|Chapter 34 - Egalitarianism
|“Whatever may be the sociological value of the legal fiction that ‘all men are born free and equal,’ there can be no doubt that … in its biological application, at any rate, this statement is one of the most stupendous falsehoods ever uttered by man through his misbegotten gift of articulate speech."
|Dr. Earnest Hooton, Professor of Anthropology at Harvard University 1
“Ideas have consequences,” 2
and one might add that bad ideas (ideas that conflict with reality) have bad consequences. Certainly the prize for the worst idea of all time has to go to Marxism and its political embodiment, Communism, which resulted in the death of over 100,000,000 people in the twentieth century. 3
Today, Marxism lives on only in the minds of academics, who live quite comfortably under capitalism. 4
The second worst idea could well be egalitarianism. 5
The dictionary says it means, “a belief in human equality.” That idea might not be objectionable if it were limited equality before God 6
or before the law, 7
as in “all men are created equal,” but it is now applied to genetically-controlled traits, that no population differs genetically from any other population, except in trivial differences in appearance. 8
But obvious racial differences in appearance are only a small percentage of the number of racial differences, and whether they are “trivial” or not depends upon who is making that decision; what is of no importance to one person may be vital to another. 9 As we have seen, egalitarianism must ignore some genetic differences as “trivial,” though the line that divides the trivial from the important is hard to draw. Since, clearly, man’s early ancestors were not the equal of modern man, egalitarians must divide our ancestors into those who were our equals (“Homo erectus?) and those earlier in our lineage who were not. The living are all supposedly equal and the long-ago deceased are all presumably unequal, but the vast humanity in between is anyone’s guess. How far back in man’s lineage is it necessary to go to reach the unequal, where differences are no longer “trivial”? And, no matter where the line is drawn, some on one side will be more like those on the other side, and those near the boundary will differ in ways so minuscule as to be of no significance.
There are a number of other problems with egalitarianism. If there are no significant genetic differences between populations, then:
Some ideologies tell you what reality should be (i.e., how we should live our lives) but others tell you what reality is. An example of the former is modern day Christianity, other than anti-evolution fundamentalists, and an example of the latter is the old Roman Catholic Church, which insisted that the sun revolved around the earth. The ideologists who tell us what reality is typically insist that it must be that way and become quite agitated when reality doesn’t behave the way it is supposed to, and angry at those who disturb their equanimity by pointing this out to them. Egalitarianism is such an ideology. It holds that all populations are genetically equal, but when reality refuses to cooperate, its adherents desperately insist that it must be so, that somehow a reality in which it is not so is not possible. 11
“voluntarily segregated all-white and all-black societies would be equal and there would be no ethical or logical argument against such societies. It is only if the races are not equal that arguments (not necessarily valid arguments) can be made for integration or the immigration of one race into the homeland of another race; and
“diversity cannot be ‘celebrated’ and it cannot be a ‘strength’ as there is no racial diversity of any significance.” 10
Egalitarianism, and any ideology that conflicts with reality, is doomed from the beginning though, like a zombie, once killed it refuses to remain dead because it fulfills a psychological need. Examples abound. Communism held that people could be educated to sacrifice for the state, and that once they were transformed, their children would inherit this admirable quality. They were not and they did not. Feminism, the fatherless child of egalitarianism, held that the sexes, including confused and undifferentiated sexes, are genetically equal and therefore interchangeable, except for giving birth and nursing, where nature refused to go along. Thus, any suggestions that women cannot compete with men at sports and are less suited for careers in the military, sciences, or in math, are met with fury. 12 Not only women, but anyone who does not measure up, including the handicapped and uninvited non-English speakers from other countries, must be raised to their inherently equal abilities by giving them the special teachers and facilities needed to let a thousand flowers bloom. Anyone incapable of distancing himself from reality who points out that, despite these efforts, people are still not equal, must be silenced, for they threaten the desperately-held beliefs of the emotionally-controlled equalizers. Every ideology that is at war with reality, as egalitarianism is, must ultimately fail; the only question is how much harm it will do before it does.
Man’s ideological conflicts with reality arise from his anthropocentrism, his arrogant view that the universe revolves around him. Egalitarianism is an anthropocentric ideology – it is based on the premise that man is not like other animals, each evolving differently to adapt to a different environment, but was somehow miraculously spared the “try and die” gauntlet of evolution. Unlike animals, who fight for territories and mates, all human populations are supposedly capable of living in harmony in the same territory, cheerfully yielding to those who threaten the survival of their alleles. But the reality is that the same biological laws that constrain other animals also apply to us.
As cheerleaders have long known, people who believe that their own group is superior to other groups, even if it is not, are more successful than people who believe their group is the pits. 13 Greater success is an excellent reason for having a group identity and for favoring one’s own group.
There is a subtle conflict between egalitarianism and man’s nature as a group animal. Egalitarianism is not just an intellectual ideology – that people are genetically equal – but, in order to gain adherents, it must heavily rely upon the emotion of empathy. Normal people (i.e., not sociopaths) identify with others and can and do feel what other people are suffering. That feeling provides a basis for egalitarianism’s intellectual case. But we feel empathy only because we are group animals;14 our feeling of empathy is there to control us and induce us to sacrifice for the benefit of our group ("Group Selection," Chap. 5) so that our group can successfully compete with other groups – that is its biological reason d’être. If we were not group animals, we would have no need to feel empathy. Indeed, empathy would be maladaptive and would soon disappear because those who felt it would reduce their own chances of reproducing and increase the chances of those who lacked it to reproduce, i.e., everyone would be a psychopath. Egalitarianism, however, needs that emotion to play a different and conflicting role, namely to sacrifice for other groups to the detriment of our own group. Thus, empathy is “bad” for egalitarianism when it is adaptive and does what it evolved to do – increase ethnocentricity, but “good” when it is maladaptive and does the opposite of what it evolved to do – reduce ethnocentricity by making us identify with people of other ethnies.
For millions of years, man and his predecessors lived in small groups that competed with other groups. Man evolved when individuals in his group became better adapted for surviving and reproducing not only as individuals, but also as a group. Group-orientated behavior is deeply ingrained in man’s genome; ideology can suppress it, but it will not remove it. Even if two groups are genetically equal (and races are not), they are not equal socially because the members of each group do not see the members of other groups as their equals – the members of one group are not interchangeable with members of another group, so they are not equal in the eyes of the only people who count, the members of the two groups. 15 Egalitarianism is an ideology that is at war with biology, and nature’s creations cannot long survive following a self-destructive ideology. 16 Biology tells man to fight and defeat his competitors. Egalitarianism tells man, at least if he is white, to welcome his competitors and help them triumph over him.
And how will those non-whites who benefited from the white egalitarian’s hara-kiri remember him? As a noble creature who would rather go extinct than forego his ideology and Christ-like morality? No, if he is remembered at all it will be as a fool who was conned into casually tossing away 3½ billion years of evolution to benefit those who were less adapted to successfully contribute to modern civilization, thereby setting back the entire human species.
In 1950, the hooligans at the United Nations officially declared that “all the races are equal in intelligence.” Although losing contact with reality is a psychosis, let’s be more generous and say that the statement is due to either ignorance or deception. That all human populations, living in vastly different environments all over the world for at least hundreds of thousands of years should, just coincidently, end up with exactly the same intelligence, though they differ in thousands of other traits is contradicted by every intelligence test ever given to them. Are all dog breeds also equally intelligent?
Every teacher of an integrated class, every social worker, every policeman on the beat, soon learns that the races are not interchangeable. No one denies that genetics makes dog breeds differ in intelligence and behavior, but it is a modern day sin to suggest that the same is true of human races. Although there is massive evidence (Section II) that the “Mysterious Black-White Gap” between black and white achievement is due to genetic racial differences, the egalitarians insist it is environmental – whites simply have a superior environment. But to blame whites for not giving blacks the same environment that whites have created for themselves implies that, without whites, blacks are incapable of creating that environment. Since blacks who have never seen a white person (e.g., some Africans) achieve even less than blacks who suffer under white racism, 17 that implication is no doubt true.
The logic of the egalitarian is that since everyone is genetically equal, the fact that everyone is not equal in wealth, accomplishments, or in other ways means that their environments are not equal; to an egalitarian, physical racial differences (most of Section II) are trivial and of no significance and therefore behavioral racial differences (Chapter 12) must be environmental, not genetic. Thus, equalizing the environments of blacks and whites will make everyone equally intelligent, civilized, and well-behaved. When it does not, a more sinister source of inequality is sought – the whites must be deliberately, or at least unconsciously, oppressing the blacks. 18 This leads to hostility towards the productive whites, who must be at least insensitive, if not wicked, and sympathy for and glorification of their less productive black victims.
Whenever a minority politician is elected to office, or achieves any position of power, he is quite explicit in stating that he wants to help his people, and everyone finds that normal and acceptable, and even commendable. 19 And, when he does help his people, he helps propagate his own alleles, because his people have more of his alleles than do other people; bias is adaptive. 20 But such adaptive behavior is not permissible for whites, who are expected to watch their own people lose out without a whimper.
The best strategy for elected politicians is usually to offend no one. Politicians fear divisive issues like vampires fear sunlight. Ethnic strife forces them to take sides, which means losing large blocks of votes no matter which side they take. Using hate laws and censorship to stamp out those who stir up ethnic conflict makes getting re-elected so much easier. Similarly, the mass media has little to gain and much to lose from publicizing material that is insulting to some of its viewers, readers, and advertisers. Recently, for example, the U.S. press and television refused to show cartoons of the prophet Mohammed that had sparked world-wide protests by Muslims.
Egalitarians should support democracy, especially for multicultural nations because, if everyone is genetically equal, everyone should have one vote. However, one can only imagine what would happen if the last remnants of the white majority voted as a block in their own racial interests, the way various racial minorities do. 21 When voters vote as blocks, one vote is not one equal portion of political influence, even in those rare occasions when influence is not for sale; eventually democracies become troops of hyenas fighting over a dead carcass. The only solutions are a dictatorship, e.g., Tito in Yugoslavia or Hussein in Iraq, who can dish out the rewards and punishments needed to hold a multicultural nation together, or libertarianism, where the government is so small that it has no loot to dish out; the latter, however, is unlikely to ever be adopted as no one wants to forego what he is now getting.
Certainly, a democracy is maladaptive for a genetically cohesive majority, as it reduces their genetic fitness. It would be far wiser for that majority to limit voting to (mostly) their own members, as the Jews in Israel have done. To the egalitarians this is, of course, the most blatant form of racism, but for the white majority the choice is racism or extinction. The minorities can always go to or form their own countries, where they are the majority, and run it as they wish.
(Genetic) egalitarianism is based not on rationality, but on the Kum-bay-yah sentimentality of universal brotherhood and love. Any facts contrary to those feel-good, but unrealistic, emotions, e.g., genetic differences, must be denied and suppressed because they are just too upsetting. Egalitarianism is stress-relief for the reality-challenged.
One can imagine an egalitarian going to a race track and saying to the first person he meets, “You know, all those horses would be equally as fast if they had just had the same quality of food and training.” Blank stare. “I think some of the horses lose because people think they can’t win and the horses believe it,” he adds. Another blank stare. His last statement is, “Horse racing is really just plain wrong because it makes the horses that lose feel bad about themselves.” Yet, when he makes the same points about people, hundreds of billions of dollars chase his every word.
Egalitarianism is a reckless experiment promoted by rebellious teenage minds, a bet of the entire future of our species, based on only the arrogance of those who will brook no challenge to their ideology. When the experiment is finally complete, and human diversity has been replaced by a single mongrelized breed incapable of maintaining a modern civilization, it will be too late to recover what we once had.
Table of Contents
1. (Hooton, 1939, p. 342). Back
2. (Weaver, R. M., “Ideas Have Consequences,” University of Chicago Press, 1948). Back
3. (Courtois, S., et al., "The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression," Harvard University Press, 1999). Back
4. Japan, S. Korea, and China are three market-capitalist countries whose bright lights are easily visible from space. Nearby is a strange dark shape - socialist North Korea. The 38th parallel that divides North and South Korea is the only man-made line that can be seen from space. Back
5. Marxism is based on egalitarianism. “[Communism and socialism] … drew their major nourishment from supposedly unwarranted economic and social inequalities among men. To recognize that many of the inequalities were not unwarranted, that they were instead biologically constituted and consequently inevitable, was to cut to the root of every left-wing doctrine, called by whatever name.” (Putnam, 1967, p. 9). Back
6. On the other hand, “Religious people who insist that ‘all men are equal in the sight of God,’ thereby plainly reveal their conviction that men ought to be treated as equals here and now.” (Earnest A. Hooton, Professor of Anthropology at Harvard University, quoted in Simpson, 2003, p. 290). Back
7. U.S. Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, who also wrote, “In memory they [blacks] are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous.” Back
8. Note that “egalitarianism,” as used in this book, is the dictum that everyone is genetically equal, i.e., “bioegalitarianism”; it does not refer to making people economically equal. An argument can be made that sharing resources, i.e., “economic equality,” is, or at least was, somewhat genetically-induced and adaptive because when people lived in small groups their survival depended upon sharing food and other resources, though the sharing would have been mostly limited to close relatives since almost everyone in the group was a blood relative. Today, the much stronger case is that economic equality, especially when it is coerced, is maladaptive as it punishes those who work and save and rewards those who are lazy and impulsive, thus giving everyone an incentive to not produce. Reproductive success requires consumption, which in turn requires production. Back
9. One can say that some values are harmful (e.g., smoking) and others beneficial (e.g., exercise), but it is not possible to objectively show that one should choose particular values because a “should” cannot be deduced from an “is.” (David Hume’s “Is-Ought” argument, Chap. 36). For that reason, although differences in people can be labeled “trivial,” it is not possible to say that trivial differences should have no effect on one’s choices. (Fuerle, 1986). Back
10. (MacLaren, A., internet post, “When Logic Fails,” Mar. 2, 2006). “Ironically, denial of the reality of race often prefaces a denunciation of race bias, with little explanation given of how people can respond to a trait that no one possesses and no one understands. It should be obvious as well that repudiating race forbids advocacy of racial preferences, although few critics of the race concept have faulted affirmative action on this account.” (Levin, 1997, p. 19). Blacks who blame their failures on the resistance of whites to integration implicitly concede that they are not genetically equal to whites because they are saying that whites can succeed without blacks, but blacks cannot succeed without whites. Back
"Diversity training" also requires a contradiction: "To better treat one another as individuals, we must stop seeing people as individuals, and instead acknowledge their identities as members of a particular group." (Gifford, B., "The Unbearable Whiteness of Being," Washington City Paper, Nov. 12, 1993). It is also illogical to deny the reality of race yet admit the reality of breeds of dogs, as breeds are no different than races. Because diversity destroys the trust needed to function efficiently as a group, it weakens the military. (Hengest, D., “Diversity in the Army,” American Renaissance, Vol. 19, No. 1, Jan., 2008).
11. “Reality is what refuses to go away when you do not believe in it.” (Pinker, S., "The Lessons of the Ashkenazim," The New Republic Online, June 26, 2006). Back
12. Larry Summers, just installed as the new president of Harvard University, naively believing that problems at this august institution could be solved rationally and logically in open debate, set out all the possible reasons why not many women enrolled in the sciences and math, one of those reasons being that they were genetically less capable. Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at MIT, could not decide whether to throw up or black out at this shocking display of truth-speaking. Not long afterwards, the leftist professors gave Summers the boot and, not long after that, several papers were published confirming that the female brain is different from the male mind, something already well known to those of us who passed Puberty 101. Back
13. (See Chapter 8). A great deal of racism is actually “cheerleading,” boosting the morale and cohesiveness of one’s own racial group, a practice that is adaptive if it is not unrealistic. Back
14. Some species of great apes can also feel empathy towards others (De Waal, 1997, p. 35). While it is likely that one must possess functioning mirror neurons to feel empathy, it is not yet clear what the connection is, if any, between possessing mirror neurons and passing the "mirror test." (Mirror Test, Wikipedia). Dogs, for example, seem to have some social control feelings, e.g., submissiveness, but cannot pass the mirror test. Back
15. The idea that if a person will not exchange A for B, then they are not “equal” or “the same” in his mind, regardless of how physically identical they are, comes from Austrian economics; to put it another way, they are concepts by intuition, not concepts by postulation. (Northrop, The Meeting of East and West, 1979, pp. 446-448; also see “same good,” in the first paragraph of Chapter 23 of Fuerle, 1986). Back
16. A good example of ideologues sacrificing the lives of (other) people is the opposition to donor transplants when the donor picks the recipient. Some hospitals will not even perform the operation unless the recipient is selected by the Equality Police. Here is another example from Robert S. Schwartz, a deputy editor at the New England Journal of Medicine, who does not want the race of a patient to be taken into account, even if it kills him (the patient, that is): "Race is not only imprecise but also of no proven value in treating an individual patient." Perhaps he is not familiar with the journal, Ethnicity and Health? Back
17. To many egalitarians, the term “white racism” is redundant as they believe that only whites are capable of racism. A 2006 web page of the Seattle Public Schools defines racism as: "The systematic subordination of members of targeted racial groups who have relatively little social power in the United States (Blacks, Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asians), by the members of the agent racial group who have relatively more social power (Whites)." In a predominately white country, anti-racism and multiculturalism mean attacking whites and their culture. “… people of color cannot be racists… “ (2007 program at U. of Delaware, Unruh, B., “University defends teaching students all whites ‘racist’,” World Net Daily, Nov. 1, 2007). Back
18. “The educated negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a negro.” H.L. Mencken. Back
19. Black politicians overwhelmingly support wealth transfer programs that burden whites to benefit blacks, even forming their own Congressional Caucus to do so. (Sailer, 2008b; Sperry, P., "Obama's Stealth Reparations," Front Page Magazine, Oct. 28, 2008). “Black presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama got standing ovations from liberal Democrats by promising to double foreign aid, most of which would go to Africa. (Kondracke, M. "Obama’s foreign vision is exciting — and also naive," Leader Call, Aug. 6, 2007). An extreme case is the way Jews in power favor Israel to the detriment of the U.S., e.g., the neo-Conservatives, who got us into the Iraq War. Back
20. To be free of prejudice requires deluding oneself with “intellectual, moral and emotional dishonesty” and “has several dire consequences for the individual and society as a whole.” (Dalrymple, T., In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas). Back
21. Minorities everywhere tend to be more cohesive than majorities. (Salter, 2003). Back