Introduction
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light."
Plato

    When man first acquired a brain capable of abstract thought, one of his first questions must have been, “Where did we come from?” His answer was to give himself a glorious origin - from gods, from the earth itself, from monsters or giant animals.
    But modern science offers a more mundane origin – man evolved from an ape, a member of the same family as today’s chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. 1 Millions of years later, a descendant of that ape had evolved far enough away from his simian ancestors to be given his own genus, Homo, man. Many more years and many species of Homo later, the first wise men, a somewhat primitive-looking Homo sapiens, arrived then, still later, the first very wise men, Homo sapiens sapiens, modern man, appeared. (Those who name themselves have the most laudatory names.)
    In paleoanthropology, the study of man’s extinct ancestors, much is in dispute and the farther back in time that one goes, the less certain is man’s lineage. Nevertheless, I have decided to accept the risk of error and make some plausible guesses at the early part of man’s journey, from his beginning as a primitive mammal until he walked on two feet, though the book will focus primarily on the question of how did man evolve from a bipedal ape to what he is today.
    Ask most paleoanthropologists where man originated and they, like Charles Darwin, will answer with a single word – “Africa” – Africa from the very beginning and every step of the way, save the last few when the races formed. Sub-Saharan (“s-S”) Africans, they will say, were the first modern people and the Asians evolved from the S-s Africans and then the Europeans evolved from the Asians. Not everyone agrees with that answer, however, and this book presents an alternative scenario.
    A layman might think that the question of modern man’s origins would be studied as other questions in science are studied, or at least as they are supposed to be studied – by dispassionately examining the evidence and letting the chips fall where they may. Unfortunately, when man studies himself, he is not an unbiased observer; anthropologists are not Martians, they are humans and, like everyone else, they have their ideological and psychological hang-ups.
    Like some of the first humans who asked where they came from, one might expect paleoanthropologists to favor a glorious past for their own people and a less reputable past for others, but that is not the case. Just as tennis etiquette dictates that the winner should not gloat over his victory but should graciously inform the loser that he played well and was a formidable opponent, even though it is clearly not true, most paleoanthropologists try not to draw attention to the differences between different populations, so they minimize the strengths of their own people and exaggerate the strengths of others.
    Why they do this is an interesting question, since it is surely more natural to boast than to denigrate oneself, but there is, nevertheless, a powerful need to do so. And anthropologists are not the only people behaving this way. It is now the only acceptable behavior in all Western (white) societies, including the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. And, although the winning tennis player who tells his losing opponent, “You stink at tennis,” suffers only a frown for his breach of etiquette, making a remark that an ethnic group finds objectionable can cost you a fine and land you in jail, especially if it is true.
    Egalitarianism, the dominant ideology of our time, holds that all people everywhere are equal, at least genetically, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply not acceptable. 2 I will call those who permit no one to question genetic equality the “Equality Police.” On most college campuses, the Equality Police have speech codes (i.e., rules that prohibit free speech) and (required) sensitivity sessions (i.e., brainwashing), and those who are “insensitive” (i.e., think for themselves) may end up disciplined, expelled, or worse. 3 Research that might reveal racial differences, particularly in intelligence and behavior, is strictly verboten, which has made it difficult to gather up-to-date information for this book, in some areas necessitating reliance upon data that was gathered over a century ago.
    The origin of egalitarianism and the damage it has done to science and to scientists is mostly beyond the scope of this book, but it should be noted that egalitarianism is an intellectual plague that has infected mostly the West and has left s-S Africans and Asians relatively unscathed. Particularly in anthropology, psychology, and sociology, the scientific study of racial differences has been corrupted by egalitarianism. 4 Only those conclusions that are consistent with racial egalitarianism may be published by reputable journals 5 and any research that might produce data to the contrary is not financed by government or any organization that wishes to be avoid being labeled a “hate” group.
    What happens when man sees the world not as it is, but as he wishes it to be? He makes unwise decisions that lead to disasters and the waste of vital resources. He fails to progress and stagnates in his backward imaginary world. Like Lamarck, and later Lysenko, who believed that changes in the environment could not only improve living things, but that those improvements would be inherited and passed on to the next generation, today’s egalitarians also hold that genetics is not a constraint – it does not determine men’s fate. But unlike Lysenko, the reason is not that the environment can change genes, 6 but that the genes of all people everywhere are already virtually the same. It is only the environment that has made people different – poor education, poor nutrition, poverty, and most of all, the evil racism of white people. 7 All that is necessary in order for everyone everywhere to be equally successful and accomplished is to provide an equal environment and do “whatever it takes” to get rid of white racism.
    Today in the West we are living through that same political climate that the anti-Lysenko scientists faced in the Soviet Union. A scientist’s conclusions had better be the “right” conclusions, or else. 8 He will not disappear entirely, as some of those scientists did, but he may well disappear from his place of employment and from the pages of respectable journals, even if he is lucky enough to avoid prison. 9 As Charles Murray famously put it, “When it comes to race, science is corrupt.” 10
    Egalitarianism has more power over the people of the West than any other ideology. It has destroyed careers, bankrupted companies, and wasted trillions of dollars. The weak cringe, lie, and relinquish their wealth and the welfare of themselves and their children to avoid the wrath of the Equality Police. The strong and principled, who will not bend, are demonized and ostracized.
    The Equality Police do not permit any cracks in the egalitarian edifice, and those who defy them suffer the modern version of the Inquisition. Jon Entine wrote the book, Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We’re Afraid to Talk About It (Entine, 2001), where he documented racial differences in athletic ability, with blacks excelling in sports that required jumping (e.g., basketball) and running (e.g., football, track, and marathons) 11 and whites excelling in swimming, diving, and gymnastics. Had he stopped there, his book would have drawn little ire from the Equality Police, as those observations are obvious to all. But Entine went on to show that the anatomy of blacks and whites differs in ways that account for those differences in athletic ability. Anatomical differences are not as “superficial” as skin and hair are said to be, but go much deeper, and threaten the core premise of egalitarianism, that all peoples are genetically equal. For that, he was vilified.
    Dr. J. Philippe Rushton, a psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, suffered even more when he discussed intellectual and other differences between the races. In Race, Evolution, and Behavior (Rushton, 2000a), 12 he noted that Africans American had an average IQ of 85 and s-S Africans of only 70. Had he gone on to say that this was due to the shameful racism of whites, who biased the tests and denied blacks the education needed to obtain a high IQ on those tests, he might have been a hero. But instead, he said this IQ gap was not due to bias or the environment, but to genetic differences, such as a smaller brain. And he was demonized, ostracized by his university, and even investigated by the police for criminal conduct. 13
    That bastion of multiculturalism, 14 the self-righteous United Nations, was even provoked to declare that there was no proof of racial differences in intelligence. (“Statement on Race,” 1950). And one prominent geneticist, Dr. Bruce Lahn, gave up doing research into genetic differences between the races that affect intelligence because it was “too controversial.” (Regalado, 2006). Spenser Wells, the head of the National Geographic Society’s Genographic Project, a five-year, forty million dollar effort to collect DNA samples from 100,000 indigenous people, said that brain differences will not be studied because, “I think there is very little evidence of IQ differences between the races,” despite massive evidence to the contrary. (Id.).
    Scientists, just as most of the remainder of the white population, are terrified of being labeled “racist” by the Equality Police. 15 From some of their convoluted publications, one suspects that they do not dare question egalitarianism even in their own minds, much like “double-think” in George Orwell’s “1984,” where Winston had to suppress even his own thoughts.
    Just as Entine may not suggest that there are racial difference in athletic ability and Rushton may not suggest that there are racial difference in intellectual ability, scientists may not suggest that the races diverged a long time ago (and therefore had plenty of time to evolve into genetically very different peoples). No, since all the races are genetically equal, they could not have diverged long ago, and therefore the origin of modern man must be recent and all the discoveries in the study of modern human origins must support that conclusion.
    How far will the Equality Police go to distort and suppress our origins? 16 Here is one story from Great Britain by Armand M. Leroi:

    The scientific theory of modern human origins that is consistent with egalitarianism is the “OoA” (Out-of-Africa) theory. OoA hold that modern man (Homo sapiens sapiens) arose in Africa, then migrated out of Africa. Thus, consistent with egalitarianism, all living human beings are fully modern. Furthermore, since that migration out of Africa occurred recently (about 65,000 ya), very little human evolution has had time to occur since then. 17 Because the migrating s-S Africans were fully modern and there has not been enough time for any significant genetic changes to occur, all living human beings must be genetically equal. In essence, then, “we are all Africans.” 18
    OoA is the accepted theory of modern human origins. It is in the textbooks and is taught in colleges and universities and is taken for granted by scientists. Even Rushton believes that it is correct (Rushton, 2000a, pp 217-233). But science moves inexorably onward in its march towards the truth. The truth will prevail, not because man is noble or wise, but because man cannot long survive when he has an erroneous view of reality. Eventually, erroneous man will be supplanted by those who see reality as it really is.

Chapter 1

Table of Contents

FOOTNOTES

1. “…apes are more like men than like monkeys.” (Howells, 1959, p. 75). “… 18 of the 23 chromosomes of modern humans are virtually identical to those of the common precursor of the orangutan, gorilla, and chimpanzee.” (Corballis, 1991, p. 35, citing Yunis, 1982). Back

2.  An exception is made for differences in appearance, e.g., skin and hair. Some egalitarians more narrowly say that there are no genetic differences in intelligence and character (Putnam, 1967, p. 4), but the broader meaning is more commonly used. Egalitarianism is related to the (obviously false) “Dogma of Zero Group Differences,” that when two populations are tested for a trait, no statistically significant (heritable) differences will be found. (Derbyshire, 2006). These egalitarians are sometimes called “bioegalitarians,” for their belief in biological equality, rather than political or spiritual equality. Back

3. In 2006, Danish intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg was fired for reporting a slight IQ difference between the sexes. (Carey, B. “Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege,” New York Times, Aug. 21, 2007). “I know that many world-class researchers are terrified of the anti-racial thought police.” (Glayde Whitney, geneticist). Back

4. Franz Boaz was one of the early corruptors: “… fear of loss of jobs or status became common in the field of anthropology unless conformity to the racial equality dogma was maintained.” (Simpson, 2003, p. 657; Putnam, 1961, pp. 19, 49; Putnam, 1967, Chap. II). “By 1915, Boas and his students controlled the American Anthropological Association and by 1926 they headed every major American university anthropology department.” (Hornbeck, S., review of (MacDonald, 2002b)). Back

5. An example of the censorship of racial reality can be found in the various editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica. The entry on “Portugal” describes the importation of African slaves and their intermarriage with Europeans, while the more recent versions ignore this entirely. Back

6.  The inheritance of acquired characteristics is not to be confused with epigenetics, where environmental factors can turn genetic switches on or off and the position of those switches is inherited. Back

7. Narrowly defined, “racism” does not apply to all views on race, only those that hold that one race is superior. Biologically, no race is superior in an absolute or overall sense, just better adapted to a particular environment. Some believe that merely noticing racial differences is not “racism.” As Dr. Clifton Chadwick points out, “Let me repeat: you are not a racist if you simply point out racial differences,” which is what scientists do. ("Do Racial Differences Exist? When Is One a Racist?," Publius Pundit, Sept. 13, 2006). Nor should preferring or not preferring a particular race constitute “racism,” as almost everyone has such preferences. “[A racist is] anyone who is winning an argument with a liberal.” (Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation). A bigot is: "One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion you do not entertain." (Ambrose Bierce). Back

8. To suggest that race is real “can be something close to professional suicide.” (Satel, S., Policy Review, Dec. 2001). Geneticist Henry Harpending co-authored an article about Jewish intelligence (Cochran, 2006), then said he could never have done so had he not been a senior professor with tenure. Back

9. Andrew Fraser, a respected professor at Marquette University in Australia commented that the immigration of non-Europeans into Australia might not be good for the country, after which he was spat upon by his own colleagues and removed from teaching. Also see (Glad, 2006, pp. 88-92). The only subject that can get someone fired faster than anti-egalitarianism is WWII revisionism. Back

10.  The American Association of Physical Anthropologists recently announced: "… old biological concepts of race no longer provide scientifically valid distinctions…" (strangly implying, that they once did). Similarly, the American Anthropological Association proclaimed " … differentiating species into biologically defined 'races' has proven meaningless and unscientific as a way of explaining variation…"
    A good example of such corruption is Stephen Jay Gould, “…racism … can claim no factual foundation in any real differences among human groups.” (Zimmer, 2001, p. xiii). Also see (MacDonald, 2002b, p. 30-49; Lynn, R., "Science in the service of ideology: Stephen Jay Gould was admired by journalists but not by scientists"; Davis, 1983; The Mismeasure of Gould: Marxist ideology vs. biological reality; and Jensen's The Debunking of Scientific Fossils and Straw Persons). “Gould, though made aware [of errors in his first edition of The Mismeasure of Man] simply ignored them in his second edition.” (Sarich, 2004, p. 72). Another example is Otto Klineberg. (Garrett, 1960). Three biologists, Lewontin, Rose, and Kamin actually supported perverting science to achieve socialism. “We share a commitment to the prospect of the creation of a more socially just—a socialist—society. And we recognize that a critical science is an integral part of the struggle to create that society, …” (Not In Our Genes: Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature, 1984). Also see the 3 reviews of Jared Diamond’s book Guns, Germs, and Steel by Garrett Hardin, Michael Levin, and in (Sailer, 2007b). Hart (2007) also counters Diamond’s book. Incidentally, Gould, Lewontin, Rose, Kamin, Diamond, Levin, and Hart are Jewish. Back

11. “No white has ever run a 100m in less than 10 seconds. At least 30 blacks have.” (La Griffe du Lion, "Black Athletes: Can Whites Measure Up?"). One might ask, “If everyone is genetically the same, and whites control white societies and keep blacks down, why are blacks so successful at these sports?” Back

12. Transaction Publishers sent 35,000 copies of an abridged version of this book to scholars. The Progressive Sociologists threatened to ostracize Transaction, who then withdrew the book, apologized, and said it had “all been a mistake.” (Rushton, J.P. "History of Race, Evolution, and Behavior"). Back

13. (Rushton, J.P. "The New Enemies of Evolutionary Science"; Seligman, D., “The case of Michael Levin – race, scholarship, and affirmative action”; Whitney, G., “Ideology and Censorship in Behavioral Genetics'; Rushton, J.P., "Victim of scientific hoax – Cyril Burt and the genetic IQ controversy"). Back

14.  Multiculturalism is the view that all cultures are equally meritorious. Multiculturalism follows naturally from egalitarianism since, if everyone is genetically equal, then the cultures they create should also be equal. (After all, if they did not create equal cultures, one might suspect that they were not genetically capable of doing so.) If all cultures are equal, then all cultures should be equally respected and people of all cultures should not only be able to live peacefully together in the same territory, but it is desirable that they should do so in order to gain from the diversity they will be exposed to. However, it is doubtful that the multiculturalists will consider a racist culture to be equal to other cultures. Back

15. People may say, “sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me,” but not when it comes to being called a “racist.” The purpose of pejorative name-calling, e.g., “racist,” “anti-Semitic,” “Nazi,” “hater,” is to silence and discredit a speaker. The implication is that the speaker is motivated by an irrational hatred and is just making things up to damage the people he supposedly hates; therefore, his statements can be assumed to be false and can be ignored. Motives, however, are not relevant to the truth of what is said, and ulterior motives can be inferred only if it can be shown that the speaker knows he is not telling the truth. Indeed, “hate” is a powerful motivation for digging up damaging, but true, information that would otherwise never come to light. Name-calling is resorted to only when a speaker cannot be refuted by evidence and rational argument; the victim of name-calling should therefore be given the presumption of being correct until he is refuted. "Truth is ‘hate’ to those who hate the truth." Hate is expressed as anger, and the anti-haters, typically are very angry, which implies that they have great deal of hatred. Anger, and the hatred that goes with it, is nature’s way of keeping us alive. Those who condemn the anger and hatred of others are just attempting to disarm them. Thus, the real argument is over whose hate is adaptive and whose hate is maladaptive. That issue is explored in Section V. Back

16. “Even seriously-minded investigators who believed that the evidence for such [racial] differences was plain, hesitated to publicize these views lest they feed ammunition to the racial extremists.” (Porteus, 1961). And others distort their writings to support egalitarianism. (Garrett, 1960; Jensen, 1982). Back

17. The OoA theory is sometimes referred to as the Recent African Origin (RAO) theory. Back

18.  “The human species started in Africa. In that sense, yes, we're all Africans. ... We're all equally African is the only way to think of it, because that's where the species started.” “Race: The Power of an Illusion,” PBS television series, interview with Stephen Jay Gould (2003). “[T]he ancestor of all living human beings … [was] … a black man from Ethiopia.” (Alles, 2006). Back