Next, Ebeling blames the social environment in which many Blacks are reared as the cause of Blacks lagging economically. Many Blacks fail to emphasize education and making sacrifices in the present for benefits in the future. Again, he does not identify genetics as a possible cause of such an environment. (Since race precedes environment, race makes the environment.)

Ebeling writes that he was taught that the world did not owe him a living and that he needed to be a responsible individual. (He fails to mention the welfare state that has taught a disproportional number of Black women that they can make a good living merely by producing children — which is a highly rational act. Most people prefer being paid not to work to being paid about the same or less to work. [This is more proof of Black supremacy and privilege: Blacks, who are net tax recipients, have enslaved Whites, who are net taxpayers, to support them.])

Ebeling believes that education, planning for the future, and self-control are universal truths that apply to all human beings regardless of race. (Proponents of systemic racism would argue that these truths are the White man’s truths since a White man, Ebeling, declared them truths, and, therefore, they do not apply to Blacks.) He is correct in that people who follow these truths do better than people who do not.

Finally, he gets to the discussion of “systemic racism.” He defined systemic racism: “It is the claim that it does not matter what individual human beings think, believe, or try to do; they are all perpetrators or victims of racial injustices and oppressions due to the nature of the socio-economic and political system in which they live. In other words, white racism is embedded into society, and the implication is that it has always been so and will remain so unless and until the very structural design of the social order is radically transformed.”

Thus, the system is rotten, and most people do not realize that they are part of the system and are using it to benefit at the expense of others. (This is true although today it is opposite to what the proponents of systemic racism claim to be true. The proponents claim that the system benefits Whites at the expense of Blacks. On the contrary, Blacks benefit at the expense of Whites through affirmative action, quotas, preferments, and a host of other policies and by receiving more money from the government than they pay in taxes.)

According to the proponents of systemic racism, the differences in incomes between Whites and Blacks result from systemic racism. Moreover, the difference in the quality of schools results from systemic racism. (School integration and forced busing were designed to eliminate this difference. Thus, the difference results from the quality of the student, genetics, and not from the quality of the schools.) Systemic racism also causes differential treatment within the legal system. (Such as a Black criminal is less likely to be arrested for the same crime than is a White criminal and is more likely to be found not guilty by a jury even when obviously guilty than is a White criminal. However, proponents of systemic racism do not have these Black privileges in mind.)

Likewise, systemic racism is the cause of poorer quality food offered in local stores in Black neighborhoods. (If the food quality does differ could the cause be that the shopkeeper wants to risk losing less property when Blacks go on one of their periodic rampages of rioting, looting, and burning?)

Ebeling asks why the “poor, white trash” are not also victims of the system since they are often treated as badly, if not worse, than Blacks claim to be treated. After all, poor, white trash are in the lower income brackets, live in poor neighborhoods, and are ostracized from the better social networks. (The answer is obvious to a proponent of systemic racism: Poor, white trash are White.)

Proponents of systemic racism believe that success depends solely on being White. (Perhaps, their notion, at least in part, explains the rise in interracial marriages. Blacks believe that their children will advance socially and economically with an infusion of White genes. Albusphobic Whites who are also Negrophobes are willing to whiten the Negro race. Is not such sacrificial attitude evidence of racism?)

Ebeling adheres to the proposition of the “melting pot” philosophy, the amalgamation of all into one. He uses the classic example of European immigrants from various European countries. After a generation or two, the descendants of these European immigrants had mostly merged into American (White) society and culture.

Although these various ethnicities may have fought each other in Europe, they ceased doing so when they came to America. Why? Could it be that their similarities outweighed their differences? They were Whites coming to a White country where Negroes and Indians were like outcasts and only participated peripherally. Like White Americans, these White Europeans had the same basic religion (Christianity) and culture (Western Civilization). In this respect, they differed significantly from Blacks and Indians, both of whom were of a different race, a primitive culture, and a pagan-type religion.

Ebeling credits this merger on the lack of a legal foundation for group privileges and a lack of social prejudice. Moreover, the philosophy of individualism, personal freedom, and economic liberty was promoted. These are important reasons. However, he ignores racial, cultural, and religious similarities, which allowed the conditions that he cites to thrive.

Ebeling argues that slavery and Jim Crow needed the government to survive. He fails to note that the Jim Crow laws in the South were modeled after the Black labor codes in the North. As Booker T. Washington remarked, much of the segregation in the South, especially in the workplace, resulted from Northern workers who had migrated to the South. Moreover, even as the Northern Black codes faded away, Northerners still discriminated against Blacks as much as, and in some instances more than, Southerners until the government intervened to end such discrimination.

Ebeling condemns proponents of systemic racism for insisting that people have to think about themselves as part of a collective ethnic or racial group. In his arguments against them, he promotes amalgamating all ethnic and racial collectives of humanity — or at the other extreme, everyone becomes an atomistic, autonomous, isolated, independent individual.

Next, Ebeling compares systemic racism with Nazism. Both insist on identifying people by race. One’s race fixes one’s position and status in society. Then, he proceeds to condemn the eugenists, who claim that a person is his genes. Thus, he asserts that genetics are irrelevant. (Ignoring genetics is one of the main reasons that we have the racial problems that we have today.)

Further, he condemns the eugenists for promoting increasing the population of higher quality people and discouraging the growth of lower quality people. (Ebeling should be rejoicing. Dysgenics has supplanted eugenics. Now, lower quality people are encouraged to reproduce while the reproduction of higher quality people is discouraged.)

According to Ebeling, the new eugenists claim that people cannot help being racists. It is part of their social DNA. Only by bringing down the system can White racism end. (Presumably, this includes genociding Whites.) No common humanity or shared humanness exists — so claim the new eugenists. In contrast to the new eugenists, who believe that races think differently, Ebeling asserts that all races think the same way. (If Blacks think the same way as Whites do, then sub-Sahara Africa should have been at about the same level as Europe in culture, science, technology, etc. in the sixteenth century when Europeans began exploring sub-Sahara Africa. Likewise, the sixteenth-century American Indians should have been at about the same levels as the Europeans.)

Rightfully, Ebeling condemns people (Whites) who “verbally [and some physically]  grovel and beg forgiveness for the presumption, the hubris, the insensitivity, to think that they could ever know and feel what a black person has or ever can feel.” However, he condemns them for the wrong reason. He condemns them for declaring that “we live in racially different universes, with no common humanity, understanding, empathy or sympathy.” They deserve to be condemned for cowardice and for trying to placate people, both White and Black, who will never be satisfied. Even the complete extermination of Whites will not satisfy them. (With the extermination of the White race, Blacks will soon perish. They will no longer have a race to which to feel superior. More importantly, they will no longer have a race to plunder. Further, they will lose their protection from the Asian and Latin American Turanians.)

Correctly, Ebeling remarks that White guilt has lead to Whites giving their “privilege” to the other races by allowing the government to take wealth from Whites, who do not deserve it and should not have it, and give it to the other races. Thus, “social justice” depends on which race controls the government. (Currently, Blacks control the government although most of the figureheads are Whites.)

Ebeling concludes that if the ideology and policies of systemic racism, identity politics, and cancel culture prevails, America dies. Unfortunately, he believes that the United States are a propositional country and not a genetic country as the Constitution declares it to be. Its proposition is dedicated to the destruction of races and ethnicities and the replacement of them with the atomistic, autonomous individual, who will be a nondescript narcissist motley mongrel man.

Ebeling favors discrimination based on merit instead of race, ethnicity, or any other criteria. Yet, discrimination is discrimination. For the person discriminated against, the reason is of little importance. He still fails to get what he seeks. Since Ebeling rejects genetics, he must believe that sufficient education and training can overcome the discrimination of merit. Thus, anyone can become a multimillionaire athlete or a world-renowned musician with the proper training or a physician or engineer with the proper education. Therefore, everyone can become whatever he wants to be with the proper training and education. Failure to receive such education and training must result from racial discrimination — as the proponents of systematic racism would argue. Like Ebeling, they reject the notion that genetics has any connection with intelligence, talents, or abilities. Nevertheless, unlike Ebeling, they know that any system that relies solely or mostly on merit will leave most Blacks behind. Eventually, the differences between Blacks and Whites will be as great as it was during the Jim Crow era. Economically, Blacks will fare no better than they did under Jim Crow unless they genocide themselves with a large infusion of White and East Asian genes. To prevent the genocide of Blacks and to keep them from lagging economically, the proponents of systemic racism use the government to give Blacks special privileges and to suppress Whites. Apparently, Ebeling fails to recognize this because he refuses to recognize the importance of genetics.

The major flaw in Ebeling’s analysis of systemic racism is that he ignores the importance of genetics. To the extent that he touches on genetics, he condemns the notion that genetics determines or influences anything beyond some physical features that none can deny.

Libertarians like Ebeling are like good Marxists and communists. They believe that the environment makes the person; genetics are irrelevant. A person is born as a blank slate upon which someone writes the person’s personality, temperament, character, abilities, talents, and intelligence.

Because of racial nihilists like Ebeling, albusphobes will achieve their goal: the extermination of the White race. Then, systemic racism will be no more.

Appendix: A Libertarian Quandary 
When hiring and promoting, most corporations place more emphasis on race and sex than on merit and ability. Thus, many White males are often past over for a less qualified Black or woman. This action must confound libertarians since they believe that profit is the primary driving force of a company. How can the profit motive explain replacing a superior workforce with an inferior one? Such action results in less profit or even a loss. Such action also proves that if systemic racism exists, it is Black racism and not White racism. Libertarians cannot blame the government for causing these companies to behave this way because these companies control the government.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Review of the Race Problem and Human Progress

Review of the Race Problem and Human Progress

Thomas Allen

    The following is a review of The Race Problem and Human Progress by Dr. Wesley Critz George (Ostara Publication edition, 2013). I have provided references to pages in his book and have enclosed them in parentheses. My remarks are enclosed in brackets, and most are supporting commentary.
    George argues that racial differences need to be considered and accounted for in formulating public policies (p. 4). [Unfortunately, for both Whites and Blacks and the world, George and people like him have been ignored. The dogma that racial differences, especially in intellect and behavior, are nonexistent or at most insignificant has prevailed in the United States and Europe for decades. As a result, both the United States and Europe are fading away and will soon be no more than a historical footnote. Most of today’s social, economic, and political problems are caused by this nihilist, egalitarian dogma.]
    In the sixteenth century, tyrants suppressed the science of astronomy that declared a heliocentric solar system. Today, tyrants suppress the science of racial genetics that declares that human races differ significantly genetically and this difference extends to intellect and behavior (p. 7). Racial egalitarians and racial nihilists have distorted scientific and historical facts to promote their agendas and dogmas (p. 7).
    Socialists are racial nihilists, or at least act like they are. They promote the notion that racial differences are insignificant or unimportant. Their underlying principle “is that human beings are plastic creatures who merely reflect their exterior environment” (p. 7). [This is Lysenkoism. Lysenkoism denies that genes have any effect on an organism. Environment is the sole determinant of the characteristics that an organism has. Lysenkoism was the official policy of the Soviet Union under Stalin.]
    Archibald Roosevelt notes in the introduction that he wrote for George’s book that no “intelligent anthropologist will claim that one race is superior in all counts to other races. The only thing a scientist can say is that one race is better fitted to certain conditions — better adapted in mind, and better adapted in body” (p. 8). Then he states that Blacks can thrive and reproduce in tropical forests where Whites perish in a generation or two. Blacks fare even better than any other race except perhaps Indo-Australians in such habitat. On the other hand, Whites do better in modern technical civilization than do Blacks. Unfortunately, for Whites and Blacks, the guiding dogma of the United States and Europe is “that all people must be forced into one common mold” (p. 8). Thus, people are forced to do things that are unnatural to them (pp. 8-9).
    Dr. Henry Garrett, who wrote the forward to George’s book, notes:

. . . all individuals are unequal at birth, and as they live and pursue their divergent ways tend to become even more unequal, i.e., their differences increase. This would be true even if we lived under identical conditions, ate the same bread, slept the same sleep, breathed the same air. No two individuals have the same complement of genes (except identical twins), and each of us possesses different qualities of mind and character. . . . What applies to the individual, applies in a broad sense to races of men. Races differ, too (pp 8-9).

    Garrett continues, “The equalitarian-collectivists argue — with no real evidence — that all men are born with equal endowment and can be kept equal if given the same opportunities and the same environment. . . . Yet this is the philosophy that dictates the social policies of our time” (p. 11).
    George writes:

If we can continue to develop a programme of friendly co-operation between the races, with separateness in social life, we can go forward in promoting the talents of the white man and the Negro and can contribute to the welfare and happiness of both. Otherwise, tragedy lies ahead for the American people (p. 13).

[America has ignored George’s advice. Now it is at the edge of the abyss that George feared.]
    He feared that integration and amalgamation of the races would lead to a breed of people incapable of maintaining the American civilization (p. 13). [In only a few decades, what he feared has happened. After nearly 60 years of forced integration, the American civilization is on its deathbed.]
    George observes that the White race has produced most of the civilizations of history. The Black race has produced none (p. 14). Then he remarks, “The creativeness, the productiveness, or the lack of such qualities, in man are related to and in large measure the result of their inherent natures. These inherent natures have a genetic or hereditary basis” (p. 14).
    Next George discusses heredity verse environment (pp. 14ff). Heredity dominates some characteristics, such as “general body form, skin texture and pigmentation” (pp. 14-15).
    He comments that:

. . . each race has a pool of genes different from the pool of genes of every other race, although some genes in the pool appear to be common to all races, probably to all mammals. This pool of genes is the major factor in determining the appearance of individuals of a race, and not only their bodily appearance but their reactions, their intellectual capacity and their accomplishments (pp. 15-16).

    Then he concludes, “The importance of heredity in the production of physical features is scarcely denied; but in the sphere of intellect and behaviour there is a campaign of denial of the importance of heredity” (p. 16). [This denial of the importance of heredity in the sphere of intellect and behavior is the guiding dogma of today. This dogma has brought a great deal of destruction to the Western world.]
    George goes into more detail about the influence of genes on intelligence (pp. 16ff). He cites several well-known authorities who show the importance of genes in determining intelligence.
    Then he discusses the intelligence of Blacks, whose intelligence on average is significantly less than that of Whites on average (pp. 17-19). He quotes Dr. Carothers, who spent his life working in mental hospitals in Africa:

The African has accordingly been described as conventional; highly dependent on physical and emotional stimulation; lacking in spontaneity, foresight, tenacity, judgment and humility; inapt for sound abstraction and for logic; given to phantasy and fabrication; and, in general, as unstable, impulsive, unreliable, irresponsible, and living in the present without reflection or ambition, or regard for the rights of others outside his own circle. To counteract these ruderies, he has also been described as cheerful, stoical, self-confident, sociable, loyal, emotionally intuitive, and eloquent, and as bearing no grudges and having an excellent memory, a large vocabulary, and an aptitude for music and the dance (p. 18).

    Next George comments on the high crime rate of Negroes (pp. 20-21) and Haiti (pp. 21-23). Haiti went from being the most productive colony in the Caribbean under White-man’s rule to one of the most impoverished countries in the world under Black-man's rule.
    George continues his discussion of race, heredity, and civilization with a quotation from Ernest Hooten, formerly head of the Department of Anthropology at Harvard:

The errors of humanitarianism are based on the assumption that it is under-privilege that makes the underdog, and that the potentialities for intellectual and cultural development are essentially equal in all men — in short upon the delusion that mind and social capacity in man are independent of the organism and that an equalization of opportunity will bring the millenium (p. 23).

    Next George discusses the race problem, integration, differences in intelligence, and other race-related issues (pp. 24ff).
    He discusses some of the political and religious slogans used to promote racial integration (pp. 26-27). [Many of these same slogans can easily be used to promote sexually integrated restrooms and locker rooms — and some have been.]
    First slogan: “[C]ompulsory mixing of the races is the democratic, American way” (p. 27). George replies, “That, of course, is false. The United States was founded and for 180 years has prospered on the principle of union and strength in diversity. Compulsory conformity and uniformity is not the American way; it is a perversion of the American way” (p. 27). [Today, diversity emphasizes and even demands conformity and uniformity.]
    Second slogan. “[T]here is no fundamental difference between men” (p. 27). George replies, “Most of us will admit that all men should be equal in their right to justice and fair play; but in the biological sense there is no truth in the quotation and it has no valid force or use in solving the race problem” (p. 27).
    Third slogan: “the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of man" (p. 27). To this slogan, George replies, “Fatherhood and brotherhood are fine ideas and factual states, but they do not solve social problems without regard to other facts any more than they solve family problems. In reaching decisions on vital social problems we are admonished to disregard ‘race, creed, colour and national origin.’ These are all major facts of life” (p. 27).
    Fourth slogan: “[I]ntegration is the Christian way and that separation of the races is un-Christian” (p. 27). George replies, “It is not clear why anything should be accepted as Christian when its virtue has not been demonstrated” (p. 27).
    George identifies several reasons for opposing racial integration. One is the low moral behavior of Blacks and their high rate of crime (p. 29). [Since integration, Whites have adopted the low moral behavior of Blacks instead of Blacks adopting the high moral behavior of Whites. Moreover, integration has done nothing to reduce the Black crime rate.]
    Another reason for opposing racial integration is that racial integration leads to interracial mating. Interracial mating destroys the unique gene pool of both the White and Black races. Destruction of their gene pools devastates the unique abilities of both races (p. 30).
    George comments:

There is much evidence to show that the Caucasoid people, the white race, have creative talents and abilities that have not been demonstrated to any considerable extent by the Negro race. Great achievement in human individuals is correlated with a high degree of intelligence combined with a number of traits such as zeal, vigour, persistence, co-operativeness, adaptability, imagination, courage, self-confidence (p. 31).

    To dilute the gene pool of the White race with the genes of the Black race will bring to an end all the great religious, philosophical, political, artistic, engineering, medical, agricultural, and scientific advancements that the White race has given the world. Even the Negro has greatly benefitted from the achievements of the White race (pp. 33-34). [Is the annihilation of the White race being motivated by a desire to end these advancements?]
    Not only is intellect highly influenced by genetics, so are personality and various abilities (pp. 34-37).
    Some proponents of integration claim that integration will not lead to interracial marriages. [Marriage statistics disprove this claim.] George offers two examples to disprove this assertion: Portugal and Brazil.
    Portugal began importing Negro slaves in the mid-fifteenth century. The Portuguese interbred with these Blacks. Now many Portuguese display Negroid characteristics. Moreover, before racial amalgamation, Portugal was a first-class power. Now it is an insignificant nothing (p. 37).
    In Brazil, the Portuguese first interbred with the Indians and then with the imported Negro slaves. Today, Brazil has a highly mixed-breed population. It is a large country with a large population and is endowed with great natural resources. Yet it is still a backward country dependent on foreign aid (p. 37).
    Racial amalgamation will lead the United States down the road to Portugal and Brazil. [The United States are being so overwhelmed with non-White immigrants that amalgamation can only accelerate. Within a few generations, Whites will cease to exist in the United States. Furthermore, Europeans seem determined to annihilate the White race in Europe.]
    George overviews how the United States got into the racial mess that they were in when he wrote (pp. 38-40). [It is even worse today because Americans ignored the warnings of George and others like him. Because they ignored opponents of integration, White America will soon die. Sadly, many Whites look forward to that day with gladness. Oh, how they must hate themselves and their family. How they must hate the Negro to destroy him to destroy themselves.]
    He blames the clergy for America’s racial problems (pp. 38-41). About the clergy, George writes:

        They preach sociological sermons that will not stand the test of analysis, they pass resolutions, they quote the Golden Rule. They seem not to realize that quoting the Golden Rule does not answer the question. What is the right and moral thing to do? It merely raises the question. The admonition ‘Do unto others as you would have them do to you,’ applies not only to our relations with Negroes.
        It applies also to our children and to our children’s children through future generations. Do you think that the Golden Rule requires or permits that we make racial hybrids of our posterity? I hardly think so (pp. 38-39).

[The clergy is not only responsible for the race problem and the destruction of the White race; they are also responsible for many of America’s other problems — most of which are related to race. Because of them, the United States have become a tyrannical police state with the government spying on everyone. They are behind the endless war on terrorism to protect Israeli imperialism. The agendas of homosexuals and other sexual deviants have received much support from them. {Sexual integration is a natural outgrowth of racial integration.} Most support and promote unlimited non-White immigration, whether legal or illegal. Whether they support the destruction of America and the death of the White race out of ignorance or collaboration with the ruling elite is not known. However, most likely, it is the latter for most clergy.]
    George remarks, “The National Council of Churches and its predecessor, the Federal Council of Churches, have for many years made racial integration one of their main objectives” (p. 39). [The National Council of Churches is an illuministic front to promote the agenda of the ruling elite in religious circles.]
    George concludes his admonishment of the clergy, “By all means let us be kind, generous and helpful to Negroes and all men, but let us rid ourselves of the delusion that Christianity requires us to sacrifice our children and our children’s children to the cause of integration.” [Contrary to the teachings of the integrationist clergy, God does not demand the sacrifice of our children. He abhors such sacrifice.]
    Next George asks, “Shall we submit to programs designed to convert the American Caucasian race into an American mulatto race?” (p. 42). [As the last 50 years have shown, Americans chose to convert the American Caucasian race into an American mulatto race. The domestic Negro was not achieving this goal fast enough. So they open the borders to unlimited non-White immigrants. The White race, which many consider the cancer of the universe, must be eradicated! Naively, George thought that if the people knew the truth about genetics, race, and racial amalgamation, they would turn from the destructive effects of integration. Most did not and do not care to learn the truth — even those who opposed coercive big government. Of the few who care to learn, most will ignore it. All fear being called “racist” — a fear instilled with decades of propaganda by the ruling elite. So controlling has this fear become that nearly all Whites declare that they are not racists before they make a comment about race. Non-Whites can discuss race openly and frankly without fear. Whites cannot.]
    George remarks:

        It should make a great deal of difference in many of our human affairs whether man is in the main an environmentally dominated creature or whether genetic heredity plays a major role in our lives.
        Instead of seeking the facts bearing on these questions, environmentalism has been accepted and promoted as a dogma by those attempting to bring about socialism, communism, amalgamation of the races, and by the left wing generally. The scientific evidence they present is virtually non-existent, and yet we have been driven ahead into what may be very foolish programs (p. 43).

[The ruling elite and its lackeys and toadies do not care what the science shows. Environmentalism supports their dogma of statism, which transfers all wealth and power to them. To achieve this goal, they must annihilate the White race. Only the White race stands between them and their goal. The irony is that most of the ruling elite is White. Are they to be among those killed? Probably. Behind them is Lucifer, and his objective is to annihilate the White race by amalgamation or other means because it is the race created in God’s image.]
    About a minister who declared “that love is the ultimate solution of the race problem” (p. 43), George writes:

        Any one worthy of being the shepherd of a flock should know that unrestrained and unguided love has led many people to tragedy.
        By all means, love should be involved in considering human affairs including race relations; but love is not necessarily wisdom and it does not eliminate the necessity for making judgments based on fact and reason (pp. 43-44).

    Then he remarks that this type of sophistry fills academia. Academia tries “to instill the idea that in human affairs the inherent nature of the seed corn is of little concern — that only the conditions of cultivation are important” (p. 44).
    Committing on political, religious, and academic leaders controlling and manipulating people, George writes, “In our present situation emotional words like ‘brotherhood’ and ‘love’ are made to do useful service for those who wish to manipulate people. ‘Prejudice,’ ‘racism,’ ‘bigotry’ are also signal words used to produce rejection responses while evading truth and reason” (p. 45).
    Regarding funding racial genetics research, George observes, “No money seems available to search out the truth although money is available from government and foundations to establish the dogma without the truth” (p. 45). [The same situation is found with the global warming dogma. Plenty of research money is available to show that human activity is the primary, if not the sole, cause of global warming. {Such finding gives the ruling elite something that they can use to scare the masses into giving the ruling elite more power over the masses.} Little or no money is available for research that questions global warming and that shows man’s contribution is insignificant.]
    To refute the environmentalists’ assertion that good schools are needed to produce eminent men and, therefore, schools need to be integrated, George offers examples of some eminent men, most of whom were born in poverty, and all of whom had little or no formal schooling (p. 47).
        George notes two primary factors that determine one’s life and achievements:

    1. The pool of genes assembled when the egg is fertilized in the womb.
    2. The concatenation of events in the prenatal and postnatal environments in which the genes operate. As evidence continues to accumulate, the importance of genes becomes increasingly clear (pp. 47-48).

    Next George discusses the importance of genes on intellect and behavior (pp. 49ff). Genetics has a good deal of impact on personality traits, specifically dominance-submissiveness (p. 49). Intelligence has been found to have “about the same genetic correlation as do physical features” (p. 49).
    About the problem of low-grade intelligence, George quotes Bradley Patten, formerly head of anatomy at the University of Michigan:

The most serious defects of the nervous system from the standpoint of human progress are neither extremely manifest or clinically remediable. They become evident only as an individual develops and proves to have an intelligence level too low to cope successfully with the problems of living in our modern complex and highly competitive society. As far as we know the background of such situations, it is the old and inexorable law of ‘like begetting like’ . . . But the fact remains that to have a good brain one must choose ancestors with good brains, just as one must stem from physically sound stock if one is to have a good body. . . (p. 50).

    Then George adds:

A mouse, a seal, an elephant, a frog, a bird, or a man behaves according to his kind because he has inherited the brain of his kind. His brain, which guides his behavior, is of course embedded in and influenced by the matrix of his other organs and the body is embedded in and influenced by the matrix of the general environment (p. 50).

    Next George cites a few leaders in the field of neuroanatomy and neurology (pp. 49-53) to show that the brain is much more complex than “a mass of homogenous wax” (p. 51). People need “to look upon the mind as some transcendental essence” (p. 51). Studies have shown “that there is a striking relation between brain size, histological brain structure and learning capacity” (p. 53).
    George cites several studies on the development of the brain in infancy. These studies show “that most of the material substrate of mind (nerve cells and their fibers) develop before kindergarten age — only about ten percent after that age” (p. 57).
    He adds:

Experience, including schooling, undoubtedly exercises an important function in imprinting memory vestiges and in selectively facilitating synaptic transmission of impulses, but it is not evident that it can contribute significantly, if indeed at all, in adding to the inherited material basis of the mind (p. 57).

    George remarks, “That there are many hereditary racial features, not evident to the casual observer, has been revealed by scientific researches” (p. 57). Then he identifies some pathological conditions that are hereditary and vary with race (pp. 57-59). He concludes, “Race is not merely skin deep” (p. 59).
    Next George compares the Negro and White brains (pp. 59-62). Two important factors have been found:

    1. [T]he average weight of adult male Negro brains is about ten percent less than the average weight of adult male White brains. And it has been established that intelligence in mammalian animal groups is correlated with the size of the brain. We have seen above that there is such a correlation also in the growing child.
    2. Through microscopic study of many brains it has been revealed that there is a similarly significant difference in the two races in the thickness of the supragranular layers of the cortex — the layers that are credited with being those portions of the cortex most directly involved in the higher mental functions (p. 59).

    George concludes, “It appears then that the Negro race is at a disadvantage in his mechanism for intellectual activity just as he is at an advantage through pigmentation for protection against the harmful effects of a tropical sun” (p. 60).
    He notes that the anatomical differences in the brains of the two races probably account for “the average Negro score on IQ and educational achievement tests [being] about 20% below the average White score” (p. 60). Also, the “high scores near the gifted-child level are 6-7 times as frequent among White children” (p. 60). During the 1950s and early 1960s, after a generation of compulsory schooling, 67.2 percent of Black inductees and enlistees were rejected because they failed the military education tests while only 18.9 percent of the Whites were rejected (p. 60). [Anyone who claims this disparity was caused by segregated schools is in effect claiming that Black teachers were too stupid or too incompetent to teach Black pupils.]
    George notes that the differences in the brains of Whites and Blacks may explain “why extensive integration of Negro and White children in schools has been a failure and destructive of the educational process” (p. 61).
    George states:

But in light of the historical record of the Negro race and their current behavior it seems highly probable that the hybrid blending of Negro and White nervous systems in the formation of a mulatto race would have a harmful effect on our civilization (p. 62).

    He adds, “It becomes therefore a matter of great importance that our people and politicians should be made aware of racial differences known to exist and the nature of hybrid mixing of genetic characters” (p. 62). [Many are aware of racial differences but have no desire to prevent racial amalgamation. Politicians like failed policies. Failed policies allow them to argue for more control and money, higher taxes. Moreover, if the genetic component is insignificant or nonexistent, the racial differences are caused solely by the environment. Attempting to manipulate the environment to overcome racial differences concentrates more power in the hands of the politicians and their owners. Also, environmentalism supports the prevailing and guiding ideology of the United States: equalitarian Marxism. {The 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto have been almost fully implemented.} Innate genetic differences do not. Furthermore, some desire total annihilation of the White race because they are filled with hatred. {Why would anyone want to breed a race out of existence, which is genocide, unless hatred is the motivation?} Most people just tremble in fear of being labeled a racist and, therefore, do not oppose racial amalgamation. {The great irony is that Whites who fear being called “racist” are already considered racists by non-Whites, and they can do nothing to change this no matter how much they grovel.}]
    George asks, “Is it too much to hope for an open minded consideration by politicians and the public of the facts vital to our problems?” (p. 62). [Yes. Most Whites would rather be tortured to death than to be thought of as racists. Most non-Whites like things the way they are: Whites cowering before their demands.]
    George states:

If intelligence, behavior, and achievement are primarily due to something within ourselves, then the genetic composition of our population is a matter of major concern for social planning but if they are brought forth primarily by external factors then social engineers and statesmen should be primarily concerned with manipulating environment (p. 63).

    He argues that social policies should be based on genetics being the primary determinant of intelligence, behavior, and achievement. He presents evidence to support his argument (pp. 63ff).
    To overcome the difference in achievement between Blacks and Whites, the government has made various programs to raise the socioeconomic environment of Black infants and preschool children. Being unable to overcome the genetic component, these programs have done little to close the gap (p. 64). [However, they have cost a great deal — thus, making some rich. More importantly from a statist perspective, they have given the government much more control over the people.]
    In conclusion, George writes, “We should try at least to ameliorate our race problems by more hopeful means than compulsory programs that violate established biological truths. The establishment of schools fitted to the Negroes’ intellectual talents would be a step in the right direction” (p. 66).
    Summarizing his book, he writes:

        1. Powerful forces in the world are trying to foist on the people an educational and social revolution based on the equalitarian dogma.
        2. This equalitarian dogma is unsupportable on the basis of scientific facts.
        3. Individual organisms including man vary in their genetic constitution, not merely in the effects of environment on body and personality.
        4. Genes are potent determining factors not merely for gross morphology and superficial features but for many, perhaps most, features down to molecular structure, including brains and consequently behavior.
        5. Biological racial features are numerous and all pervasive and involve the brain as well as externally visible characters (p. 67).

    [Racial integration is part of the illuministic program to transfer all wealth and power to a small number of illuminists. However, the primary purpose of racial integration is racial amalgamation. The purpose of racial amalgamation is the annihilation of the White, Aryan, Adamic, race — the race created in God’s image.
    At the time that George wrote, the major racial issue was White versus Black. For the most part, the American Indian issues have faded. If he were to write today, he would have focused a good deal on the exploding Turanian invasion — mostly from Mexico and other Latin American countries and the Far East (Japan, Korea, China, and the Philippines). Another important race that he would need to consider is the Melanochroi — mostly from India, Pakistan, the Arabian peninsula, and Somalia. Percentage-wise, the Melanochroi is probably the fastest-growing race in the United States. He would surely be weeping over the death of the White race and, thereby, the death of the American civilization.
    George feared that the mongrelization of the White race with the Black race would bring down America. As important as mongrelization is to the demise of the White race, genocide through replacement has become more important. Massive third-world non-White immigration is overwhelming White America and annihilating it. Whites will soon be a minority in their own country.]

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Mencken on the Inferior Man

Mencken on the Inferior Man

Thomas Allen

    In 1926, H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) wrote Notes on Democracy in which he expressed his views on democracy and related issues. He was a journalist, satirist, and critic and a libertarian and one of the leaders of the Old Right. In his book, he describes the inferior man, pages 15-21, 31-32, 38-39. Below is an overview of his discussion on the inferior man; my comments are in brackets.
    About the inferior man, Mencken notes “that there is actually no more evidence for the wisdom of the inferior man, nor for his virtue, than there is for the notion that Friday is an unlucky day.” In the early days, testing this notion of superiority of the inferior man was difficult. “[W]hat cannot be tried and disproved has always had a lascivious lure for illogical man.” Recent knowledge about “the content and character of the human mind,” has disposed of “the old belief in its congenital intuitions and inherent benevolences.” [Studies during the past several decades show that genetics has a much greater influence on the human mind than suspected in Mencken’s day.] The functions of the mind are mostly “purely physical and chemical phenomena, and its development and operation are subject to precisely the same natural laws which govern the development and operation, say, of the human nose or lungs.” Thus, some “minds . . . start out with a superior equipment, and proceed to high and arduous deeds; there are minds which never get any farther than a sort of insensate sweating, like that of a kidney.” [Mencken is correct in that some minds are genetically superior to others. However, he ignores the spiritual or soul aspects of the mind, i.e., the mind is more than physical and chemical phenomena, a notion that he, most likely, would reject. In the last two chapters of Darwinism Refuted, Harun Yahya discusses this aspect of the mind. Being an evolutionist, Mencken would have rejected Yahya’s book as so much superstition.]
    Open-minded people can easily observe the difference between a superior mind and an inferior mind. When exposed to suitable training, a superior mind “acquires the largest body of knowledge and the highest skill.” On the other hand, “no conceivable training can move” the inferior mind beyond a certain point. “In other words, men differ inside their heads as they differ outside. There are men who are naturally intelligent and can learn, and there are men who are naturally stupid and cannot.” [Mencken is writing about intelligence, and what he writes is true. However, a person with high intelligence may be weak in wisdom, common sense, morality, and ethics. A person of low intelligence may be more endowed with these traits than many highly intelligent people. That is, a high I.Q. makes a superior mind, but it does not necessarily make a superior person. For example, university heads and professors have high I.Q. Most likely, Mencken would consider most of them “betters” and “superiors.” Yet, most of them show no more love for liberty than the typical inferior of the mob. For the most part, they are Puritans, cultural Marxists, who want to micromanage everyone’s thoughts and actions and mold everybody into their ideal. Thus, the relationship between intelligence and the desire for liberty seems weak.]
    “Liberals, whatever their defects otherwise, are themselves capable of learning, and so they quickly mastered the fact that MM. Simon and Binet offered the most dangerous menace to their vapourings ever heard of since the collapse of the Holy Alliance.” [Simon and Binet were pioneers in intelligence testing.] Liberals despise intelligence tests for two reasons.  “First, they provide a more or less scientific means of demonstrating the difference in natural intelligence between man and man — a difference noted ages ago by common observation, and held to be real by all men save democrats, at all times and everywhere. Second, they provide a rational scale for measuring it and a rational explanation of it.”
    Mencken continues, “An intelligent man is one who is capable of taking in knowledge until the natural limits of the species are reached. A stupid man is one whose progress is arrested at some specific time and place before then. . . . Some men can learn almost indefinitely; their capacity goes on increasing until their bodies begin to wear out. Others stop in childhood, even in infancy. They reach, say, the mental age of ten or twelve, and then they develop no more.” [This later group dominates Social Justice, Black Live Matter and Antifa. They are also predominant among the anti-Confederate crowd.]
    Naturally, the democrats [egalitarians] strongly object to this conclusion of the naturally inferior man. “Their objection to it is rather of a metaphysical character, and involves gratuitous, transcendental assumptions as to what ought and what ought not to be true.” [Not only do democrats dominate the Democratic party, they also dominate the Republican party and even the Libertarian party.] They claim that “believing such things would be in contempt of the dignity of man, made in God’s image.” [But God made people the way that they are.]
    Alas, democracy is “a form of theology, and shows all the immemorial stigmata. Confronted by uncomfortable facts, it invariably tries to dispose of them by appeals to the highest sentiments of the human heart.” Furthermore, the “anti-democrat is not merely mistaken; he is also wicked; and the more plausible he is the more wicked he becomes.”
    Mencken adds, “that man on the lower levels, though he quickly reaches the limit of his capacity for taking in actual knowledge, remains capable for a long time thereafter of absorbing delusions. What is true daunts him, but what is not true finds lodgment in his cranium with so little resistance that there is only a trifling emission of heat.” [The anti-Confederates support Mencken’s observation. They lack the ability to acquire knowledge, but they easily absorb delusion. The same type of person is also seen supporting Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama and to a slightly lesser degree George Bush.] Moreover, the inferior man “has a dreadful capacity for embracing and cherishing impostures.” Since the beginning of recorded history, priests, politicians, and all sorts of quacks have victimized him. “His heroes are always frauds. In all ages he has hated bitterly the men who were labouring most honestly and effectively for the progress of the race. What such men teach is beyond his grasp. He believes in consequence that it is unsound, immoral and of the devil.”
    Fear guides and controls the inferior man. “[E]ducation is largely a process of getting rid of such fears.” [Today, what passes for education teaches the inferior man to fear even more and tries to teach the superior man also to fear. One can see the operation of the inferior man in public education, which is nothing more than indoctrination in politically correct thinking. Parents who send their children to private schools are often looked down upon, even by the super rich who send their children to private schools. The worst heretics are parents who homeschool. They are accused of being pariahs who abuse their children and often have their children take from them.] “The ideal educated man is simply one who has put away as foolish the immemorial fears of the race — of strange men and strange ideas, of the powers and principalities of the air. He is sure of himself in the world; no dread of the dark rides him; he is serene.” Unfortunately, “the vast majority of men are congenitally incapable of any such intellectual progress. They cannot take in new ideas, and they cannot get rid of old fears.” Moreover, lacking logical sense, he is “unable to reason from a set of facts before [him], free from emotional distraction.” Furthermore, the inferior man is “incompetent to take in the bald facts” himself. Except at the most elemental level, words convey nothing to the inferior man. His mind “cannot grasp even the simplest abstractions.” [Perhaps, more than anything else, the ability to think in abstract terms is what separates the superior man from the inferior man.] All his thinking “is done on the level of a few primitive appetites and emotions.” [Although Mencken avoids mentioning race, some races seem to have more difficulty thinking abstractly and seem to “think” more on the primitive level of appetites and emotions.] Thus, ideas leave him unscathed; he is “responsive only to emotions,” and his “emotions are all elemental — the emotions, indeed, of  tabby-cats rather than of men.” Therefore, educating the inferior man is impossible.
    “[I]n all departments and on all planes the inferior man reduces it [love, which “runs from the erotic to the philanthropic,”] to terms of his own elemental yearnings. Of all his stupidities there is none more stupid than that which makes it impossible for him to see beyond them, even as an act of the imagination.” Moreover, he “cannot formulate the concept of a good that is not his own good.” From time immemorial, he has hated both sacred and secular heretics. “His first thought and his last thought, contemplating them, is to stand them up against a wall and have at them with musketry.” No record is found of him ever opening “his mouth for fairness, for justice, for decency between man and man. Such concepts, like the concepts of honour and of liberty, are eternally beyond him, and belong only to his superiors.” The inferior man is a natural coward. His “congenital fear is easily translated into cruelty.” His “deficiency in imagination” makes him incapable of projecting “himself into the place of the other.” When the inferior man’s “ betters stand before [him], asking for something that [he] may withhold — when [he is] thus confronted, though the thing asked for be only fair dealing, elemental justice, common decency,” he is a wolf.
    [Examples of the inferior man include supporters and members of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Social Justice, Antifa, and Black Lives Matter. Another example is the people who seek to remove and destroy Confederate monuments. They do not understand why the South fought for its independence, the purpose of the monuments memorializing the Confederate soldier, or the reason for erecting them. Moreover, they can never understand because they are incapable of understanding. It is beyond the capacity of their minds. Therefore, they fear them and want to destroy them. Still, another example is the supporters of Hillary Clinton. They do not understand Donald Trump’s supporters, and they will never understand them. Therefore, they fear them and want to bring Trump, who represents them, down. Blindly, they support Clinton because she is one of them; therefore, they understand her, although she despises them and spits on them.]

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Judging People by Their Character

Judging People by Their Character

Thomas Allen

    Martin Luther King said,  “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Progressives, liberals, libertarians, neoconservatives, academics, old media personalities, and most religious leaders, constitutionalists, and conservatives continuously dote over this saying of King.
    Most of these doters (idolaters?) have elevated King to sainthood, and many have defied him. They have even placed King above Jesus. People may blaspheme Jesus with immunity. Blaspheming Jesus even receives support from governments and the old media, and often receives indifference from the new media. However, to tell the truth about King brings condemnation from nearly all spectrums of society — from right to left. Moreover, those who fail to saint King are universally vilified as racists. (Therefore, people are judged not by their character, but whether or not they worship, or at least esteem above all others, King.) Such acceptance of the treatment of King and Jesus proves that King has supplanted Jesus as the central figure of religious and even nonreligious America. King has replaced Jesus as the representation of God on Earth. King’s teachings are esteemed far more than Jesus’. While the government church, public schools, bans Jesus, they indoctrinate King’s dogmas.
    However, these doters never investigate or consider the character of the womanizing King, who left a trail of destruction and blood as he fornicated across the country. They overlook his betrayal of his wife with his adultery. (If a man will betray his most sacred vows, such as his marriage vows, how can he be trusted with less important things?) Also, they do not consider or try to find out what King meant by “content of their character.” As judged by King’s actions, only non-Whites and White Marxists had any content of character worth possessing. If a White is not a Marxist, he has a low quality of character. To King, skin color, i.e., race, and Marxist character appear almost synonymous. Moreover, if Saint King’s character is so sterling, why do federal agencies have to conceal the information that they have collected about him?
    To judge people by their character requires unlimited resources, unlimited time, and an extremely long lifespan. Being finite with highly limited resources and time, people are forced to judge by categorization. Race is perhaps the best categorization to use to judge character, especially when immediate judgment is required. (An example of judging character by race is the Black cab driver who refused to take passengers to Black neighborhoods at night as occurred in the District of Columbia some years ago.) When known, ethnicity, which is a subdivision of race, may be an even better indicator of character than mere race.  (For example, if one knows that he is dealing with a Yankee, he knows, with high probability, that he is dealing with a person of a meddlesome, self-righteous, and generally low character.) Moreover, the Bible endorses the use of ethnicity, and by that race, to judge character. In Titus 1:12, Paul writes, “. . . the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.”
    The following two tables illustrate racial differences in character. Table 1[1] shows more recent studies while Table 2[2] shows earlier studies.

    For most of these characteristics, genetics plays an important role, often the dominant role, in their determination. Of course, exceptions exist. However, they are exceptions because they are not the expected.
    Professor Lynn supports the conclusions in the above tables. He shows that psychopathic personality is, to a significant degree, genetic and varies by race. Blacks have a high psychopathic personality while East Asians have the lowest. Whites are between them. Blacks are less able to sustain consistent work behavior than are Whites and East Asians. Conduct disorder (lying, stealing, truancy, fighting, vandalism, sexual precocity, cruelty, and the like) is about twice as high among Blacks as among Whites. Blacks are much more likely to fail to keep their financial obligations than are Whites. Moreover, Blacks are much more aggressive than Whites or East Asians, and, therefore, commit many more crimes in proportion to their population. East Asians are the least likely to commit crimes. Domestic violence is much higher among Blacks than among Whites. Furthermore, Blacks have much more difficulty forming stable, long-term loving relationships than Whites or East Asians, who are more likely than Whites to form such relationships. Also, Blacks have more sexual partners than do Whites, who have more than East Asians. Blacks are more impulsive than are Whites. Whites are more likely to delay gratification for a greater reward than are Blacks. Moreover, Blacks are more reckless and take greater risks than do Whites or Asians. Blacks are less likely to use contraception than Whites, and, thus, have more unplanned babies and more sexually transmitted diseases than Whites and East Asians. Furthermore, Blacks are more likely to abuse and neglect their children than are Whites. Lynn cites numerous studies to support his conclusion.[3]
    Professor Levin shows that Blacks and Whites have different concepts of morality, mostly because of genetics. He defines morality as the rules that people want everyone to follow and that they want everyone to want everyone to follow. He uses honesty as an example. Thus, acts that most Blacks find morally acceptable, such as theft, drug use, and preoccupation with sex, most Whites reject. The opposite is also true: What Whites find morality acceptable, Blacks often reject. Because of genetics, “Black children cannot be expected to respond as white children do to externally imposed white socialization.”  Also, because of genetics, Blacks are more likely to kill with firearms because they lack the genes to restrain them from killing with weapons that they did not invent. Levin gives other examples.[4] Thus, race is a strong indicator of morality and values and, by that, character.
    Nevertheless, other categorizations can be used, but they are not nearly as accurate or precise as race. For example, occupation may be used as a shortcut or a preliminary judgment of a person’s character when one lacks the time and resources to know the person on a personal level. Certain occupations, such as the stereotypical politicians (the more prestigious the office, the lower the character), lawyers, used car salesmen, burglars, old media personalities and their bosses, and establishment hierarchs and their agents, indicate poor character. However, most occupations are useless as indicators of character. Moreover, determining a person’s race at a glance is much easier than determining a person’s occupation.  Likewise, nearly all other categorizations, including socioeconomic status, are inferior to race as an indicator or predictor of character.
    Intelligence offers another judgment of character without intimate knowledge. It is largely inherited and varies with race. The intelligence of Blacks on average is about a standard deviation below that of Whites. The intelligence of East Asians on average is slightly above that of Whites. For better or worse, genetics controls the character of a lower-intelligent person more than it does the character of a higher-intelligent person because the higher-intelligent person is more likely to use his intellect to control his character for better or worse. That is, highly intelligent people are much more likely to use their intelligence to overcome their genetically influenced good and bad character traits than are low-intelligent people. Even so, character is more of a guide for intelligence than intelligence is for character. That is, character directs intelligence more than intelligence directs character. Thus, intelligence is not a good indicator of character. Furthermore, determining a person’s intelligence quickly is often difficult. As intelligence is related to race and as race is easier to determine, race is a better indicator of character, even if it is just used as a surrogate for intelligence.
    Genetics, culture, and environment form character. Intelligence is predominately determined by genetics: Genetics accounts for about 70 percent of a person’s intelligence. Intelligence creates culture and greatly controls or regulates environment. Therefore, genetics is the dominant force behind character. As race results from genetics, race is a good indicator of character.
    Here is the test. If you are walking down a dark street at night and you see a group of Blacks coming toward you and if you look across the street and see a group of Whites, would you cross the street? If so, you are not only judging character based on race, but you are also a racist. Be honest: Your life may depend on it.
     People who rely on race to judge character will be accused of being prejudiced. However, using race to judge character is not prejudice. T.B. Matson, an integrationist, defines “prejudice” as “a prejudgment, or judgment not based on knowledge or experience. It implies an opinion based on insufficient or irrelevant data.”[5]  This is a good definition. According to this definition, judging character by race is not based on insufficient or irrelevant data. People who judge character based on race are not making a judgment in a vacuum or based on irrelevant or insufficient data. Their judgment is based on statistics, knowledge, observation, and experience.
    Real prejudice is displayed by people who claim that the races are identical, equal, equivalent, or interchangeable, except for a few unimportant surface features such as the type of hair, the shape of the nose, or the color of skin.  They claim that the races do not differ in intelligence, temperament, or character or in any other nonmorphological trait. To support their assertion, they offer no evidence, studies, or facts. Moreover, they offer nothing but violence and coercion to counter and suppress the information, studies, or evidence that show that the races do differ genetically, innately, in intelligence, temperament, character, and other nonmorphological traits. Their resort to force proves that these people have nothing more to support their claim of racial equivalency except their personal biases and prejudices.
    In conclusion, when one lacks the time and resources to learn personally, with a good deal of interaction, the character of an individual, race serves as perhaps the best surrogate available in judging character. Besides, why would one want to waste valuable time and resources to learn personally the character of another only to discover that his character is despicable?

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on social issues.

Endnotes
1. J. Philippe Rushton, Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1995), pp. 25, 48-49, 51-52, 58.

2. J. Deniker, The Races of Man: An Outline of Anthropology and Ethnography (London, England: Walter Scott, Limited, 1900), p. 121. Charles Morris, The Aryan Race: Its Origin and Its Achievements (Chicago, Illinois: S. C. Griggs and Company, 1888), pp. 24-27. A. H. Keane, Man Past and Present, revised by A. Hingston Quiggin and A. C. Haddon (Cambridge, 1920), pp. 41, 85, 133, 164, 219, 255, 333, 439.

3. Richard Lynn, “Race and Psychopathic Personality,” A Race Against Time: Racial Heresies for the 21st Century, ed. George McDaniel (Oakton, Virginia: New Century Books, 2002), pp. 204-211.

4. Michael Levin, “The Evolution of Racial Differences in Morality,” A Race Against Time: Racial Heresies for the 21st Century, ed. George McDaniel (Oakton, Virginia: New Century Books, 2002), pp. 266-271.

5.  T.B. Matson, Segregation and Desegregation: A Christian Approach (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1959), pp. 47-48.

Review of Putnam’s Race and Reality -- Part 3

Review of Putnam’s Race and Reality -- Part 3

Thomas Allen

    In Chapter 6, Putnam discusses questions sent to him after his book Race and Reason was published. [Only a few of these questions are presented below.]
    He is accused of increasing tension without offering a solution. Putnam responds:

The heart of the Negro problem lies in establishing the correct answer to one question, namely, are the Negro’s limitations the result of his bad environment or is his bad environment the result of his limitations? Can we, by making every effort to improve the Negro’s surroundings and education, reach the root cause of his comparative performance, or is it a matter of innate racial differences? Every public policy concerning race will be decided differently depending on the answer given to that question. . . . [I]f the answer is environment, policies will be the direct opposite of what they will be if the answer is genetics (p. 96).

[The race policies of the United States for more than 50 years have been based on the answer being environment. After spending hundreds of billions of dollars to improve and raise the environment of Blacks, little has changed. If anything, things are worse. According to most social indicators, such as divorce, abortion, illegitimate births, and crime, things are worse now than 60 years ago when the environmental dogma began being adopted into law. As Putnam notes, we need to adopt policies based on racial differences being predominately genetic.]
    Some asked, assuming the inferiority of the Negro, “[W]hy is it necessary to believe that intermarriage would necessarily lower the quality of human beings produced and thus the quality of American civilization?” Putnam answers:

Scientific evidence and practical experience regarding the intelligence of large unselected groups, and their creative achievements, show that Negroes as a group, in this country and across the world, have appreciably lower average intelligence scores and a vastly lower creative record throughout history. If we absorb twenty million largely uncreative Negroes into our White gene pool, the mixed product may be expected to lack the combination of qualities (insight, foresight, intelligence and drive) necessary to maintain and advance American civilization (p. 100).

[More importantly, God condemns interracial marriages (v. False Biblical Teachings on the Origins of the Races and Interracial Marriages, People of the Flood, and “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” all by Thomas Allen). Moreover, integration results in genocide (v. Integration Is Genocide by Thomas Allen).]
    One person noted studies showing that White and Black infants up to 40 weeks revealed no differences and concluded that differences after that result from socioeconomic factors. Putnam replies, “[T]he lower centers of the brain and nervous system, in human beings and in animals, are the ones which mature first; the higher centers mature last. Therefore similarity of performance in the early stages of life signifies nothing as to adult potentiality” (p. 102). [Furthermore, studies show that genetics is much more important than socioeconomic status in determining cognitive abilities.]
    Another comment is that “man alone is capable of culture and that cultural influences counteract and invalidate all your animal analogies and your references to evolutionary structure” (p. 103). To this comment, Putnam writes:

This question contains a non sequitur. It is true that man alone is capable of culture but it does not follow that these influences overbalance structure. On the contrary we have seen that in the case of human beings heredity overbalances environment by a ratio of about three to one. This is just another way of saying that structure overbalances culture by the same ratio (p. 103).   

He adds:

[W]henever you hear an integrationist talk about the “cultural deprivation” which the Negro has suffered. The expression has become a cliche to account for all the Negro’s limitations. It is meaningless because you cannot speak of depriving a race of something it is, on the average, incapable of possessing (p. 104)

    To the question that achievement (economic, academic, artistic, and managerial) depends on much more than innate intelligence and brain size, Putnam responds:

        I have mentioned the probability that the development of the frontal lobes has a relation to planning, foresight and motivation — the use of intelligence. If this be true, then the brain is still involved in many attributes which might not be called intelligence in the narrowest sense.
        Beyond this we may say that a man’s character is the product not only of his brain and entire nervous system but also of his glands and internal secretions, which interact with his nervous system. Negroes differ from Whites in these secretions.
        Finally, there is that one-quarter contribution by environment. But with full allowance for these things, it still remains true that brain size is related to achievement. There is no contradiction (p. 107).

    Putnam is asked, “How is the Government of Liberia so stable?” He answers:

Because it is essentially a political dictatorship, supported economically by Firestone and the Bona Hills Iron mines. Although Liberia was founded by supposedly freedom-loving Negroes from America, the League of Nations was obliged to intervene in 1930 to stop the slave trade. It was found that the President and some of his highest officials were implicated. The President had to resign (p. 110).

Then he gives some statistics about the deplorable conditions of Liberia (p. 110).
    Some offer Brazil as a good example of a multiracial society and ask why should not the United States emulate Brazil. Putnam doubts if many Americans want the United States to become another Brazil. [It seems that the ruling elite who control the U.S. government want the United States to become another Brazil — not only as a multiracial society but also politically and economically.] He notes that the most backward parts of Brazil have the greatest concentration of Negro genes. The most advanced parts have the smallest concentration of Negro genes. He compares Brazil with the United States and shows that the United States have a much longer life expectancy (35-40 years for Brazil and 67 years for the United States) and a much greater per capita gross national product ($200 for Brazil and $2823 for the United States) (pp. 110-111). [Putnam’s data are circa 1967. In 2015, the life expectancy in Brazil was 74, and in the United States, 79. In 2015, the gross domestic product for Brazil was $8802 and for the United States, $55,904.]
    Some reference scientists who assert that the burden of proof for innate racial inequality is on the racists [v. "Who Is a Racist" by Thomas Allen] to prove their superiority. Putnam finds this assertion pathetic. He retorts, “The burden of proof is upon those who would contradict all previously accepted fact and experience, and who would alter all previously established custom. As for the evidence itself, there is no evidence for equality” (p. 112).
    One asked why most Negroes raised in the U.S. segregated schools cannot qualify for U.S. colleges while many foreign Negroes can? In response, Putnam cites a report commissioned by the Ford and Carnegie foundations that shows that too many students from Asia and Africa had a difficult time in American colleges (p. 113). He also cites a report based on “a study of 1278 Northern college students, [which showed that] those Negroes from Southern segregated schools did better than Negroes from Northern integrated schools” (p. 113).
    One asks Putnam to explain Negro children have higher aspirations than White children. Putnam answers, “Negroes have very high aspirations, often based on envy, but these are not matched by their performance.  It is because of their high aspirational level that Negroes want the short cuts which they are unable to create themselves” (p. 115). [Thus, they cowed spineless politicians and judges into imposing integration, affirmative action, quotas, and the like that legally favored Blacks over Whites.]
    Some commenters remark that I.Q. increases when students in a poor educational climate are placed in a better one. Putnam replies “. . . when you give two groups of different potential the same education you do not decrease the gap between them. You increase it, because the group with the higher potential will derive more from the education” (pp. 116-117). [People who make these types of comments are implying that Black teachers are inferior to White teachers as teachers are the primary determinant of the educational climate. I.Q. is the primary determinant of how well a student will do.]
    One person notes that I.Q. tests have been standardized for White populations. He asks how they can have any validity for Blacks. Putnam answers:

The American Negro speaks English, has grown up in an American culture and should experience no handicap in taking “White tests.” The Japanese in California don’t. Moreover, the Negro must live in our White society. What we are trying to measure is his ability to adapt to our society and to contribute to it. To the extent that the Negro does experience difficulty in taking White tests to just that extent will the nature of his mind be alien to the White mind. We have a culture based on abstract thought. The Negro is poor at abstract thinking. If this shows up in a test it does not invalidate the test. It confirms its validity (p. 117).   

[Studies show that Blacks score better on “culturally biased” tests than they do on culturally neutral tests.]
    Another asks why should a democratic society care about intermarriage of different I.Q. groups, i.e., intermarriage of Blacks and Whites. Putnam replies:

A democratic society ought to care about the qualities in its population which have made it capable of becoming and maintaining a stable, free civilization. No Negro population has ever been able to do this; . . . therefore, to the extent that a successful free society absorbs a Negro population, to that same extent will its success decline (p. 121).

    Another question is that since the I.Q. of Black and White students overlaps, why not divide classes by individual ability instead of race? Putnam answers, “[E]ducability is a matter of more than I.Q., and overlap in I.Q. does not necessarily mean overlap in other important factors” (p. 122). He adds, “[T]here is a basic human need for self-identification with one’s own kind which is part of the healthy psychological development of every individual” (p. 123).
    One commenter states “that the lack of perfect evidence of the Negro’s inequality (inferiority) is no reason to assume that he is equal. Is it not equally true that imperfect evidence of his equality is no reason to assume he is inferior” (p. 127). Putnam responds that this person assumes “that the evidence is equal, in amount and in imperfection, on each side. The truth of the matter is that the evidence is overwhelming on the side of inequality — indeed I know of no evidence at all on the side of equality” (p. 127).
    When asked, “Is not the right to integrate a constitutional right,” Putnam answers, “There is no ‘right’ to integration, either in our constitution, our moral code, or our religious precepts” (p. 128). Then he uses the example of segregating restrooms by sex. Because he is not allowed to use the ladies’ restroom, he has not been denied “equal rights” or “civil rights.” Nor has he been made a second-class citizen deprived of “human rights” (p. 128). [As the transgender agenda moves forward, courts will begin to order the integration of restrooms. The plaintiffs will argue, and the courts will accept that argument, that when a transgender person, or anyone else, is denied the use of the restroom of his choice, he has been denied “equal rights” and “civil rights” and has been made a second-class citizen deprived of “human rights.”] He concludes, “The Negro’s so-called ‘constitutional’ right to integration derives solely from the Supreme Court's decision in the Brown case. . . .  [T]his case was based upon misrepresentation and concealment of vital evidence bearing upon the genetic issue” (p. 128).
    Putnam is asked if the treatment of the Negro limits his equality of opportunity. He answers, “In the majority of cases the Negro’s failure is not due to a lack of opportunity but to a lack of capability. It is always easy to blame the latter on the former because opportunity itself is not easy to define” (p. 133). [To prove that Blacks are not deprived of equal opportunity, courts and federal agencies have forced businesses and institutions to resort to quotas, usually covertly but often overtly. This action has resulted in hiring or promoting lesser-qualified Blacks over more-qualified Whites. So much for White privilege.] He notes, “Most Negroes with intelligence and character have made their way very well in the United States” (p. 133) He gives an example of a highly successful Negro.
    Some people blame segregation for the lynchings, bombings, shootings, beatings, and unjust jailing of Blacks in the South. Putnam responds, “Segregation has not been the cause of [these] crimes . . .; the cause has been the attempt at force integration” (p. 138). To which he adds, “To the extent that crimes against the Negro were previously committed by Whites in the South, these were few in comparison to those committed by the Negro against other Negroes” (p. 138). [Even today, Negro crime victims are much more likely to be a victim of a Black criminal than of a White criminal (v. “The Dirty War: America’s Race War” by Thomas Allen).]
    One person asked, “[H]ow much do you think segregation has to do with causing the Negro to have such low moral standards, low I.Q., and high rate of illegitimate births and disease?” (p. 138).  Putnam answered, “If a patient has a contagious illness and is segregated from the public, for the public’s protection, how much does this have to do with the patient’s having the illness?” (p. 139). [In other words, these attributes contribute to segregation; they are not caused by it.]
    To the accusation that segregation enforces poverty, Putnam replies, “Segregation does not enforce poverty. The Jews have frequently been segregated throughout history, but they have not been made poor” (pp. 138-139). [Jews have been discriminated against for many more centuries than have Blacks. Yet their wealth far exceeds their numbers. Today, Whites are discriminated against in favor of Blacks, yet on average they are wealthier than Blacks. Segregation is not the cause of poverty. Low cognitive ability is.]
    After the Goldwater defeat in 1964, many believed that the Republican party needed a broader base and needed to be more attractive to minority groups. Putnam replies, “When you please the Negro bloc, without carefully examining what you do, you are apt to be injecting into the bloodstream of the body politic the virus of collapse. The body politic in our case may be strong enough to stand a certain amount of such a virus, but it is bound to be weakened by it, and can be destroyed in the long run” (p. 141). [Today we are living in the long run and are witnessing the destructive effects of the virus injected in the 1960s. The United States are close to collapse with open borders and unlimited immigration contributing to the deterioration of the economy and political system. The descendants of the White founders will soon cease being a majority in their own country. The federal republic of liberty, limited government, free market economy, and rule of law is on its deathbed. The United States are becoming a third-world country with oppression, corruption, controlled markets, arbitrary rule of man, and anti-White socioeconomic policies. The egalitarians have won; liberty has lost.]
    One person noted that the Supreme Court decided the Brown case on “the grounds that separate but equal schools for Whites and Negroes are inherently unequal and thus violate the 14th Amendment” (p. 141). Putnam responds, “Vassar and Yale are separate, but they are not inherently unequal. The inequality, if such it be, in the case of the separation of Negroes and Whites can result solely from the implication of inferiority” (p.144). He continues:

Now when evidence exists, but is not introduced at a trial, which indicates not only that integration increases the sense of inferiority as compared with segregation, but also that neither segregation nor integration creates the inferiority which is due rather to innate limitations and is thus a fact of life, do you . . . or the Fifth Circuit mean to say that this evidence has no bearing on the issues . . . (pp. 142-143)

    To the comment that his views conflict with Christ’s view that all men are brothers, Putnam responds with a quotation from Weyl and Possony: “If my brother is a cripple, do I treat him as if he were physically sound? If he is mentally retarded, does a brotherly attitude consist in pretending that he is normal” (p. 144).
    One objects to discussing racial differences because it angers and humiliates the Negro. Putnam replies that this is a trained response by Negroes. The cause of the Negro’s anger results from the While liberal, communist, and other egalitarians teaching him that his differences result from White injustice. This inflames him against Whites. “The average Negro honestly believes himself the victim of injustice and oppression, whereas the truth is he has had endless help from the White race” (p. 145). Putnam notes that Blacks in America have received more aid than anywhere else in the world. He concludes, “The Negro’s present behavior is entirely a taught reaction based upon fraud. The cure for this sort of sickness is to teach the truth” (p. 145). [The only thing that has changed over the last 50-plus years is that Blacks demand more and receive more. Whites are literally killing themselves feeding the avarice of Blacks and other races. What will Blacks do once they have exterminated the White race? Look to Black Africa for the answer unless they are fortunate enough to live under Chinese oppression.]
    When asked, “How do you know our culture is superior,” Putnam answers, “Because the other cultures envy us, not vice versa. They not only want our money and other fruits of our achievement; they would like to enter our society if they could” (p. 148).
    Putnam is asked to define “leftist.” He defines a leftist as:

a person who believes in taking the money out of the pocket of the man who earned it and giving it to somebody else. To be a bit more cynical, often he is a man who seeks legal ways of stealing from the top in order to buy the support of the bottom. He is a man who lays stress on the Commandment “Love thy neighbor” and never mentions the Commandments “Thou shalt not covet” or “Thou shalt not steal” (p. 148).

    Envy is the driving motivation behind the hardcore leftists. He adds:

        Envy of our Anglo-American civilization, and of the qualities of mind and character which built it, is widespread among certain races, and operates in the same way — there is a strong drive to dispense its benefits to everybody while denigrating the source as “Puritan” or “reactionary”. . . .
        The leftist in the racial area seeks to take by force the hard-earned and long cherished customs, traditions, standards and other social and political attributes of our White society and distribute and share them with Negroes. . . .
        [Leftist tax] success, enterprise and thrift to support failure, indolence and improvidence (Pp. 147-148).

[Leftist policies as defined by Putnam have brought the United States to the abyss of destruction. If things do not soon change, the United States will fall into the abyss and become irrevocably and irreplaceably lost.]
    Commenting on compassion and charity toward the poor, one person concludes that the government ought to take an active role in carrying out this idea. Putnam notes that when the government acts, it is no longer charity. “The government takes by force from some and gives to others” (p. 157). [The government not only takes money by force to give to the poor, but it also takes money to give to the rich, e.g., corporate welfare like banker bailouts following the 2008 crash.]
    To the communist doctrine “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” Putnam offers an analogy:

Picture a thug with a blackjack on a dark street. He slugs a passerby and steals his wallet. The thug has a need, the passerby has the ability to satisfy it. So the wallet changes hands. Such a philosophy can only result in hanging a millstone around the necks of diligence, enterprise and foresight while encouraging indolence, shiftlessness and theft (p.152).

Then he notes that when government and society excuse and appease bad behavior, more bad behavior is generated (pp. 151-151).
    About the concept of a world unified in brotherhood, Putnam replies, “A man who loves all countries, and all races, as much as he loves his own, is like the man who loves all women as much as he loves his wife. He merits suspicion” (p. 152).
    About church leaders who claim that the Christian religion demands integration, Putnam writes:

        I am puzzled by the attitude of churchmen nowadays who seem to think the Christian religion demands they support policies which are certain to lead to the aforesaid plucking down. They appear to care little for the heritage bequeathed them by their forebears, or for the millenniums of self-denial and self-discipline that have been a part of the growth of Western civilization and its codes of honor and decency.
        They nimbly forget the effort and sacrifice — and the handing on of a torch — through countless generations. This is the trust which they now propose to abandon. But before they dissipate so many of those values which their ancestors committed to their keeping, let such as these remember the words of Paul to the Corinthians. “It is required in stewards that a man be found faithful” (pp. 153-154).

    When asked what he would do if he were a Negro, Putnam replied, that he would find work within his limitation and be content with it. Then he adds that Negroes often refuse jobs for which they are suited because they have been taught that they are too good for such jobs. Instead, they “loiter or riot in slums, cursing society, and hugging the illusion that they are the victims of injustice. Instead they are the victims of a false conception of themselves, and the only injustice in the situation is due to the leftists who misled them” (p. 157).
    When asked about the treatment of Negroes in America, Putnam answers, “The White man owes the Negro nothing. If there are any debts outstanding, they are owed by the Negro to the White man” (p. 158). Then he lists some of the things that Blacks owe to Whites: “hospitals, medicines, schools, food, opportunity, and a standard of living he could not possibly have acquired for himself” (p. 158). [To this day, Blacks continue to maintain that Whites owe them. Most Blacks believe that Black labor in the form of slaves built America. They believe, if the thought ever occurs to them, that the White man’s intelligence, ingenuity, foresight, accumulated wealth, institutions, etc. contributed little or nothing to the building of America — only their exploitation of Black slave labor built the country. Regrettably, far too many Whites also believe this nonsense. America would have been built without any Black labor. It would be a better country if the Negro were never brought here. It would be a country without racial strife where people are hired based on their cognitive ability instead of their race. The highly destructive welfare state may have never come into being. Thus, the productive would not be debilitated by having their wealth stolen to support the indolent, unproductive, and poor. Furthermore, the indolent, unproductive, and poor would not be reduced to being wards of the state. Perhaps more importantly, if Blacks never came here, today’s Whites would not be sniveling, spineless, self-hating, cowards destroying themselves and their country and culture to feed the insatiable demands of Blacks. Today most Whites believe that no sacrifice made by Whites for Blacks is too great — including the annihilation of the White race, to which many Whites look forward with great joy. (This may in part explain why Whites are failing to reproduce at a rate high enough to replace their stock.)]
    A Southern commenter noted that if Southerners raised the question about racial differences, the South would “lose the sympathy and help of Northern conservatives who are with us on states’ rights, decentralized government, and similar issues” (p. 166). In response, Putnam voices his complaint against Northern conservatives:

The latter [Northern conservatives] make good whipping-boys for liberals and that is about all. When they win elections they do it by providing a slight variant in liberalism; when they lose, they do it on grounds that make them a public laughing stock. They appear as hard-bitten, discredited economic reactionaries, longing for a depression, while the American people are enjoying the greatest and most widely distributed prosperity in history (p. 166).

[Not much has changed. Once in office, one can hardly notice any difference between “conservatives” and “liberals.” They may differ only slightly in philosophy and policies. Their biggest difference is in rhetoric.] Putnam notes that conservatives consistently avoid using the racial issue [except to exceed liberals in unconditional surrender to Blacks] although it is a winning issue. [With the declared war on the White race and the fear, self-hatred, and cowardice instilled in Whites, raising the race issue may now lose more votes than it would gain.]
    In response to how the South mistreats the Negro, Putnam quotes a Georgian businessman who served on several juries during his life. The businessman said, “In all my experience in the courts I have never seen a Negro get justice. What he got was mercy” (p. 168).
    In Chapter 8, Putnam makes some concluding remarks about suppressing the truth about racial differences. He saw:

         . . . an Anglo-American majority battered and divided on other issues, guilt-ridden and bemused by the equalitarian dogma; one observed a mass media saturating the public with a scientific fraud promoted by a hierarchy whose aim was not the search for truth but political propaganda; one found ignorant political and judicial leaders, with mediocre minds and little moral stamina, drawn from a society whose human resources had been emasculated by two generations of compromise and appeasement. These were some of the results of the destruction. But they were not the source.
        Nor could the source lie in the humanitarian impulse itself. The drive for social justice and the awakening of sympathy for the unfortunate were both good (p. 182).

    The real crime is using good to promote evil “. . . with the trend toward sympathy with failure — toward encouragement of the underdog — had grown a tendency to disparage the superior and to fawn upon the inferior” (p. 183). Thus, the egalitarian dogma contains “within itself not only the seeds of its own proliferation, but of general collapse as well” (p. 183). He writes:

[I]n condemning the concept of inferiority, our society necessarily had had to destroy the concept of superiority, for one could not exist without the other. With its destruction had come the death of respect for authority, of pride in the achievements of the past, of reverence for tradition, of the wisdom to honor the heritage of one’s family, one’s race and one’s country (pp. 183-184).

Worst of all has been “the death of that quality in superior men which sprang from confidence not only in their own personal excellence but in that of their kind and race” (p. 184). With his death “passed the genius of true leadership” (p. 184). It is the quality that gives “men the courage to tell the truth” (p. 184). The only hope for America, the West, and the White race is to kill the egalitarian lie of racial equality. Only when Whites learn and accept the truth about racial differences can they save their race, countries, and civilization. [Unfortunately, it may be too late for Whites to save themselves and their country and culture. To reverse 60-plus years of lies and propaganda of the false dogma of egalitarianism within a few years that Whites have left may be too much to expect. Such a task will require such fortitude that the world has not seen since the Confederate army.]
    [Putnam believes that scientists have misled political leaders with their egalitarian, socialistic ideology promoting racial equality while suppressing the vast body of evidence showing the inequality of the races, especially of the White and Negro races (for example, see page 166). On the contrary, the political leaders, who lust for power, are not being misled. They know that the egalitarian philosophy of race, economy, etc. concentrates more power into their hands. Thus, they promote the egalitarian scientists while ignoring the honest nonegalitarian scientists. He believes that if our political leaders knew the truth about the races being unequal, they would act differently. Most likely, they would not. Most probably do know the truth.
    Putnam also fails to realize that the super-rich, the moneyed interest, control the politicians, socialists, communists, and other egalitarians including egalitarian scientists. (V. the Illuminist series by Thomas Allen.) To the extent that he recognizes their involvement, he considers it irrelevant. To him discussing the involvement of international bankers is like discussing the Constitution or states’ rights. It avoids the issue of racial inequality.
    Each race, like each individual, differs in temperament, intelligence, character,  etc. These differences are as much, if not more, genetic as they are environmental. For the betterment of mankind, egalitarianism has to be abandoned. As the lesser cannot be raised to the level of the greater, the greater must be suppressed to the level of the lesser. Thus, egalitarianism demands the suppression of the greater to the detriment of mankind. Society needs to be organized so that each race and individual can develop to its highest capabilities and potential.
    An irony of egalitarianism is that the more successful egalitarians are at equalizing the environment of the populace, the more genetics determines I.Q. For more about genetics dominating cognitive ability, see The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, The Inheritance of Mental Ability by Cyrll Bur, Man’s Racial Nature and Race and Politics: the Racial Controversy by H.B. Isherwood, Race Difference in Intelligence by John C. Loehlin, Major Findings from Twin Studies of Ability, Personality, and Interests by Robert C. Nichols, Racial Difference in Mental Growth and School Achievements by R. Travis Osborne. Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe by Roger Pearson, Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective by J. Philippe Rushton, A Question of Intelligence: The IQ Debate in America by Daniel Seligman, and Integration Is Genocide by Thomas Coley Allen.
    Dear reader, before you attempt to argue with an egalitarian about racial inequality, you need to heed the advice of a Southerner whom Putnam quotes:

“Any man who thinks that the average Negro is innately the intellectual equal of the average White man is too dumb to argue with” (p. 6).]

Copyright © 2016 by Thomas Coley Allen. 

More articles on social issues.