Ch. 8: RACE AND INTELLIGENCE

It was easy for me to understand why the egalitarians were opposed to the studies showing that IQ is mostly hereditary, for it turns out that Blacks usually do very poorly on IQ tests. The natural inference is that if IQ is primarily inherited, and Blacks have dramatically lower IQs, then the differences between the races are likely to be genetic.

I found that there are hundreds of studies documenting the IQ differences between Blacks and Whites. Dr. Audrey Shuey, in her comprehensive work The Testing of Negro Intelligence, compiled more than 300 different IQ studies comparing Black and White intelligence. They found that average Black IQ scores are between 15 and 20 points lower than White averages -- in scientific terms, they vary between one and one and one-half standard deviations [SD] below Whites.

The fact that dramatic IQ differences exist between Blacks and Whites can also be illustrated by the fact that Black activist groups have outlawed ability grouping in many schools, claiming that it "resegregates the schools." In California it is even forbidden to use IQ tests to aid in the selection of students who would benefit from special classes for the educable mentally retarded. A courageous Black mother sued the state in an attempt to overturn the law so that her retarded child could get the remedial help she needed. In the Larry P. v. Wilson Riles case, the judge ruled that the tests were biased simply because more Blacks attained very low scores. Thus in the State of California it became official policy that the tests, along with ability grouping in education, are "racist" and forbidden merely because Black performance is substantially lower than that of Whites. The case affords an excellent example of how efforts to artificially "equalize" the races can harm both Whites and Blacks.

I must stress that comparisons between White and Black scores are of averages of the groups. Because Blacks as a group score lower in IQ than Whites does not mean there are not some individual Blacks who score in the highest category and some Whites who score in the lowest. However, when one contrasts the overlapping bell-shaped curves of IQ performance by race and looks at the Black-White difference at different levels, it becomes obvious that the race difference becomes more pronounced at the high and low extremes of the distribution. For instance, One-half of all Blacks score in the lowest one-quarter of Whites.

On the high end of the scale, an IQ of at least 115 is considered necessary for excellent college work or for the top managerial and professional jobs in America. Only about 2.5 percent of Blacks score that high as compared to about 16 percent of Whites. About 20 times more Whites than Blacks per capita have IQs over 130, and somewhere between 50 and 100 more Whites are in the above 140 IQ range. This is the IQ group that many psychologists believe is responsible for most of the greatest achievements of civilization.

Black representation at the low-scoring end of the IQ scale has even stronger implications for society. At least 25 percent of Blacks are below 75 in IQ, and an IQ in the 70-75 range is classified as "borderline retarded" by most psychologists. Practically no one in that IQ range will graduate from high school or even learn much of elementary school basics; none will qualify for the armed forces, and few will be able to find good employment.

After learning the truth about racial differences in IQ and going public with it, for years I faced media condemnation as a "racist" for daring to say that 20 percent of Blacks had IQs below 75. In October 1994, many years after my first statements on the matter, Newsweek magazine did a cover story on the release of The Bell Curve, the groundbreaking book on IQ and racial differences. Newsweek matter-of-factly stated that 25 percent (rather than 20 percent) of Blacks fell into that lowest category. It took 24 years, but I had been eclipsed in my radical racial opinions by Newsweek.

(p. 62)

"At the undergraduate college level, the equation for white students has usually been found to result either in predicted grades for blacks that tend to be about equal to the grades they actually achieve or. . .somewhat better than the grades they actually achieve. . . . The results do not support the notion that the traditional use of scores in a prediction equation yields predictions for blacks that systematically underestimate their actual performance. If anything, there is some indication of the converse. . . ."

Finding that the tests are biased against Whites, albeit modestly, illustrates once again that the truth of the matter is exactly opposite what the popular mass media regularly tells Americans. The Black-White IQ difference is not a result of the tests' cultural bias or discrimination, it is real.

Black IQ Is Markedly Lower, But. . .

As the studies of marked IQ differences between races increasingly mounted in the scientific community, racial egalitarians retreated to new ground. Many of them abandoned the "IQ is meaningless" and "tests are biased" arguments. They suggested that if Blacks had lower IQs than Whites (which had become patently undeniable), that it was simply because they grew up in "deprived" environments. The egalitarians blamed socioeconomic factors such as poverty and low parental education levels for low Black IQ scores.

However, many studies of Blacks and Whites take socioeconomic factors into account. They consistently find that even those Blacks who come from high income and well-educated families still have markedly lower IQs than Whites.

SAT scores correlate very highly with IQ and the testing service has gathered information on the parental income, education, and race of its test-takers. It finds that Black students with a household income of more than $70,000 a year and who have at least one parent who is a college graduate -- score lower on the SAT than Whites from households that make less than $20,000 annually and in which both parents are high-school dropouts. The most environmentally disadvantaged group of Whites who take the SAT -- score higher than the most environmentally advantaged group of Blacks.

The psychological data for genetic explanations for poor Black performance in IQ are extensive and powerful. IQ studies including Blacks, Whites, and Asians have extensively correlated many socioeconomic factors, including family income, parental education level and occupation status, and school quality. Groups of low-income Whites with low parental education levels and low parental occupation statuses consistently score higher in IQ than Blacks from families of high income, high education levels and high occupation status.

The Harm of Ignoring Racial Differences

The argument that environmental conditions cause the difference in IQ levels between the races, admits that a real difference exists. If there is a real difference in the IQs of Black and White children --for whatever reason --it certainly suggests the ending of school integration, for it is far better for children to group them in line with their natural abilities.

A good example of the harm caused by ignoring IQ differences could be found in a classroom that has very bright and very slow-learning children side by side. The instruction is bound to be too challenging for the mentally slower child, who cannot keep up and thus becomes utterly lost and frustrated. On the other hand, the teaching will be too slow to challenge the bright child whose potential goes untapped. If such mental differences in the classroom fall along racial lines, one can imagine how tensions and ill-will can develop between the diverse groups.

Even though the races are clearly different in learning ability, the government operates on the false premise of equality. When California outlawed affirmative action in its college entrance programs, there was a dramatic decline in Black and Mexican acceptance in the best academic schools. Egalitarians bewailed the results as unfair to Blacks and Mexicans. But what the lower minority numbers actually prove is that better-qualified Whites had been grievously discriminated against.

It has been more than 80 years since the first IQ studies were conducted involving both Whites and Blacks. In the 1990s Blacks score the same IQ in relation to Whites as they did in the 1920s, about 15 to 20 points lower. For 70 years, standards of living education, and employment opportunities have dramatically improved for Blacks, and they have been accompanied by massive school and social integration. Yet dramatic socioeconomic improvement has not raised Black IQ scores in relation to those of Whites.

The evidence is also clear that the IQ gap has not been narrowed by increasing educational stimulation in the Black child's early years, or by publicly-integrated schooling. If there is any effect at all, it has only widened the gap. The multibillion dollar Head Start preschool environmental-enrichment program, maintained primarily to help Blacks compete educationally, has resulted in no gains by Black students but a little gain by Whites. An extensive and excellent study was done by j. Currie and D. Thomas showing Head Start's abject failure. Head start is the most expensive and widespread program to raise the educational performance of disadvantaged youths.

The Scarr Study

Genetic origins of lower Black intelligence can also be seen in a number of studies that chart proportional Black ancestry. One of the first major studies was done as early as 1916 in Virginia. Large groups of Black school children were divided in groups determined by the number of White and Black grandparents. All the Black subjects, pure or partially Black, were raised in the Black community's environment. The Blacks with four Black grandparents scored the lowest in IQ. Blacks with three Black grandparents and one White --a bit higher; Blacks with two White grandparents --higher still; and Blacks with three White grandparents scored highest in IQ among the Black children. The most recent studies of the 1990s show precisely the same results.

One of the most powerful direct studies of race and environment was conducted by psychologists Sandra Scarr, Richard Weinberg and I. D. Waldman. All three are quite well known for their environmentalist opinions. The study analyzed White, Black and mixed-race adopted children in more than 100 White families in Minnesota. The study was an egalitarian's dream, because the children's adoptive parents had prestigious levels of income and education and were antiracist enough to adopt a Black child into their own family. Scarr is a strong defender of racial equality and maintained that environment played an almost exclusive role in IQ differences between the races. Scarr supports the importance of heredity in causing individual differences within a race, but she has argued that the between-race differences are mostly environmental.

The children in the study included adopted Whites, Blacks, and Mulattos as well as the biological children of the White adoptive couples. At the age of 7, the children were tested for IQ and all of the groups, including the Blacks and Mulattos, scored above average in IQ. Scarr and Weinberg published a paper claiming to have proven the almost exclusive power of environment over race in IQ, even though they had to admit that the White children, whether adopted or not, scored well above the Black and Mulatto children and that the Mulatto children scored above the Blacks.

A decade later, when the children reached the average age 17, a follow-up study was conducted that again included IQ measurements. As they matured, Black children had dropped back to an average of 89 in IQ, which is the average IQ for Blacks in the region of the United States where the study was done. The White adopted children scored an average of 106 in IQ, 17 points higher than the Black children, which is consistent with traditional studies of Black and White IQ differences. In line with genetic theory, the half-White, half-Black Mulatto adopted children scored almost exactly between the adopted Whites and Blacks.

Scarr and Weinberg reluctantly published their data from the follow-up survey, but they waited close to four years to do so, almost as if they were embarrassed by what they had found. Through a tortured reasoning process, they still argued that environment played a dominant role in IQ. But in their follow-up survey, unlike their first paper, they also admitted that genes had an important impact as well. Both Richard Lynn and Michael Levin effectively showed in their reanalyses of Scarr's own data, that genes clearly comprise the dominant role in intelligence levels of those adopted children.

African IQ Studies

Genetic tests indicate that almost all American Blacks have some White genes, while only one percent of Whites have Black genes. This probably occurred because American society classified every person with any degree of Black blood as a Negro and strictly segregated them. IQ scores in Africa (where they are presumably more purely Black) are even lower. As American Blacks are one standard deviation below Whites in IQ (about 85), pure blacks in Africa of equal schooling with Whites -- average about two standard deviations below Whites (below 75) .

Professor Richard Lynn compiled studies in 1991 of IQ in Africa, where there is far less White genetic addition to the Black gene pool than in the United States. He found that sub-Saharan Africa Blacks have an IQ of below 75, which is almost two Standard Deviations below the White norm. By European standards, these figures mean that approximately 50 percent of Black Africans would be classified as borderline mentally retarded or below (almost twice the rate of Blacks in the United States). Since Lynn's review in 1991, three newer studies have confirmed his work. They used Raven Progressive Matrices, a noncultural-specific test that is an accurate measure of the nonverbal part of general intelligence. A Black Zimbabwean, Fred Zindi, conducted one of the studies which compared 204 Zimbabwean 12 to 14 year olds and matched them to 202 English students for sex, educational level, and class background.

Ch. 9: Roots of Racial Difference

(p. 73)

Thinking back on these things, I tried to reduce what I knew to the

simplest form. Why does a dog bark and a cat meow? I asked myself. I

answered my own inquiry: Because the dog's brain is constructed in a

way that makes him bark and behave like a dog, and a cat's brain is built in a

form that makes it meow and behave like a cat.

Wanting to expand my theory, I called a friend of mine from school whose family owned a dog kennel and had bred dogs for more than 30 years. He explained to me that different breeds of dogs had distinctly different personalities. Violence, aggression, passivity, loyalty, stoicism, excitability, intelligence --all these things sharply varied in the many breeds of dogs. For example, he explained that the Chihuahua is extremely excitable and hyperactive by nature, whereas the Saint Bernard is stable and stoic. He talked about the natural violent aggression of the pit bull as compared to the naturally friendly disposition of the Golden Retriever. My friend explained why parents of small children often chose a Golden Retriever as their pet because the breed is exceptionally friendly and protective of children. Even when children torment the Golden Retriever, he told me, the breed will rarely respond violently toward them.

I also picked up an interesting little book on the history of dog breeding and found that not only did dogs have distinct personalities according to their breed, but that they were bred by man precisely for those personalities as well as for physical characteristics such as size and color. Any dog trainer would laugh if told that the only difference in breeds of dog is the color of their coats. If a dog's distinct personality characteristics are not created solely by its training, the tendencies must be carried in the structure of its brain.

Armed with my newly gained knowledge, I asked my biology teacher how the classifications of breeds of dogs compared to the classifications of the races of mankind. Taken aback, she told me that she had never been asked that question by any student before, but she said breed and race are essentially two words for the same biological classification: subspecies. All dogs are members of the species Canis familiaris, of which there are at least 140 different breeds (subspecies or races). She repeated what I already knew -- that the commonly accepted test for whether two groups were different species or subspecies of the same species was whether they could interbreed. The various breeds of dogs, just as the various races of humans, can interbreed in spite of obvious inherent differences.

Even though she taught biology, which included human biology, she became very uncomfortable equating differences in human races as compared with breeds of horses or dogs. It was as though I had trespassed on forbidden ground, but I saw nothing heretical about the inquiry. To understand those distinctions that separated man from the other species, and to comprehend the differences in mankind seemed important. How could we begin to understand the world around us without having an understanding of what makes us the way we are?

By then I knew that no fewer than a thousand scientific studies had demonstrated that there was a significant difference in IQ between the White and Black races, that IQ differences have a major impact on individual socioeconomic success, and that ample evidence showed that heredity rather than environment was the major source of this difference.

Black and White Brains: The Facts

Books and articles on IQ led me to other studies revealing that significant differences existed between the brains of Blacks and Whites. In fact, the data on the racial differences in brain structure were even more cut and dried than those based on psychological testing. I found that Negro and White brains have been weighed, compared, and analyzed for decades, and the results have consistently shown Black brains to be smaller than White and Asian brains. As an illustration of the marked difference, even though Blacks are physically far larger than Asians, the latter have physically larger brains.

In The Mismeasure of Man, a popular media-touted egalitarian book, Stephen Jay Gould claimed that 19th century researchers used false methodology in comparing White and Black brains, and implied there are no differences. Gould, however, carefully left out many more recent studies that document intrinsic brain differences between Blacks and Whites. In fact, ten years before the publication of Gould's book, The Mind of Man in Africa by John C. Caruthers showed that there had been five major studies using a modern methodological basis on Black and White brain differences, by Todd, Pearl, Vint, Simmons, and Connolly. Gould carefully avoided mentioning these more recent studies, except for two brief sentences about Pearl, whom he praised for saying that nutrition might explain the racial difference in brain sizes. Gould conveniently left out Pearl's data on Brain differences. Caruthers points out that a number of scientific studies show that Black brains are on average 2.6 percent to 7.9 percent smaller than White brains.

Simultaneous with Gould's work, a 1980 study of brain weight that included data on Black and White brains showed that Black babies' brains were on average 8 percent smaller and lighter than White brains. In the 1980s and '90s additional studies by Broman, et al, and Osborne have consistently shown significant differences between White and Black brain sizes.

In the 1950s, direct studies comparing White and Black brains came to an end for a while, it being considered impolite, insensitive, and politically incorrect to contemplate such differences. After a long hiatus, a number of more recent studies of brain physiology show the same evidence of differences in brain sizes between Blacks and Whites as was first reported in the last century.

Perhaps the most extensive research of all was done by the National Collaborative Perinatal Project, which studied more than 14,000 mothers and children. The project was national in scope and studied mothers and their children from the time of conception through birth and early childhood. The objective of the study was to discover the main correlates of infant mortality, health, and intelligence and other aspects of child development. Subjects were tested for IQ at ages 4 and 7. Extensive body and head measurements were taken at birth and at 8 months, 1 year, 4 years, and 7 years.

Dr. Arthur Jensen analyzed the massive data from the study and found some startling things. Even within families, the higher-IQ sibling usually had the largest head size. The study also bore out numerous previous studies that had shown Blacks to have smaller heads, on average, than Whites, and corresponding lower intelligence. As a striking confirmation of the correlation between head size and intelligence, the study found that Black and White children who matched closely for IQ had, on average, little difference in head size. 140 If the size of the physical brain correlates with IQ, it makes good sense that intelligence is based on the physical structure of the Brain itself and thus has an inherited component.

Much earlier studies had shown differences in the Supra Granular Region of the brain, differences in the amount of frontal lobe area, and differences in the sulcification and fissuration of the brain between Blacks and Whites. In 1950 Connolly wrote: "The Negro brain is on the average relatively longer, narrower, and flatter than the brain of Whites. The frontal region,. . . larger in male Whites than in Negroes, while the parietal is larger in Negroes than in Whites. . . It can be said that the pattern of the frontal lobes in the White brains of our series is more regular, more uniform than in the Negro brain . . .The White series is perhaps more fissurated and there is more anastomosing of the sulci. . . ."

The importance of the brain's frontal lobes to its owner's personality was highlighted in the films One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and also in Jessica Lange's movie on Frances Farmer called Frances.

(p. 77)

The Retreat of Racial Egalitarianism

In the racial egalitarian line of defense they have argued that:

1) Blacks are really not less intelligent -- a common popular argument. But when critics point out that hundreds of studies show a consistent and dramatic lower IQ scores for Blacks they allege that:

2) Differences in IQ are the result of racially biased tests. But when proven that they are not racially or culturally biased, they then argue that:

3) Lower average Black IQs are simply the result of socioeconomic factors. But when the differences show up even when socioeconomic factors for Whites and Blacks are matched, they retreat to saying that:

4) Environmental stimulation of young Blacks in programs such as Head Start will bring up the Black children to the White IQ level. But when shown that Head Start resulted in absolutely no increase in Black IQ, they postulate that:

5) IQ really does not mean anything anyway. But when shown that hundreds of social scientists proved that IQ has a tremendous impact on educational and socioeconomic success -- they finally retreat to an egalitarian defense that accepts the biological determination of intelligence: they allege that poor nutrition is responsible for the differences in mental development of Blacks and Whites.

The final egalitarian defense is interesting in that it accepts that intelligence is important and is rooted in the biology and formation of the brain itself. Instead of trying to dispute the natural role of genes in the architecture and development of the brain, the egalitarians simply argue that nutrition and other biological factors of the mother and of the young child dramatically affect the brain's development. They argue that Blacks, because they are poorer than Whites, are nutritionally deprived and thus held back in the development of their brains.

European children who grew up in the starvation of central Europe, during the stress and starvation at the end and right after the Second World War, show no ill effects in lower IQ. Their IQ average compares favorably with both the period before and after the conflict.

The scientific studies of nutrition show that there is little difference between the nutrition of Black and White children Robert Rector showed in a survey by the U.S. Department of Agriculture that Black preschool children actually consume more protein than do average White children. Children in families 75 percent below the poverty line actually consume as much of the major vitamins as children 300 percent above the poverty line.

The argument that the brains of young Blacks are malnourished is almost laughable when one looks at the absolute Black domination of track and field, basketball and football. It is hard to imagine that the same nutrition that enables Blacks to develop nutritionally healthy bodies that help make them 15 times per capita more represented than Whites in these major sports, has during the same time period--starved their brains!

Racial differences also are obvious in the physical realm. In the 1960s Blacks dominated the male sprinting events of the Olympics and, with integration of sports, they were rapidly increasing their numbers in professional basketball and football. At this writing Blacks now make up approximately 80 percent of the National Basketball Association, 66 percent of the National Football League, and 100 percent of the top 50 male sprinters in the world who compete in professional and Olympic 100- and 200-meter dashes. This is true although well-organized track and field is much more prevalent in White nations than Black ones and although there are far more White high-school athletes.

Some have suggested that Black overrepresentation in basketball comes from greater desire on the part of Blacks as compared to Whites. Certainly, there are just as many young Whites who desire the multimillion-dollar income and popularity of the professional basketball player, but a Black person is 29 times more likely to be in the NBA than is a White. It seems logical that the differing performance of Whites and Blacks has an anatomical and physiological basis. Scientists who have investigated the issue say precisely that.

There are numerous physical distinctions between the White and Black race. Blacks have greater proportions of muscle types that favor quick bursts of speed than Whites do. They also have less body fat, smaller body cavities, longer arms in relation to their height, and numerous other differences that contribute to their excelling in sports that favor quick bursts of speed as well as jumping ability. They are favored in sports where those traits are the most important and have a disadvantage where strength and other characteristics are favored. Whites and Asians dominate the strength sports of weightlifting and gymnastics and the higher density in Blacks' bones results in less buoyancy and a distinct disadvantage in swimming and other water sports.

Ch. 10: The Evolution of Race

(p. 83)

One interesting publication I read was the Psychological Bulletin I found a couple of articles from the early '60s that discussed how Blacks tend to be more impulsive and unrestrained than Whites. Dreger and Miller called some of the Black personality traits "estrangement and impulse ridden fantasies."

In later years, numerous articles detailed other Black personality differences. An extreme liberal, Thomas Kochman, noted clear racial distinctions in personality between Blacks and Whites, and he expressed his preference for black characteristics. He argued that Black males perceive being ignored as the highest insult and recommends that White women should react to Black sexual aggression with sassy rejoinders just as Black women do. He even went so far as to suggest the typical non-black behavior style of White women caused violent Black male attacks.

Kochman also noted that blacks have "intense and spontaneous emotional behavior" and that the Black "rhythmic way of walking" is "a response to impulses coming from within." He criticized White debating techniques as 'low-keyed, dispassionate, impersonal and non-challenging. . .cool, quiet, and without affect," while he describes the Black approach to argument as "animated, confrontational,. . ."heated [and] loud..." and that Blacks argue not simply the idea but the "person debating the idea."

After personally experiencing the Black style of argument on many occasions, I had to agree with Kochman's evaluation. However, I dispute his notion that such primitive and emotional behavior enriches our culture. After I read Kochman, I noticed the frequent news reports of Black males who argue in precisely the way he described, "heated, confrontational and loud," leading them to impulsively use their Saturday Night Specials. Our public hospitals are full of the victims of such heated and unrestrained Black styles of argument.

Many studies showed the greater levels of impulsiveness, aggression and emotionalism in Blacks as compared to Whites. A study that took place in Trinidad compared Blacks and Caucasian immigrants from India. Walter Mischel conducted a study of children in Trinidad in which he gave White and Black children the choice between a candy bar immediately or a larger one a week later. Blacks almost always chose the immediate gratification while Whites usually chose to wait for the bigger reward. The inability of the blacks to delay gratification was so great in comparison with Whites, that Mischel stated that measuring it seemed "superfluous." Mischel also tried to compare the familial patterns of the blacks who almost always had female-headed households to the East Indian households, but he could not find enough East-Indian households with absent fathers to constitute a statistically meaningful study.

Other books such as The Unheavenly City Revisited by Edward Ban-field noted that inner cities' inhabitants, that include many Blacks, have less tendency to defer gratification, and an extreme orientation to the present. 168 169 Most of the men who noted these psychological differences between the races took for granted their cultural origins, but many new studies reveal that such tendencies had hereditary implications.

One of the more interesting aspects of the study of criminal behavior I learned about was its links with testosterone. Researchers have long noted that males are about ten times more often found guilty of violent crimes than are women, and high crime rates coincide with high levels of testosterone in adolescence. Criminal youths are also found to have higher average levels of testosterone than non-criminals of the same age. Interestingly enough, young Negroes are found to have significantly higher levels of testosterone than do young Whites. The Black crime rate is about 300 percent higher than that of Whites on a world-wide basis.

Higher levels of testosterone could contribute to greater sexual aggression as well, contributing both to rape and assault of women as well as instability in relationships. It is also easy to see how it could damage the family. In my reading, I learned that in Africa as well as in every New World Black society, illegitimacy and promiscuity is far more common than in European societies. In the United States, for instance, the African-American illegitimacy rate is fast approaching 75 percent of all newborns.

The chronic social problem of absent Black fathers in America is found repeated on a world-wide scale. In a research paper on African marriage systems, Patricia Draper describes the parenting role of Negro fathers in Africa and the Americas: "The psychological, social, and spatial distance of husbands/fathers, together with their freedom from direct economic responsibility relieves them of most aspects of the parental role as Westerners understand the term."

I wanted to understand the reasons why the Black differences existed. That meant a look into the evolutionary aspects of the formations of the major races. But, before I did that, I had to answer a more pertinent question Ashley Montagu maintained in his books and articles that Race is simply a cultural myth. In recent times this view has been parroted frequently in the media. Is race real, or is it a socially-contrived invention?

The Reality of Race

Ashley Montagu's, Man's Most Dangerous Myth: the Fallacy of Race had impressed me before I began my look into the other side of the scientific studies on race. The "myth of race" position is essentially that skin color, hair type and other traits that influence racial classification are completely arbitrary traits of mankind and are as unimportant as are different types of fingerprint designs.

After almost thirty years of the media proclaiming the "myth of race," race-critic Jared Diamond refined the argument in the 1994 issue of the very popular Discover magazine. Diamond chose a few traits such as lactose intolerance and fingerprint patterns that varied geographically among human populations and suggested by those traits alone, Swedes could be put in the same "racial category as the Ainu of Japan or the Xhosa of Africa. He asserted, therefore, that racial classification was nonsensical. Another media-popular disclaimer of race is Cavalli-Sforza, who in the preface of his major work, The History and Geography of Human Genes, gave lip-service to the argument of Diamond and Montagu. Interestingly enough, when one looks at Cavalli-Sforza's world gene-distribution maps in his book, they show the same geographic boundaries that reflect the traditional racial groupings.

I had realized back in the 1960s that the "myth of race" argument is perfectly analogous to saying that the dozens of different breeds of dogs is a myth because one can find some specific traits that exist in varying breeds. I thought about the question long and hard, and I asked myself, "Because some similar traits are found in different breeds of dogs, does that mean that there are no St. Bernards or Chihuahuas?"

If Ashley Montagu were attacked by a dog, I think it might matter to him if the dog were a Doberman Pinscher or a Toy Poodle. As the Doberman began to chow down on him, would he still insist that the differences among the breeds of the canines don't exist? Even Montagu could predict that a Doberman offers a great deal more potential danger than a toy Poodle. If Diamond wants to be technical about it, many human traits and sets of traits, can be found that exist in other mammals. In fact, humans share 98.5 percent of their genes with Chimpanzees. If one follows Diamond's rationale, there is no difference between humans and Chimpanzees because we can find sets of selected genetic traits we share.

(p. 96)

In Africa, although there could be advantages for a woman if the male helped provide for her, it was not nearly as important to her survival. Surveys of Blacks worldwide show that Black males and females begin sexual relations earlier, have more sexual partners, more frequent sexual relations, more absent fathers, more polygamy, higher testosterone levels in males, more prominent secondary sexual characteristics, and much higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases. For instance, even in the United States, African-Americans are 50 times more likely to have syphilis, and in some areas, an incredible 100 times greater likelihood of gonorrhea. Blacks are 14 times more likely to have AIDS than are non-Hispanic Whites. "I don't think there is any question that the epidemic in this country is becoming increasingly an epidemic of color," said Surgeon General David Satcher.

Physical Manifestations

In colder climates, strength and endurance became the deciding physical factors for survival rather than speed. Men had to be strong enough to build complex and heavy structures of wood or stone, or sometimes even of ice. It made more evolutionary sense for the European to have a bit more insulating body fat and a larger body cavity than Africans, as such helps protect the body from times of intense cold. Africans having a lower percentage of body fat, arms and legs proportionately larger to body size, smaller body cavities, and smaller heads --helps make them more efficient in running, jumping and fighting.

In the modern world, Black domination of boxing illustrates the physical differences created by the differing evolution of the races. Soon after Blacks were permitted to participate freely in the organized sport, they quickly asserted their superiority in it. Black athletes have muscle types that can provide quick bursts of speed, while Whites tend to dominate sports that require maximum strength and endurance. Weightlifting, for example, is overwhelmingly dominated by Europeans and Asians.

When I was looking into the evolutionary questions, one of the most heavily-promoted sporting events in history was the Mohammed Ali, Chuck Wepner fight. I remember the statistical differences to this day. Wepner stood six foot six inches in height, but interestingly, Ali, who stood three inches shorter, had a reach that was six inches longer. Wepner however, was much stronger and could lift dramatically heavier weights than Ali. It became obvious in the fight that although Wepner had a tremendously powerful blow, Ali's speed allowed him to simply strike, bob, weave and dance around his slower European-American opponent. Despite Ali's evolutionary advantage, in a courageous effort, Wepner lasted 15 rounds with Ali, and inspired the Rocky movie series based on his character. I was probably the only one in the neighborhood who thought about the evolutionary racial differences between Ali and Wepner as the replay of the fight came on TV.

The Roots of Higher Intelligence

In an extremely cold and inhospitable natural environment higher human intelligence is dramatically favored. Europe demanded a higher technology for survival. If a society depends almost wholly on hunting, development of advanced weapons, traps and sophisticated strategies can be critically important when there is scarce game. Effective hunting, fishing and trapping in such an environment can demand well-developed cognitive skills. The invention and rigging of ingenious traps can demand high intelligence. The skills and the tools necessary to make a fire, no easy task in a cold wet environment, can mean the difference between life and death. If a heavy shelter constructed to keep out winter collapses on its occupants because of poor design, they could well die. In equatorial Africa, if the leaves or straw huts blow away in a rainstorm, the occupants can just build another one tomorrow. If a native gets lost in the rain forests of Africa, he can live on the fauna and flora while he finds his way back, while if the European gets lost in winter he could freeze to death.

A number of writers on European prehistory believe that navigating on long winter hunts with nondescript landscapes, favored

(p. 94)

In Europe, the prehistoric economy found dependence on several primary animals. Probably the most important were the mastodon and the various breeds of deer and reindeer. Now extinct, the mastodon was the largest animal ever to walk the Earth contemporaneous to man A great hairy beast adapted to the cold temperatures of Europe and Northern Asia, it stood about twice the size of the great African Elephant, had huge tusks and was easily strong enough to lift weight equivalent to a small automobile. To hunt such creatures demanded technologically-effective weapons, as well as effective teamwork and planning. Much of the prehistoric economy of Europe found its base in products harvested from the Mastodon Meat and fat, thick skins for clothing, shoes and shelter, bone and sinew for weapons and tools, oil for their lamps, organs used for thread and containers --the Mastodon provided all these products and more. Obviously, it was hunted exclusively by males. The same was true for deer and other game.

(p. 90)

The Evolution of Races

To understand the evolution of the races, I found it instructive to understand the genetic development of dogs. All dog breeds are members of the same species, Canis familiaris, just as all humans are members of the same species Homo sapiens. We call the different varieties of dogs breeds, and we call the different varieties of humans, races, although breed can also describe human varieties. The only difference in the two terms is that breed usually denotes genetic selection by humans, while races denote genetic selection by the forces of the geographic environment.

Selective breeding from a single species created the spectacular variety of dog breeds over a relatively short period of time, perhaps only five or six thousand years. Humans selected dogs for certain physical and personality traits, segregated them from other dogs and created the vast differences in dog breeds we see today. Before the c of the Black and White race as we know it, mankind's remote ancestors fanned out around the globe. The populations encountered vastly differing environments that selected for many characteristics, the most readily recognizable being the physical traits of skin color, hair texture and color, and eye color.

(p. 93)

In Africa, numerous kinds of edible vegetation existed, as well as small rodents and insects and other varied and abundant food sources. By contrast, the ground in Europe was a frozen sea of snow and ice for many months each year and even many trees had no leaves. In the mildest of months, the inhabitants had to prepare for the harsh periods by deferring gratification and putting aside stores of food and supplies. In such cold climates, hunting large game rather than gathering edibles became the chief source of food and supplies. Because hunting provided most resources, females and children became dependent on male provisioning, leading to a strong bond between men and their immediate family. In both Europe and Asia men had to provide for their mates and children if they were to survive.

(p. 102)

As the years passed, egalitarianism became the dogma of our times. Not only did many of the evolutionary anthropologists become egalitarians, but so did many creationists. Today, a common attitude among creationists is that God made us all the same. In reality, though, the creationist viewpoint shows God is the architect of race. For if one maintains that God made Nature and humanity as it is, then it must be conceded that he created the distinct races; gave them different features, behavioral tendencies and mental abilities. Furthermore, he segregated them from each other on different continents. From a thoughtful creationist viewpoint, to deny the reality of race and racial difference is a denial of God's own handiwork.

The reality of race is also reinforced by the Holy Bible. If the creationist uses the Old Testament as his guide to creation and as his guide to God's view of race, it is quickly apparent that the Old Testament is in fact a testament of race. It is a history of one people: the Israelites, in continuous conflict with the differing racial groups of the Middle East region It emphasizes their own genealogy and the repeated commands not to mix their seed (an equivalent of the scientific concept of genes) with others. I have much more on this in the Race and Christianity chapter, but whether one takes the evolutionary or the creationist view, both support the reality of race.

I found it amazing to see how the mass media was able to convert both the scientific community -- which espoused evolution and the fundamentally opposed creationist community -- into spouting almost an identical egalitarian dogma. Their victory was complete by the time I graduated from high school.

The intellectual, secular community branded anyone who dared to publicly promote the idea of racial differences -- as unscientific. Anyone in the religious community who dared to tell the truth of race was accused of being against God himself. Egalitarianism had become a de facto religion, incorporated under both the name of science and religion Simple recognition of racial differences became a moral sin equivalent with adultery or perhaps even murder. But the racial heretics have not gone away quietly, and with each passing day more evidence emerges of the dramatic, genetically-borne, physical and psychological differences between the races. The same is true of the differences between the sexes. Today, the idea of ingrained psychological, brain-originated differences between men and women has become widely accepted among society. (See the Sex Differences chapter.) Tomorrow, the same will be true of race.

(p. 106)

Aside from considerations of evolutionary fitness, it is natural for all races to prefer the company and aesthetics of their own race. I love the look and the spirit of my people, in our fair-skinned, light featured, esthetic prop we find our own concept of beauty. Whether it is the Norse-like God and Adam of the Sistine Chapel or the perennial blonde, angel-like prototype of beauty revered the world over, our race needs no justification to seek its own survival. For that matter, no race does.

The way that evolutionary fitness is ultimately decided is in evolutionary success. Right now our people seem hell bent on letting their genotype be extinguished from the planet, even in our own homelands. . . .Race suicide could also be hastened when a race allows massive immigration of an alien race into its society and the loss of genetic survival through racial intermixture. In promoting the idea of my own racial survival, I understand that all races share that same goal. If I were an African, I doubt that I would care about evolutionary gradations and where my people would rank on the charts. I'd love my own and everything that is unique about my own. An African can only be inferior in things that he is not good at, and he can always be superior in what he is born to do. If the destiny of the Black race is to live closer to the natural world, so be it. Whatever fate he seeks, it would be a destiny he would carve for himself by his own hand.

Fear if Extinction to Dreams of the Heavans

Once I had the idea that our race was vital to the evolutionary progress of mankind, a whole new perspective dawned on me. The appreciation of ecology that I gained as a very young man in the swamps and forests of south Louisiana, now helped me to fully understand how mankind is an integral part of that ecology. Understanding race is simply an understanding of what Garrett Hardin calls, "human ecology."

Not only is it not immoral to recognize the realities of race, there is no higher morality existing, than to work for the survival of your own kind. Is it not ridiculous for some of our people to work hard to preserve the unique breeds of Whales around the world while they denounce those who seek the preservation of the unique breeds of humanity? Furthermore, I realized that the high moral qualities that inspire the egalitarians were in fact created by the same race that they are so intent on dissolving into interracial soup. Do not the high morals that they tout come from the highest ideals of civilization and culture, ideals created by the European people?

Breeders of thoroughbred racehorses would be horrified to see the lines so carefully matched for speed over centuries to be randomly interbred out-of-existence with horses who could only run half as fast. Imagine if there was only one last pair of thoroughbreds on Earth. Wouldn't people do everything they could to preserve that magnificent breed of horse? Our people have been the thoroughbreds of civilization; do we really want to destroy our genetic distinctiveness, the unique heritage that has produced so much beauty on the Earth?

The opponents of racial awareness constantly parrot the idea that it is hateful and barbaric to be racially conscious, and for a White person it is said to be downright evil to desire the preservation of our own racial integrity. But, how morally supreme is the racially-mixed Black and Brown world as compared to the European World. What areas of the globe have the most brutal crime including rape, assault, robbery and murder? Which races have more concern for human rights and justice? Which races more frequently have political freedom, and among which races is despotism more prevalent? Which have better medical care for the sick and afflicted and had more concern for them? Which have more educational opportunity for their children? Which have more opportunity and fairer treatment of women? Which race leads our adventures into space? Where is the compelling evidence that the demise of the White race is really going to produce more humanitarianism, more love, brotherhood and all the catchwords of the egalitarians? Do the six thousand murders a year in racially amorphous Rio De Janeiro somehow represent a moral example to the rare murders in the more racially homogenous Tokyo, Japan or Berlin, Germany?

The racial egalitarian arguments remind me of how I had learned the Communists promised freedom and equality to the Russians and other Eastern Europeans, but instead created great slave nations. I came to believe by the tender age of 15 that if I truly wanted a society capable of the love and decency that the egalitarians so value, that I had to preserve my genotype. It also became apparent that our people's right to preserve our heritage and people is perhaps the most basic right of all, the right to live.

Since I was a small boy, the media had pounded in my mind that the most terrible act of the 20th century was said to be the attempted destruction of the Jewish people during the Second World War. An attempt to wipe out a race would be an execrable crime in anyone's mind. In fact, commentators said that what made the atrocities against the Jews so terrible was not the murder of such great numbers per se, because there had been bigger slaughters in Russia and China, but the fact that there was an alleged attempt to wipe out the Jewish people. Yet, why is not the eventual destruction of our European genotype, the genocide of our race, any less terrible than that which was said to be attempted against the Jews? The ultimate result is the same.

As I recognized the genetic crisis we faced, I also became inspired with the possibilities for our people. If the genetic improvement of our race created by the ice ages, produced such great achievements, then nurturing our genetic quality offered great hope for the future. The environmentalists, whether they be Capitalists or Communists, Democrats or Totalitarians say that the way to better the world was through better mechanisms of society. In fact, all of man's

history has been about man's progress through the tools he created. The crucible of the ice ages created a genetically brilliant people that in spite of having no written language, no schools, no domesticated animals, no complex architecture, eventually created these things out of nothing. If the behavioral environmentalists were right, prehistoric man could have never built the first civilization, for his environment was far too primitive and uneducated to have ever afforded such an opportunity. Our heritage created civilization from nothing but the genetic powers carried inside of them. The achievements of the European people can be contrasted to the centuries the African race has not even been able to copy successfully what Europeans originated. The great treasure our people possessed has always been in our genes rather than our gold or our gadgets.

The Great Paradox

While still in high school I read Elmer Pendell's classic book Sex Versus Civilization. Pendell was a population expert who had written many books on the perils of overpopulation. He pointed out that you couldn't properly deal with the human quantity problem without addressing the human quality issue. He also made clear the strange interaction of human evolution with civilization, which I call the Great Paradox. He said that the ice ages produced the magnificent intellectual powers of what we call modern or "Cro-Magnon man," the prototype of the modern European. As the ice ages receded and the climate became less harsh, those genetically accumulated abilities flowered in the world's first great civilizations. Over time, intellect combined with accumulated learning brought on the highest cultural and technological achievements. Ironically, at the same time civilization makes advancements, it fosters a dysgenic selection that in many ways is opposite to the eugenic effect of the prehistoric period.

The same sharing and social justice that helped the small hunting bands of high quality to survive, applied indiscriminately to a larger society, leads to degeneration. The least intelligent and fit reproduce faster than the best. As the most intelligent found their pleasure in their business, religious, governmental activities, as well as the arts or the various pleasures that could be purchased with affluence, they had smaller families. The poorest continued to find their greatest pleasures in the sexual acts that also increased their numbers.

The organization of civilization also meant a change in the conduct of wars. In more primitive societies, warfare could wipe away the whole gene pool and replace it with more intelligent and efficient groups. Civilization's wars tended to leave the physical and mental defectives at home, while impressing the healthiest, and fittest, who by virtue of their youth had often not yet had children. Through a succession of wars, the best and bravest traditionally led their troops and suffered the highest casualties.

As civilizations increased in power, they ranged in conquest far beyond the original boundaries of the people who built them, they sometimes brought back slaves of the conquered peoples, such as the Egyptian transport of Nubians into the heart of Egypt. Often, the genes of those non-civilized populations were slowly absorbed into the conqueror's gene pool.