Return to the NeoEugenics' Web Site

UPDATE 2005: Rudy Rummel's Revised Figures (Updated 2005)

Many scholars and commentators have referenced my total of 174,000,000 for the democide (genocide and mass murder) of the last century. I'm now trying to get word out that I've had to make a major revision in my total due to two books. One is Wild Swans: Two Daughters of China by Jung Chang, and the other is Mao: the Unknown Story that she wrote with her husband, Jon Halliday. I'm now convinced that Stalin exceeded Hitler in monstrous evil, and Mao beat out Stalin….

From the biography of Mao, which I trust (for those who might question it, look at the hundreds of interviews Chang and Halliday conducted with communist cadre and former high officials, and the extensive bibliography) I can now say that yes, Mao's policies caused the famine. He knew about it from the beginning. He didn't care! Literally. And he tried to take more food from the people to pay for his lust for international power, but was overruled by a meeting of 7,000 top Communist Party members.

So, the famine was intentional. What was its human cost? I had estimated that 27,000,000 Chinese starved to death or died from associated diseases. Others estimated the toll to be as high as 40,000,000. Chang and Halliday put it at 38,000,000, and given their sources, I will accept that.

Now, I have to change all the world democide totals that populate my websites, blogs, and publications. The total for the communist democide before and after Mao took over the mainland is thus 3,446,000 + 35,226,000 + 38,000,000 = 76,692,000, or to round off, 77,000,000 murdered. This is now in line with the 65 million toll estimated for China in the Black Book of Communism, and Chang and Halliday's estimate of "well over 70 million."

This exceeds the 61,911,000 murdered by the Soviet Union 1917-1987, with Hitler far behind at 20,946,000 wiped out in 1933-1945.

For perspective on Mao's most bloody rule, all wars 1900-1987 cost in combat dead 34,021,000 -- including WWI and II, Vietnam, Korea, and the Mexican and Russian Revolutions. Mao alone murdered over twice as many as were killed in combat in all these wars.

Now, my overall totals for world democide 1900-1999 must also be changed. I have estimated it to be 174,000,000 murdered, of which communist regimes murdered about 148,000,000. Also, compare this to combat dead. Communists overall have murdered four times those killed in combat, while globally the democide toll was over six times that number.
[End of Rummel's Revision]

Democide, Genophilia and Warfare

All over the world a resurgence of tribalism and ethnic conflict is evident. We are confronted with worldwide manifestations of ethnocentrism and xenophobia. One might define ethnicity as a mere construct to be deconstructed, but that in practice will not do away with the problem. Kurds will nonetheless define themselves as Kurds. Armenians as Armenians, Bosniaks as Bosniaks, and Serbs as Serbs. And many indeed are ready to sacrifice their lives to preserve their identity. They are misled, one might argue. But this invites at least the question: Why are people all over the world so easily misled?

Tolerance is the readiness to understand others with deviating opinion, but not necessarily the acceptance of every deviation; and liberty does not mean that everything should be permitted since that would always be at the cost of the liberty of others. In anonymous societies [like America], internal peace and harmony are constantly threatened by conflicting interest groups. This is particularly the case in multiethnic states where in times of emergency the different ethnic groups tend to compete in their efforts to dominate each other in order to secure access to scarce resources. More attention should be given to this cause of internal conflict. Some well-meaning philanthropists believe they are serving peace and opposing racism by encouraging the development of multicultural societies in formerly fairly homogenous nation-states. "Bold experiments" like this could easily prove disastrous, the results being contrary to expectations, the more so since some proponents even of Caucasian stock seem to act in clear hostility to their own group. Peaceful coexistence of different ethnic groups within one state is certainly possible if none of the groups need fear the domination of others, more generally if none finds itself in a situation of interethnic competition. This is best achieved when each group owns its own land and enjoys sovereignty over its own affairs as is the case in Switzerland. (Irenaus Eibl-Eibesfeldt in Indoctrinability, Ideology and Warfare: Evolutionary Perspectives. Praeger, 1998 [Henceforth IIWEP])


R. J. Rummel in Death by Government, declares that genocide can be explained by dividing governments into democratic and non-democratic: democracies do not go to war without provocation and they do not commit atrocities against their own people. Of course this simplistic explanation then just begs the question: what makes a nation a legitimate democracy, one that will not go to war or commit internal atrocities? The United States along with NATO just engaged in unilaterally bombing Serbia into submitting to outside intervention. This action as it now appears could throw this region into another major confrontation. Germany was a democracy, and then became totalitarian in order to regain their honor and prestige under the horrific economic and draconian political conditions placed on it by the allies after the First World War.

It is sophomoric to declare that if all nations become democracies, then all wars and atrocities will cease. Somit and Peterson in Darwinism, Dominance & Democracy: The Biological Bases of Authoritarianism, also look at democracies and conclude that they are by nature, unstable. In addition, throughout history, no political philosopher has ever advocated direct democracy, and even today with an educated populace direct democracy is abhorred by most people. We do not trust each other enough, so we turn instead to our political and social leaders for guidance and direction: politicians, movie stars, media and television editorialists, religious leaders, academics, business leaders, etc. The elite take it upon themselves (and we humbly summit) to govern the rest of us using money and propaganda to maintain control and public complacency. So democracy is not a panacea. As Rummel admits, democracies have trouble even executing the most vile of criminals. So is democracy just the flip side of genocidal regimes? Milosevic may have slaughtered thousands of Albanians in Kosovo, but our own democracy permits the raping and murdering of thousands of innocent people by its own citizens by criminals because democracy is too weak to prevent it. So it doesn't appear that democracy alone is the answer, it needs to include other parameters as well.

I will submit that two other important factors also enter into the creation and maintenance of legitimate democracies -- ones that are free of internal turmoil, crime, gross income disparity, and belligerence against other nations. First, the nation must have an educated public and a public that is educable. That is, on average, the innate intelligence of the people must be relatively high and the higher the better. In fact I would argue that if a nation's average IQ (through eugenics) could be increased from 100 to 115, the country could begin to institute direct democracy and begin to free itself from elitist control. That is, the population would be intelligent enough to avoid being so easily indoctrinated into the politically correct ideology by the media and government. In the West, the radical environmentalists are in denial that people have innate intelligence, and that with the correct social intervention we can all be brain surgeons. We know now that this long sought after utopian vision is utterly lacking in any scientific sustenance, and is maintained only to justify the furtherance of government dependency -- one that maintains power by promising to care for all of our needs and wants.

A second important factor, which is also tied to intelligence but also other behavioral traits, is the uniformity of the national culture, one that is made up of similar people. That is, the more the nation is free of different religions, races, controlling nepotistic elite, and international capitalists who will betray the nation for global control, the more democratic the nation will be. Individualism in a stable democracy requires that different groups must not be in conflict with each other. What we are seeing in the Western nations however is the reemergence of collectivism due to strife and tensions between ethnic groups with different skills, prestige, and wealth accumulation. And this cannot be changed by political means without also destroying the very democracy that sustains it.

The propaganda that promotes diversity and multiculturalism will only lead to disaster. Already, different ethnic groups are asking for a separation of the races by dividing up portions of the United States, and they will eventually use terrorist means to try and achieve that end. So we need to understand human nature before we can construct viable nations, ones that truly serve the interests of its people--people who evolved by using warfare and genocide to slaughter their rivals -- as our closest relatives, the chimpanzees, are still doing today.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt and Salter warn in IIWEP:

"Since evolution is a continuing process in a constantly changing world, adaptations lag behind the changes [they] have to cope with. This is particularly true for the human species, which for most of its history lived in small communities where individuals knew each other personally and in which each community set itself apart from similar others, usually by occupying and defending discrete territories. . . . Our attempts to culturally adapt to this new situation include experiments with a diversity of social strategies of leadership, ideologies, and economic systems.

" Emotionally we are well prepared for a life in small face-to-face communities. The large anonymous society and the impersonality of technical civilization creates problems. The trial-and-error learning by selection acting on variation, which has characterized our biological and much of our cultural evolution, is a painful process. . . . Is it possible to imagine societal life without institutionalized dominance? Small face-to-face communities do exist without institutions, but for anonymous mass societies institutionalized dominance seems to be inevitable. In a democratic society the conditions for the application of repressive dominance must be well defined and accepted by the population.

"One condition is a degree of popular trust in those wielding power, combined with institutional checks and balances, including elections. Citizens expect those to whom they delegate power to use it to maintain the public goods of law and order and the regulation of the profit motive when it would lead to environmental degradation or exploitation. The trend in democratic states is towards a balance of administrative nurturance and authoritarian dominance."

Where we came from

New sources of study, using neo-Darwinism, have drilled into our past to find out that we evolved by selection of genes, individuals AND groups. All three levels are important. In Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence, the study of the great apes including man shows that genocide and brutality or blood lust should be the norm among humans, not the exception. (Also see Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior by Sober and Wilson.) Chimpanzees go on regular raiding parties, looking for a single male they can attack and kill, in the hopes of committing genocide against competing groups. Gorillas regularly obtain females by attacking the female's child (infanticide) in such a brutal way that she becomes attracted to the new male intruder and becomes attached to him.

Orangutan's favorite pastime is rape, with one documented case of a male raping a human woman. And in War Before Civilization, anthropological studies have shown that our ancestors, all of them up to about 10,000 years ago with the dawn of civilization, and many still today, practice warfare and genocide at all levels. From male dominance to group coordinated genocide, that was the norm as long as the conditions and opportunities were in place. That is, any type of threat, power imbalance, opportunity, resource scarcity, opportunities for sexual exploitation, slavery opportunities, or a chance to please the gods with human sacrifice -- could all lead to atrocities. We are a species with an innate sense of blood lust when opportunity strikes.

The question then is, what has happened to this innate natural tendency towards warfare and genocide that makes it controllable in modern society, some of the time, and in some circumstances? To understand that we need to look at how humans behave under different ecological and political conditions, and we must understand our human need for: hierarchy or leadership, submissiveness, dominance, indoctrination, adherence to ideologies, and (fictive) kinship.

For millions of years, our primate ancestors climbed up the evolutionary ladder by many means, but the social structure was invariably the same -- within groups or tribes of about 50 people it consisted of dominance, hierarchy, obedience or submission -- it was authoritarian in nature. For one group to win out over the other through genocidal warfare with neighbors, it was required that members of the tribe be willing to die for the tribe and enjoy the brutality of the moment. Blood lust and aggression won out over fear and timidity, along with the intelligence to use the aggression wisely. An arms race emerged whereby troops or tribes of our primate ancestors, and continuing on in the Homo sapien line of evolution, that were submissive to authority and warlike, replaced other groups that were less so. Man's nature is an extension of what we observe in the chimpanzee social structure: aggression, established pecking orders, dominance by some and submission by others, inherited levels of status, warfare, and a level of barbarity that knows no equal among other animals.

 Indoctrinability, Democracy and Warfare

Somit and Peterson point out that even today this hierarchy and submissiveness is so innate as to be hidden from us:

"Despite--or more likely because of--the manner in which hierarchy permeates our social existence, students of human behavior have been surprisingly slow to grasp its pervasiveness. The reason, according to Louis Dumont, who has written extensively on the subject, is that 'Modern man [sic] is virtually incapable of fully recognizing [hierarchy]. If it does force itself on his attention he tends to eliminate it as an epiphenomenon [a secondary phenomenon that follows the first].' Dumont may be correct; it is usually very difficult to take adequate cognizance [awareness] of that which is totally familiar. In any event, even when its importance is recognized, we have been slow to understand hierarchy's evolutionary origins and significance."

Humans, therefore, are basically irrational in many areas where nature has programmed us to see the world in a certain way. We can ponder quantum mechanics with some empirical rationality, or the motion of the planets, but we are unable to understand our own complicity in being told what to believe and how to think and vote. Humans, like other social primates are inclined genetically for dominance, hierarchy and obedience. As Somit and Perterson state:

"[Indoctrinability is] the capacity to accept and then to act on the basis of beliefs values--even when the resulting actions run counter to our innate inclinations or our personal desires. As one of our most eminent biologists put it, 'of all living creatures, human beings are uniquely capable of disobeying those biological inclinations that whisper within them. We alone are able to say NO to such genetic tendencies as may predispose some of us to polygyny, theft, murder, etc.' Because of indoctrinability, ideas, values, and beliefs can profoundly alter the behaviors of those who embrace them. In a sense, to follow up our earlier discussions, we become [subservient] to ideas and ideals."

So indoctrination allows any group of people (Mafia), or nation (Serbia/Kosovo), or culture (Gypsies) to formulate ideologies that that may in fact be destructive to themselves or to others. So how did it evolve? Somit and Peterson state:

"[I]indoctrinability served to lessen discord (and ultimately violence) in relatively small societies of social primates, with consequent benefits to both individuals and the collective group. But as the size and complexity of the groups increased from hunting-gathering bands of perhaps thirty to forty persons to nation-states numbering millions and hundreds of millions, and as rival interests and ideas began increasingly to compete with each other, indoctrinability has become a [fruitful] source both of intrasocietal ethnic and religious violence and inter-state hostility, bloodshed, and warfare. Indoctrinability evolved to meet the needs of a totally different environment; accordingly, Barash has aptly described its often biologically dysfunctional consequences in today's world as an 'artificial exaggeration of an otherwise adaptive tendency'. Different groups within diverse societies can come to live in distinct worlds, fiercely adhering to their varying views of reality. They can become indoctrinated into competing value systems, and this may trigger furious internal strife, as the breakup of Yugoslavia amply illustrates. In this respect, indoctrinability has had social consequences often profoundly different from those of its fellow evolved behaviors--dominance, hierarchy, and obedience. On balance, the latter tend, for better or worse, to hold societies together. Indoctrinability, though, is Janus-faced or, if another simile is preferred, either Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde. Depending upon the circumstances, it can bind--or it can serve as a profoundly disruptive force."

Viewed from an evolutionary perspective then, democracy relies on indoctrinability to make people believe in a system that is inherently contradictory--an ideology that can only be sustained through acceptance of contradictory value systems. Before democracy, Western progressive thought, including our own constitution, embraced natural and inalienable rights, often called "liberalism." This was to protect the individual from the state. Much later came the incompatible doctrine of democracy, the majority shall rule. Now how is the individual protected from majority rule? The problem is, under majority rule, the dominant culture or groups can do whatever they want to the minority, including exterminating them if they so choose. So democracy does not and cannot by itself prevent war or genocide. But coupled with a controlling elite, whose job it is tell people they live in a democracy while manipulating how much democracy the masses are allowed to have or exercise, liberalism and democracy via indoctrination have been embraced by the people as the only viable system of government.

Somit and Peterson state:

"If democratic theory originally faced in two directions, that was only the beginning. It was soon expanded to subsume yet another meaning, the right of a people to self-government. The French Revolution is usually credited for fanning, if not actually igniting, the nationalistic aspirations that have since played so large a role in both international and domestic politics. Around the world, subject peoples having in common some combination of language, religion, history, and culture, sought to throw off foreign domination. Almost everywhere, the demand arose for greater self-government and then, inevitably, independence. . . . Among present-day political ideologies, almost all students agree, nationalism is perhaps the most powerful: George Kennan has called it 'the greatest emotional-political force of the age'; going a step further, Hannah Arendt claims that it has led to 'the conquest of the state by the nation'."

What one can discern from our human nature then is that what in the West is called democracy, is only possible because a fairly homogeneous population, through indoctrination, accepts the status quo. This is only possible as long as resources are plentiful and the system is perceived to be fair and just. The first is assured at least for now by a robust economy, but the second is falling apart under the rubric of diversity and multiculturalism as immigration outpaces the rate of assimilation. American indoctrination of immigrants by the controlling elite is failing. Their sheer numbers mean they can set up alternate forms of ideologies that will not accept peaceful assimilation. We can see this now as Hispanics in the Southwest are advocating their own language and autonomy from the United States, and who can blame them? They have the numbers to form their own culture without accepting ours. When diverse groups start to question these accepted democratic values, they will demand autonomy, just as the Kosovos have demanded autonomy from Serbian dominance. Nationalism is a natural human value system -- democracy is artificial.

Why Humans Love To Belong

The innate tendency for humans to adopt an ideological framework as part of belonging to a group is powerful, enduring, and yet flexible and contextual. For example, I may live and send my children to an all white community. I may as a member of that community resent any intrusion of Blacks, or Asian Indians, etc. But my ideological attachment to the community is contextual, and is felt while part of the community.

When I go off on the weekends to my army reserve unit, where the numbers of blacks and whites are about equal, my ideology changes to that of another group -- the proud fighting men of the 131st battalion. This ideological group has different rules, values, and goals and many who would not associate with others on the outside could easily see themselves as sacrificing their lives, if need be, to the common cause. The ideology changes when the group changes. This by the way has been observed in children when it comes to morality, the behavior is different when they are around their friends than when they are around their family. Moral values likewise are contextual. (See The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do by Judith Rich Harris)

And so it goes: kinship, ethnicity, work, religion, clubs, athletic teams, partisan politics, neighborhoods--we can each belong to as many groups as needed to feel personally fulfilled, or miserable in our loneliness in varying degrees. McGuire, Troisi, Raleigh and Master state in IIWEP that:

"[W]e hypothesize that the probability that an ideology will be endorsed enthusiastically correlates with the degree to which embracing it increases the likelihood of attaining physiological homeostasis. As used here, homeostasis is associated with efficient physiological and psychological functioning; feelings of well-being, control, commitment, group membership; and interest and participation in valued events in the world. The term disregulation references a state of physiological nonhomeostasis, which is often associated with unpleasant feelings, such as boredom, fear, anxiety, depression, loneliness, and ennui, as well as a reduced interest and participation in events in the world."

That is, people in general within each group they belong to want to fully embrace the accepted ideology of the group, even if their ideology is different for different groups. That is, soft ideologies may change in context to the group. But embracing any ideology that is not in keeping with the norm or the dogma as accepted by the group will cause discomfort.

This conformity to the accepted ideology of a nation, as directed by the controlling elites in government, academics and the press, also have a strong impact on what groups or ideologies will come under public ridicule. For example, from the beginning of the civil rights movement to today, the prevailing ideology with regards to intelligence has been that it is based on one's social economic status, or opportunities. But for over thirty years the trend in research has been that intelligence is primarily innate or genetically determined. But the government and the media are extremely slow to change or accept new evidence, so the public still feels uncomfortable with accepting the data until it becomes generally known, then the pendulum will shift where the new ideology will be accepted over the old, and these pendulums can swing back and forth, under the watchful eye of those who control the distribution of information, with different groups fighting it out to sway the minds of the public.

The point in all of this is that genocide and warfare ride on the backs of the ideological dogma accepted by the public, and usually directed from the top, unless a revolution forces new dogmas from the bottom up. But there are several key factors that promote the embracing of an ideology.

First, the ideology should promote physiological homeostasis discussed above. Second, the ideology will be more easily accepted if the group holding the ideology have common group indices, such as race, religion, economic status, etc. Third, people who are alone will be more desperate to seek out an ideology. For example, the homeless often are easily led to embrace Christianity because they are socially isolated and need to be in a group, any group. Fourth, ideology will be rejected if they do not accommodate to change, such as the Catholic churches reluctance to liberalize birth control. Fifth, submissive people will be easier to indoctrinate into an ideological dogma without critical thinking or analysis. And sixth, "Ideologies will flourish when face-to-face groups and local communities are uprooted by rapid socioeconomic, technological, and/or cultural change [like rapid immigration]. Among other things, such changes disturb established routines and reduce the effectiveness of familiar behavior patterns in bringing about or maintaining homeostasis. The recent rise of religious fundamentalism as a response to westernization in the Third World is a possible example." [IIWEP]

Sutterlin [IIWEP] goes on to explain that humans are in fact eager to give up individual interests in order to belong to a larger community that gives them "equality, security, and even the relinquishing of responsibility." Note how this fits in with the realization that during the Nuremberg trials, Germans responsible for mass executions felt they were only doing their job as instructed. Genocide and atrocities are possible because of a human need to belong to a larger group, to submit to its dogma, to abide by its rules, and to give up freedom for participation in the group. And for this formula to work with regards to group evolutionary strategy, the more determined the group is in reaching its goals, the better chance it will have of surviving a conflict with another group. But it can also give a sense of false superiority, where Germany could not sustain the enormous costs of such massive world reaction against their attempts to reclaim lands that were taken away from them in the First World War.

Ethnocentrism vs. pragmatism: causes of group conflict

Rushton in IIWEP puts forth that organisms, in order to pursue evolutionary strategies, must be able to recognize the degree of relatedness. That is, how close is another member of the species related. Humans likewise have a sense of relatedness that is subjective but powerful, we can sense on a broad range of criteria how closely related the other is to us. Whether it is the size of wrists, behavioral traits, or the shapes of our faces, we have a subjective evaluative system that judges genetic kinship, or how closely we are related to others.

An interesting experiment in Hawaii showed that marriages between Whites and Asians resulted in even more similarity between the partners than marriages between Whites or between Asians. That is, they had more traits in common than non-mixed marriages. Even though two races married, they managed to locate those set of genetic qualities that made them more alike. That is race may not always matter, but degree of relatedness does.

Rushton states:

"[F]or example, patriotism may often be an ideology indoctrinated by the ruling class to induce the ruled to behave contrary to their own genetic interests, while increasing the fitness of the elite. If epigenetic rules do incline people toward constructing and learning ideologies which increase their fitness, then patriotic nationalism, religious zealotry, class conflict, and other forms of ideological commitment can be seen as genetically influenced cultural choices that individuals make that, in turn, influence the replication of their genes. Religious, political, and other ideological battles may become as heated as they do partly because of implications for fitness; some genotypes may thrive more in one ideological culture than in another. According to this view, Karl Marx did not take the argument far enough: ideology serves more than economic interest; it also serves genetic fitness.

"Two sets of falsifiable propositions follow from this interpretation. First, individual differences in ideological preference are partly heritable. Second, ideological belief increases genetic fitness. There is evidence to support both propositions. With respect to the heritability of differences in ideological preference, it has generally been assumed that political attitudes are mostly determined by the environment; however, as mentioned, both twin and adoption studies reveal significant heritabilities for social and political attitudes as well as for stylistic tendencies. The theoretical stance taken so far predicts that the ease of producing patriotic sentiment and internal harmony varies with the genetic homogeneity of the national group."

Silverman and Case take exception to Rushton's hypothesis and put forth that conflict is born from pragmatism, not ethnocentrism. They give as an example the recent break up of Yugoslavia, where Serbia's traditional alliance with Russia, now struggling economically, was making it difficult to compete with its neighbors who had established economic relationships with Western European nations. Serbia felt isolated and torn apart, losing Kosovo would be just another economic hardship. This pragmatic attempt at expansionism used the rationale of ethnicity to mobilize Serbs against the Albanians in Kosovo. And the KLA in Kosovo likewise was using economic expansionism to inflame hatred for the Serbs in its terrorist gorilla war against the Serbs. Prior to the breakup of Yugoslavia, the Croats, Serbs, and Muslims were readily intermarrying without problems. But economic crisis pitted one group against another, with the help of the leadership flaming the fires of ethnic hatred.

 The same situation also occurred in Rwanda. There is in fact very little genetic difference between the Hutus and the Tutsis. The terms actually have more of a meaning of status, such as rich versus poor, so it was relative depending on ones own status. But under extreme poverty for most, and dominance of economic benefits by a few, genocide broke out between the two groups resulting in brutal atrocities by both sides.

Silverman and Case conclude,

"Studies of the ultimate origins of molar social variables, such as ethnocentric attitudes and human warfare, necessarily suffer somewhat in precision; hence, there probably are viable, alternative interpretations of our findings. Nevertheless, there are patterns in both our laboratory and historical data that appear contrary to the explanation of ethnocentrism based on ethnic nepotism or genetic relatedness, and that support the alternative perspective that human group alliances are pragmatic in their source and that ethnocentric attitudes are outcomes rather than antecedents of group conflict."

Note that both theories are just as likely to lead to conflict. The first cause is different, but in the end people will use salient ethnic differences to form into competing groups when they are present, but if they are not, then artificial ones will be selected. Stalin's slaughter of millions of kulaks in the Soviet Union was based on a definition of a kulak that was as flimsy as owning a cow, two pigs, and a horse. Millions upon millions of peasant farmers perished because Stalin gave orders to crush whole classes of people that were put into capricious artificial categories. Looking back however, it may have been the same cosmopolitan elitism we find in the United States today, where rural America is despised and ridiculed for being backward and unsophisticated by the Eastern elite.

The New Left: The End of Genocide or Just the Beginning?

No one represents the contradictions inherent in those who understand genetics and yet reject nature as well as Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. He is the principle researcher in the Human Genome Diversity Project and the author (along with Menozzi and Piazza) of The History and Geography of Human Genes as well as The Great Human Diaspora. The primary objective of this research is to track human migrations prior to 1500 A.D. using tools that include genes and languages. He has so far identified 42 races of people that he now calls population groups in order to be politically correct. (He has however not classified diaspora peoples such as Jews and Gypsies because they are bound not by geography but by cultural ties and are difficult to analyze, but he stated he is pursuing this task in the future.) Cavalli-Sforza has been one of the most outspoken critics of those who try to understand human nature through an evolutionary perspective. He claims it leads to atrocities! But what about the denial of our human nature?

As can be seen in the 20th Century, the denial of nature and empiricism by the radical environmentalist Marxists has resulted in the slaughter of humans far beyond any that could be imagined (according to Rummel):

Total slaughtered from Marxists rejection of nature and evolution: 103,587,000

Total slaughtered by National Socialists who believed in genetics: 20,946,000

 Five times more people (excluding war dead) have been slaughtered in the name of socialist egalitarianism and all of its unnatural flavors because Communists thought humans could be molded into anything they desired. We were putty in the hands of the state, without passion, without purpose. Humans were to be used for creating the state's vision of what ought to be, not what humans desired and needed to make them feel whole and give meaning to their lives. Communism, even without the deaths, tortures and famines strips humanity of everything it is and wants to be. It is the antithesis of life itself because it rejects life's natural mechanisms.

Cavalli-Sforza et al. (see Gould, Lewontin, Kamin, Rose, etc.) attempts to reason against evolutionary thinking by trying to link it to racism and racists, without realizing that he has fallen into the traps of propaganda set by other anti-evolutionary Marxists. Evolutionists like Stephen Jay Gould believe that evolution for natural history is scientifically sound, as long as it  does not apply to humans.  For humans, they advance a cultural determinist dogma. I will take apart chapter nine of The Great Human Diaspora entitled "Race and Racism" to explain the logic used by these anti-empiricists.

For almost all hereditary features, the differences found between individuals are much greater than those between racial groups. Only rarely do we encounter situations such as that visible for skin color--for which all the individuals of race A are decidedly dark-skinned and all those of race B are fair-skinned. In short, the level of constancy is not high enough to support the current definition of race. Distinguishing race is a complex matter. We have to rely on statistical frequencies for many features in many peoples, never just one. And, to make matters worse, we don't have an answer to the question "How many races exist on earth?"

This is of course all very meaningless, because people do separate on a number of factors, with race or kin relatedness just being one of them. As has been pointed out, human nature combined with ideology and indoctrinability allows people to form warring factions based on a number salient factors. His argument could even be used to state that there are greater differences between siblings in the same family than there are similarities, therefor families are meaningless! The problem is, parents will still want to leave their wealth to their children, even though they are all different, and there may in fact be other children in the neighborhood that are closer to one or the other parents than any of the children! I have come across numerous people that I am more alike than in comparison to either of my two parents. Does that make parent-child relationships meaningless? Should this also be an argument for the state raising children, and for their to be an end of nepotism? Well, as unfortunate as it is, Marxists have also tried to destroy the family with the same simplistic logic. The fact is, the argument on whether there is something we call "race" is as meaningless as the argument whether there is something we call "love." Both are human concepts that adapt well into how we perceive ourselves. And they are not going to go away because some people view all differences or population group diversity as something evil.

Racism has many origins and definitions, but we know that racists often worry about racial "purity." Let us dispense with this aspect first: There are no pure races, and if we tried to create one, the results would be most uninviting.

 Evolutionists are routinely called "racists." In order to do that, the Marxists have had to paint us with certain assertions that are in fact never heard today, and only enjoyed some fleeting popularity decades ago. No one who claims that there are racial differences advocates that racial purity is of any importance. No living academic that I am familiar with even has a notion of what racial purity means, much less why we would want to have it. So why is this objection heard over and over again? Because it is used, like most of the arguments in this chapter, as a means of advocating a radical environmentalist perspective that has no basis in science. It is again just Marxist propaganda.

In general, mixed marriages, including those between people of very different origins, create a more robust line of descendants. There is absolutely no known biological disadvantage to interracial marriage. Racism is the conviction that one race is biologically superior to the others. That is what underlies racists' concern for the "purity" of the race, they do not want this superiority to diminish or cease.

 Again, I have never heard anyone make the above claim. First, there is no advantage or disadvantage in marrying someone who is very different genetically, except you will probably not be very happy. People do look for similarities in their mates, and whether that other person is of the same or distant population group is quite meaningless. There has been a great deal of research with regards to hybrid vigor (marrying out) versus depressed viability (marrying cousins) and the consensus seems to be it has neither advantages nor disadvantages, unless inbreeding becomes severe. So clearly, Cavalli-Sforza is making a statement here that has no basis in fact. It is again merely meant as a means of setting an agenda for forced interbreeding of diverse population groups as government policy, as we shall see later.

Usually, we think our own "race" is the top one (if we take race to indicate a social group), independently of whether the justification we provide is biological (we are better looking or smarter than the others) or sociocultural (our life is more pleasant). People often make no attempt to separate biology and culture, but to consider them one and the same thing is a mistake.

Clearly, he would like the reader to believe that evolutionists somehow believe that they are superior as defined by whatever group they think they belong to! How absurd do you think it is to believe that at an international conference on evolution, a Japanese researcher is sitting across from a Jewish researcher and they are arguing which one is superior!! That is utter nonsense. In fact, from what I read of predominantly Western academics, they to a person state unequivocally that Pacific Rim Asians are on average more intelligent than Whites. This, and many other behavioral traits are often discussed routinely without value given to the different traits. That is, academics are more than willing to claim that another race is smarter, faster, taller, better natured, has a less addictive tendency towards alcoholism, etc. It is in fact in pursuit of science without Marxist dogma that diverse scientists can come together to understand human nature without bigotry and bias, something the Marxists are unable to do. You will note, that they spend an awful lot of their time calling other scientists names, rather than debating the issues in a dispassionate manner. But of course, this is what propaganda is all about, symbolism without substance. Not discussing facts but telling the big lies over and over again no matter how many times it is pointed out to be meaningless.

[Discussing how some nations are dominant or successful] The constant changes in power throughout history show how shifting it is and how difficult it is to keep for very long. Usually, success and power go hand in hand. The euphoric sensation of belonging to the world's top nation, or at least one of them, with all the associated advantages, easily induces us to believe that this supremacy is objective, innate, destined to last, whereas in reality it is the result of clever and lucky policies that may well prove ephemeral. History shows that these fortunate periods don't last--indeed, that they are destined to melt away, sometimes rapidly. With success gone, where does that leave the alleged superiority? It no longer has one sound argument in its favor. It is unthinkable that in the few generations it takes for even the greatest civilization to decline, the genetic code of a people can change, perhaps as a result of racial inbreeding--in particular with blacks or Orientals--as Gobineau thought.

 This statement is a bit confusing but it does show how only the old concepts are discussed, never any recent revelations or germane research that isn't at least 50 to 100 years old. All of these socialists rely on folk genetics to make their case. For example, researchers have routinely stated that Pacific Rim Asians are more intelligent than Whites on average. If the above statement is true, these same researchers would be saying quite the opposite because China has not had the success that the West has had in science and philosophy. Those of us who adhere to an evolutionary perspective know full well that humans create their cultures, and intelligence is not enough. We understand too well how creativity and civilizations can come and go, and we understand too well that it is the dogma and rigid ideology embraced by intelligent and yet irrational humans in pursuit of their political agendas that often stand in the way of progress.

But Cavalli-Sforza does state that being a member of a "top nation" is the result of "clever and lucky policies." Now isn't this bizarre that he would equate top nations with intelligence? Or his he claiming that being clever has nothing to do with intelligence, that is if we wait long enough there will surely be a "top nation" made up of "clever and lucky policies" adopted by chimpanzees. After all, chimpanzees can be clever and lucky. And of course a despotic state can be a top nation. The Soviet Union, with its adoption of radical environmentalism and its rejection of genetic determinism slaughtered many more millions of people than did the Nazis. Were they clever and lucky? It is apparent that Cavalli-Sforza has swerved far from science in this chapter to join forces with Marxists in trying to return to the old failed policies of forming society in accordance with class struggle. It is apparent that Communism has bubbled up again in Western academics and is setting the stage for a resumption of its atrocities in order to build the perfect egalitarian state on the tortured bodies of the masses. Elitism rears its ugly head again.

Various elements combine to make racism a form of deviancy, which is not at all unexpected. Racism is just one manifestation of a broader syndrome, xenophobia, the fear or hatred of foreigners and more generally of those who are different.

What is so sad about this statement is that it at first identifies a problem but then dismisses it in the same sentence. But of course it is Marxist again, there just could not be an innate tendency in people towards xenophobia or what is called ethnocentrism. What seems so strange about this statement is that there has been a robust discussion of ethnocentrism in chimpanzees and in humans. That is, it seems to be a natural tendency in both species to a varying degree. And he even goes on to admit that yes, it may even make communities feel better about themselves and may have an important evolutionary basis of survival. But, no, he lapses back into his diatribe and lamentations. Note that laying blame on racism to neurosis has been an ongoing tradition among Marxists, and especially Troskyites. Freud, The Frankfurt School, Boasian Anthropologists, etc. have all claimed that it is a sickness to have this or that tendency, and Marxism is equipped to find it and root it out--usually with a bullet or in a concentration camp. Yes, whenever you hear this line of reasoning the secret police are just around the corner. And what is Cavalli-Sforza's answer to all this deviancy? Well, it is genocide itself. Through genocide he is going to get rid of all races.

The main barrier, which is also the major test of racial equality, remains almost intact: The acceptability of mixed marriage. While marriage between whites and Americans of Asiatic, Amerind, and Polynesian derivation (in the Hawaiian islands) is more common, marriage between African and white Americans has increased very little since the first steps toward equal rights were taken. As the geneticist Curt Stern pointed out many years ago, if skin pigmentation were irrelevant in selecting a marriage partner, the color gap between black and white would disappear with two to three generations. The fact is that the cultural and economic differences are still too strong, and awareness of skin color is too ingrained, for the situation to change with satisfactory speed.

Again, Cavalli-Sforza's ethnophobia just assumes that there are no differences between groups. And yet, his own classification of ethnic groups and their genetic differences shows that Blacks are very different from Whites, and that Whites are quite similar to some Asian groups more than some Asian groups are related to each other (Again see Edward M. Miller for a brief discussion). So why does he just assume that relatedness has no basis in human nature? Because he chooses to do so in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

Racism is a chronic disease that one cannot hope to suppress rapidly or easily. But the frequency of terrorist racist actions, whether organized by governments, secret or not-so-secret societies, and gang warfare has become so high that countries should take strong measures to prevent them. There are two major therapies. One is preventive and cannot be expected to produce rapid results, but is absolutely fundamental: It is education at all levels. The other is political, juridical, social strong medicine to curb the explosion of violence and fanaticism that we witness. Parliaments should give appropriate, very strong laws; judges should mete out very strong punishments, and police should be up to the needs of very strong enforcement of such laws. Helping the social integration of such immigrants, by offering them good opportunities of learning useful skills and of becoming acquainted with the social structures of the host country, is also of the utmost importance.

The above speech could have just as well been given by Stalin prior to the planned famine and death squads that slaughtered millions of Ukrainians, or Pol Pot's massacre of millions of his own people to bring forth a new agrarian utopia. We have heard it before from Marxists: "only strong measures will root out the enemy." This statement of course is asking for nothing less than state terrorism against human nature and society itself. He is advocating genocide in the name of racial peace! Genocide includes "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part." Cavalli-Sforza wants an end to diversity, multiculturalism and freedom itself. If the above is not proof enough that we must shun all such cults and dogmas, and pursue only policies that have a firm foundation in human nature, we will never get out of this genocidal abyss that rides on the back of human indoctrinability, dominance, ideology and submissiveness to irrational appeals of utopias.