Return to the NeoEugenics' Home Page

The Psychology of anti-White hate.

Since the Left uses racism as the battering ram to enforce an egalitarian agenda to redistribute resources from Whites to other "people of color," hate is a topical subject that has not received enough attention in terms of empirical data. For example, research on altruism and sexual selection—to name just two—can fill volumes. But hate, has not been studied as intensely as the other areas of human emotions, so when I saw the book The Psychology of Hate, edited by Robert J. Sternberg, 2004, it was a must read.

First, any study of hate is inclusive of disgust, fear, and anger and should include the broad categories of ethnocentrism and its other side—xenophobia. As such, studying hate cannot be undertaken without also including the genetic component that has evolved and why and in what ways humans hate as a means of improving individual and especially group fitness within the study of group evolutionary strategies.

Unfortunately, this book failed miserably as an empirical attempt to understand hate, and instead leaned heavily towards simplistic formulations to try and eliminate hate by merely describing it, and implicating Whites most often in its cause and effect on others. I really didn't expect anything else, but occasionally surprises do happen. I know Robert J. Sternberg's work, and he comes from the Marxist wing of the deniers of racial differences. With Sternberg as editor, I suspected this book would be biased, and I was correct. So the best I can do, rather than shed any more light on the evolutionary basis of hate, anger, fear and disgust, is to shed some light on how even today's psychology is very close to the Standard Social Science Model (SSSM), and therefore unable to produce good research.

I am reading the book Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature, by David J. Buller, 2005, and he states, "But Gould's argument fails to substantiate even this weaker charge. For Evolutionary Psychologists answer Gould's question by claiming that there are three sources from which we can obtain information about the [Environment of Evolutionary Adaptation] EEA: the design of our adaptations, studies of extant hunter-gatherer societies, and primate studies. Therefore, showing that we can't possibly have any evidence for Evolutionary Psychology's adaptive hypotheses requires more than Gould's rhetorical question about how we can know what our ancestors did two million years ago; it requires examining the three sources of evi­dence that Evolutionary Psychologists claim can substantiate their adap­tive hypotheses. Gould, however, fails to discuss these sources of evidence and their relevance to his argument."

Likewise, as the introduction to The Psychology of Hate admits, "Psychologists have not generated a lot of theories of hate, certainly fewer than theories of love. A survey of some recent introductory social psychology texts revealed love as an index term in all of them but hate as an index term in none of them. The goal of this book is to help redress an imbalance—to propose a number of different theories that answer questions about hate in related, but different, ways. The theories proposed in this book cover the gamut, including clinical, cognitive, social, and eclectic emphases on understanding hate.

"Authors have been asked to address a common set of questions to ensure unity of their contributions: How do you conceptualize hate?; What evidence is there for this conceptualization?; How does your view relate to other views?; What do you see as the role of hate in terrorism, massacres, and genocides?; How, if at all, can hate be assessed?; How, if at all, can hate be combated?"

Note how they did not include "is there a genetic component to hate," or "how do we know that hate was not just as important as love in human evolution, and continues today as a mechanism for protecting a group's or an individual's self interests and resource acquisition?" No, the agenda was a more dialectical one, one conveniently used to establish fighting hate as a political tool for furthering an egalitarian agenda. That is Sternberg's style, set out a political agenda, then use pseudoscience to support it.

In Chapter 1, "Four Ways to Think About Hate," Edward B. Royzman, Clark McCauley, and Paul Rozin state, "Fight-or-flight is the action pattern, and anger–fear are the feelings attending the passion element. The last (commitment) component involves an attempt to devalue the target of hatred through contempt. On the basis of this triangular structure, Sternberg posited a variety of hates. There is, for example, the already mentioned "cool hate," composed solely of disgust, and "hot hate," composed solely of the anger–fear combination. There are also "cold hate" (devaluation through contempt alone), "boiling hate" (disgust + anger–fear), "simmering hate" (disgust + contempt), "seething hate" (passion + commitment; also called "revilement"), and, finally, "burning hate," which includes all three action–feelings components."

The above hardly seems useful for slicing and dicing types of hate. Hate, anger, disgust and fear actually can be divided by two very different contexts from our evolutionary past: one is anger, fear and dominance within tribal units and today's ethnic or social groups as individuals compete. The second is fear and disgust along with group commitment to act against another group. The context therefore between individuals and between groups brings forth very different behavioral traits in people. This book ignores this well researched distinction.

Edward B. Royzman, Clark McCauley, and Paul Rozin again, "The theme of hate as the result of being helplessly 'reduced in one's personhood' is also prominent in the work of McKellar. McKellar identified two factors that appeared to be 'favorable to the development of hostile attitudes,' including hate. The first factor concerned the association between hate and 'unexpressed hostility.' The second factor concerned the nature of the negative experiences that trigger such hostile responses. Personal humiliation was the single largest category of such experiences. 'Physical pain' and 'threat to values' were tied for the second place, and 'physical pain to another person' came in last…."

And later, "In this sense, the findings that tie humiliation (physical pain or threat to values) with unexpressed hostility may be explicated as a two-part dynamic: First, humiliation, physical abuse, and the like are the sort of things that people of superior status (strength, dominance, rank, wealth) are far more likely to do to those below them than vice versa. Second, precisely on account of their inferior status or power, the recipients of this abuse (or perceived abuse) are likely to inhibit what they think to be a legitimate urge to defy the higher-status person, while experiencing the physical and mental preparations that otherwise fit the lay script of anger. Thus, the less powerful person is both more likely to be abused and less likely to find it expedient to defy the abuser, making such a person more prone to encounter the maltreatment scenarios that match the lay prototype of hate. In this view, hate is primarily a bottom-up phenomenon, a poor man's anger, and as such it is likely to be shrouded in secrecy. This formulation of the lay meaning of hate prompts at least two reflections. 1. Both hate and love are likely to be associated with a perception or attribution of a negative or positive essence. Briefly, the idea of essence is the hidden something that makes a living thing what it is. Essence is a more primitive idea than genetics and is better represented as nature or spirit than as a biological concept. 2. The negative or positive evaluation of the target of hate or love is likely to be linked with a moral judgment. The evaluation may be the product of such a judgment or, as in the case of hate, rooted in envious admiration; the moral judgment may emerge as a rationalization for the pre-existing pattern of (direct or inverse) caring. 3. Loves and hates may vary in the extent to which they exclude any possibility of compassion or ill wishing, respectively. The implication is that patriotism, nationalism, and ethnic group identification are particularly extreme expressions of group love, as genocide may be the ultimate expression of group hate."

This attribution of hate with power relationships is highly speculative and incomplete. At work for instance, people do have to suffer certain amounts of humiliation or abuse from supervisors, but almost everyone has a supervisor and often supervises others, so no single layer is immune from abuse. It all depends on the individual personalities and interactions that are not universal.

But power relationships that include physical and mental abuse are endemic in every culture and at every level in a social system: short people, ugly people, Blacks, Whites, homosexuals, etc. can be either on the receiving end or the delivering end of these power relationships. Blacks for example are far more likely to attack Whites than Whites attacking Blacks, and Blacks are at least just as likely as Whites in trying to oppress 'the other' racial group in favor of their own. Racial politics is all about taking a superior moral stance against a person or group that can be shook-down by the likes of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. I am not aware of any reciprocal relationship by Whites against Blacks in the United States—racism is always used for the unidirectional accusations against Whites, while Whites have no similar recourse without being condemned as racists.

An observation made above also seems to be lost throughout the books other contributors: "In this view, hate is primarily a bottom-up phenomenon, a poor man's anger, and as such it is likely to be shrouded in secrecy." If this is literally true, then Blacks are seething with hate against Whites, and this hate is exacerbated as long as Blacks believe it is White racism keeping them down, rather than their own innate abilities. Using this logic, hatred between Whites and Blacks could be greatly reduced if both Blacks and Whites understood the real causes of Black–White inequality which means continuing with research on environmental versus genetic differences underpinning Black–White disparities, or for that matter White–Jewish disparities that leads to antisemitism.

Royzman, McCauley, and Rozin state, "The fourth possible interpretation of a statement such as 'Hate is a self-destructive impulse turned outwards' is that it represents a causal explanation—that is, an attempt to specify a mental mechanism most directly responsible for certain paradigmatic instances of 'hate-related' behavior. The general idea is that insofar as such paradigmatic instances indicate the immediate effects of hate, working backward to their (relatively proximate) causes should give us a glimpse of hate itself. As noted earlier, the approach to defining hate through paradigmatic instances is common in political science. One context within which hate is commonly discussed and thought to be especially problematic is that of ethnic conflict. In this context, 'Hate is a self-destructive impulse turned outwards' would represent an explanatory claim concerning the psychological underpinnings of ethnic conflict; as such, it could be tested empirically by asking if those engaged in ethnopolitical violence are, indeed, driven by a (sublimated) self-destructive impulse."

Notice the attempt to frame ethnic hatred as "self-destructive" rather than trying to understand its causes. If ethnic hatred, leading to genocide, was self-destructive then it would not have lasted as a human adaptation to external threat. Genocide evolved as a means of tribal survival, so it should be studied as a means of acting out of defense of the tribe. The Left of course is all about setting up egalitarian norms, and then pathologizing all deviations—as they define them—in order to correct any undesired behavior or thought. Homosexuality is not pathologized any longer even though it is not the norm, because it is now embraced as diversity. Diversity in attitudes towards others is of course no longer to be tolerated by the modern day academic fascists. (Academic fascist designates the academic Left's intolerance of scientific openness, and requiring that only certain paths of inquiry be tolerated, while others are condemned and disciplined by censorship, ad hominem attacks, and/or defining the scientific paradigm as one devoted to only egalitarian ends rather than purely scientific ends. It is the rebirth of Soviet Lysenkoism where genetics was banned and only naïve environmentalism pursued as worthy of scientific study.)

They continue, "As we hinted earlier, one potential problem with the ostensive approach to defining hate is that the psychological underpinnings of the relevant paradigmatic cases may be shown to be very different from one's initial intuitions about what hate is or is not. For example, many so-called hate crimes seem to be committed out of some combination of boredom and a desire to show off before one's group. Indeed, in analyzing Boston police hate crime files, McDevitt, Levin, and Bennett concluded that the majority (66%) of the perpetrators were motivated by a desire to escape boredom and get some quick thrills and bragging rights, with targets being selected because they were perceived as 'somehow different.' Of the remaining 34%, 25% seemed motivated by an anxiety-laden desire to protect their neighborhood and families from what the perpetrators perceived as the onslaught of dangerous outsiders, with the criminal behavior being seen as a form of self-defense instrumental to 'convincing' the victims to relocate elsewhere as well as forestalling future 'intrusions.' The Boston police files sample did, indeed, contain a form of motivation that fits well with the classic Aristotelian notion of hate, namely acting out of a deeply ingrained belief that the 'others' are inherently evil or inferior and ought to be eliminated as such. However, this intensely other-focused motivation or affective orientation accounted for less than 1% of the entire sample; it was held by a single person. Conceding the validity of these observations makes for some tough choices. It seems that either society must allow that most "hate crimes" (assisted as the selection of the victim may be by categorical negative judgments) are neither directly motivated by nor involve hate as their dominant affect, or its current understanding of hate must be expanded."

This single paragraph, as important as it is showing that hate crimes are not at all what they are cracked up to be, is just ignored by other contributors in the book. Just amazing.

"To give another example, Gaylin proposed that 'true hate' is a form of mental disorder ('Hatred is a severe psychological disorder'), and he cited terrorist violence as one of the paradigmatic cases in which such true hate may be found in abundance. In fact, Gaylin appeared to believe that anything short of portraying the terrorists as psychologically disturbed is morally irresponsible—'When we assume that at times we feel like a terrorist, we grant the terrorists a normalcy that trivializes a condition that threatens the civilized world.' We fully agree that terrorism is evil and presents a tremendous threat. However, some of the most systematic research into the psychology of terrorism, including the detailed German studies of the Baader-Meinhof Gang, have found psychiatric disorder no more common for terrorists than for the general population that the terrorists emerge from. Again, it seems that something has to give. Gaylin and those who favor his psychoanalytic approach should either surrender the notion that terrorism is a paradigm case of hate or be prepared to revise the concept of hate itself…. First, Gaylin does not appear to be venturing anything like a (falsifiable) causal hypothesis concerning the motivational underpinnings of a certain type of nominally hate-associated behavior."

Most of the literature with regards to racism, hate, authoritarianism, etc., suffers from a lack of "falsifiable" causal hypotheses and instead relies on just-so stories about cause and effect. These just-so stories are then recycled and elaborated upon, while little real research undertaken.

In psychometrics, the leading method for factoring behavioral traits is the Big Five or OCEAN: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. If any person is evaluated on these five factors, their personalities can be defined using the five scales. So why doesn't a book like The Psychology of Hate at least touch upon a supposed behavioral trait profile for haters or racists or authoritarian type people? Apparently, having primarily a political agenda and not a scientific one, such obvious questions would get in the way.

They continue, "Our analysis leaves us uncertain about the much-cited link between hate and intergroup violence such as genocide, ethnic riots, or hate crimes. If hate is defined ostensively through paradigm cases of armed conflict and killing, then the notion that hate is responsible for mass violence is a tautology. Conversely, if hate is to be spelled out in terms of its lay meaning, as a form of inhibited defiance, or in terms of a stipulated meaning, for example, as a syndrome of inverse caring, then the empirical evidence for the link between hate and intergroup violence remains to be seen. That is, the very status of hate as a progenitor of evil rests on a prior conceptual decision about which phenomenon one is willing to probe under the heading of hate and which one will opt to see as being 'not about hate at all.'

"Most generally, the four ways of thinking about hate may be helpful in thinking about many other psychological notions that are rooted in lay experience and everyday language. Disgust, shame, humility, and pride; frustration and aggression; value and virtue; the Big Five personality traits—all grow out of lay meanings. We expect that many such items of folk psychology, and the empirical literatures surrounding them, can benefit from the analysis undertaken in this chapter in the service of explicating hate."

So the authors of the first chapter, in making these common sense observations, should have included why the investigation of hate has been relegated to the Standard Social Science Model (SSSM), by ignoring already available research about hate, disgust, fear, and anger from our evolutionary past AND from current situations of individual and group conflict and dominance. Instead, the book operates from a primarily normalized position that "humans should behave this way—and if not we shall pathologize them." It is primarily a prayer book, not a scientific book. Then that is the nature of the debates when science slips into moralizing.

Robert J. Sternberg steps forward in chapter two, "Hate propaganda, which proposes story themes, typically accomplishes one or more of three functions. A first function is the negation of intimacy toward the targeted entity (e.g., leader, country, ethnic group). A second function is the generation of passion. And a third function is to generate commitment to false beliefs through the implantation of false presuppositions, the encouragement of people to suspend or distort their critical thinking processes, and the encouragement of people to reach targeted (often false) conclusions based on the pseudo-logic of false presuppositions and flawed critical thinking."

Sternberg then looks at "hate propaganda" as a process for persuading others to behave in a certain way. It seems his logic is what is heard every day on talk radio between Democratic and Republican advocates. The hate is venomous on both sides, it is devoid of empirical evidence, and it could easily fall into Sternberg's description of "hate propaganda." It is hard to unravel, because Sternberg has a habit of defining psychological mechanisms out of whole cloth, conjuring up new terms and labels, and then pathologizing anyone who disagrees with him on moral grounds.

As Sternberg defines his "hate propaganda," foisted upon the unwary by demagogues using stories, he fails to recognize that this mechanism of indoctrination is used by every religion, political movement, advocacy group, governments, etc., and for a host of causes on both the Left and the Right. Therefore, what makes one set of just-so stories more reliable than any other? When the G8 meet to discuss international issues, are they promoting hate propaganda, or is it the protesting anarchists in the streets who are promoting hate? Who is being hateful and who is not? When it is claimed that I live a better life because I exploit Blacks in a racist society, is it I who am telling a just-so story about how it is my talents that brought me to where I am, rather than my so-called oppression of others? How is Sternberg going to rid the oppressed of their hatred, when he is unwilling to even consider that some hate may in fact be a normal reaction for any number of injustices? To complicate things even more, what does injustice have to do with nature and evolution?

Hate, love, disgust, and conflict are all part of how humans interact with each other. Commitment and passion for one's own family is an accepted norm in most societies, and when they are threatened, hate, disgust, fear, and anger are often legitimate responses in defense of kith and kin. This is where Sternberg has turned against science for propaganda.

Sternberg shows his contempt for science: "The risk in work such as this [IQ research] is that public-policy implications may come to be ideologically driven rather than data driven, and to drive the research rather than be driven by the data…. Scientists might argue that their work is value free and that they are not responsible for the repugnant or even questionable values or actions of opportunistic leaders….Studying so-called races represents a value judgment because race is a social construction, not a biological concept, and Rushton and Jensen's entire article is based on the false premise of race as having meaning other than in their and other people's imaginations…. [S]upposedly 'value-free science' reflects the values of investigators who cannot see their own values underlying their research…. In general, when we use a psychological measuring instrument in assessing people, we are imposing a set of values we often do not realize we are imposing…. What good is research of the kind done by Rushton and Jensen supposed to achieve? Only vaguely cloaked behind their words is the purported demonstration that certain groups are, on average, genetically inferior to other groups, at least in that aspect of intelligence measured by IQ…. I believe that, as in similar past works, none of the claims regarding 'implications for public policy' are justified. As was true of Herrnstein and Murray (1994) and their predecessors, the science risks being used to promote social engineering unsupported by the data. In my response, because of space restrictions, I limit my response to their public-policy claims…. The quality of science is determined not only by the quality of problem solving but also by taste in the selection of problems to solve. ("THERE ARE NO PUBLIC-POLICY IMPLICATIONS: A Reply to Rushton and Jensen (2005)" in Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, American Psychological Association 2005, Vol. 11, No. 2)

Sternberg then does not accept the very essence of scientific inquiry, that it is, "'the cumulative growth of knowledge and power over nature.' That claim does not depend on any demonstrable increase in prosperity, comfort, or happiness." (Hayek in Postrel, 1998)

The distinctive feature of science is that it is the open and uninhibited quest for knowledge by any means available and for any purpose that one wants to entertain—interest, playfulness, monetary gains, to be able to out-compete others, status seeking, etc. The motive for pursuing any avenue of scientific inquiry is irrelevant because whatever data you present to the scientific community, there are many more people that will try to refute it. That is, science, like the free market system, is not a controlled and directed system for any particular ends. It has only one objective: to test varying hypotheses against each other by allowing anyone who has the desire to present data and others to try and refute the data. Hypothesis that withstand this vigorous struggle between competing theories stand, until they are either overturned or they are expanded into ever more elegant hypotheses. Nowhere in science is there room for censorship of any kind, which makes me believe that if there is truly an authoritarian personality type, Sternberg epitomizes is as vehemently as the Christian fundamentalists who are promoting "intelligent design" in order to suppress evolution. They are not trying to promote science, but to suppress anything in science that overturns biblical authority.

Put another way, "Rauch's concern is protecting 'liberal science,' the process of continually checking intellectual hypotheses (not just natural science) through decentralized, rigorous, no-holds-barred discussion. He worries that rules against giving offense threaten that dynamic process. To work, Rauch argues, liberal science must allow criticism, without limiting who can participate or what they can say, and it must give no one the final authority." (Postrel, 1998)

Sternberg thinks that, "Often, people do not create stories, but rather cynical leaders create the stories for them. Often whole governments conspire to create cultures of hate, death, and violence." If that is true, then it is just as likely that governments are now acting to foment hatred against the West and the White people who reside in the West. It also seems from observation that those governments that are the most antiracist to the point of self-destruction, are also the governments in the West where antiracist propaganda is ever present, trying to justify programs of multiculturalism, diversity, and social harmony where it is increasingly evident that competition between racial or ethnic groups will be an ongoing and increasingly problematic social problem for open societies.

The study of hate then—as a collection of emotions including disgust, fear and anger—must also look at proximate and ultimate causes. That is, how is hate manifested in the brain (proximate) and how did those mechanisms evolve to become adaptive (ultimate). Hate, fear, disgust and anger—just like sex—are part of the old mammalian brain and not the recently evolved analytical brain. These deep and evolutionarily old mechanism are subject to indoctrination, a likewise evolutionary component to tribal life, and they must all be understood together.

Sternberg continues, "As Post suggested, 'hate-mongering demagogues, serving as malignant group therapists to their wounded nations, can provide sense-making explanations for their beleaguered followers, exporting the source of their difficulties to an external target, justifying hatred and mass violence.' These sense-making explanations are what are called stories in this chapter."

Sternberg seems to embrace hate as a conspiratorial phenomenon, one that is completely fabricated by evil demagogues to be spoon fed to the masses for nefarious goals. This tells us nothing about hate itself, but does question Sternberg's own mental stability. Conspiracy theories about how some group or groups are controlling the minds of humans have no basis in reality. Life is far too complex for a few controlling agents to easily conspire to direct the course of history, because there are far too many other actors acting against their attempts at control. It is far more likely, that when it comes to hatred between groups of people, it is a natural outcome of dominance and competition for resources.

For example, Sternberg notes that, "The following techniques seem to be common in the use of stories to incite hatred and instigate massacres and genocides: intensive, extensive propaganda; infusion of hatred and its resultants as an integral and necessary part of societal mores; emphasis on indoctrination of youngsters in school and through extracurricular groups; importance of obeying orders; diffusion of responsibility; calls to and rewards for action; threats and punishment for noncompliance; public examples of compliance and noncompliance; system of informers to weed out fifth columnists, and; creation of an authoritarian cult of a leader."

But does Sternberg's list above apply to hatred between street gangs, or hatred between political parties, or hatred between soccer thugs? How about hatred between rival cliques where people work? None of these conflicts have the organization underpinnings that Sternberg alludes to. There is no central directing hand that manipulates the masses to hatred. Hatred between groups needs to be understood in terms of group rivalry and competition, or it can never be understood. Hate didn't just appear among humans when humans organized themselves 10,000 years ago around ever increasing social groups. It existed as part of the tribal unit to assure unity of purpose in the face of danger from other rival human groups. Hate then is the result of real or perceived threats to values, resources, or revered worldviews.

Sternberg then gives us a simple solution to reduce hate, "Building tolerance and creating a culture of peace and a society in which people share equally in rights and in participation in the society can go a long way toward resolving problems of violence and hate. The question is whether people have sufficient good will to achieve this goal." Again, he offers no evidence that peace will follow from his advice. We live in one of the most tolerant times history has ever known, with Western nations passing numerous laws to ensure that minorities have equal access to and equal participation in the nation's resources and decision making. Still, Islamic terrorists lash out against Western nations. None of what Sternberg says makes any sense in light of actual human behavior. He sees the world through a paranoid's eyes.

Then he shoves one of his favorite mythologies into the mix, "Ultimately, the best way to combat hate may be through wisdom. Intelligent people may hate; wise people do not. People like Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, and Nelson Mandela had the same human passions as any of us, but in their wisdom, they moved beyond hate to embrace love and peace. The balance theory of wisdom defines wisdom as the application of intelligence, creativity, and experience toward a common good by balancing one's own interests with others' interests and institutional interests over the long and short terms. By definition, wise people do not hate others because they care about the individual's (or group's) well-being as well as their own or that of their group."

Why would anyone believe that there is such a thing as wisdom as described by Sternberg? An equally valid description is, "Virtue and wisdom lie in accepting what nature gives us—a life course of three score years and ten, a life pattern determined by evolution and luck, not by human action." (Postrel, 1998)

Wisdom, unlike intelligence, has not been studied nor can it be defined with anywhere near the accuracy that intelligence can be defined and measured, or such behavioral traits like introversion or conscientiousness. Putting forth a theory that "wisdom" can reduce hatred belongs in the pulpit, not in an academic book that purports to explain and correct the problem of human hatred. In fact, Sternberg persistently avoids hard empirical data: "Let the more general lesson of the rising tide of propaganda on American campuses be clear: If one's beliefs are at increasing odds with the consensual facts of modern science, the obfuscation, propaganda, threat and censorship become the principal tools by which one must pursue one's agenda." (Peter LaFreniere's review of Jonathan Marks' new book What is means to Be 98% Chimpanzee.)

Clearly, academic fascists like Sternberg, Marks, Feagin, Rose, Kamin, Gardner, et al. use hatred in lieu of academic scholarship—Instead of using empirical data to promote their theories they stoop to ad hominem attacks. Apparently, none of these academic fascists have any wisdom!

In chapter three, "The Origins and Evolution of Hate," Ervin Staub states that, "Harm doing may be mutual, but what people see is the harm done to their own group, which gives rise to deep pain and rage. Out of pain, hurt, anger, and out of the justification of one's group's actions as right and moral and the other's actions as wrong and immoral, hate can and often does arise…. The dynamics in the group can further develop devaluation and negative images and through this, as well as through contagion and other processes, intensify hate. For example, members of terrorist groups have been described as acting on behalf of both cause and comrades. They are committed to the cause, but they also are committed to and want to be loyal to their fellow group members, which intensifies their commitment to the ideology and their hate for the identified enemy. Moreover, members of the group striving for leadership take initiatives that move the group further in the direction they have already started."

Staub's analysis of hate is much closer to that which is commonly understood by evolutionary psychologists, and is in direct contradiction to that of Sternberg's. That is, hate is real and it comes about from real emotions and feelings held by real people. It is not just a story foisted upon the masses by a demagogue. Soccer hooligans do not need a leader, nor do terrorists, though leaders may come forth to help coordinate the group's efforts.

In Chapter 5, "Roots of Hate, Violence, and Evil," Roy F. Baumeister and David A. Butz write, "The view of instrumentally aggressive victimization as a cause of hate leads to two predictions that could be tested empirically. First, when two people or two groups find themselves in a relationship in which one is generally the aggressor and the other the victim, the ensuing development of hate should be more pronounced in the chronic victim than in the chronic aggressor. That is, if one group regularly uses aggression to exploit another or appropriate its resources, then the exploiting group may not have to hate its victims, but the victim group may come to hate its oppressors.

"If victim groups come to hate their oppressors, this pattern might be expected in the attitudes of Blacks toward Whites, insofar as Whites have historically oppressed and exploited Blacks. That is, Blacks may hold more negative attitudes toward Whites than Whites hold toward Blacks. To be sure, little empirical work has investigated the attitudes of victim and oppressor groups toward each other. However, Judd, Park, Ryan, Brauer, and Kraus examined the perceptions that Whites have of Blacks and the perceptions that Blacks have of Whites. They found that Blacks judged Whites more stereotypically than they judged their own in-group. There was little difference between how Whites rated their in-group and how they rated Blacks. Although Blacks showed patterns of ethnocentrism, this pattern was not found for Whites."

It is interesting that they admit that Blacks are more ethnocentric than Whites. In fact, Whites have been shown to have an unusually low level of ethnocentrism (MacDonald, 1998a). Again, the above seems to contradict Sternberg's conspiracy theory with regards to group hatred, which is directed from above. On the contrary, it seems that in the West, we are the only people that have made it a moral obligation to be tolerant of all other races. I can't think of one non-Western nation where the political elite has opened its borders, and openly advocates a multiculturalist and diverse society. This highly unusual moral stance seems to be uniquely White, but one that is only possible because of indoctrination. Humans are not naturally universal egalitarians, and therefore they must be shamed into taking on such a position.

They continue, "There is other evidence that corroborates the idea that victim groups may come to hate their oppressors. Branscombe and Wann demonstrated that when a group identity is threatened, the dominant group that represents a threat to the minority group is then derogated. Further, Branscombe, Schmitt, and Harvey showed that attributions to prejudice among Blacks lead to both increased hostility toward Whites and to greater minority group identification. Consistent with the idea that Blacks may develop hate toward Whites because Blacks have historically been the victims of prejudice, Monteith and Spicer examined essays written by White and Black undergraduates about attitudes toward the other group. Whereas the essays written by White participants revealed themes consistent with modern racism (e.g., that Blacks get more than they deserve), the essays for Black participants revealed themes suggesting that their negative attitudes toward Whites are rooted in perceived prejudice and discrimination. Taken together, these findings suggest that people who are the victims of prejudice may foster hate toward the perpetrators of such prejudice."

They then go on to admit that, "Black people commit more hate crimes against Whites relative to their representation in the population." And note how they have justified that asymmetry, but accusing Whites of oppressing Blacks, historically. Over the last forty years however, there has been a large transfer of privileges and wealth from Whites to Blacks, so why do they still hate us? Because the ruling elite, the media, and academia says so. They refuse to look at the data that shows that Whites outperform Blacks because they are, on average, more intelligent than Blacks, nor do they see the irony that under this scenario, Whites should hate Jews because Jews are far wealthier on average than Whites. So any group that outperforms another group should rightfully be hated, and Islamic terrorists therefore have every right to attack the West because they cannot compete with the West economically.

It seems from this logic that group disparities will lead to group conflict, and that is born out over and over again in modern history. Where different groups have unequal outcomes in prosperity, and where they occupy the same space, there will be hatred and its intensity can be fueled by those who blame that disparity on racism rather than innate ability. So-called antiracists therefore are perpetuating racial hatred by blaming Whites for all of the hatred in the world. This blaming Whites pops out of this book over and over again.

They do later admit that racism may not be the cause of group hatred: "At a basic level, people who are competing for the same resources are natural enemies. Because dividing into groups appears to be an automatic part of human nature, it might also be true that prejudice and disliking of certain groups could be similarly natural and universal." Aha!

And they continue, "In summary, the concept of instrumental aggression suggests that acts of aggression against an out-group can be motivated by a desire to obtain rewards for the in-group. Hating or disliking an out-group member is not necessarily part of an instrumental aggressor's motivations, though it may be appealing as a way to rationalize one's exploitation, and moreover losers in instrumental conflicts may develop hate toward those they believe have unjustifiably exploited or oppressed them. From an evolutionary perspective, the need to procure resources to sustain life or enhance the quality of life may lead to instrumental aggression if aggressing toward competitors increases the chances that an aggressor will become the victor."

This is about the only mention of an evolutionary perspective in this book, and I give Baumeister and Butz credit for giving the reader a somewhat unbiased accounting of how humans actually respond to their ecological niches. If peace is desired, then humans must come to grips with human inequality, at least in ability.

They then go on to explain that Blacks have higher self-esteem than Whites, and that groups with high self-esteem tend to be more violent than those with low self-esteem. These two authors then do embrace, even if it is a timid embrace, some of the fundamentals of evolutionary psychology. That is, all humans are inclined to racism, just like all humans are inclined to favor their own families over others' families. We don't see it at all odd that people often leave their money to their own children, yet we are currently being asked to share our resources with other races as if they were kin—they are not.

"Once again, research on prejudice provides some converging evidence. By most accounts, overt anti-Black prejudice in the United States declined precipitously in the 1960s, due in part to a cultural campaign that promoted ideals of racial equality and stigmatized prejudice as evil. However, some negative feelings toward Black citizens shifted into a new form. Kinder and Sears characterized the newly emerging form as symbolic racism, and they noted that it was rooted more in moral objections to the behavior of Black people than in traditional notions of White supremacy and innate racial differences. Thus, whereas early 20th-century racists had simply asserted that Black people were innately, genetically inferior to Whites, the new symbolic racists could assert that Black and White people were born equal but that some animosity toward Black people was justified on moral grounds. Black people were criticized for being excessively violent, for preferring to live off government subsidies and other handouts instead of working for a living, for sexual immorality and promiscuity, for paternal irresponsibility, and for other alleged moral deficiencies."

There is some truth to what Baumeister and Butz observe, but it needs to be elaborated further. First, many naïve conservatives do seem to think that Blacks suffer from some moral deficiency, but they are not actively participating in trying to hold Blacks back or harming them in any way. It merely provides conservatives a reason not to capitulate to Black's demands for more and more resources to be transferred to them by making Whites feel guilty. The equally sized number of liberals in the United States believes that it is racism that keeps Blacks down, and they get this message from the government, academia, and the media. Then there is a third group of people who claim that Blacks do poorly in life because they have a low average IQ. This group is made up of scientists and their followers—primarily behavior geneticists—that have evidence that genes matter when it comes to intelligence, and there is a great deal of evidence that different groups of people differ in innate intelligence.

"Perhaps ironically, opposition to prejudice may fuel hate in today's America. This is because current American ideals condemn prejudice and therefore render it appropriate to hold strongly negative views toward anyone who is seen as prejudiced or even as supporting prejudice. Probably the most hated intellectuals in America in recent years are the authors of The Bell Curve, a book that purportedly documented a racial difference in intelligence. Many people condemned the book and its authors, even without reading it. It is not our intention to defend the book but simply to indicate that whereas once prejudice was a source of hate, now opposition to prejudice can fuel hate simply because of a shift in the collective ideals of the society."

This refreshing honesty by Baumeister and Butz could be aimed directly at Sternberg, who fits the profile perfectly as a person who hates anyone who suggests that there are races and that races have innate differences. Now we know why the Left is so hostile to genetic research and psychometricians especially. Hatred for Whites flows through their ideological agenda. If they cannot blame Whites for the failure of Blacks to succeed, then they will not be able to position themselves as being morally superior while disparaging Whites for all kinds of evil. In the end, antiracists are the most hateful people that one could encounter in the current world; their target is anything Western and White.

In Chapter 6, "The Diminution of Hate Through the Promotion of Positive Individual–Context Relations," Richard M. Lerner, Aida Bilalbegovic Balsano, Rumeli Banik, and Sophie Naudeau state: "The work of both Adorno et al. and of McCandless represents a commitment to the idea that hate and the negative prejudice that may surround it are developmental phenomena. Although we may not agree with Adorno et al. and McCandless in regard to the characteristics of the process involved in such development, we agree with their commitment to understanding the succession of ontogenetic events that give rise to hate, and thus we support their implicit rejection of an appeal to the innate presence of the source of hate, for example, to a fanciful 'hate gene' whose influence is, for instance, estimated through the computation of a heritability coefficient."

This statement is quite easy to decipher: these researchers will not entertain any notion that hate, disgust, fear, and anger have any evolutionary–genetic basis whatsoever. That is, they dismiss any hypothesis that is not entirely environmental. This position is pseudoscience since it is well understood that gene-environmental interactions are the norm for a host of human behaviors. Science comes to a screeching halt when certain avenues of investigation are sealed off and isolated, in fear of finding real knowledge over religious fervor. Science has no place for ideologues that refuse to debate issues from all sides. No one worldview can prevail if science is to be free from censorship. But they do state Sternberg's position quite succinctly.

In Chapter 7, "Hate, Conflict and Moral Exclusion," Susan Opotow writes, "The psychological literature and popular sources describe the genesis of hate in humans' sociobiological makeup, in enduring between-group animosities, and in individuals lacking an integrated sense of personhood. Evolutionary approaches describe the emergence of hate in conditions that protohumans might have faced. Informed by studies of animal aggression and human groups in preindustrial societies, these approaches describe how hate might have been adaptive as Homo sapiens evolved over the millennia. Intraspecific intolerance or aggression can benefit a species when it disperses members and promotes long-term species survival in catastrophes, such as epidemics, that kill off species members in one locale. However, dispersion results from other sources than hate, including acute and chronic resource scarcity. Eibl-Eibesfeldt cautioned that once-adaptive animal behaviors do not invariably remain useful. If hate was once adaptive for humans, it may not remain so and should not be viewed as an inevitable product of our evolutionary ancestry."

There are three misconceptions in Opotow's statement above. First, I will submit that no one could diagnose what "lacking an integrated sense of personhood" entails, much less find causes of hate based on it. This is just another attempt at pathologizing personality types—which is strongly rejected by psychometricians. Humans have different personality profiles that are a result of both genetics and the environment, and only those individuals with actual brain malfunctions could be so classified and out of the norm.

In studying intertribal versus intratribal  conflict, the case has been made that like Chimpanzees, humans fight among themselves for dominance, but they also form tight coalitions in times of danger that directs the collective hate outwards towards other tribes. Though the "dispersal" model of hatred may have been proposed by some evolutionists, I am not aware of it being as important as the dominance–coalition ranges of hate, fear, anger and disgust.

Finally, her argument that hate may once have been adaptive but may not be so today, is no reason not to study the issue. Scientists cannot adopt a purely constructivists approach, and ignore totally a more open discussion of an evolutionary–genetic component towards especially racial–tribal hatred. It is interesting that the clan rivalries throughout the Middle East, where clans will kill their own and the other over mere insults or sexual liaisons between young lovers from different clans, is totally ignored. It seems over and over again, that if we look at tribal–racial hatred around the world, that Whites have far less xenophobia than other races. Having evolved in the extremely glaciated Europe with a low density population, coalition building for cooperative  hunting and providing protection from the cold, were far more important than worrying about violent conflicts. In the Middle East however, which was a virtual Garden of Eden before humans ruined the environment due to overpopulation, tribal warfare was endemic.

Continuing to get it all wrong, "Some scholarly traditions and the popular media describe deadly, intransigent conflicts as emerging from deeply rooted and ancient animosities, such as between Hindus and Moslems or Catholics and Protestants. For example, intergroup conflict in the former Yugoslavia has been depicted as originating centuries ago; in Rwanda, Tutsi–Hutu antipathy has been described as an ancient tribal conflict. Constructivist theories of ethnic conflict describe ancient animosities as a spurious explanation that covers for hate as a tactical strategy used by political elites in struggles to control resources and power. Constructivist explanations note centuries of peaceful coexistence between groups portrayed as enacting ancient antipathies. Like evolutionary explanations, ancient antipathies locate the emergence of hate in the distant past rather than in contemporary social arrangements and political dynamics. When tested empirically among Lebanese students, ancient animosities failed as a causal explanation of conflict between Muslim and Western values; instead, anti-dominance explanations, including perceptions of undue Western political, economic, and military influence in Muslim contexts, support causal explanation of Islamic hatred of the West."

Here, she seems to embrace the paranoid stance of Sternberg that says hate is directed from the top in a conspiratorial manner, so that the elite can "control resources and power." At times, the elite can be the catalyst to foment hatred between groups, but as I have noted before, in the West, most elites are trying to suppress conflict between different ethnies. Of course, humans evolved without "political elites," living in egalitarian hunter-tribal bands, and to understand the evolved emotions of hate, anger, disgust and fear we MUST look at our evolutionary past. It simply cannot be ignored. In fact, her study of Lebanese students fits in very nicely with an evolutionary explanation: coalitional groups worst fear is encroachment upon their land by outsiders. This danger mobilizes humans to dehumanize the invaders, to better attack them and drive them off their land. And it doesn't even have to be a physical occupation. An outside influence on a peoples culture, language or politics can all lead to the same hatred toward to outsiders as we are witnessing in the Middle East today.

In Chapter 8, "On Hate and its Determinants," Leonard Berkowitz writes, "The interpretations I have offered in this chapter present a somewhat pessimistic view of those persons likely to engage in serious anti-minority violence. My analysis suggests that the inclination to assault (and not only hate) particular minority groups grows to a considerable degree out of frequent exposure to decidedly unpleasant situations, particularly conditions that interfere with the development of a stable and secure self-concept. In common with other theoretical formulations, I have also proposed that conditions causing people to view themselves and their in-groups as being on the lower rungs of a status hierarchy relative to certain out-groups, especially out-groups they had previously learned to dislike, are among the major determinants of such a troubled self-image. Although this argument might perhaps reflect an undue complacency on my part, I wonder if invidious comparisons of this kind are not inevitable in societies such as our own. Differences in opportunities, talents, and motivations are bound to result in some people doing less well than others. Our cultural assumptions and values tell us that we are individually greatly responsible for what happens to us, that we are 'masters of our fate, captains of our souls,' so that it is all too easy to believe it is our own fault that we have not done better in life. Combining such a self-doubt with the aggressive proclivities arising from other frequent aversive experiences, some persons are all too likely to blame the despised minorities for their failures and difficulties."

 Interpretation, some White trash will take it out on Black people when they feel like losers. It is not unusual however for those on the lower rungs of society to be more violent, as they are often into drugs, guns, and living dangerously not only due to their often low intelligence, but because they tend to be "on the street" more. My wife told me how her father's company picnic of People's Gas employees, always turned into a brawl. Today, there is little of that outside of some very tough bars or neighborhoods.

On the flip side however, those of us who are highly educated and live in diverse cosmopolitan areas, can also feel a great deal of disgust and hatred for minorities as well as for a host of other humans with overtly bad behavior. I drive on the expressways around Chicago, especially those leading to and from the wealthier suburbs, and invariably the aggressive and dangerous drivers who tail gate, swerve in and out of traffic lanes to get a few feet in front of other vehicles, seem to drive German cars. These wealthy assholes elicit the same hate from me that I direct towards Blacks who stroll across a street, against the stoplight, holding up traffic, with an overt "fuck-you" attitude. Normal humans come naturally to hate, disgust, anger and fear, towards others depending on exposure, personality types, and one's personal niche. It is the norm, not the exception.

In Chapter 9, "Genocidal Hatred," David Moshman writes, "Western accounts of the genocide called up an image of ancient tribal animosities erupting into uncontrollable mass killings, a prime example, it would seem, of genocidal hatred causing genocide. On closer examination, however, it turns out that the hatreds associated with the Rwandan genocide were neither ancient nor tribal. The Hutu and Tutsi have never been distinct tribes or even ethnic groups; for centuries before European colonization, they lived interspersed among each other, speaking the same language, sharing the same religious beliefs, participating in the same society, intermarrying, and moving across generations from one category to another, distinguishable only in that the Tutsi, having traditionally been herdsman, tended to be of a higher socioeconomic status than the Hutu, who were traditionally cultivators. The sharp and fixed distinction between Hutu and Tutsi, and the associated genocidal hatreds, were legacies of 20th-century European colonialism.

"These hatreds, moreover, were themselves manipulated for political purposes. Rwanda's progress toward independence in the early 1960s was marked by a dramatic reversal in the fortunes of the Hutu and Tutsi. Belgium had controlled Rwanda for decades by supporting the Tutsi, who constituted about 15% of the population, in their increasing subjugation of the Hutu. With independence the majority-Hutu took control of the new government and struggled for 3 decades with the question of how to deal with the Tutsi. By the early 1990s, the Hutu Power movement, which sought to permanently establish Rwanda as a Hutu nation, was threatened by the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), a Tutsi-dominated army of Rwandan refugees that was invading Rwanda from the Uganda border, and by ongoing peace talks that might lead to a new government including Tutsi representation. Hutu Power responded by inciting Hutu hatred of the Tutsi."

This is a good example of a recent genocidal incident that has been used to place blame for genocide in general on Western nation's and Western people—those evil colonists. If they had not imposed their racist ideology on those hapless natives, they would have lived in peace as the noble savages they were meant to be. The book covers Rwanda twice, but ignores much other genocide where Western nations had no involvement. In almost any country one looks at, there are ethnic or racial conflicts that often lead to violence (see my review of World on Fire). The question is, does it escalate to the level where it is centrally directed by the government, or is the government trying to suppress the animosities? This is totally ignored in this book, as a politically driven book rather than an empirical look at ethnic conflict.

Note how the story is spun, "ancient tribal animosities" could just as easily been "recent tribal animosities." In all likelihood, Belgium rule prevented tribal hostility, but few have a written record of how these tribes acted towards each other before civilization arrived.

Then, there is a claim that "The Hutu and Tutsi have never been distinct tribes or even ethnic groups." That is clearly not true as other accounts indicate that the two groups come from two different races. The Hutu are a sub-Saharan race and the Tutsi are a mixture of Caucasian-African peoples. This could easily be shown today by taking a simple cheek swab and having the genes tested. But it has been shown by the Hutu themselves that the Tutsi were taller, with narrower noses, and no doubt they dominated over the Hutu, allowing Belgium rule to set up a dominance hierarchy that made it easier to rule by having a more intelligent race rule over the less intelligent Hutu. (Dominance by a minority race over a majority race is usually accomplished by the minority having a higher average intelligence. I know of no situation where this relationship is violated.)

It could be argued that the Hutu-Tutsi conflict paralleled the Nazi Holocaust, where Jews and gentiles lived in peace until a central authority tried to destroy the more powerful, wealthy, and controlling Jewish minority dominated over Germany. One wonders if the authors would weave a totally different scenario for Jewish-gentile hostilities that have been active for centuries. It is this lack of a coherent model of racial hatred that the book fails to provide so that the numerous theories presented can be tested. The theories are so general and biased that there is no possibility to falsify any one theory—which is the bedrock of the scientific method. If a theory cannot be tested, it has no validity.

Even in the movie Hotel Rwanda, there is a scene showing two Rwandan women at the hotel bar—one Hutu, the other Tutsi—and when asked about the difference between them they just looked puzzled. Western propaganda has been using the Rwandan genocide to show that it was brought about by fabricating the fissioning of a single people into two. But in this case, these two ethnies were clearly separated only by race. They did intermarry somewhat, but not enough to meld into a single race. The radio stations in Rwanda openly called for cutting down the tall trees—a reference to the taller Tutsis. If they were not two races, then one would not be taller on average than the other, and height like intelligence is highly heritable at 90%.

In Chapter 10, "On the Nature of Prejudice," John F. Dovidio, Samuel L. Gaertner, and Adam R. Pearson write that, "Racial biases are a fundamental form of social control that support the economic, political, and personal goals of the majority group. Because of their functionality, racial biases are deeply embedded in cultural values, such as in widely accepted ideologies that justify inequality and exploitation and institutional policies and practices. Although the racial climate in the United States has changed because of shifts in social norms over the last several decades, racial biases may still be openly expressed by Whites who strongly adhere to traditional values and conventional beliefs (authoritarianism) or who see the superior status of Whites relative to Blacks as legitimate (i.e., Whites high in social dominance orientation). Moreover, racial biases that are less overtly negative but still function to reduce threat and maintain the status quo that provides advantages to Whites are frequently manifested more subtly by many Whites who openly endorse egalitarian values and who believe they are non-prejudiced. The present chapter explores the nature of racial attitudes of White Americans toward Blacks and illustrates the traditional and contemporary role of the psychology of hate—its seeds and its open expression—in race relations."

The  above is another just-so story that is pure propaganda. There is no evidence for a "conspiracy theory" of Whites getting together to formulate social policy to subjugate Blacks. If there were, we would not have affirmative action, set-asides, and the incredible transfer of money from Whites to Blacks to support and egalitarian agenda that is anti-White. Why would Whites abdicate their own kind for the advancement of another race?

In addition, don't Blacks overtly advocate "social control that support the economic, political, and personal goals of the" Black minority? Is it all right for one race to a try and advance itself over another, or one species to try and thrive over all others? Evolutionary models of how organisms behave says it would be extremely maladaptive to provide resources and support for a competing race over one's own, and yet that is what these so-called scientists are asking Whites alone to do. Note, there is not one mention in the book on any other racial group giving up their advantage, whatever that might be, to advance a competing group.

They also contradict themselves. Later on they state, "White racists were more threatened by, and advocated violence more strongly in response to, interracial marriage and Blacks moving into the neighborhood than job competition." Really? I thought we hated Blacks because it was a form of "social control?" I think they are correct on the above for a reason they fail to understand: racial groups are often offended by interracial mixing. Racial intermarriage is loathed by almost every racial group that I am aware of, and the more different the two groups are the more it is rejected as disgusting. Likewise for Blacks moving into one's neighborhood; it elicits a feeling of disgust by most Whites as it pollutes our environment. Blacks are simply seen as less intelligent, behaviorally aggressive, violent, less controllable, etc. It is no different than any other aesthetic concern. If races are seen to be different genetically in substantial ways, it is only common sense that there may be mutual antagonisms between the two groups.

They continue, "What distinguishes the different perspectives on contemporary racism are the conscious beliefs that permit discrimination to be expressed. The aversive racism framework has assumed that these positive attitudes are based on political and social liberalism. Symbolic racism theory emphasizes that beliefs about individualism and meritocracy that become racialized motivate opposition to policies designed to benefit racial and ethnic minorities. Modern racism theory similarly proposes that beliefs associated with conservative ideologies can justify discriminatory behaviors, but this theory places more emphasis on the moderating effects of contexts that provide a justification for negative responses to minorities. However, one commonality shared by all of these approaches, and that reflects the complexity of contemporary racial attitudes, is the idea that racial bias is expressed in more subtle ways than is "old-fashioned" racism. In the next section, to illustrate the dynamics of contemporary prejudice, we examine one of these approaches, aversive racism theory, in more detail.

"According to the aversive racism perspective, many people who consciously, explicitly, and sincerely support egalitarian principles and believe themselves to be non-prejudiced also harbor negative feelings about Blacks and other historically disadvantaged groups. These negative feelings can significantly influence behavior, typically in terms of avoidance or failure to respond positively rather than in terms of direct hostility. In other words, these feelings, independent of egalitarian beliefs, may produce negative responses toward Blacks ranging from avoidance of direct interracial contact to discrimination and interracial aggression…. In the United States, Whites automatically categorize people on the basis of race, and this categorization spontaneously elicits racial stereotypes."

This diatribe against Whites is pseudo-scientific, it just goes in circles from one story to another about why Whites do what they do, feel as they feel, and have a worldview that may deviate from the authors. The authors in fact must themselves be extremely authoritarian if they just assume that their egalitarian worldview is correct, and all others' are lacking legitimacy. Notice how we are not allowed to entertain a value system that is based on "individualism and meritocracy!" These academic fascists flat out deny any other value system as being wrong. And why wouldn't Whites be opposed to "policies designed to benefit racial and ethnic minorities?" To do so only requires that we favor policies that benefit our own kind ahead of others, just like families promote benefits their own children over that of other children. What type of absurd organism, a thinking one at that, would give preference to unrelated competing organisms. All one has to ask themselves is "would America be a more pleasant place to live if Blacks did not live here?" I think most Whites know inside that it most certainly would. Indoctrination alone is the only explanation why any White person would be in favor of Blacks over Whites, or any other racial competition we see everywhere around the world. Pick a country, and you will find the same racial animosities. But only in the West are Whites singled out and pathologized for favoring their own kin.

Earlier in the book (Chapter 5) it was pointed out that Blacks stereotyped Whites more than Whites stereotyped Blacks. So why are all Blacks innocent of racial bias, and only Whites are singled out for scolding? How do Asians feel about Blacks, or Hispanics for that matter—there is as much racial animosity if not more between Blacks and Hispanics. Why are Hispanics not taken to task for aversive racism? Any normal racial group is going to favor their own, and to try and manipulate other races in order to take advantage of them when they can. I am not aware of any behavior theory that states that an organism would favor other unrelated organisms over their own—not one instance in the long history of evolutionary science.

It is easy to recognize anti-White academic programs because the research is always targeted against Whites. The authors state that, "As predicted by the aversive racism framework, when the candidate's credentials clearly qualified him or her for the position (strong qualifications) or when the credentials were clearly inappropriate (weak qualifications), there was no discrimination against the Black candidate. However, when the candidate's qualifications for the position were less obvious and the appropriate decision was more ambiguous (moderate qualifications), White participants recommended the Black candidate significantly less often than a White candidate with the exact same credentials."

My question then is, how did Blacks respond to the same scenario when they were doing the hiring? These case studies are worthless on face value because they are always targeted against Whites. Good research would use the same study, and then compare different racial groups against each other, in order to obtain unbiased results. When only Whites are tested for having a genetic interest in their own race over another's race, nothing is shown except that Whites are acting normally.

The authors do have some good advice for how Whites can stop their own self-destruction: "Nevertheless, despite general norms against prejudice and discrimination, more local and immediate norms can frequently support racial bias. Blanchard, Crandall, Brigham, and Vaughn, for instance, found that participants who heard another student support prejudicial views (which signaled prejudiced contextual norms) subsequently adopted more racist positions than did those in a control condition. In contrast, those who heard another student condemn racial prejudice later advocated less racist positions. More important, these effects occurred equivalently for participants' private and public responses, indicating that the communication of these immediate norms relating to prejudice influenced participants' internal standards."

Apparently then the latest "social norm" is merely adopted by the majority, no matter if it is correct, good, truthful, or what have you. Most humans I would contend are prone to agreeableness, that is they just want to get along and not be censored. Today, we are in an egalitarian, anti-White, value system where Whites are made to be the devil. To turn this back all we have to do is stop going along to get along. Be more open, more honest, and flat out reject any moral system that says any one race should capitulate to another based on some convoluted notion of racism as a pathology. Humans everywhere favor their own kind over others. If they do not, then that is a pathology worth looking into—and that is one pathology that seems to afflict Whites alone.

"Third, the forces of in-group favoritism, which represent a critical underpinning of aversive racism, provide a foundation from which negative stereotypes evolve, different standards for fairness and justice develop, and members of other groups become devalued through justifying ideologies. As a consequence, when prevailing norms against prejudice become weakened or superseded by local norms that support discrimination, aversive racists may be predisposed to engage in blatant and aggressive forms of discrimination."

I think the authors need to look into a mirror, because they are suffering from aversive racism themselves, if there really is such a thing. What is incorrect in understanding that group evolutionary strategies will always place one group in opposition to competing groups, and looking at maladaptation from an evolutionary perspective. What would be bizarre in terms of evolutionary theory is if Whites continue to give in to all other races, and stand aside while they are systematically displaced in their own homeland. That would truly be a first in the history of all organisms' struggle for survival. It could only occur because Whites are so easily indoctrinated against themselves because of their high levels of universal moralism (MacDonald, 1998a).

We then get a glimpse at the totalitarian solution to White racism: "We have proposed a variety of techniques for limiting the effects of aversive racism and combating aversive racism at its roots. These techniques include strengthening policies and norms against discrimination, making aversive racists aware of their prejudice and how their biases are expressed, providing aversive racists opportunities to develop and practice nonprejudiced responses, and altering the primary basis of social categorization from different racial groups (i.e., Blacks and Whites) to members of a common super-ordinate group (e.g., on the basis of university or national identity)."

The Marxists tried to do that already, and it failed miserably as new groups were sent off to the gulags based on other criteria than race. Eliminating racism means substituting individualism and a meritocracy with a new totalitarianism that desires to control the way people think by passing laws against thinking differently. Whether it is indoctrination or religious fanaticism, I see no difference between say radical Islam and antiracists. They are intolerant of any viewpoint that does not conform to their worldview. What is pathetic however is that Islam is not fed to us as science, while antiracism is. It permeates our academics institutions as a fundamentalist doctrine.

And to sum up enforced group think right out of a totalitarian nightmare: "Revising laws to combat subtle forms of discrimination can convey an important message to society—one that would enhance the salience of egalitarian standards and promote more inclusive social norms." This short sentence is enough to justify a war on antiracists as being equally as dangerous as Islamic terrorists. Both are intolerant of free speech, diversity of opinions, and individual value systems that speak to each person as unique, and not some part of a unified whole that abhors differences.

In Chapter 11, "Hate is the Imitation of Love," C. Fred Alford declares: "Hatred, I argue, is about more than the intolerance of otherness. Hate reflects a perverted desire to know otherness, fusing with it to become what otherness knows—or is. In this regard, hatred comes frighteningly close to love, and love intriguingly close to the pursuit of knowledge, an affinity with which the West is long familiar (Plato, Symposium). This chapter explores the implications of this transitivity. If hatred comes close to love, and love comes close to knowledge, then does hatred come close to knowledge? Yes, hatred wants to know, but only on its own terms, whose ground rules are utter control. Although hatred wants to know much, there is one knowledge it cannot abide—that of its own dread."

This sentence is a fetishism of Western man's desire to know the unknowable, because obviously only Whites cannot know what other races know intuitively. Well, ok, maybe I am not interpreting it correctly, but nonetheless it is a pretty weird statement. It has no basis in science, and belongs squarely in the conspiracy and messianic paranoia genre that permeates antiracist rhetoric.

There is nothing sinister in different races trying to compete with each other, and having animosity towards each other. Nature is not egalitarian, even if some fanatics try to equate the two. But why do Whites have such self-loathing for their own kind, or why do they tolerate other races trashing Whites? That is the question that needs to be answered if we are going to understand unnatural responses to ecological imbalances. There are never enough resources to go around satisfying everyone's greed, no matter what race you belong to. So why single out only Whites as being evil? What makes hatred of Whites any different than hatred of capitalists, or Blacks, or Islamic terrorists, or smut peddlers? Are we not all equal in a desire to pursue what we individually perceive as in our own best interests? If any person operates to diminish their own well being in favor of any other organism's well being, that is what should be analyzed and studied as a true perversion in the struggle for life.

The Psychology of Hate mostly fails in adding knowledge to human understanding. A couple of the authors made a sincere attempt at scientific inquiry, but the majority seemed intent on finding Whites culpable for a host of the World's ills. Diversity of thought, according to these authors, must be closely monitored and pathologized when necessary to meet an ideological end. Interestingly, Joan Roughgarden in Evolution's Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People, 2004, argues that academia also tries to pathologize sexuality.

Before I look at a few of her statements on diversity, let me add that her book is a truly scientific one, and is an exemplary one in terms of scientific exploration of nature's complexity. However, she does touch on the issues of diversity and pathologizing groups of people by academic disciplines. Her observations contrast nicely with those expressed in The Psychology of Hate.

Roughgarden states, "This book, then, is a memoir of my travels though the academic spaces of ecology and evolution, molecular biology, and anthropology, sociology, and theology. My general conclusion is that each academic discipline has its own means of discriminating against diversity. At first I felt that the book's main message would be a catalogue of diversity that biologically validates divergent expressions of gender and sexuality. This validating catalogue is indeed important. But as I reflected on my academic sojourn, I increasingly wondered why we didn't already know about nature's wonderful diversity in gender and sexuality. I came to see the book's main message as an indictment of academia for suppressing and denying diversity. I now conclude that all our academic disciplines should go back to school, take refresher courses in their own primary data, and emerge with a reformed, enlarged, and more accurate concept of diversity."

So far so good, she has accused academics of "closing off" looking at the whole picture of nature, and suppressing what they don't like—in this case diversity in nature with regards to sexuality. But what about studying the naturalness of human hostility between groups—including races—and giving that branch of study equal time. After all, most of us identify with a racial classification as well as a personal view of our gender orientation. Shouldn't science also understand that it is quite normal for humans, like other species, to favor their own race over others? Well, she seems to be quite confused in this regards, which I think sheds light on just how hostile academia is towards a truly open scientific agenda.

She states, "The fundamental problem is that our academic disciplines are all rooted in Western culture, which discriminates against diversity. Each discipline finds its own justification for this discrimination. This book blows the whistle on a common pattern of disparaging gender and sexuality variation in academia and predicts foundational difficulties for each discipline."

If this statement is true, then it would seem that someone could provide us with evidence that there are non-Western institutions of learning where there is no discrimination against diversity. Is that the case? Are universities in Turkey, Egypt, Japan, India, Ghana, or Argentina anymore open and tolerant than Western universities? No, the White bashing is so ingrained in our self-hating Western culture that these statements can be put forth in even scientific books and go unchallenged.

She then notes that, "More generally, I'm suggesting that females publicly choose mating partners to manage the genetic relationships of their offspring. Females guarantee their offspring safety by buying membership in the old genes club and choose their extra-pair partners with the tacit consent of the pair male. Females choose not males with supposedly 'great genes,' but males with well-connected genes. In genetic lingo, females are concerned with genetic identity by descent, not genetic identity by state. When a female chooses a male with some special color on his tail, she is not following the dictates of some inexplicable taste for fashion, but rather endowing her offspring with a bodily marker of culturally inherited power, like the Tudor nose."

Apparently then the salience of a sub-specie's genetic markers are seen throughout nature, and race by lines of descent are important to survival. Roughgarden however decries pathologizing gender differences, but also seems to condemn Western science without providing any proof. I am not aware of any other system of scientific inquiry that is as open as it is in the West. And even in the West, we have students from all over the world that come here and fit in quite nicely with regards to an openness of inquiry—except when it comes to race! Mention racial differences and the validity of race is denied. Mention that some races are innately more or less intelligent than another race and the meaningfulness intelligence is denied or one is accused of racism for discussing the matter.

Roughgarden continues, "My approach to variation in gender expression and sexuality is biological and behavioral, not psychological. Since Freud, however, gender and sexuality have often been discussed in psychological terms. I'm skeptical of psychology and, as a transgendered woman, have found psychologists to be dangerous, like gays and lesbians before me did. Psychologists operate with a medical model that pathologizes diversity. These medical wannabes have long persecuted and abused gender- and sexuality-variant people from a position of authority."

True perhaps, but today most of the pathologizing today is directed at Western White people. We alone allow our culture and our genes to be attacked over and over again not only by other races, but by members of our own race who have become so indoctrinated in the antiracist agenda that their self-loathing overshadows their genetic interests. And if there is one thing that can be truly pathologized, in terms of the genetic interests of a species, a race, a family or an individual, it is behavior that is self-destructive. The science of evolution is all about fitness and survival—how have Whites come to this place that goes against everything that evolution has said should not happen: the willingness to step aside and be overtaken by one's competitors. The genes for the Tudor nose do not willingly want to be displaced.

July 20, 2005