Antiracism and Moralizing Gods
Matt Nuenke, March 2003.
In The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (2002) by Kevin MacDonald, he discusses several programs that have/had as their objective the pathologizing of Christian and/or Western culture. These included (Chapters 2-7): The Boasian School of Anthropology and the Decline of Darwinism in the Social Sciences; Jews and the Left; Jewish Involvement in the Psychoanalytic Movement; The Frankfurt School of Social Research and Pathologization of Gentile Group Allegiances; The Jewish Criticism of Gentile Culture; and Jewish Involvement in Shaping U.S. Immigration Policy. However, the question then becomes, how did these movements manage to not only indoctrinate several generations of Whites, but how are these ideological movements sustained by those who are most adversely impacted - those of European descent?
I came across a recent article in Evolution and Human Behavior, March 2003, by Frans L. Roes and Michel Raymond, entitled "Belief in Moralizing Gods" (pg. 126-35). The Abstract states:
"According to Alexander's…theory of morality, human social groups became large as a result of between-group competition over preferred habitats and resources, but although larger social groups are more successful in competition, they also experience more pressures to fission. Morality unites a society by limiting infringements upon the rights of other society members, so if larger societies are indeed more likely to split, then those that remain intact may be expected to have more effective inviolable moral rules, such as those imposed by moralizing gods. Cross-cultural analyses support this line of thought: more competition between societies is found in environments rich in resources and larger societies tend to occupy these environments; large societies engage in external conflicts at higher rates and are more often characterized by beliefs in moralizing gods. An additional explanation is briefly discussed, and we speculatively picture the historical chain of events giving rise to a belief in moralizing gods."
In the United States, our moralizing gods now include antiracism, multiculturalism, diversity and open immigration - as a set of morals. These "gods" are now so ingrained in our collective psyches, that even those who do not benefit from such programs, and in fact are harmed by them, accept them as gospel. Blacks are harmed by Mexican immigrants - but Blacks do not complain. Most Americans are harmed by immigrants from third-world countries when they bring crime and welfare dependency to America rather than contributing to our national wealth. Multiculturalism and diversity in college admissions and in the work force adversely affects Whites, Jews and East Asians. Moreover, all Americans are subject to the fissioning discussed above that can come about when different racial groups are in conflict over resources, power, and privilege. We have become a nation divided, relying solely on the god of "antiracism" to keep us in tact - but can it last?
When it comes to race relations, there are primarily three competing rationalizations that drive the debate: liberal arguments that differences are caused by racism, conservative arguments that inequality is due to culture, and the empirical Right's argument that inequality results primarily from natural or innate differences between population groups or races. Michael Levin in Why Race Matters: Racial Differences and What They Mean (1997) states:
"[O]pposition to hereditarianism is associated with the political Left may suggest that I stand on the Right. Understood as the view that democratic liberties are a facade for oppression, 'leftism' does indeed strike me as absurd. Yet on matters of race, the orthodoxy of the Right is no more enlightened than that of the Left, and in some ways less coherent. The Left holds that blacks would do as well as whites but for racism, the Right that blacks would do as well as whites but for well-meaning government policies like welfare that sap black ambition. (The seductions of popular culture are sometimes added.) The Left's theory may be wrong, but it observes the forms of correct reasoning. It tries to deal with conflicting evidence, positing unconscious 'structural' discrimination to explain black failure in the United States after the passage of civil rights measures, and internalization of the white man's image of blacks to explain the decline of postcolonial Africa. On the other hand, while conservatives have made a strong case that welfare has accelerated black crime, poverty, and illegitimacy, they ignore the failure of whites to respond as blacks do to welfare incentives available to both races, and explain black failure in the post-civil rights era as a legacy of slavery in language borrowed from the Left. Conservatives such as Thomas Sowell, aware of the worldwide failure of black cultures to develop European/Asian levels of technology, circularly attribute this failure to black culture. The truism that a bad theory beats no theory may explain why the Right's account of race relations is seldom taken seriously.Likewise, the Left uses its own escape clause - racism is a special domain that cannot be answered using behavioral genetics (racial genetic differences).
"Left and Right tend to share four premises. One, of course, is that racial differences are caused by forces external to the races themselves - racism for the Left, government intrusion for the Right. A second is impatience with quantitative reasoning. Prior to inquiry, it is natural to ascribe the black/white attainment gap to a number of causes, including genes, environmental correlates of genes, discrimination, and historical accidents. The substantive issue is how much each factor contributes. Yet both sides cast the debate in all-or-nothing terms - it is all oppression or all welfare, with nothing between. Some single factor or cluster of factors may well explain the entire race gap, but the question whether one factor dominates must be asked before it can be answered. Incidentally, the all-or-nothing mindset can coexist with extensive use of descriptive statistics. Hacker, for instance, presents pages of quantitative data on race differences in residential patterns, crime, income, reproductive trends and academic success, but goes on, without any causal analysis, to attribute these differences entirely to white racism. Fischer et al. make more sophisticated use of regression analysis to isolate causes, but when in the crunch they must explain why blacks persistently fall short on objective tests, they offer only vague qualitative conjectures.
"Third, a preoccupation with blame leads both the Left and the Right to conflate questions of cause with questions of fault. The causal question is, simply, 'Why do the races differ?' The complex fault question is, 'What malice or folly created these differences?' For the Left it is malicious racism, for the Right it is foolish welfare, with both sides ignoring the possibility that human action has nothing to do with it. The upshot is scolding and lecturing, as the Left scolds whites for 'racism' of which they may be innocent, the Right lectures everyone about a work ethic blacks may be unable to follow, and the Left scolds the Right right back for 'blaming the victim.'"
What should be obvious to anyone who follows race relations closely is that the empirical Right has little to do with traditional conservative or liberal positions with regards to race. We differ with conservatives because we base our findings on evidence from science - primarily neo-Darwinist, psychometric, and Popperian principles of the need for theories that can be falsified - rather than ad hoc notions of folk social science, more dogmatic or religion-based than scientific. The Left on the other hand tries to use scientific principles to explain racial differences but they ignore the fact that there are natural occurrences of xenophobia in every known culture or race - while they are unwilling to accept that xenophobia and innate racial differences could be due at least in part on genes rather than entirely cultural. They rely simply on dogmatic faith that genes can never be considered as a cause for racial differences. "Most religious people in the West prefer the escape clause - that religion is indeed a special domain that addresses questions no science could ever answer (Boyer 2001)."
This may be easier to understand by looking at what science is versus what human interaction offers. Boyer continues, "Scientific progress is brought about by a very odd form of social interaction, in which some of our motivational systems (a desire to reduce uncertainty, to impress other people, to gain status, as well as the aesthetic appeal of ingenuity) are recruited for purposes quite different from their evolutionary background. In other words, scientific activity is both cognitively and socially very unlikely, which is why it has only been developed by a very small number of people, in a small number of places, for what is only a minuscule part of our evolutionary history. As philosopher Robert McCauley concludes, on the basis of similar arguments, science is every bit as 'unnatural' to the human mind as religion is 'natural.'" In fact, "organisms are not designed to communicate truthfully with others but to persuade them - to manipulate them to serve their interests. We should expect deception and self-deception to be at the very heart of interactions among organisms (MacDonald)."
What this means is that humans usually fall back on their natural specialized inference systems, using moralizing gods to achieve a political end - one that needs to reject science in order to succeed. Nevertheless, like religion, antiracism in the end cannot succeed where freedom of speech and inquiry are fully expressed. Just like religion, antiracism empiricism has failed: Boyer states, "In every instance where the Church has tried to offer its own description of what happens in the world and there was some scientific alternative on the very same topic, the latter has proved better. Every battle has been lost and conclusively so." And so it has been in the battle between the antiracists and the behavior geneticists - all the antiracists have left is the suppression of scientific inquiry via new and improved laws against "hate speech" or "thought crimes." (see http://www.neoeugenics.net/Jared.htm for an article on laws used to repress free speech.)
Over the last couple of years, with the fulfillment of mapping the human genome, the antiracists have panicked knowing that we are now closer than ever to looking directly at racial differences at the level of the gene. So, what is their defense? They are trying to get rid of the scientific term "race" and supplant it with "population group," which means exactly the same thing. However, they have proclaimed, and they expect everyone to believe, that there is no scientific basis for racial classifications, as we busily go about deciphering instead the genetic code of "population groups." Is this honest science? Arthur R. Jensen responds to why the AAA has declared that biological races do not exist:
"Well, I don't know why the official position of the American Anthropological Association is wrong, but it is, if your characterization of their position is accurate. Perhaps they think that denying the reality of race will make racial problems disappear or help combat racial prejudice, or they have other well-intentioned motives that have more to do with social ideology than with science. Perhaps they merely wish to be politically correct, which I think is less forgivable for any group that wishes to be viewed as a scientific organization. Further, I don't think scientific organizations should make official pronouncements on issues that can only be answered in terms of empirical research. The AAA does not speak for all anthropologists, and probably not even for a majority of physical anthropologists, on this matter.
"The majority of physical anthropologists, evolutionists, geneticists, and specialists in human biology probably take a position similar to my own. However, I am in complete agreement with one important point in the AAA statement, and I don't know anyone who is up on this subject who would disagree. Races are not biologically clear-cut categories or distinct groups. I've already said that races are 'fuzzy' groups with clines, or blends, at their blurry boundaries. That's the difference between a subspecies or a race as contrasted with a species. Ask any zoologist. The fact that I'm a psychologist rather than an anthropologist is not relevant. The consensus of expert opinion and the evidence itself support my position (Miele 2002)."
The prophets of neoconservatism are an especially interesting blend of old Communists (Trotskyites to be exact in the case of the founders Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz), liberals, and sycophantic wanna-be's. "As best as I can determine, there are fewer than 200 of these influential neoconservatives in America. They're clustered around the Weekly Standard, the Wall Street Journal, Commentary, and a handful of think tanks, most notably the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute and The Project for the New American Century. In these think tanks, they use tax-deductible contributions to subsidize their propaganda papers and grant each other impressive-sounding titles such as 'adjunct scholar.' Think about how much power these people have. Most have never been elected to any office. Yet they impose a focused and effective ideological agenda on the U.S. government. In fact, they are right now essentially running U.S. foreign policy (John Allington - Chicago)."
And a strange foreign policy it is - while taking money away from the egalitarian's who profit from the nanny state, controlling the purse strings for a multitude of social welfare programs, these new kids on the block are spending money on the military to save Israel. The ideas of the neoconservatives, just like the antiracists, are a collection of deliberately complex and obtuse formulations for public policies that have no empirical basis. However, they ARE managing nonetheless to push us into World War III. In addition, the only moralizing gods that neoconservatives universally agree on are: a strong defense of Israel; globalism or more correctly crony capitalism; and open immigration.
The talking heads in the media, espousing the neoconservative position, also claim that we are in defense of liberal democracy globally, but it is not a real democracy. It only counts when the right people have been elected. On the Scopes Monkey Trial: "The prosecutor says of the Tennessee locals: 'They're simple people, Henry; poor people. They work hard and they need to believe in something, something beautiful. Why do you want to take it away from them? It's all they have [religion].' That is not far from the attitude of the neocons. Kristol has written: 'If there is one indisputable fact about the human condition it is that no community can survive if it is persuaded - or even if it suspects - that its members are leading meaningless lives in a meaningless universe.' [Kristol] spells out the moral corollary: 'There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work. (Pinker 2002)'"
Of course, what Kristol and the other neoconservatives really mean is, there are stupid people, really stupid people, not so stupid people, and then there are us. And one can be assured that "and then there are us, the elite who shall rule," does not include George W. Bush. He is a duped puppet that was picked by the neoconservatives to be president at their behest.
In the Supreme Court this week, the issue of using race for college admissions will be taken up. Underpinning this argument is the proposition that diversity/multiculturalism are legitimate governmental goals. However, where did these goals come from, and what were they based on? Actually, the diversity goal was created from whole cloth when affirmative action - or creating a level playing field - failed to close the gap in achievement between the races. A new agenda had to be put in place to supplant the old one.
A recently released study in the March issue of International Journal of Public Opinion by Stanley Rothman, Seymour Martin Lipset, and Neil Nevitte, entitled "Is Diversity Overrated?," reveals how empty the diversity goal is. They found by surveying 4,000 students and faculty at 140 randomly selected American colleges and universities that there is no benefit from a diverse campus versus a homogeneous one. (We should have been able to infer that from the fact that the Japanese seem to be able to do just fine without diversity - as well as many other homogenous countries.) What I really found amazing however was their findings about how students and faculty really felt about race preferences on campus. Three-quarters of the students opposed "relaxing academic standards" to increase minority representation (read Blacks) as do most faculty. In addition, 85% of students reject racial preferences, as well as a majority of faculty. Rothman goes on to state that "Most dismaying, of those who think that preferences have some impact on academic standards, those believing it negative exceed those believing it positive by 15 to 1."
So why has diversity been accepted as a legitimate goal for government intrusion against fairness in favor of racial preferences? The only evidence ever provided for the benefits of diversity was a study done by Patricia Gurin that showed that "diverse activities" make intangible gains such as in "listening ability." No other evidence was ever provided for the correctness of diversity - it is simply a part of the moralizing that has been carried on by egalitarians. Any understanding of human nature would indicate that organizations work best when the people are more alike, not more different. "What humans especially need, more than any other species, are two types of goods without which existence is impossible. They need information about the world around them; and they need cooperation with other members of the species…. Many cues tell us whether people are on the whole good cooperators or not, but these cues are often related to particular ways of life. Faced with strangers whose habits and language are different, there is precious little to guide us. Conversely, people with good dispositions can truly demonstrate them only to people who understand them. It is not surprising that the history of tribal mankind is also the history of solidarity within tribes and warfare between them. The likelihood that members of other tribes will cooperate is not that great, given that we cannot read their cues and they cannot read ours. Which is all the more reason for not even trying to cooperate with them (Boyer 2001)."
So how could the average citizen come to believe such a preposterous hypothesis that a diverse work force or educational system was preferable to a homogenous one? Two primary forces are at work here - people tend to come to believe what they are told if there are no dissenting voices (consensus effect - from academics, media and government), and they will tend to reinforce the message in spite of countervailing evidence (confirmation bias - once accepted, positive images will remind one of the hypothesis and negative instances will be ignored.)
A look at nations around the world will reveal this simple truth about different racial groups living together: the more multiethnic a nation is, the more likely there will be internal conflicts. The only way to reduce ethnic conflict is through an authoritarian or totalitarian central power, an established caste system is in place, or the nation has been made to succumb to the moralizing gods of antiracism. Like all religions, there is no basis for moralizing gods aside from the desire of some to control the desires of the many - it is based on human pliability that simply states: "whoever controls the media, controls the minds of the people."
Louis Andrew's review of the book, Ethnic Conflicts Explained by Ethnic Nepotism, by Tatu Vanhanen (1999), in The Occidental Quarterly, Vol. 2 No. 4, summarizes the research to date with regards to racial antagonisms between groups living in the same nation. For example, ethnic conflict is not significantly correlated with the level of democracy, social inequalities, or social economic development. Rather, ethnic conflict is exacerbated by racial or genetic differences, and especially so when the groups differ in their ability to succeed in the society as compared to other groups. It is a Darwinian struggle for resources, and the only solution to reducing ethnic tension and conflict is to grant more autonomy to distinct groups, increase political institution's reliance on reciprocal relationships that are equitable, or fragmentation of nations into smaller nations with homogenous racial groups.
Several solutions promoted by the moralizing gods such as intermarriage or elimination of racism will not work. Intermarriage in other nations like Brazil has not reduced racial conflicts. Moreover, the number of ethnic organizations is a strong indicator of the level of ethnic tensions and interest conflicts - Whites have few ethnic organizations - so we are already non-racialized and are not involved in the racial conflicts though we are routinely blamed for tensions under the racism rubric. Andrews notes that, "Despite the claims of individualist ideologues and antiracists, all ethnic and racial groups behave, at least to some extent, as groups…. But after fifty years of egalitarian propaganda in which everyone is merely an individual and race doesn't matter, whites have become true believers, whereas blacks know better. Therein lies the problem."
Our moralizing gods of antiracism makes acceptance of immigration, affirmative action and the value of diversity - state dogmas - not to be questioned except by ridicule and censorship, and in many Western nations, by new and ever expanding laws against thought crimes or crimes of expression. It is also a truism that the only racial group that would accept such moralizing gods as antiracism, that is detrimental to their own wellbeing, is Whites. Because of our evolutionary past, we have low levels of ethnocentrism and high levels of individualism and moral universalism (MacDonald 2002a,b). This makes us easy targets for "people of color" to impose on us, using guilt and shame, a system of rewards and special benefits that accrue to any minority that chooses to use the moralizing gods to justify their expropriation of our resources and our hospitality for their own racial gains.
Roes and Raymond note that, "Moral rules imposed by humans invite the suspicion that some members of the group will profit more from these rules than others, but such concerns are alleviated if the rules are convincingly portrayed as having been imposed by impartial gods without material or reproductive interests. If obedience to a certain religious moral rule indeed serves the interests of certain people, they may be expected to deny selfishness and to maintain that the rule reflects the will of the moralizing gods. Finally, gods are often considered immortal, so their rules may last for many generations. We therefore suggest that an effective way to impose moral rules on society members is to have these rules prescribed by gods. Belief in these gods signals acceptance of the rules and, for the reasons stated above, we expect more support for the rules (and thus more belief in moralizing gods) in larger societies. Thus, we hypothesize that: Society size is positively correlated with belief in moralizing gods."
Over the last 100 years, the moralizing gods of antiracism have managed to displace individualism, a meritocratic work ethic, and personal responsibility with antiracism, diversity, multiculturalism, and immigration. This has been accomplished by the managerial state that uses government, academia, and the media to impose its morality system on the general public. But this new god has a complicated history - one that changed from a few preachers to many denominations.
So who benefits or promotes "antiracism as a moralizing god?" It has some strange adherents, contrary to what is generally accepted. First, minorities have an interest in promoting an agenda that will benefit them over the majority - which includes Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, American Indians, Asians, etc. Each group in their own way benefits then from the new god. But along with these groups are several others that underpin and reinforce the new religion: capitalists, industrialists, small business, religious groups, and especially the welfare managerial state workers.
European elites, whether small business owners, large industrialists, academics, or politicians - have an economic stake in pandering to immigrants, minorities, and embracing the new religion. As the Christian moral system is displaced with antiracism, these players are again the winners. Those in business get cheaper labor, as well as moral capital, while they leave the workplace and go home to their gated communities. Politicians get votes from a broader base. And religious leaders find new purposes to pursue as people tire of the old moral values. Even White military commanders find that their careers will be enhanced if they go along with the new morality - it means little to them how affirmative action impacts White soldiers versus minority soldiers. They are above any real competition from minorities, for the moment.
But the most entrenched beneficiaries promoting antiracism moralizing gods are the putative liberals who are employed serving the underclass. I never understood this relationship, until reading The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, by Benjamin Ginsberg, 1993. He states that, "With the possible exception of blacks, Jews had a greater stake than any other element of the liberal coalition in domestic institutions, programs, and expenditures. Jews, more than members of most other groups, had risen to positions of power and prominence through their roles in the public and quasi-public institutions of the domestic state-municipal social service agencies, universities, think tanks, and public interest law firms as well as federal and state agencies. These institutions were, in turn, dependent upon high levels of domestic social spending which were now threatened by the Vietnam War. As a result, Jews were far more likely than members of other groups to oppose the war. One national survey taken in 1967 indicated that 48% of the nation's Jews were against the war as compared to only 16% of the Protestants and 27% of the Catholics surveyed. At the time this was seen as a reflection of some naturally dovish tendency on the part of Jews. It is worth recalling, however, that barely a quarter century earlier Jews were among the nation's most vehement hawks."
We see this same situation today, as some of the most vociferous opponents of the war in Iraq are those who worry about social spending for the underclass, while other Jews are more concerned with the survival and expansion of Israel. Ginsberg continues, "The American welfare state [in contrast to Europe] teeters more precariously on a narrow base of support provided by the organized providers of services. These groups, in effect, offered to provide a set of intellectual and professional services and identified groups of recipients whose needs could be said to justify the expenditure of billions of tax dollars for the construction and maintenance of the institutions needed to provide these services on a continuing basis. To a considerable extent, Great Society programs were promoted and explained to the public in terms of the distress of inner-city blacks. And, in subsequent decades, the needs of blacks have continued to provide the principal justification for virtually all social welfare programs and institutions with the exception of Social Security."
But this coalition between Jews and Blacks was not without peril, as the groups competed for power and resources:
"Given the especially important role played by Jews in the institutions of the domestic state-federal agencies, municipal service bureaucracies, universities, and the like - it was virtually a given that animosities would develop between African Americans and Jews….
"All liberal Democrats, but Jews especially, have a substantial stake in the American welfare state. Jews played major roles in its creation and continue to play important parts in its administration. Jews not only staff domestic social agencies but are, as we saw in the previous chapter, extremely active in the public interest groups, think tanks, consulting firms, and universities that develop the domestic state's policies and are funded by its grants.
"Given this stake, Jews cannot afford to engage in or tolerate political tactics or public rhetoric that seriously threaten to discredit blacks. This is one of the major reasons that Jewish racism, often expressed privately, seldom manifests itself publicly. African Americans are simply too important to the legitimacy of the American domestic state. If Jews engage in attacks on blacks, or permit doubts to be raised about the merits of their political claims, then Jews are, in effect, undermining a major moral prop supporting the institutions from which they, themselves, derive enormous benefits and through which they exercise considerable power….
"At any rate, efforts by African Americans and their allies to gain a larger share of university budgets and faculty positions inevitably create conflicts between blacks and Jews who, despite their historic support for black causes, are now often the most vigorous defenders of the existing disciplinary structure of the university - a structure from which they derive numerous benefits. To some extent, this explains why a number of very prominent liberal and even left-wing Jewish academics moved sharply to the political right beginning in the late 1970s. Some of these neoconservatives, as discussed in Chapter 5, were motivated primarily by support for Israel. Others, however, were less worried about Israel and more concerned with what they deemed to be an effort by blacks and other forces to destroy the university….
"To this end, according to Cruse, Jewish Communists sought to dominate the field of 'Negro studies' and made certain that Jews always held the top Communist party posts in the black community: Through a posture of anti-Semitism, blacks simultaneously link themselves to non-Jewish leftists, many of whom are anti-Zionist if not anti-Semitic, while intimidating Jewish leftists who are, in effect, accused of being insufficiently militant in their support for Third World causes - perhaps even of being closet Zionists. Attempting to disprove this implicit or explicit charge is one reason that some Jewish leftists in recent years have become vehemently and outspokenly anti-Zionist."
Without knowing how different groups benefit personally from varying government programs, it is hard to unravel these odd coalitions. One faction of Jews are so committed to the antiracism moralizing gods because of the financial and career commitments they have made, that they are willing to attack Zionism and join the far Left to maintain their positions. Other Jews however feel that Israel and the elimination of quotas and preferences are more important to the Jews.
I do not mean to hold Jews and Blacks solely responsible for antiracism dogmas. If we peaked beneath the rhetoric of the Christian churches that promote the antiracist/pro-immigration moralizing gods, it would seem to me that it is driven more by an interest in making religion relevant in an increasingly secularized world. Then there are just plain millions of liberals who have been so indoctrinated by the guilt and shame of past segregation and the ongoing media propaganda that blames black degeneracy on White racism, Whites who are not willing to look at the issues beyond tabloid journalism rationalizations, that they will support the new moralizing gods without question. That is, suspension of empirical or rational reasoning perpetuates all religious faiths.
I don't claim that racism does not occur - racism where some individuals of one race by their actions try to harm or take advantage of another race. What I do claim is that there has been an increasingly pronounced lock-down or suppression of speech and research that challenges the moralizing gods of antiracism, immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism. Racism is always presumed to be the cause of inequality, no matter how much empirical research shows otherwise. In addition, the push is on in every Western nation to pass laws so that discussion of these issues can lead to criminal charges for hate crimes. The inquisition has returned under the guise of equality/egalitarianism - its intent is both the stabilization of a potentially fractious nation with competing racial/ethnic groups, as well as the moral blackmail directed against European peoples. The haves must step aside so that the have-nots can take their assumed fair share of the resources. And for those groups who already have wealth far in excess Europeans, as Gore Vidal said it best: "It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail." That is, there is no level of power and wealth that will satisfy an individual's personal needs. Humans are, and will continue to be, an aggressive, wanton and warring species. Some individuals and groups are just more successful at it than others are.
To prove my point with regards to suppression of debate, I would ask that you keep an eye on President Bush's program No Child Left Behind. There will be numerous stories coming out over the next few years, and there will be an endless stream of rationalizations as to why some races do poorly on new mandated standardized tests. Keep and eye out for any open discussion that some races are in fact innately less intelligent than others are. In 1995, the American Psychological Association convened a panel of experts who studied intelligence and race, and concluded that intelligence is primarily genetic, and that Blacks as a group were less intelligent than Whites (Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns - available at my web site). Yet, this report, and all of the subsequent scientific work that has substantiated the genetic differences between races in intelligence, will continue to be ignored.
Finally, with regards to racism, I would like to discuss an interesting observation from the California Psychological Inventory (CPI). I have looked for information about personality types and ethnocentrism, intolerance, bigotry, authoritarianism, etc., but with little success. However, a discussion of the CPI in Testing and Assessment in Counseling Practice, 2000, made some hard to find interesting points. The CPI is a three-factor personality inventory as follows:
V1 - How a person reacts towards others. That is, whether a person is more introverted or more extroverted.
V2 - How a person reacts towards societal values. That is, whether a person tends towards rule-favoring or rule-questioning.
V3 - How someone feels towards self. This is a scale that indicates a person's ego strength.
Using the CPI people are divided up equally into the four main groups: introverted & rule-following (Betas), extroverted & rule-following (Alphas), introverted & rule-questioning (Deltas), and extroverted & rule-questioning (Gammas). Generally, in each of the four categories, the people who have higher egos are more successful, and those with low egos more problematic. The authors state, "in this little excursion into psychopathology, [it is noted] that clinical psychiatry has well-developed diagnostic and therapeutic concepts for [three of the behavioral types of] pathologies, but tends to view [extroverted/rule-favoring] pathology (Alphas with low ego strength) as reprehensible, and better treated by the courts than by mental health professionals."
What this means is, our media, the courts, and the public in general has accepted that all forms of deviant behavior - from kleptomania, criminality, pedophilia, obsessive compulsive disorder, drug addiction, low intelligence, psychopathy, etc. - should be understood rather than condemned. However, one group is just morally condemned - and that's it. Let's see what they say about this group - low ego Alphas, "At low levels on [ego-strength], Alphas also manifest typical problems, such as ethnocentrism, and often affiliate with paramilitary or other extremist groups." This may explain the violent behavior of a few individuals (including rogue cops who tend to be Alphas, along with other militants, terrorists, etc.). So do they exhibit what we would consider racist elements in a racist society? They only account for less than 3% of the population, and they are found among all racial groups. And remember, these are the extroverted rule-favoring individuals who happen to have low ego-strength.
Now let's take a look at tolerance and prejudice: "(Tolerance). Length: 32 items. Purpose: To assess attitudes of tolerance, forbearance, and respect for others. Implications: High scorers tend to be tolerant of others' beliefs, even when different from or counter to their own, and try to behave in fair-minded, reasonable, and tactful ways. Low scorers tend to be distrustful, fault-finding, and extrapunitive, and often harbor vengeful and vindictive feelings." The authors then go on to state that prejudice correlated highly with the tolerance scale, and that "Gammas manifested the most prejudice at all rankings on ego-strength, and Betas were rated as least prejudiced."
In summary then, extroverted people who are rule-following but with low ego-strength are authoritarian and ethnocentric, while extroverted people who are rule-questioning with low ego-strength are prejudiced and intolerant. So should society try, in the interest of making everyone kind, gentle, and tolerant, indoctrinate people into being introverted? Even if personality types were not primarily genetic, it would be unwise to want more people to be Betas and Deltas over Alphas and Gammas. "Alphas at their best can be charismatic leaders, directing effort toward worthy and consensual objectives. At their worst, they are authoritarian, rule-dominated, and punitive. At their best, Betas are humane, admirable models of goodness and virtue. At their worst, they are inhibited, repressed, and conformist. Gammas at their best are creative and innovative; at their worst they are wayward and impulse-ridden. Deltas at their best are visionary, often finding a voice in art, music, or literature; at their worst, they experience deep inner conflicts that may lead to fragmentation of the ego." The study also notes that Deltas are prone to be prison inmates, high school disciplinary problems, and are the least likely to go to college.
The study, like most studies on personality types, and there are many of them, notes that every personality type is "just as good as any other." What proof do they have for this? Actually, the data is just the opposite with some well-defined personality types dominating prestigious fields while others tend to be what society would call failures, drug addicts, etc. In essence then, the dogma that pervades psychometrics of personality types is the same as antiracism, where all personality types are assumed to be equal - no proof is required. In fact, there is proof to the contrary but it is just ignored. Thousands of studies can be found where certain personality types dominate certain prestigious fields and where others are dysfunctional types. To claim then that everyone is equal just does not stand up to the evidence. But the main point I wanted to make is that there is no racist type of personality that I have been able to find, because factors that have been equated to racism like authoritarianism, tolerance, prejudice, ethnocentrism, etc. fall under different types of personalities.
The most commonly accepted personality profile is the Five Factor Model (Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism - or OCEAN) and it is assumed that, like intelligence differences between people, it is equally distributed within races as well as between races. However, such a stance can only be taken when one has embraced the moralizing gods of antiracism, et al. Reading the literature about different peoples and or races, one has to conclude that there are differences, and the differences are at least partly genetic because behavioral types have been shown to be about 50% genetic while intelligence is about 80% genetic in adulthood. And so far as I know, no good psychometric studies have been able to show the relative levels of ethnocentrism by racial group nor has there even been an empirical test to correlate ethnocentrism with a particular behavioral profile. So any antiracism program is doomed to failure. The high priests of this movement have never bothered to produce any evidence of what racism is - they have completely ignored the history of human group conflict, its evolutionary development, and what races or individuals are more or less ethnocentric or if we should even desire humans to be more or less ethnocentric. Would we really want a world of Betas who "are detached, seek and need privacy, and also tend to approve of social conventions?" That is, introverted followers of the status quo. A world made up of mostly sheep, it seems to me, would be a very dangerous world indeed - there would always be at least a few wolves around (better known as free-riders) like Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, or even George W. Bush, to lead the sheep to slaughter. These men, and many like them, were all high priests of new and improved moralizing gods. It is far better, no matter how foreign it is, for humans to at least try to apply science to our problems rather than religious dogmas. We have come far using science, there is no need to throw it away now.