Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for June, 2014

Background to Treason:

 

The Balfour Declaration

 

William Pierce

Background to Treason - 0819

[Image] Arthur Balfour

 http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/06/background-to-treason-the-balfour-declaration/

 

Editor’s Note:

 

The following text by William Pierce is an excerpt from a longer text, “Background to Treason: A Brief History of U.S. Policy in the Middle East, Part 1: From the Exodus to the Balfour Declaration.” I simply removed everything before the discussion of the Balfour Declaration. Pay no mind to Pierce’s passing reference to the now thoroughly discredited Khazar account of the originals of Ashkenazi Jewry.

————————-

 

The middle of the 19th century saw a growing restlessness in the Jews of eastern and central Europe. The Industrial Revolution and all the changes in trade, transportation, and life-styles that came with it had broken up old patterns and created new opportunities, and the Jews began reorganizing themselves to take advantage of these.

 

They created two new movements: one, preaching internationalism and class warfare was directed primarily toward the Gentiles. It was Communism, and its principal founder was the Jew Karl Marx.

 

The other, directed toward the Jews only, preached Jewish nationalism and solidarity It was Zionism, and one of its first proponents was Moses Hess, a close associate and friend of Marx. Hess’s book Rome and Jerusalem, published in 1862, was one of the seminal documents of the Zionist movement.

 

 

Background to Treason - 0820

[Image] Moses Hess

 

The Zionists wanted to establish an exclusively Jewish national state, from which they could direct the activities of the Jews spread throughout the Gentile world — and eventually direct the Gentile world itself Toward this end groups of Jews from Europe began buying up land in Palestine and establishing Jewish colonies there in the 1870s and 1880s.

 

This colonization activity inevitably provoked the fear and resentment of the Palestinians, and in response the Turkish administrators took measures to limit the activities of the Zionists in Palestine. The Jews countered by seeking political allies among the Gentiles in England and Europe and looking for ways to bring pressure against the Turks.

 

To coordinate their moves they organized a Zionist Congress, which held its first meeting in August 1897, in Basle, Switzerland The leading figure at the first Zionist Congress was Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), whose book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State), published in Vienna the year before, contained a cogent summary of the Zionist position.

 

Background to Treason - 0821

 [Image] Theodor Herzl

According to Herzl: “Every nation in whose midst Jews live is, either covertly or openly, anti-Semitic…. Anti-Semitism increases day by day and hour by hour among the nations; indeed, it is bound to increase, because the causes of its growth continue to exist and cannot be removed.

 

He saw this anti-Semitism, which arose naturally wherever the Jewish presence made itself felt, as a blessing, because it kept the Jews conscious of their unique status, prevented their assimilation, and united them in their efforts to overcome their Gentile hosts: “… [T]hus united, we suddenly discover our strength…. When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of the revolutionary party; when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse.

 

Even before the Zionist Congress met, Herzl had been attempting to persuade the Turks to give the Jews free rein in Palestine. First he tried blackmail, hinting that he and his fellow Jews, by using their influence, could either silence or intensify the agitation against Turkey then being carried on in various European capitals by Armenian expatriates, who had their own grievances.

 

When the blackmail didn’t work, Herzl’s thoughts turned to war. He told his fellow Zionists at Basle that they might be able to achieve control of Palestine through a European war, if they played their cards right: “It may be that Turkey will refuse or will be unable to understand us. This will not discourage us. We will seek other means to accomplish our end. The Orient question is now a question of the day. Sooner or later it will bring about a conflict among the nations. The great European war must come. With my watch in hand do I await this terrible moment. After the great European war is ended the peace conference will assemble. We must be ready for that time.[1]

 

The other Zionist leaders fell in with Herzl’s war plans — which, it is well to note, were proclaimed to world Jewry 17 years before the actual outbreak of the war. As it turned out, the Jews were able to use the war just as they had hoped: from it they finagled a promise by the government of Great Britain to secure Palestine for them.

 

This promise, the so-called “Balfour Declaration,” has an especially interesting history, for it not only throws light on the crucial period during which the Jews first secured the control over the foreign policy of the United States which they still wield — that is, the period during which the American people lost their sovereignty, unknowingly yielding to an alien minority in their midst the power to choose which nations would be America’s friends and which her foes; to decide when there would be peace and when war, and how each war would be waged, whether to win or lose or draw — but it also brilliantly illuminates the general modus operandi which the Jews, spread out as they are among many nations, have long used in playing off one nation against another in order to attain their own ends.

 

It would hardly be possible to relate here every Zionist move in the 20 years between Herzl’s speech to the first Zionist Congress and the British government’s offer of Palestine to the Jews, even if all the moves were known. It must suffice, in laying the background, to mention a few key developments which made the Balfour Declaration possible.

 

First, the years immediately following the first Zionist Congress saw an enormous influx of Jews into the United States. Although U.S. immigration statistics prior to 1899 do not reveal the race or religion of immigrants, we know that in 1897 the total Jewish population of the United States was approximately 800,000 — and nearly half of those had arrived in the preceding decade. By 1914 the number had more than tripled, to some 2 1/2 million. The majority of the new immigrants came from Russia, where the Zionist movement was especially strong.

 

Background to Treason - 0825

[Image] The Jewish Immigrant publication

This tidal wave of Jewish immigrants made itself felt very soon in the economic and political life of the United States. Jewish ambition and energy, not to mention a predilection for those endeavors yielding quick gain, resulted in a phenomenally rapid growth in the financial power wielded by Jews in the country, and this power was put to immediate use in acquiring a political influence disproportionate to their numbers. Already in 1896, the year before Herzl’s speech, the New York Times fell into Jewish hands, with its purchase by Adolph Ochs. Thirteen years before that Joseph Pulitzer, the Jewish father of yellow journalism, had purchased the New York World. And in the years between 1897 and 1917 the Jews continued their acquisitions, building a very strong bridgehead in the news media for furthering their long-range goals.

 

Background to Treason - 0828

[Image] Adolph Ochs

Just as the Palestinians had reacted to the Jewish colonization of Palestine, so did White Americans react to the Jewish colonization of America. The politicians responded with their typical timidity and ambiguity to White demands for a halt to the flood of Jews. In 1897 the U.S. Congress enacted a law requiring proof of literacy before immigrants could be admitted to the United States. The law would have kept out most of the Jews from Russia and other parts of eastern Europe then pouring into the country, but it never had a chance to accomplish its aim, because President Cleveland vetoed it.

 

As the growing Jewish presence became more obnoxious to Americans, the pressure on the reluctant politicians to do something grew. Jewish political influence had also grown apace, however, and the Jews were able to counter every effort at legislation intended to keep them out of the country. President Taft vetoed another immigrant-literacy law early in 1913, just before leaving office, and President Wilson did the same thing in 1914.

 

Background to Treason - 0827

 [Image] Jewish immigrants leaving Ellis Island, 1915

 

The second major development leading to the Zionists’ triumph in 1917 was the election of Woodrow Wilson to the Presidency in 1912, and then his reelection in 1916. Wilson was entirely their man. From the time he took office in 1913 until he left it in 1921, he made hardly a decision without consulting his counselor and confidante, Louis Dembitz Brandeis.

 

Background to Treason - 0822

 [Image] Louis Dembitz Brandeis

 

Wilson was an ineffectual man, who, after failing to make a career for himself as a lawyer, retreated to the academy, teaching political science first at Bryn Mawr, then at Wesleyan, and finally at Princeton. He was also less than brilliant as an academician, but he possessed a rhetorical flair which he used to promote a hodgepodge of confused, liberal notions, thereby gaining for himself the backing of the liberal element among the Princeton faculty, who eventually boosted him into Princeton presidency. He was never very strong, and he suffered several major breakdowns, even in the relatively sheltered life of a professor.

 

Louis Brandeis (1856-1941), an enormously wealthy and successful Boston lawyer, was the son of Jewish immigrants from Bohemia. He was also the leader of the Zionist movement in the United States. In 1912 he headed the group which invited Nahum Sokolow, the Zionist leader from Russia, to speak in the United States. In 1914 he organized and became the chairman of the Provisional Executive Committee for General Zionist Affairs. But his Zionist leadership was something kept between himself and his fellow Jewish nationalists.

 

To the American public and the Democratic Party’s politicians he was a very clever advocate of “democracy,” who was involved in a number of celebrated legal cases on behalf of labor unions. His left-wing admirers in the press nicknamed him “the people’s lawyer.

 

Background to Treason - 0823

[Image] Woodrow Wilson

 

Wilson had also achieved something of a reputation as a champion of equality and democracy when, as president of Princeton University, he became embroiled in a fight to abolish Princeton’s exclusive student eating clubs, which he regarded as elitist and undemocratic. The ruckus caused by Wilson’s opposition to the eating clubs brought him to the attention of New Jersey’s Democratic Party political bosses, and they chose him as their gubernatorial candidate in 1910. They also introduced him to Brandeis, who took the weak, vain, professorial Wilson firmly in hand and guided him in all political matters (and many private matters as well) thereafter.

 

When Wilson became President he immediately offered Brandeis a position in his Cabinet, but the clever Jew chose instead to remain in the background, where his influence over Wilson would not become compromised by public scrutiny. Indeed, Brandeis was very wise in this decision, because when he did accept an appointment to the Supreme Court from Wilson in 1916, there was a great deal of public opposition.

 

Nevertheless, Brandeis became the first Jew to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, and he did so without giving up his informal post as counsel to the President and general political “fixer,” as recent research has revealed. [2]

 

The third development which was essential to Zionist aims was the war itself and the impasse it had reached in the autumn of 1916. We dare not become involved in a history of the First World War here, but the main points relevant to our following of the Zionist trail are these: The principal antagonists were Britain and Germany One of the many countries fighting on the British side was Imperial Russia. One of the several countries on the German side was Turkey. In the west the antagonists were stalemated, facing each other in opposing trenches which stretched across the continent from north to south and unable to gain very much ground on either side without enormous losses.

 

The German Verdun campaign of 1916, the longest and bloodiest “battle” in the history of warfare, had failed to achieve any significant advantage for the Germans, and it was to cost them and their French opponents half a million casualties each before it finally petered out. The Franco-British Somme offensive, which followed the ebb of the German offensive at Verdun — and which cost the British 19,000 dead on the first day — proved equally inconclusive.

 

Background to Treason - 0829

[Image] The battle of the Somme took place between 1 July and 18 November, 1916, The British Expeditionary Force and the French Army conducted a joint offensive against the Germans, who had held much of the territory since 1914. When the battle had ended, the allies had advanced almost 10 km but were still 5 km from their major objective. More than one million casualties were suffered.

 

On the eastern front the Russian Brusilov offensive cost the Czar a million men and left him so weakened that the Germans thereafter held the advantage.

 

At sea German submarines were claiming an increasing toll on British shipping, and Britain was feeling the strain. The only hope British leaders could see for ending the stalemate was to bring America into the war. Otherwise, to continue the war would bankrupt them; they would be obliged to accept a compromise peace, without achieving their aim of crushing Germany as an industrial-commercial rival. The public sentiment in America was strongly against intervention in the war, and Wilson won reelection in November by campaigning as a pacifist. His campaign slogan was, “He kept us out of war.

 

 

Thus was the stage set. Now enter the Zionists.

 

The Jews had three principal aims: First, to break the Turkish hold on Palestine. Second, to obtain from whichever power replaced Turkey in Palestine the concessions they had been unable to obtain from the Turks. Third, to destroy Russia, an object of special hatred to them.

 

Until the fall of 1916 it was the third of these aims which manifested itself most noticeably in the Jews’ policy. It is well to remember that it had been Rus warriors, under Sviatoslav the Great, who in 965 had utterly smashed the Khazar Empire, and the Ashkenazic Jews, who made up virtually all of the Zionist leadership, had long memories. Even today Jews celebrate annually their triumphs over enemies thousands of years ago.

 

Furthermore, a parallel Jewish movement, Bolshevism, had made great strides in Russia, and Jews throughout the world, of whatever persuasion, wanted to see the Russians weakened to the point that the Bolsheviks could seize the nation. It was with this purpose in mind that Jacob Schiff, America’s richest Jew, financed Trotsky and his fellow Jewish Bolsheviks to the tune of $25 million. Later, after the downfall of Russia, Schiff opened his coffers to the Zionists.

 

Background to Treason - 0830

[Image] Jacob Henry Schiff (born Jakob Heinrich Schiff; January 10, 1847 – September 25, 1920)

Background to Treason - 0832

[Image] Leon Trotsky born Lev Davidovich Bronshtein (7 November 1879 – 21 August 1940) was a Russian Marxist revolutionary and theorist, Soviet politician, and the founder and first leader of the Red Army.

 

 

Toward the end of 1916, however, it was clear that Russia was in terminal condition. Although she still had vast armies in the field and even vaster reserves of manpower at home, from a strategic viewpoint Russia was whipped, and the Germans were already beginning to withdraw troops from the eastern front in order to bolster their strength in the west.

 

A good share of the credit for the Russian collapse belonged to the Bolsheviks, who were working furiously to undermine morale in the trenches and in the factories. They spread pacifist and defeatist leaflets among the troops and carried on in Russia’s cities much as they did more than 50 years later in America’s cities during the Vietnam war.

 

Until this point then, it had behooved the Jews to back Germany, and they did. Ultimately, however, their plan called for Germany — or, at least, Germany’s ally Turkey — to lose. So it was that in October 1916 the Jews made their offer to the British government: We will bring America into the war, if you will take Palestine away from the Turks and give it to us.

 

The story of this offer, its acceptance by the British government, and its aftermath has been told in several places and hinted at in many. Not in any of the “approved” history texts dealing with the First World War which are used today in American colleges and universities, of course, or in any “popular” treatments of the war to be found in newsstand paperbacks, but the interested reader can nevertheless find a number of unimpeachable, firsthand accounts, if he is willing to dig a bit in a large library. For example, Malcolm Thomson, the biographer of David Lloyd George, Britain’s wartime prime minister, writes on pages 273-74 of David Lloyd George, the Official Biography (London, 1949):

 

 Background to Treason - 0835

[Image] David Lloyd George, 1st Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, OM PC (17 January 1863 – 26 March 1945) was a British Liberal politician and statesman.

 

. . . In the autumn of 1916, when the question of strengthening sympathy with the Allied cause was growing acute, an Armenian Jew, James A. Malcolm, who was giving expert help and advice to the Government about Middle Eastern matters, approached [Foreign Office Undersecretary Sir Mark] Sykes and urged that the Allies should capture the sympathies of American Jewry — at that time tending to favour Germany — by a declaration of support for the Zionist cause. Sykes saw the possibilities of the suggestion, and laid it before Lord Milner, who took it up with the Cabinet.

 

. . . Secret assurances were given to the Zionist leaders through Sykes that the British government would support their cause if the consent of their Allies could be obtained. A message to this effect was sent to Justice Brandeis, the American Zionist, who was a close friend of President Wilson, and the help of leading Zionists in all the Allied countries was mobilized.

 

Samuel Landman, secretary to Zionist leaders Chaim Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow in 1916, and later general secretary of the World Zionist Organization, narrates the events from firsthand knowledge in his booklet Great Britain, the Jews, and Palestine (London, 1936). [3] On pages 4-5 he writes:

 

During the critical days of 1916 and of the impending defection of Russia, Jewry, as a whole, was against the Czarist regime and had hopes that Germany, if victorious, would in certain circumstances give them Palestine. Several attempts to bring America into the War on the side of the Allies by influencing influential Jewish opinion were made and had failed. Mr. James A. Malcolm, who was already aware of German pre-war efforts to secure a foothold in Palestine through the Zionist Jews and of the abortive Anglo-French demarches at Washington and New York; and knew that Mr. Woodrow Wilson, for good and sufficient reasons, always attached the greatest possible importance to the advice of a very prominent Zionist (Mr. Justice Brandeis, of the U.S. Supreme Court); and was in close touch with Mr. Greenberg, Editor of the  Jewish Chronicle (London); and knew that several important Zionist Jewish leaders had already gravitated to London from the Continent on the qui vive awaiting events; and appreciated and realised the depth and strength of Jewish national aspirations; spontaneously took the initiative, to convince first of all Sir Mark Sykes, Under Secretary to the War Cabinet, and afterwards Monsieur Georges Picot, of the French Embassy in London, and Monsieur Gout of the Quai d’Orsay (Eastern Section), that the best and perhaps the only way (which proved so to be) to induce the American President to come into the War was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jews, by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilise the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis. Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists, having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret “gentleman’s” agreement of 1916 made with the previous knowledge, acquiescence and/or approval of the Arabs and of the British, American, French and other Allied Governments, and not merely a voluntary altruistic and romantic gesture on the part of Great Britain as certain people either through pardonable ignorance assume or unpardonable ill-will [sic] would represent or rather misrepresent.

 

An interesting account of the negotiations carried on in London and Paris, and subsequent developments, has already appeared in the Jewish press and need not be repeated here in detail, except to recall that immediately after the “gentleman’s” agreement between Sir Mark Sykes, authorised by the War Cabinet, and the Zionist leaders, cable facilities through the War Office, the Foreign Office and British Embassies, Legations, etc., were given to the latter to communicate the glad tidings to their friends and organisations in America and elsewhere, and the change in official and public opinion as reflected in the American press in favour of joining the Allies in the War, was as gratifying as it was surprisingly rapid.

 

 

Background to Treason - 0834

[Image] Samuel Landman’s booklet (98 pages) Great Britain, the Jews, and Palestine (London, 1936).

 

Landman tells the same story in other places: for example, in a lengthy letter titled “The Origin of the Balfour Declaration” published in the  Jewish Chronicle (London, February 7, 1936; page 33).

 

A much more detailed account of the negotiations between the Jews and the British government in October 1916 is in Two Studies in Virtue (London, 1953), a biography of Sir Mark Sykes by his son, Christopher Sykes, who drew extensively on his father’s diaries and letters of the period. A few paragraphs excerpted here from pages 180-188 of that book suggest the essentials:

 

Background to Treason - 0836

 [Image] Colonel Sir Mark Sykes, 6th Baronet (born Tatton Benvenuto Mark Sykes; 16 March 1879 – 16 February 1919) was an English traveller, Conservative Party politician and diplomatic adviser, particularly about matters respecting the Middle East at the time of the First World War.

 

. . . One day in October of 1916 a certain Mr. James Malcolm came to visit Mark Sykes.. . . Sykes . . . [said] that he could see no end to the war. In France there was a military deadlock. At sea the power of the [German] submarine was growing; on land that of the Russian armies failing. . . . A decisive victory, or indeed a victory of any kind, seemed impossible without American participation on an enormous scale, and of that he saw little likelihood. . . . At this Mr. Malcolm took occasion to harangue his friend on the principles which should govern British foreign policy regarding the Jewish world. . . . He proceeded to tell him about Zionism. . . .

Mr. Malcolm . . . then told Sykes of a very curious and powerful influence which Zionists could exert. One of President Wilson’s closest advisers and friends was Justice Louis D. Brandeis, a Jew. . . . It was believed . . . that Wilson was attached to Brandeis by ties of peculiar hardness. . . . It followed that . . . a Zionist policy was in truth the way to capture American sympathy [for the Allies]. . . .

. . . [Malcolm then said:] “The question is, do you want the help of the Jews of the United States? The only way you can get that help is by offering Palestine to the Zionists.

. . . [After the British had agreed to the Zionist terms, the leader of the Zionist delegation, Nahum] Sokolow made a simple request, namely that the Zionist Committee should have facilities for communications abroad. He pointed out that since they were an international body this was especially needful to them, and he suggested that they should be granted governmental privileges, since they could thus attain their object while subjecting themselves to the needs of secrecy and censorship.

The next morning . . . [Sokolow] got what he asked for: it was agreed that the War Office and the Foreign Office would send Zionist letters and telegrams by way of [British] Embassies. . . . The news was given out to Jewish communities all over the world that in return for certain services the British Government . . . would satisfy the Jewish longing for Palestine . . .

A more general account is given by Professor H. W. V. Temperley in his six-volume work,  A History of the Peace Conference of Paris (London, 1924). Of the Balfour Declaration he writes (vol. vi, pp. 173-174): “That it is in purpose a definite contract between the British Government and Jewry represented by the Zionists is beyond question. In spirit it is a pledge that in return for services to be rendered by Jewry the British Government would ‘use their best endeavours’ to assure the execution of a certain definite policy in Palestine.

 

As Samuel Landman notes above, once the deal had been struck and the word sent out to American Jews, “the change in official and public opinion as reflected in the American press in favor of joining the Allies in the war was surprisingly rapid.” President Wilson, without blushing or skipping a beat, changed his tune from “I kept us out of war” to “We must destroy German militarism in order to make the world safe for democracy.

 

Background to Treason - 0837

[Image] Thomas Woodrow Wilson (December 28, 1856 – February 3, 1924) was the 28th President of the United States from 1913 to 1921.

 

A detailed examination of the chicanery used by the “American” press and President to coax a reluctant nation into sending its sons off to die in Flanders’ fields and a thousand other foreign places, in order that, unknown to them, the Jews could satisfy their side of their deal with the British government, would take us far beyond the scope of this article. The various pretexts used for abandoning neutrality — such as Germany’s submarine blockade of Britain and the so-called “Zimmermann telegram” — are treated exhaustively in the “approved” textbooks on the war (although they are treated with utmost seriousness rather than as pretexts).

 

In brief, it was a matter of Wilson’s talking peace, even sending his personal factotum, “Colonel” Edward Mandell House, on supposed peace missions to the various belligerents, while actually seizing every opportunity to fan the flames of war. The scheme was to present an appearance to the public of his being forced, much against his will, to go to war in order to defend America’s honor. Because the war provided plenty of real opportunities for international “incidents” to occur, especially when Wilson took pains to see that Americans would be in harm’s way as often as possible, it was not overly difficult to generate the desired impression in the public mind.

 

For example, when a German submarine sank the British ship Laconia [4] on February 25, 1917, with the loss of three Americans who were aboard, Wilson and the press put on a great show of moral outrage at this act of German “barbarism,” treating it as an intolerable affront to American sovereignty.

 

Background to Treason - 0838

[Image] RMS Laconia was a Cunard ocean liner built by Swan Hunter & Wigham Richardson, launched on 27 July 1911.

 

It was a matter of exaggerating incidents which could have been ignored — or avoided altogether — if Wilson really had wanted to preserve American neutrality. The German submarine blockade of Britain was milked for all it was worth to generate anti-German sentiment among the American people, while the far more ruthless British blockade of Germany was quietly ignored. Wilson connived to assure that the former would yield pretexts for intervention, while he took measures to prevent American ships and citizens from running afoul of the latter. [5]

 

In any event, it is clear that Mr. Ochs’s investment in the New York Times yielded a handsome dividend to world Jewry, as did Mr. Brandeis’ years of patient counsel to the fawningly grateful and ever more dependent Woodrow Wilson.

 

The British formalized their intention to satisfy their side of the deal with the Jews by issuing the Balfour Declaration, which was in the form of a letter, dated November 2, 1917, from British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to “Lord” Lionel Rothschild, who was recognized as the leader of the Jewish community in Britain. The brief document merely stated a resolution which had been approved by the British Cabinet: “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

 

Background to Treason - 0840

[Image] Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, OBE (25 January 1882 – 28 January 1942) was an English banker and Conservative politician.

 

The last provision, added at Jewish insistence, reveals the Zionists’ intention that Jews everywhere should be uniquely favored by being permitted to enjoy the citizenship, with full rights and privileges, of both the Gentile country in which they happen to reside at the moment and of their “national home” in Israel.

 

The reservation about not prejudicing the “civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” was, under subsequent Jewish pressure, eventually ignored.

 

The Balfour Declaration provides an especially interesting example of the hypocritical cant which has characterized the statesmanship of both of the great English-speaking powers during the 20th century. Pious concern for the rights of the non-Jews in Palestine is expressed in a document which, in effect, is a promise by the British government to secure for the Jews land which belonged neither to it nor to the Jews. How did Mr. Balfour imagine that his government could accomplish that dubious feat without prejudicing the rights of the current owners of the land, who were in no mood to give it up willingly?

 

One is reminded of the British government’s claim in September 1939 that it was declaring war on Germany in order to protect the freedom of its ally Poland, which had been invaded by Germany — a claim which conveniently overlooked the fact that the Soviet Union had also invaded Poland. In 1945 the same British government, its earlier expression of concern for Polish freedom buried under a bushel of new cant about democracy and peace, obligingly agreed to its ally becoming an unwilling vassal of the Soviet Union.

 

Nothing, however, can quite match the unabashed brazenness of the hypocrisy Woodrow Wilson displayed in engineering the entry of the United States into the First World War — unless it was that displayed a generation later by Franklin Roosevelt, when he too talked peace and plotted war, at the behest of the same people Wilson had served.

 

Wilson’s campaign propaganda for the 1916 election emphasized his stance of non-intervention in the war then raging in Europe. Most of the press and the public were also against intervention. Then, after Wilson’s reelection — and the British-Zionist deal, concluded just a few days before the election — the press began a “surprisingly rapid” shift toward an interventionist stance. Wilson followed, calling for a declaration of war against Germany just five months after his reelection.

 

Background to Treason - 0839

[Image] A New York Journal headline marks the entrance of the United States into World War I, April 6, 1917.

 

Even before that, however, he and Brandeis had been planning war, and it was their secret assurances that the United States would be brought into the war that led British leaders to reject Germany’s peace offer of December 12, 1916. If that offer had been accepted, the lives of some three million White soldiers — including 115,000 Americans — Which were consumed in 1917 and 1918 would have been spared. Furthermore, the Second World War, which grew out of the unjust conditions imposed on Germany after the Allied victory, would have been avoided. And if Russia could have had peace in December 1916, she probably would have had time to stamp out the Bolshevik virus being spread among her soldiers and workers by the Jews, and Communism would have suffered a setback from which it might never have recovered. All of the grim and bloody consequences of Wilson’s switch in foreign policy stem from the Zionist influence in the U.S. news media and politics, which had been built up over the preceding two decades.

 

Background to Treason - 0824

[Image] WILSON’S campaign propaganda for the 1916 election emphasized his stance of non-intervention in the war then raging in Europe. Most of the press and the public were also against intervention. Then, after Wilson’s reelection — and the British-Zionist deal, concluded just a few days before the election — the press began a “surprisingly rapid” shift toward an interventionist stance. Wilson followed, calling for a declaration of war against Germany just five months after his reelection. Even before that, however, he and Brandeis had been planning war, and it was their secret assurances that the United States would be brought into the war that led British leaders to reject Germany’s peace offer of December 12, 1916. If that offer had been accepted, the lives of some three million White soldiers — including 115,000 Americans — Which were consumed in 1917 and 1918 would have been spared. Furthermore, the Second World War, which grew out of the unjust conditions imposed on Germany after the Allied victory, would have been avoided. And if Russia could have had peace in December 1916, she probably would have had time to stamp out the Bolshevik virus being spread among her soldiers and workers by the Jews, and Communism would have suffered a setback from which it might never have recovered. All of the grim and bloody consequences of Wilson’s switch in foreign policy stem from the Zionist influence in the U.S. news media and politics, which had been built up over the preceding two decades.

 

 

Upon reflection, may we not conclude that lying cant is what should be expected of any government which has degenerated to the point that it consists mainly of lawyers? And is not that the kind of government which must inevitably devolve under a system which gives the franchise to the credulous and the gullible?

 

It is the historians and the teachers, however, who most deserve our scorn. Everyone expects lawyers to lie; word trickery is their stock-in-trade. No lawyer committed to the truth could hope to earn a living. But historical scholars are supposed to be different. They are supposed to be indifferent to popular myths, always seeking the reality which lies beneath the facile explanations of governments and politicians.

 

The explanation for the reluctance of modern historians to write about the Zionist role in the First World War is this: In the immediate postwar years, the Zionist responsibility for America’s entry into the war was a valid topic for historical investigation and discussion, with even the Zionists freely admitting their actions. After all, America and Britain had won the war, and Germany was down and out. How could the truth hurt anyone?

 

Then in 1933 Germany, under Adolf Hitler, began getting back on its feet. Suddenly any discussion of the truth about the Zionist role in the last war became “anti-Semitic.

 

One man who was privy to every detail of that role was David Lloyd George. In 1938 the former British war secretary and prime minister wrote a two-volume book,  The Truth about the Peace Treaties. In that book he described the way in which Jews all over the world — in Germany and Russia as well as in America — immediately switched from a pro-German to an anti-German stance after the deal between his government and the Zionists was made. He pointed out the fatal consequences this switch had for the German war effort. And on page 1140 he noted: “The Germans themselves know that to be the case, and the Jews in Germany are suffering today for the fidelity with which their brethren in Russia and in America discharged their obligations under the Zionist pledge to the Allies.

 

Since the Second World War, any criticism of the Jews has been taboo, and even the historical scholars have feared to tread on ground where their discoveries might reveal the Jews in a a bad light. The consequences of this cowardice have been very costly indeed.

 

From National Vanguard magazine (December, 1982),  transcribed by Michael Olanich

 

http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/06/background-to-treason-the-balfour-declaration/

 

 

Notes

 

[1] American Jewish News (New York), March 7, 1919. A photographic reproduction of the pertinent sections from that publication and other Zionist documents may be found in Issue No. 48 of National Vanguard.

 

The reader should note that Herzl uses the expression “the nations,” both in this speech and in the excerpt quoted above from his book, as a code phrase: He gives it the same meaning it has in the Old Testament, as in, “I have this day set thee over the nations… to root out and to pull down and to destroy ” (Jeremiah 1:10) That is, “the nations” means “the goyim.

 

Harper’s Bible Dictionary (Madeleine S. Miller and J. Lane Miller, New York, 1959), has the entry: “nations, a term used by Hebrew writers for non-Israelites, outsiders, Gentiles, heathen.

 

[2] The Brandeis-Frankfurter Connection: The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices, by Bruce Murphy (Oxford University Press, 1982). Murphy, a political science professor at Pennsylvania State University, discovered an extensive file of correspondence between Brandeis and a Jewish law professor at Harvard University, Felix Frankfurter (1882-1965). From the time of his appointment to the Supreme Court in 1916 until his retirement in 1939, Brandeis paid Frankfurter to serve as his messenger and errand boy, so that Brandeis could secretly maintain all of his political contacts behind the cloak of judicial impartiality.

 

[3] http://libcudl.colorado.edu/wwi/pdf/i73443578.pdf

 

[4] RMS Laconia was a Cunard ocean liner built by Swan Hunter & Wigham Richardson, launched on 27 July 1911, delivered to the Cunard Line on 12 December 1911, and began service on 20 January 1912. She was the first Cunard ship of that name.

 

On the outbreak of World War I Laconia was converted into an armed merchant cruiser in 1914 and based at Simon’s Town, South Africa in the South Atlantic, from which she patrolled the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean until April 1915. She was then used as a headquarters ship for the operations to capture Tanga and the colony of German East Africa. She continued to serve on the East Africa station, before returning to Britain with a convoy in June 1916. She was handed back to Cunard in July 1916 and on 9 September resumed service.

 

On 25 February 1917 she was torpedoed by SM U-50 6 nautical miles (11 km) northwest by west of Fastnet while returning from the USA to England with 75 passengers (34 first class and 41 second class) and a crew of 217 commanded by Captain Irvine. The first torpedo struck the liner on the starboard side just abaft the engine room, but did not sink her. 20 minutes later a second torpedo exploded in the engine room, again on the starboard side, and the vessel sank at 10:20 pm. 12 people were killed, six crew and six passengers, including two American citizens, Mrs. Mary Hoy and her daughter, Miss Elizabeth Hoy, who were originally from Chicago.

 

Chicago Tribune reporter Floyd Gibbons was aboard Laconia when she was torpedoed and gained fame from his dispatches about the attack.

 

 

[5] The chicanery involved in the way Wilson and the press dealt with the blockades the belligerents imposed on one another is revealed especially well in Colin Simpson’s excellent and thoroughly documented book The Lusitania (Boston, 1972). That book in turn refers the interested reader to a number of other valuable sources.

 

Source: http://nationalvanguard.org/2014/06/background-to-treason-part-1/

======================================

 

PDF of this blog post. Click to view or download (1.7 MB). >> Background to Treason- The Balfour Declaration

 

Version History
Version 1: Published Jun 27, 2014

Read Full Post »

Race, Evolution and Behaviour - COVER

 

 

RACE, EVOLUTION, AND BEHAVIOR:

 

A Life History Perspective

 

 [Part 8]

 

2nd Special Abridged Edition

By Professor J. Philippe Rushton

 

 Race, Evolution and Behavior - Rushton

 

University of Western Ontario

London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2

 

Author

J. Philippe Rushton is a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. Rushton holds two doctorates from the University of London (Ph.D. and D.Sc) and is a Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American, British, and Canadian Psychological Associations. He is also a member of the Behavior Genetics Association, the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, and the Society for Neuroscience. Rushton has published six books and nearly 200 articles. In 1992 the Institute for Scientific Information ranked him the 22nd most published psychologist and the 11th most cited. Professor Rushton is listed in Who’s Who in Science and TechnologyWho’s Who in International Authors, and Who’s Who in Canada.

 

[Page 5]

Contents

 

Preface 6

1. Race is More Than Skin Deep 7

Race in History
Race in Today’s World
Why Are There Race Differences?
Conclusion
Additional Readings

2. Maturation, Crime, and Parenting 13

Maturation
Crime
Personality, Aggression, and Self-Esteem
Parenting and Out-of-Wedlock Births
Longevity and Population Growth
Conclusion
Additional Readings

3. Sex, Hormones, and AIDS 18

Sexual Behavior and Attitudes
Sexual Physiology and Anatomy
AIDS and HIV
Conclusion
Additional Readings

4. Intelligence and Brain Size 22

Culture Fair Tests
Intelligence and Brain Size
Race Differences in Brain Size
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Brain Weight at Autopsy
Measuring Skull Size
Measuring Living Heads
Summarizing Brain Size Differences
Conclusion
Additional Readings

5. Genes, Environment, or Both? 28

Heritability Studies
Adoption Studies
Race and Heritability
Trans-racial Adoption Studies
Heritabilities Predict Racial Differences
Regression to the Average
Conclusion
Additional Readings

6. Life History Theory 34

r-K Life History Theory
Race Differences and r-K Strategies
Testosterone — The Master Switch?
Conclusion
Additional Readings

7. Out of Africa 39

The Evidence
Geography and Race
Conclusion
Additional Readings

8. Questions and Answers 42

Is Race a Useful Concept? (Chapter 1)
Are the Race Differences Real? (Chapters 2 through 5)
Is the Relationship Between Race and Crime Valid? (Chapter 2)
Is the Relationship Between Race and Reproduction Valid? (Chapter 3)
Is the Genetic Evidence Flawed? (Chapter 5)
Is r-K Theory Correct? (Chapter 6)
Aren’t Environmental Explanations Sufficient? (Chapter 5)
Is Race Science Immoral? (Chapter 1)
Closing Thoughts
Additional Readings

[Page 6]

 

 

[Page 42]

8: Questions and Answers

 

 

This final chapter lists the most important questions I have been asked about my r-K theory and my answers to them. It also gives pointers to the earlier chapter(s) that discuss each topic in greater detail, my closing thoughts on Race, Evolution, and Behavior, and on the story of the abridged edition.

You may be asking, “Why is the information about race in this book so different from what I have seen in magazines, college texts, and on TV?” The answer is that about 70 years ago the social sciences took a wrong turn. They left Darwinism and refused to look at the biological basis of human behavior — evolution and genetics. They also divided into separate academic fields and lost the forest for the trees.

In this book I try to re-unite the social and biological sciences on the issue of race. The evidence I have used comes from the best scientific journals, not from obscure sources. I began to study and publish scientific articles on race in the early 1980s. Since then I have received many questions about my work. Probably you’ve thought of some of these questions yourself.

This final chapter lists the questions I have been asked most often and my answers to them. I’ve grouped the questions by major topic. Each topic has a pointer to the chapter(s) in this abridged edition that discuss the topic in detail.

Is Race a Useful Concept? (Chapter 1)

 

Q: You write as if race is a valid biological concept. Aren’t you only repeating the stereotypes of 18th and 19th century Europeans?

A: True, there is a 200-year history of “European” research on race. But similar descriptions were made by Arab and Turkish writers nearly 1,000 years earlier and some can even be traced back to the ancient Greeks. Today, new methods of genetic DNA analysis agree with the original classifications made by early European scientists based on their observations.

 

Q: But isn’t race “just skin deep”? Don’t most scientists now agree that race is a social construct, not a biological reality?

A: Biological evidence shows that race is not a social construct. Coroners in crime labs can identify race from a skeleton or even just the skull. They can identify race from blood, hair, or semen as well. To deny the existence of race is unscientific and unrealistic. Race is much more than “just skin deep.

 

Q: Your three major racial categories overlap and it isn’t possible to assign each person to a race. So isn’t your three-way racial classification scheme somewhat made-up?

A: Yes, to a certain extent all the races blend into each other. That is true in any biological classification system. However, most people can be clearly identified with one race or another. In both everyday life and evolutionary biology, a “Black is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa. A “White is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in Europe. And an “Oriental is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in East Asia. Modern DNA studies give pretty much the same results.

[Page 43]
Q: Doesn’t the Out of Africa theory imply that we are “all Africans under the skin”?

A: Yes and no. The theory is that Homo sapiens first appeared in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Then some groups migrated north about 110,000 years ago into Europe and Asia. A further split took place between the “ancestral Whites and the “ancestral Orientals about 40,000 years ago. True, all humans are brothers (and sisters). But we all know that brothers and sisters can still be very different from one another.

 

Q: All Whites aren’t the same. All Blacks aren’t alike. Neither are all Orientals. Isn’t there more variation within races than between them?

A: There is a lot of variation within each of the three races. The full range of variation will be found within any of the major racial groups. Still, group averages are important. Each racial group has a bell curve distribution with some people at the high end and some at the low end, and most people in the middle.

Groups with a high average will have many more people at the high end and not so many people at the low end. The 6-point IQ difference between Orientals and Whites and the 15-point IQ difference between Whites and Blacks means that a higher percentage of Orientals and a lower percentage of Blacks end up in the highest IQ categories. Those percentages have real implications in school and at work.

The same is true for crime. Most people of any race are hard-working and law abiding. There is no “criminal race. However, the difference in average crime rate means that a much higher percentage of Blacks can fall into a life of crime. The 85 average IQ of criminals is almost identical with the 85 average IQ of Blacks, so IQ is related to crime. Although Blacks make up only about 12% of the U.S. population, each year they commit about half of all crimes.

 

Q: Why do you base so much of your argument on the differences between the three major races? Are you not ignoring divisions and sub-groups within the three races?

A: Of course there are subdivisions within the three major races. The Oriental group can be subdivided into Northeast Asians (such as the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans) and the Southeast Asians (such as the Filipinos and Malays). Black and White groups can also be subdivided in the same way. Nevertheless, my simplified three-way division serves a purpose. In science, a concept is useful if it groups facts so that general laws and conclusions can be drawn from them. The three-way classification is scientifically justified because it shows a consistent pattern for many different traits, with Orientals at one end, Blacks at the other, and Whites in between.

 

 

Are the Race Differences Real? (Chapters 2 through 5)

 

Q: Haven’t you just chosen the studies that fit with your three-way race pattern and ignored all the ones that do not?

A: If that were true, where are the studies I have ignored? I have not ignored any important studies. Whenever averages are used from several studies, the same three-way pattern of race differences appears.

 

Q: Aren’t some of the studies you use, especially those on race and brain size, very old? Haven’t they been shown to be examples of racist bias rather than honest reports of scientific facts?

A: No. Even the most recent studies, using the latest technology (such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging to measure brain size), give the same results as the older studies. These state-of-the-art studies of brain size are reviewed in Chapter 4. They are much more precise studies than the older ones, but produce almost exactly the same results. Only “political correctness caused the early findings to “vanish from the scientific radar screen. If there is any bias, it is on the part of those who choose to misrepresent both the older studies and the recent research on race and brain size to justify a social agenda they want to promote.

[Page 44]
Q: Aren’t you really producing the race differences by averaging the results of many studies? Wouldn’t it be better just to look at the very best studies?

A: Using an average of all the data is better than using any single measurement or study. When you take an average, the errors fade and real differences appear. Hundreds of studies published in the best journals show the three-way pattern of race differences.

 

Q: Isn’t it possible to get a pattern of race differences in brain size (or IQ or any trait) simply by using the studies that support the point you are trying to make?

A: That’s exactly why it is better to average all the data. Averages are used for many sports competitions including some Olympic events, public opinion polls about upcoming elections, or the stock market performance with the Dow Jones Average. The same is true when studying race, brain size, IQ, and crime.

 

 

Is the Relationship Between Race and Crime Valid? (Chapter 2)

 

Q: Your three-way pattern in race differences in crime is based on official reports of arrests and convictions. But don’t self-report studies show that there are no race differences in crime?

A: Self-reports show a smaller race difference than the official arrest and conviction records. However, self-reports are only valid as a measure of less violent crime. They often include minor items like “Have you ever been in a fight? or “Would you worry about being in debt? Unlike official crime reports, they often give no facts about the frequency of criminal behavior. Self-reports do not distinguish between career criminals and first offenders.

 

Q: But don’t the arrest and conviction statistics from U.S. police departments and the FBI reflect America’s history of racism?

A: INTERPOL Yearbooks show the same three-way pattern of race differences in crime. African and Caribbean countries have twice as many violent crimes per person as do European countries and three times as many as do the Asian Pacific Rim countries like Japan and China.

 

Q: Aren’t Black Americans really the victims of crime, not the cause?

A: Many Blacks are indeed victims of crime. And there are many White and Oriental criminals. Nevertheless, the criminals are disproportionately Black. U. S. Department of Justice statistics report that Blacks are 60 times more likely to attack Whites than Whites are to attack Blacks. For the 20% of violent crimes that are interracial, 15% involve Black offenders and White victims; 2% involve White offenders and Black victims.

[Page 45]

Is the Relationship Between Race and Reproduction Valid? (Chapter 3)

 

Q: Doesn’t the evidence on race and penis size come from 19th Century stories by racist Europeans in colonial Africa?

A: The earliest findings come from the Arabic explorers in Africa and one study by a French army surgeon originally published in 1898. More up-to-date information comes from the World Health Organization. Their studies show the same three-way race pattern as do all the other studies.

 

Q: Isn’t the material on race and sex a kind of pornography? Isn’t race controversial enough without bringing sex and AIDS into the picture?

A: One World Health Organization study I mentioned in the previous answer examined penis size in order to provide the right size condoms to slow the spread of AIDS. Finding out which groups are most at risk for sexually transmitted diseases can help slow their spread and save lives.

 

 

Is the Genetic Evidence Flawed? (Chapter 5)

 

Q: How can you talk about a genetic basis for intelligence, criminality, or sexuality? No one has ever found a gene responsible for any of these. Brain size and structure may be genetic, but we still do not know exactly which genes are important for IQ or how they work.

A: New research is providing the answer. Every day the newspaper or TV reports that someone has just found a gene for alcoholism, intelligence, impulsivity, aggression, longevity, or other human behavior. When the Human Genome Project has finished mapping all our genes, we will know even more about the genetic basis of behavior.

 

Q: Isn’t this Genetic Determinism?

A: I never claimed that race differences are 100% genetic. Obviously, environmental factors are important. The scientific argument is really between “hereditarians and “egalitarians.” Hereditarians, like myself, think the best explanation of why the races differ involves both genes and environment. Egalitarians claim the races differ for 100% cultural reasons and some of them feel so strongly about it that they try to stop even discussion or research on the genetics of race.

 

Q: You use twin studies to show how much is caused by genes and how much is caused by environment. Isn’t it really the interaction of the two that matters?

A: Of course, every trait is the result of the interaction of heredity and environment. But if interaction is so important, why do identical twins who are brought up in different homes grow to be so much alike? It is because heredity plays a big role in development. The older we get, the more our genes, rather than our childhood environments, take control.

 

Q: Even if heredity is important for individuals, does that really tell us anything about race differences?

A: The evidence in Chapter 5 shows that genes do contribute a lot to race differences. Evidence comes from trans-racial adoption studies. Oriental, Mixed-Race (Black-White), and Black children adopted into middle-class White homes grow to resemble their true biological parents, not the White families who raised them. Mixed-Race (Black-White) infants grow up to have IQs between the IQs of pure Black and pure White children. Oriental children raised in White homes obtain IQs higher than White children, even if they were malnourished in infancy.

[Page 46]
Q: But don’t most experts believe that the cause of race differences in IQ is environmental, not genetic?

A: A survey done by Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman in the 1987 American Psychologist found that a majority (52%) of scientists said the Black-White IQ difference was partly genetic. Only 17% said it was entirely cultural. More recently, a special task force of the American Psychological Association agreed that there was a three-way pattern of race differences in brain size and IQ. Perhaps because of political correctness, the Task Force threw up its hands about the causes and decided to play it safe by saying “no one knows why” (see the 1996 and 1997 issues of the American Psychologist.).

 

 

Is r-K Theory Correct? (Chapter 6)

 

Q: You use r-K Life History Theory to explain race differences. You claim that Blacks are less K than Whites who are less K than Orientals. Haven’t you twisted r-K theory to fit your own ideas about race differences?

A: Not at all. The key for understanding K-selection is the predictability of the environment. Tropical areas like Africa are less predictable because of parasites and sudden droughts. Therefore they select for an r-strategy rather than a K-strategy.

 

Q: Doesn’t the r-K theory apply only to differences between different species, not to races within the same species?

A: It applies to both. Humans are very K compared to other species. Still, some people are more K than others. Highly K-selected men, for example, invest time and energy in their children rather than the pursuit of sexual thrills. They are “dads” rather than “cads.” The r-K theory was first used to explain differences within species. I have applied it to race differences within humans.

 

 

Aren’t Environmental Explanations Sufficient? (Chapter 5)

 

Q: Couldn’t the life-history differences you talk about just be the best response to cultural conditions? Since Blacks live in poor environments doesn’t the r-strategy make sense? How can you invest if you have nothing to invest?

A: That could be, but the facts say no. Well-to-do college-educated Black women have more sexual intercourse at an earlier age and suffer greater infant mortality than do poorer White women who haven’t gone to college. That fits with the r-K theory of race differences, but not with an environmental r-K theory. Orientals who have a poorer environment than Whites, have less sexual intercourse, start at a later age, and have lower infant mortality. Again, that fits with the r-K theory of race differences, but not with an environmental r-K theory.

 

 

Is Race Science Immoral? (Chapter 1)

 

Q: Why haven’t I read this information on race differences in newspapers or seen it on TV? Isn’t studying race differences immoral?

A: In the 1950s the liberation movements in the Third World and the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. convinced many people, including journalists and politicians, that it was wrong to look at race differences. The goal of equal rights seemed to require not just political, but biological sameness. Many people wanted to believe that race differences were not at all genetic, and some were willing to distort the social sciences by separating them from the biological sciences. This book tries to put all the behavioral sciences back together again.

[Page 47]
Q: Can any good come from your theory of race differences, even if it is true? Weren’t theories about race differences the reason for racism, genocide and the Holocaust?

A: The Nazis and others used their supposed racial superiority to justify war and genocide. But just about every idea — nationalism, religion, egalitarianism, even self-defence — has been used as an excuse for war, oppression or genocide. Science, however, is objective. It can’t give us our goals, but it can tell us how easy or difficult it will be to reach our goals. Knowing more about race differences may help us to give every child the best possible education and help us to understand some of our chronic social problems better.

 

Q: Wouldn’t we be better off to ignore race and just treat each person as an individual?

A: Treating others as we would like to be treated is one of our highest ethical rules. So is telling the truth. The fact is that each of us is influenced by our genes and our environment. Treating people as individuals does not mean we should ignore or lie about race differences. Scientists have a special duty to examine the facts and report the truth.

 

Q: Why did the Charles Darwin Research Institute publish this Y2K [2000] version of the abridged edition? What happened to the original publisher?

A: Transaction Publishers printed 100,000 copies under their copyright. They sent 35,000 to scholars around the world — members of the American Anthropological Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Sociological Association, and the American Society for Criminology. Then the Progressive Sociologists, a self-proclaimed radical group within the American Sociological Association, along with some other “anti-racist groups, threatened Transaction with loss of a booth at its annual meetings, advertising space in journals, and access to mailing lists if they continued to send out the abridged edition. Transaction caved in to this pressure, withdrew from publishing the abridged edition, and even apologized. They claimed that the Transaction copyright should never have appeared on the book and that it had “all been a mistake.

 

These events sadly confirm what I wrote in the first abridged edition — that some vocal groups in academia and the media forbid an open discussion of race. They fear any open discussion of race research, all of which has appeared in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Truth, however, always wins out in the long run.

 

Closing Thoughts

 

The information in this book shows that the races differ in important ways. They differ, on average, in brain size, intelligence, sexual behavior, fertility, personality, maturation, life span, crime and in family stability. Orientals fall at one end of the three-way pattern of differences, Blacks fall at the other end, and Whites usually fall in between. Only a theory that looks at both genes and environment in terms of Darwin’s theory of evolution can explain why the races differ so consistently throughout the world and over the course of time.

Both science and justice call for us to seek and tell the truth, not to tell lies and spread error. While the research in this book first appeared in peer-reviewed academic journals, many in the media, the government, and unfortunately even in the universities and colleges, skillfully avoid all such evidence. Hopefully this abridged edition will help set the record straight and make the latest scientific findings on race, evolution, and behavior open to all.

[Page 48]

If we want to understand human behavior, the social sciences must get back together with the biological sciences. This book is a step in that direction. When we look at both genes and environment we may be able to understand human problems. With that knowledge, society can then go about trying to solve them. The first step is for all of us to be as honest as we can be about race, evolution, and behavior.

Additional Readings

 

Levin, M. (1997). Why Race Matters. New York: Praeger.

Rushton, J. P. (2000). Race, Evolution, and Behavior (3rd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

[Page 49]

Bulk Rate Ordering for 

2nd Special Abridged Edition of 

Race, Evolution, and Behavior 

If you enjoyed reading this 110-page special abridged pocketbook, which summarizes important social and behavioral science research on race and race differences, you can order additional copies. Bulk rates are available for seminars, workshops, or for distribution to media figures (especially columnists who write about race issues), professors, teachers, and anyone interested in this vital subject.

Single copy $5.95

Bulk Rates 

10 copies $25.00
25 copies $50.00
50 copies $75.00
100 copies $100.00
500 copies $300.00
1000 copies $400.00

All prices include postage & handling.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

CHARLES DARWIN RESEARCH INSTITUTE

P.O. Box 611305, Port Huron, MI 48061-1305 

Please send me copies of the abridged pocketbook edition of Race, Evolution, and Behavior. Enclosed is my check or money order for $ . Name Address City/State/Zip

Country (if not USA).

[Page 50]

Third Unabridged Edition of Race, Evolution, and Behavior

This 400-page new (Y2000) edition contains over 1,000 references to the scholarly literature, a glossary, complete name and subject indexes, and 65 charts, maps, tables, and figures. It is an essential reference book for professionals and students of anthropology, psychology, sociology, and race relations. The hardcover unabridged Race, Evolution, and Behavior ($24) is especially appropriate for donation to public libraries, colleges and universities. The softcover unabridged edition ($14) provides a more economical way to order as a college or graduate school text.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

CHARLES DARWIN RESEARCH INSTITUTE

P.O. Box 611305, Port Huron, MI 48061-1305

Please send me copies of the hardcover ($24) unabridged edition of Race, Evolution, and Behavior. Or,copies of the softcover ($14) unabridged edition. Enclosed is my check or money order for $ Add $4.50 postage and handling for 1st copy; $1.00 more for each additional book.

Name

Address

City/State/Zip

Country.

======================================

 

Click here for Race, Evolution and Behavior >>>

Part 1: Preface; Race is More Than Skin Deep

Part 2: Maturation, Crime, and Parenting

Part 3: Sex, Hormones, and AIDS

Part 4: Intelligence and Brain Size

Part 5: Genes, Environment, or Both?

Part 6: Life History Theory

Part 7: Out of Africa

Part 8: Questions and Answers

 

 

 

 

 

 

PDF of this blog post.
Click to view or download (1.0 MB). >>   Race, Evolution, and Behavior – Part 8 Ver 2

 

 Race, Evolution and Behaviour - COVER

 

 

PDF of all 8 parts, i.e., complete booklet (clean text PDF).
Click to view or download. (3.0 MB) >>

 

Race, Evolution and Behaviour - COVER

 

 

 

Version History

 

Version 4: Aug 13, 2015 — Added Cover page; improved  formatting; expanded Contents page; added updated PDFs (ver 2).
 

 

Version 3: Added full booklet download here. Apr 8, 2015

 

Version 2: Added note that full booklet available Jun 27, 2014

 

Version 1: Published Jun 25, 2014

Read Full Post »

Race, Evolution and Behaviour - COVER

 

 

RACE, EVOLUTION, AND BEHAVIOR:

 

A Life History Perspective

 

 [Part 7]

 

2nd Special Abridged Edition

By Professor J. Philippe Rushton

 

 Race, Evolution and Behavior - Rushton

 

University of Western Ontario

London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2

 

Author

J. Philippe Rushton is a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. Rushton holds two doctorates from the University of London (Ph.D. and D.Sc) and is a Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American, British, and Canadian Psychological Associations. He is also a member of the Behavior Genetics Association, the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, and the Society for Neuroscience. Rushton has published six books and nearly 200 articles. In 1992 the Institute for Scientific Information ranked him the 22nd most published psychologist and the 11th most cited. Professor Rushton is listed in Who’s Who in Science and TechnologyWho’s Who in International Authors, and Who’s Who in Canada.

 

[Page 5]

Contents

 

Preface 6

1. Race is More Than Skin Deep 7

Race in History
Race in Today’s World
Why Are There Race Differences?
Conclusion
Additional Readings

2. Maturation, Crime, and Parenting 13

Maturation
Crime
Personality, Aggression, and Self-Esteem
Parenting and Out-of-Wedlock Births
Longevity and Population Growth
Conclusion
Additional Readings

3. Sex, Hormones, and AIDS 18

Sexual Behavior and Attitudes
Sexual Physiology and Anatomy
AIDS and HIV
Conclusion
Additional Readings

4. Intelligence and Brain Size 22

Culture Fair Tests
Intelligence and Brain Size
Race Differences in Brain Size
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Brain Weight at Autopsy
Measuring Skull Size
Measuring Living Heads
Summarizing Brain Size Differences
Conclusion
Additional Readings

5. Genes, Environment, or Both? 28

Heritability Studies
Adoption Studies
Race and Heritability
Trans-racial Adoption Studies
Heritabilities Predict Racial Differences
Regression to the Average
Conclusion
Additional Readings

6. Life History Theory 34

r-K Life History Theory
Race Differences and r-K Strategies
Testosterone — The Master Switch?
Conclusion
Additional Readings

7. Out of Africa 39

The Evidence
Geography and Race
Conclusion
Additional Readings

8. Questions and Answers 42

Is Race a Useful Concept? (Chapter 1)
Are the Race Differences Real? (Chapters 2 through 5)
Is the Relationship Between Race and Crime Valid? (Chapter 2)
Is the Relationship Between Race and Reproduction Valid? (Chapter 3)
Is the Genetic Evidence Flawed? (Chapter 5)
Is r-K Theory Correct? (Chapter 6)
Aren’t Environmental Explanations Sufficient? (Chapter 5)
Is Race Science Immoral? (Chapter 1)
Closing Thoughts
Additional Readings

[Page 6]

 

 

[Page 39]
 

 

 

7: Out of Africa

 

The latest theory of human origins — Out-of-Africa — provides the final piece to the puzzle. It explains why r-K theory accounts for race differences in body, brain, and behavior. As races moved out of Africa they evolved away from r-type behaviors and toward K-type. Moving out of Africa meant increasing brain size and IQ, but lowering reproduction, aggression and sexual activity.

 

Based on his theory of evolution, Charles Darwin thought Africa was “the cradle of mankind. He did not have any fossils from Africa to support his theory but he concluded that humans came from Africa based on watching the chimpanzee and the gorilla. If the African apes were our closest living relatives, it made sense that humans first evolved on the only continent where all three species lived.

 

Evidence from genetics, the fossil record, and archaeology have since all proved Darwin correct. The human line began with the African fossil species called Australopithecus. Later human ancestors Homo erectus and then Homo sapiens also appeared first in Africa.

 

Homo sapiens were fully human. They were in Africa less than 200,000 years ago. Moving to the Middle East about 100,000 years ago, they then spread out across the world. They replaced the Neanderthal and Homo erectus groups they met either by fighting or competing for food.

 

When modern humans left Africa they began to develop the racial traits we see today by adapting to the new regions and climates. The first split in the human line took place about 100,000 years ago between groups that remained in Africa (ancestors to modern Blacks) and those who left Africa. Then about 40,000 years ago the group that left Africa divided once again, into the ancestors of today’s Whites and Orientals.

 

This history of moving first out of Africa into Europe and then later into East Asia explains why Whites fall in between Orientals and Blacks on the life history variables. The split between Africans and non-Africans happened first, almost twice as early as the split between Orientals and Whites.

 

The Out of Africa theory explains the good fit between the r-K life history traits and race differences. It is hard to survive in Africa. Africa has unpredictable droughts and deadly diseases that spread quickly. More Africans than Asians or Europeans die young — often from tropical disease. In these African conditions, parental care is a less certain way of making sure a child will survive. A better strategy is simply to have more children. This tilts their life history toward the r-end of the r-K scale. A more r-strategy means not only more offspring and less parental care. It also means less culture is passed from parent to child, and this tends to reduce the intellectual demands needed to function in the culture. And the process continues from one generation to the next.

 

In contrast, the humans migrating to Eurasia faced entirely new problems — gathering and storing food, providing shelter, making clothes, and raising children during the long winters. These tasks were more mentally demanding. They called for larger brains and slower growth rates. They permitted lower levels of sex hormones, resulting in less sexual potency and aggression and more family stability and longevity. Leaving the tropics for the northern continents meant leaving the r-strategy for the K-strategy — and all that went with it.

 

[Page 40]

 

 

The Evidence

 

How can we know if the Out of Africa theory is true? To answer that question, we have to look at the evidence from genetics, paleontology, and archaeology.

 

The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994) by Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues looks at thousands of genetic DNA comparisons of the races. Geneticists count the number of gene mutations in each group to measure which groups are most closely related and when the groups split from one another. These DNA studies support the Out of Africa theory that the split between Africans and all other groups was the first to take place.

 

Fossils of prehistoric humans tell us that early steps in our evolution took place in Africa. Homo sapiens lived in Africa between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago, but they only reached the Middle East about 100,000 years ago. Earlier hominids such as the Neanderthals were very different from modern humans. They had faces that jut further forward and they had larger front teeth than any living Europeans, Africans, or East Asians. Neanderthals had denser bones, thicker skulls, and more pronounced brow ridges than any modern humans. By comparison, all living humans are alike, despite our race differences.

 

Archaeology tells us the same story. The crude, Early Stone Age culture (termed Lower Paleolithic) of Homo erectus, existed more than one million years before Homo sapiens appeared. The Early Stone Age tool kit had hand-axes, choppers, and cleavers, all very similar in shape. However, the Middle Stone Age tool kit of the Neanderthals (termed Middle Paleolithic) included more advanced stone tools and the use of bone.

 

When modern humans first appeared on the scene 100,000 years ago, things started to change in major ways. The Late Stone Age tool kit (termed Upper Paleolithic) was highly specialized. It consisted of thinner blades struck off of stone cores to make knives, spear barbs, scrapers and cutters. Standardized bone and antler tools appeared in the tool kit for the first time, including needles for sewing fur clothes. The Late Stone Age tool kit contained tools made of several parts tied or glued together. Spear points were set in shafts and ax heads in handles. Rope was used to make nets to trap foxes, rabbits, and other small animals. Advanced weapons like barbed harpoons, darts, spear-throwers, and bows and arrows gave Late Stone Age people the ability to kill animals from a safe distance.

 

Survival in Northeast Asia about 40,000 years ago also required warm clothing. Archeologists have found needles, cave paintings of parkas, and grave ornaments marking the outlines of shirts and trousers. We know that warm furs were worn. Fox and wolf skeletons missing their paws tell us that these animals were skinned to make fur clothes. Houses were dug into the ground to provide insulation. These large dwellings were marked by post holes and had walls made from mammoth bones. Fireplaces and stone lamps were used to light the long Arctic winter night.

 

 

Geography and Race

 

Africa is warmer than the northern continents, but it is a less stable habitat. Droughts, storms, and diseases from viruses, bacteria, and parasites cause high death rates, even today. Without modern medical care, insuring survival in Africa means having many young (r-strategy). In the more stable environments of Europe and Asia, survival is insured from having fewer young, but caring for them very well (K-strategy).

 

The environment of Eurasia produced physical differences between the races. Northern Europe’s cloudiness meant less sunshine. This decreased the intake of vitamin D, so lighter skin and hair were needed to let more sunlight get in. As a result, Europeans born with lighter skin and hair were healthier. They had more chance of having children who would survive and reproduce.

 

East Asia was even colder than North Europe, but with less cloud cover and more sunlight. There a thicker layer of fat helped to insulate against the cold. This gives many Orientals a so-called “yellow” complexion because it reduces the visibility of red blood vessels close to the skin. Meanwhile in Africa melanin gives the skin a black color to protect it from the scorching rays of the sun.

 

[Page 41]

 

Climate differences also influenced mental abilities. In Africa, food and warmth were available all year round. To survive the cold winters, the populations migrating northwards had to become more inventive. They had to find new sources of food and methods for storing it. They needed to make clothing and shelters to protect against the elements. Without them the people would have died. Both parents had to provide more care to help their young survive in the harsher climates.

 

Whites and Orientals in Eurasia had to find food and keep warm in the colder climates. In the tropics, plant foods were plentiful all year round. In Europe and Asia they were seasonal and could not be found during many winter and spring months.

 

To survive the long winters, the ancestors of today’s Whites and Orientals made complex tools and weapons to fish and hunt animals. They made spearheads that could kill big game from a greater distance and knives for cutting and skinning. Fires, clothes and shelters were made for warmth. Bone needles were used to sew animal skins together and shelters were made from large bones and skins.

 

Making special tools, fires, clothing and shelters called for higher intelligence. Moving “Out of Africa meant moving into a K-type life-history strategy. That meant higher IQ, larger brains, slower growth, and lower hormone levels. It also meant lower levels of sexuality, aggression, and impulsive behavior. More family stability, advanced planning, self-control, rule-following, and longevity were needed.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Fossil records, archaeology, and genetic DNA studies of the living races support Charles Darwin’s insight that we evolved in Africa. Humans then spread to the Middle East, Europe, Asia, Australia, and then to the Americas. As humans left Africa, their bodies, brains and behavior changed. To deal with the colder winters and scarcer food supply of Europe and Northeast Asia, the Oriental and White races moved away from an r-strategy toward the K-strategy. This meant more parenting and social organization, which required a larger brain size and a higher IQ.

 

 

Additional Readings

 

Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., Menozzi, P., & Piazza, A. (1994). The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

 

Stringer, C. & McKie, R. (1996). African Exodus. London: Cape.

======================================

 

Click here for Race, Evolution and Behavior >>>

Part 1: Preface; Race is More Than Skin Deep

Part 2: Maturation, Crime, and Parenting

Part 3: Sex, Hormones, and AIDS

Part 4: Intelligence and Brain Size

Part 5: Genes, Environment, or Both?

Part 6: Life History Theory

Part 7: Out of Africa

Part 8: Questions and Answers

 

 

 

 

 

 

PDF of this blog post.
Click to view or download (1.0 MB). >>   Race, Evolution, and Behavior – Part 7 Ver 2

 

 Race, Evolution and Behaviour - COVER

 

Version History

 

Version 2: Aug 13, 2015 — Added Cover page; improved  formatting; expanded Contents page; added updated PDF (ver 2).
 
Version 1Published Jun 23, 2014

Read Full Post »

Race, Evolution and Behaviour - COVER

 

 

RACE, EVOLUTION, AND BEHAVIOR:

 

A Life History Perspective

 

 [Part 6]

 

2nd Special Abridged Edition

By Professor J. Philippe Rushton

 

 Race, Evolution and Behavior - Rushton

 

University of Western Ontario

London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2

 

Author

J. Philippe Rushton is a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. Rushton holds two doctorates from the University of London (Ph.D. and D.Sc) and is a Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American, British, and Canadian Psychological Associations. He is also a member of the Behavior Genetics Association, the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, and the Society for Neuroscience. Rushton has published six books and nearly 200 articles. In 1992 the Institute for Scientific Information ranked him the 22nd most published psychologist and the 11th most cited. Professor Rushton is listed in Who’s Who in Science and TechnologyWho’s Who in International Authors, and Who’s Who in Canada.

 

[Page 5]

Contents

 

Preface 6

1. Race is More Than Skin Deep 7

Race in History
Race in Today’s World
Why Are There Race Differences?
Conclusion
Additional Readings

2. Maturation, Crime, and Parenting 13

Maturation
Crime
Personality, Aggression, and Self-Esteem
Parenting and Out-of-Wedlock Births
Longevity and Population Growth
Conclusion
Additional Readings

3. Sex, Hormones, and AIDS 18

Sexual Behavior and Attitudes
Sexual Physiology and Anatomy
AIDS and HIV
Conclusion
Additional Readings

4. Intelligence and Brain Size 22

Culture Fair Tests
Intelligence and Brain Size
Race Differences in Brain Size
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Brain Weight at Autopsy
Measuring Skull Size
Measuring Living Heads
Summarizing Brain Size Differences
Conclusion
Additional Readings

5. Genes, Environment, or Both? 28

Heritability Studies
Adoption Studies
Race and Heritability
Trans-racial Adoption Studies
Heritabilities Predict Racial Differences
Regression to the Average
Conclusion
Additional Readings

6. Life History Theory 34

r-K Life History Theory
Race Differences and r-K Strategies
Testosterone — The Master Switch?
Conclusion
Additional Readings

7. Out of Africa 39

The Evidence
Geography and Race
Conclusion
Additional Readings

8. Questions and Answers 42

Is Race a Useful Concept? (Chapter 1)
Are the Race Differences Real? (Chapters 2 through 5)
Is the Relationship Between Race and Crime Valid? (Chapter 2)
Is the Relationship Between Race and Reproduction Valid? (Chapter 3)
Is the Genetic Evidence Flawed? (Chapter 5)
Is r-K Theory Correct? (Chapter 6)
Aren’t Environmental Explanations Sufficient? (Chapter 5)
Is Race Science Immoral? (Chapter 1)
Closing Thoughts
Additional Readings

[Page 6]

 

 

[Page 34]

6: Life History Theory

 

The theory of r-K life histories explains the worldwide three-way pattern in race differences. The r-strategy means being very sexually active and having many offspring. The K-strategy means having fewer offspring, but with both mother and father giving them more care. Humans are the most K strategists of all species. Among humans, Orientals follow the most K-strategy, Blacks the most r-strategy, and Whites fall in between.

The previous chapters showed that there are important race differences in brain size, hormone levels, even bone and tooth development, as well as sexual behavior, aggression, and crime. The three-way pattern in which the races differ — Orientals at one end, Blacks at the other, and Whites in between — is true all around the world. A look at history shows that the race differences we see today were also seen in the past.

Why do the races differ? Of course, poverty, nutrition, and cultural factors are important. But so too are the genes. Culture theory alone cannot explain all the findings.

 

 

r-K Life History Theory

 

Harvard University biologist E.O. Wilson was the first to use the term r-K Life-History Theory. He used it to explain population change in plants and animals. I have applied it to the human races.

A life-history is a genetically-organized group of traits that have evolved together to meet the trials of life — survival, growth, and reproduction. For our purposes, r is a term in Wilson’s equation that stands for the natural rate of reproduction (the number of offspring). The symbol K stands for the amount of care parents give to insure that their offspring survive. Plants and animals have different life history strategies. Some are more r and others are relatively more K.

The r and K strategists differ in the number of eggs they produce. The r-strategists are like machine-gunners. They fire so many shots that at least one of them will hit the target. The r-strategists produce many eggs and sperm, and mate and give birth often. The K-strategists, on the other hand, are like snipers. They put time and effort into a few carefully placed shots. K-strategists give their offspring a lot of care. They work together in getting food and shelter, help their kin, and have complex social systems. That is why the K-strategists need a more complex nervous system and bigger brain, but produce fewer eggs and sperm.

This basic law of evolution links reproductive strategy to intelligence and brain development. The less complex an animal’s brain, the greater its reproductive output. The bigger an animal’s brain, the longer it takes to reach sexual maturity and the fewer offspring it produces (see Chart 10). Oysters, for example, have a nervous system so simple that they lack a true brain. To offset this they produce 500 million eggs a year. In contrast, chimpanzees have large brains but give birth to one baby about every four years.

In different species of plants and animals we find a consistent pattern between these two variables — intelligence and reproductive rate. The number of offspring, the time between births, the amount of care parents give, infant mortality, speed of maturity, life span, even social organization, altruism, and brain size all fit together like pieces of a puzzle. The complete puzzle forms a picture biologists call the r-K Life History Strategy.

 

[Page 35]

 

Chart 10

 

 

The r-type life history involves higher levels of reproduction, while the K-type strategy requires greater parental care and use of mental attributes. Since larger brains need more time to be built, all the stages of development are also slowed down. The gestation period for some smaller-brained primates (like lemurs and monkeys) is 18 weeks. But for bigger-brained primates (like chimpanzees and gorillas) it is 33 weeks. Some monkeys have their first pregnancy at the age of nine months. Gorillas, which have bigger brains and greater intelligence, have their first pregnancy at ten years.

Monkeys are born with a brain very nearly 100% its adult size, while chimpanzees and gorillas are born with about 60% of adult brain size. Human babies are born with a brain that is less than 30% of its adult size. For the first few months of life, monkeys are better than apes in most tests of sensory-motor behavior. And infant apes are superior to infant humans on these tasks. The r-K relationship is true for different species and also applies to humans.
 

Chart 10 shows where various animals fall on the r-K scale. Different species are, of course, only relatively r or K. Rabbits are K-strategists compared to fish. But they are r-strategists compared to primates (monkeys, apes, and humans, who are the best K-strategists among mammals). Humans may be the most K species of all. And some humans are better K-strategists than others.

 

Chart 11 lists traits typical of r and K reproductive strategies. Every species and every race has a certain life history that we can describe in terms of r-K. The position of each species (or race) on the r-K scale shows the strategy that gave its ancestors the best chance to survive in their habitat.

 

Chart 12 shows the life phases and gestation times (conception to birth) for six different primates. They show a scale of increasing K, from lemur to macaque, to gibbon, to chimp, to early humans, to modern humans. Each step in the scale means that the species puts more time and energy into caring for its young and insuring their survival. Each step also means not having as many offspring. Note the different sizes of each of the phases for the different species in Chart 12. Only humans have the post reproductive (i.e., after menopause) phase.

 

[Page 36]

 

Chart 11

 

The differences in r-K strategies that exist even in primates are important. A female lemur is an r- strategist for a primate. She produces her first offspring at nine months and has a life expectancy of only 15 years. A female gorilla is a K-strategist. She has her first pregnancy at about age 10 years and can expect to live to the age of 40. The lemur may mature, have a number of young, and die before the gorilla has her first baby.

 

[Page 37]

 

Chart 12

Race Differences and r-K Strategies

 

How do the three races fall along the r-K scale? Look back at the pattern of racial differences in Chart 1 (page 19). Compare them to the r-K traits in Chart 11 (page 77). Orientals are the most K, Blacks are the most r, and Whites fall in between.

 

Being more r means:

* shorter gestation periods

* earlier physical maturation (muscular control, bone and dental development)

* smaller brains

* earlier puberty (age at first menstruation, first intercourse, first pregnancy)

* more developed primary sexual characteristics (size of penis, vagina, testes, ovaries)

* more developed secondary sexual characteristics (voice, muscularity, buttocks, breasts)

* more biological than social control of behavior (length of menstrual cycle, periodicity of sexual response, predictability of life history from start of puberty)

* higher levels of sex hormones (testosterone, gonadotropins, follicle stimulating hormone)

* higher levels of individuality (lower law abidingness)

* more permissive sexual attitudes

* higher intercourse frequencies (premarital, marital, extramarital)

* weaker pair bonds

* more siblings

* higher rates of child neglect and abandonment

* greater frequency of disease

* shorter life expectancy

 

[Page 38]

 

 

Testosterone — The Master Switch?

 

Testosterone may be a master switch that sets the position of the races on the r-K scale. We know that this male sex hormone affects self-concept, temperament, sexuality, aggression and altruism. It controls the development of muscles and the deepening of the voice. It can also contribute to aggression and problem behavior. A study of over 4,000 military veterans found high testosterone levels predicted greater criminality, alcohol and drug abuse, military misconduct, and having many sex partners.

We can now see how different testosterone levels among the three races might explain the r-K behavioral differences. With higher testosterone levels, Blacks are more likely to put time and energy into having offspring. On the other hand, Asians and Whites with lower testosterone levels put more time and energy into caring for a few offspring and making long term plans. But, how did this happen? And why? For the answers we must turn to human origins and the Out-of-Africa theory of racial evolution.

 

 

Conclusion

 

r-K Life History Theory, a basic principle of modern evolutionary biology, explains the three- way pattern of differences in brain size, IQ, and behavior, described earlier. Every species of plant or animal can be placed on the r-K scale. The r end of the scale means having more offspring, maturing earlier, having smaller brains and providing less parental care. The K end of the scale means having fewer offspring, maturing later, having larger brains, and providing more parental care. Humans are the most K species of all. Among humans, Orientals are the most K, Blacks the most r, and Whites fall in between.

 

 

Additional Readings

 

Johanson, D. C. & Edey, M. A. (1981). Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind. New York: Simon & Schuster.

 

Lovejoy, C.O. (1981). The origin of man. Science, 211, 341-350.

 

======================================

 

Click here for Race, Evolution and Behavior >>>

Part 1: Preface; Race is More Than Skin Deep

Part 2: Maturation, Crime, and Parenting

Part 3: Sex, Hormones, and AIDS

Part 4: Intelligence and Brain Size

Part 5: Genes, Environment, or Both?

Part 6: Life History Theory

Part 7: Out of Africa

Part 8: Questions and Answers

 

 

 

 

 

 

PDF of this blog post.
Click to view or download (2.0 MB). >>   Race, Evolution, and Behavior – Part 6 Ver 2

 

 Race, Evolution and Behaviour - COVER

 

Version History

 

Version 2: Aug 13, 2015 — Added Cover page; improved  formatting; expanded Contents page; added updated PDF (ver 2).
 
Version 1: Published Jun 20, 2014

Read Full Post »

 Misha - Surviving with Wolves Or Lying with Wolves - COVER

 

 

Misha: Surviving with Wolves

Or Lying with Wolves?

Jett Rucker

Smith’s  Report – No.  206  Challenging the Holocaust Taboo Since 1990  June  2014 

Online at www.codoh.com

 

[Image] Two covers of Misha Defonseca’s book

 

Misha (deWael) Defonseca was unquestionably a victim, if a “collateral” victim, of the Germans who were occupying her country of Belgium when she was four years old. They executed both of her parents after duly trying them as resistance fighters and finding them guilty. That all this, including their execution, was perfectly legal under the Geneva Convention that governed occupiers and occupied alike was of course lost on the four-year-old as it is lost today on the many adults under the sway of the slogan “German, bad; Resistance, good” at least as it pertains to World War II. Such is the verdict of “to the victor go the spoils.

 

Misha - 0797

[Image] Misha (deWael) Defonseca holding a baby wolf (not).

 

Misha soon realized that her parents were gone forever, and not long after that, she realized that the Germans/Nazis had taken them away from her. The rest was well lost along with the idea that, during the Holocaust, there was a war going on. Eventually, and quite understandably, Misha, a Catholic girl raised in occupied Belgium by her grandparents, conceived herself a victim of the Germans/Nazis in a more “mainstream” way, up to and including becoming a “Jew” by the time she lived with her husband, Mr. Defonseca, in New Jersey. It was sometime during this period that she conceived her tale of persecution and lupine salvation in the story that she presented to her synagogue’s congregation as “surviving with wolves,” a saga in which she walked across Europe from Auschwitz back to her home in the protective and nurturing company of a pack of wolves.

 

Publisher Jane Daniels got wind of this tale somehow in the mid 1990s and smelled the mother of all potboilers. Having approached Defonseca and finding her a bit wanting in tale-spinning ability in written English, she resourcefully paired her up with Vera Lee, a French-speaking former professor at Boston College, to ghostwrite the story. Here, as elsewhere, Daniels added impetus to the undertaking.

 

Misha - 0798

[Image] Jane Daniels (left) and Vera Lee

 

Ultimately, after a good deal of the mid-wifing that publishers used to be counted upon to provide, a book was published: title, Misha: A Mémoire of the Holocaust Years; author, Misha Defonseca. This was in 1997. Daniels’s hopes for major sales in the US were disappointed by sales that never topped 5,000 copies, but this calculus was upset entirely by two developments: (a) that sales in Europe of translations into French and other languages skyrocketed; and (b) that Disney Studios optioned the story for production as a film.

 

Misha - 0799

[Image] French cover of Misha Defonseca’s book

 

From that point, a feeding frenzy ensued that involved not only the New Jersey wolf Jane Daniels but those of another pack in Los Angeles known as the Palmer & Dodge Literary Agency, in fact the subsidiary of a law firm in that city. The smell of money was in the air, and the pack was in full cry. In particular, the European rights, by way of some subterfuge on the part of the lawyers in La La Land, were in play, and Daniels managed thereby to horn in on the millions of euros flowing from them. A detailed account (http://tinyurl.com/pkmzufx) of the interlocking bands of chicanery afoot was presented at findlaw.com, pursuant to one of the innumerable lawsuits filed and adjudicated over a period of twelve years in the overburdened courts of the Commonwealth of New Jersey. This 2005 action was not the final action of this legal saga, and it’s possible that the final action has not yet even been initiated, much less concluded. But it’s an excellent rundown for those interested in the tawdry details.

 

But another smell was in the air, that of fraud, and that fragrance attracts predators of an altogether different kind. But it took the verdict of Misha’s 2002 suit against her publisher for absconding with revenues from Europe that should have been Misha’s to attract the bloodhounds. That verdict, a jury trial in, yes, New Jersey, yielded a verdict of $7 million to Misha and $3 million to Lee, the ghostwriter.

 

But the judge tripled these verdicts on the grounds that Daniels had deliberately committed fraud against her author and her ghostwriter, to $22 million and $9 million respectively. Daniels, who no doubt had suspected the story was bogus from the get-go, hired forensic genealogist Sharon Sergeant to run down proof of Misha’s fabrications. Whatever might be said of Daniels’s ethics or even her astuteness as chief executive officer and sole employee of Mt. Ivy Press [1] (http://tinyurl.com/og9o4vm), she does seem to know how to go out and find talent.

 

Misha - 0800

 [Image] Sharon Sergeant

 

Sergeant quickly fetched up Misha’s background: she was, as mentioned above, a Catholic girl who grew up in Belgium during World War II and had never gotten near a concentration camp, nor wolves, for that matter.

 

Misha - 0801

[Image] Dancing with wolves

 

Daniels also resorted to the Internet (http://tinyurl.com/q6mv6of) to plead her case, in a deceptive manner quite the equal of her author’s own incredible tale. Atrocity piled atop mendacity piled atop injustice piled atop deception. It’s all quite a story. As in all things Holocaust, be careful what you believe, and how firmly you believe it.

 

The news today is of an “award” in the busy courts of New Jersey of $22.5 million to . . . Jane Daniels from Misha Defonseca a.k.a. Monique deWael. So much time had elapsed since the original award of that same amount in the other direction in 2002 that Daniels, the wronged plaintiff, had to file a new action to reverse the award to the original fraudster, rather than simply appealing that original award and having it vacated. The wheels of justice, like those of fraud, deception, and opportunities for mulcting a gullible public, turn but slowly. But the money awarded Misha in 2002 was taken back, or was in all likelihood never paid over in the first place.

 

So, at the end of the day, has justice been done? The entire notion of justice seems to fade away among packs of wolves such as play the main parts in this saga, which has so far taken more than twice the length of time that the entire Holocaust (remember the Holocaust?) itself took. The amount taken from one wolf and given to another has been rescinded. Both wolves have made plenty of money from the deal, and it would appear that they will be able to keep it.

 

Except for wolf Jane Daniels, she who holds the tainted claim to having put this entire caper together. The 2002 award of $9 million from her to ghostwriter Vera Lee appears to stand. No doubt there will be numerous future actions with which the courts of New Jersey may busy themselves before that matter is settled, if indeed it ever is. But Vera Lee would appear, indeed, to be either an innocent or at least a neutral in this evil enterprise, and very much a victim of fraud perpetrated by Jane Daniels and her co-conspirators in Los Angeles. In any case, she seems to continue her own career of writing and publishing rather “above ground,” unlike the CEO of Mt. Ivy Press, who might be thought to have found it best to fade into obscurity with whatever millions she managed to hang onto from the Misha Wolves Caper.

 

Today’s report in the New Republic (http://tinyurl.com/k2ptlo9) of the latest, and one of the biggest, developments in this case ends with an arresting passage that includes one of the central claims of the account of the Holocaust that is protected by law in growing numbers of countries: “If ordinary German soldiers could take pleasure in bayoneting babies, if millions of people could be gassed and burned to ash, then why couldn’t a girl be raised by wolves?

 

Indeed. This question is so very well asked. Maybe central aspects of the Holocaust story today swallowed by millions of people denied by law of any opportunity to hear any contrary view are fabrications fully as blatant and imaginative as Misha’s trek across Europe in the company of a nurturing pack of wolves.

 

It’s all so incredible.

 

Isn’t it?

 

———————————-

 

Footnote:

[1] Mt. Ivy Press webpage.

Misha - 0802 

 

======================================

 

PDF of this blog post. Click to view or download.

>> Misha – Surviving with Wolves Or Lying with Wolves Ver 2

 

Version History

Version 2: Aug 17, 2015 — Updated Cover image and PDF.
Version 1: Published Jun 18, 2014

Read Full Post »

Race, Evolution and Behaviour - COVER

 

 

RACE, EVOLUTION, AND BEHAVIOR:

 

A Life History Perspective

 

 [Part 5]

 

2nd Special Abridged Edition

By Professor J. Philippe Rushton

 

 Race, Evolution and Behavior - Rushton

 

University of Western Ontario

London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2

 

Author

J. Philippe Rushton is a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. Rushton holds two doctorates from the University of London (Ph.D. and D.Sc) and is a Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American, British, and Canadian Psychological Associations. He is also a member of the Behavior Genetics Association, the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, and the Society for Neuroscience. Rushton has published six books and nearly 200 articles. In 1992 the Institute for Scientific Information ranked him the 22nd most published psychologist and the 11th most cited. Professor Rushton is listed in Who’s Who in Science and TechnologyWho’s Who in International Authors, and Who’s Who in Canada.

 

[Page 5]

Contents

 

Preface 6

1. Race is More Than Skin Deep 7

Race in History
Race in Today’s World
Why Are There Race Differences?
Conclusion
Additional Readings

2. Maturation, Crime, and Parenting 13

Maturation
Crime
Personality, Aggression, and Self-Esteem
Parenting and Out-of-Wedlock Births
Longevity and Population Growth
Conclusion
Additional Readings

3. Sex, Hormones, and AIDS 18

Sexual Behavior and Attitudes
Sexual Physiology and Anatomy
AIDS and HIV
Conclusion
Additional Readings

4. Intelligence and Brain Size 22

Culture Fair Tests
Intelligence and Brain Size
Race Differences in Brain Size
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Brain Weight at Autopsy
Measuring Skull Size
Measuring Living Heads
Summarizing Brain Size Differences
Conclusion
Additional Readings

5. Genes, Environment, or Both? 28

Heritability Studies
Adoption Studies
Race and Heritability
Trans-racial Adoption Studies
Heritabilities Predict Racial Differences
Regression to the Average
Conclusion
Additional Readings

6. Life History Theory 34

r-K Life History Theory
Race Differences and r-K Strategies
Testosterone — The Master Switch?
Conclusion
Additional Readings

7. Out of Africa 39

The Evidence
Geography and Race
Conclusion
Additional Readings

8. Questions and Answers 42

Is Race a Useful Concept? (Chapter 1)
Are the Race Differences Real? (Chapters 2 through 5)
Is the Relationship Between Race and Crime Valid? (Chapter 2)
Is the Relationship Between Race and Reproduction Valid? (Chapter 3)
Is the Genetic Evidence Flawed? (Chapter 5)
Is r-K Theory Correct? (Chapter 6)
Aren’t Environmental Explanations Sufficient? (Chapter 5)
Is Race Science Immoral? (Chapter 1)
Closing Thoughts
Additional Readings

[Page 6]

 

 

[Page 28]
 

 

 

5: Genes, Environment and Brain Size

 

 

A number of studies show that race differences are caused by both genes and environment. Heritabilities, cross-race adoptions, genetic weights, and regression-to- the-average all tell the same story. Cross-race adoptions give some of the best proof that the genes cause race differences in IQ. Growing up in a middle-class White home does not lower the average IQ for Orientals nor raise it for Blacks.

Can any environmental factor explain all the data on speed of dental development, age of sexual maturity, brain size, IQ, testosterone level, and the number of multiple births? Genes seem to be involved. But how can we know for sure?

Some traits are clearly inherited. For example, we know that the race differences in twinning rate are due to heredity and not to the environment. Studies of Oriental, White, and Mixed-Race children in Hawaii and of White, Black, and Mixed-Race children in Brazil show that it is the mother’s race, and not the father’s, that is the determining factor. But the role of racial heredity is found for other traits as well.
 

 

Heritability Studies

 

Heritability is the amount of variation in a trait due to the genes. A heritability of 1.00 means that the differences are inborn and the environment has no effect. A heritability of zero (0.00) means the trait is controlled by the environment and not at all by the genes. A heritability of 0.50 means that the differences come from both the genes and the environment.

Heritability is useful for animal breeders. They like to know how much genes influence things like milk yields and beefiness in cattle or determine which dogs can hunt, and which are good with children. The higher the heritability, the more the offspring will resemble their parents. On the other hand, low heritabilities mean that environmental factors like diet and health are more important.

For people, we measure heritability by comparing family members, especially identical with fraternal twins, and adopted children with ordinary brothers and sisters. Identical twins share 100% of their genes, while fraternal twins share only 50%. Ordinary brothers and sisters also share 50% of their genes, while adopted children share no genes. If genes are important, identical twins should be twice as similar to each other as are fraternal twins or ordinary siblings — and so they are.

Some identical twins are separated early in life and grow up apart. The famous Minnesota Twin Study by Thomas J. Bouchard and others compared many of these. (See Chart 8).

Even though they grew up in different homes, identical twins grow to be very similar to each other. They are similar both in physical traits (like height and fingerprints) and in behavioral traits (like IQ and personality). Identical twins who grow up in different homes share all their genes but do not share the effects of upbringing. As you can see in Chart 8, heredity accounted for 97% of the difference for fingerprints, and the environment only 3%. Social attitudes were 40% heredity, 60% environment. IQ was 70% heredity, 30% environment.

Identical twins are often so alike that even close friends cannot tell them apart. Although the twins in the Minnesota Project lived separate lives, they shared many likes and dislikes. They often had the same hobbies and enjoyed the same music, food, and clothes. Their manners and gestures were often the same. The twins were very alike in when they got married (and sometimes divorced) and in the jobs they held. They even gave similar names to their children and pets.

[Page 29]

 

 

Chart 08

One of these pairs, the “Jim twins,” were adopted as infants by two different working-class families. But they marked their lives with a trail of similar names. Both named their childhood pet “Toy. Both married and divorced women named Linda and then married women named Betty. One twin named his son James Allen, the other named his son James Alan.

Another pair of separated twins were helpless gigglers. Each twin said her adoptive parents were reserved and serious. Each one said she never met anyone who laughed as easily as she did — until she met her twin!

Heredity also affects the sex drive. The age of our first sexual experience, how often we have sex, and our total number of sexual partners all have heritabilities of about 50%. So do the odds that we will get divorced. Several studies find that homosexuality, lesbianism, and other sexual orientations are about 50% genetic.

Twin studies show that even social attitudes are partly genetic in origin. One Australian study of 4,000 twin pairs found there was a genetic influence on specific political beliefs like capital punishment, abortion, and immigration. It turns out that criminal tendency is also heritable. About 50% of identical twins with criminal records have twins with criminal records, while only about 25% of fraternal twins do.

Genes influence helping behavior and aggression. A large study of British twins found that the desire to help or hurt others has a heritability of around 50%. For men, fighting, carrying a weapon, and struggling with a police officer are all about 50% heritable.

[Page 30]

My article in the 1989 Behavioral and Brain Sciences shows that who we marry and who we choose as friends is also partly genetic. When the blood groups and heritabilities of friends and spouses are compared, we find that people chose partners who are genetically similar to themselves. The tendency for like to attract like is rooted in the genes.
 

 

Adoption Studies

 

A good check on the results of twin studies comes from adoption studies. A Danish study (in the 1984 issue of Science) examined 14,427 children separated from their birth parents as infants. Boys were more likely to have a criminal record if their birth parents had a criminal record than if their adoptive parents did. Even though they were brought up in different homes, 20% of the full brothers and 13% of the half-brothers had similar criminal records. Only 9% of the unrelated boys brought up in the same home both had criminal records.

The Colorado Adoption Project found that genes increase in influence as we age. Between age 3 and 16, adopted children grew to be more like their birth parents in height, weight, and IQ. By age 16 the adopted children did not resemble the people who had reared them. The heritability of height, weight, and IQ in infancy are all about 30%. By the teenage years, they are about 50%, and by adulthood, they are about 80%. Thus, as children grow older, their home environments have less impact and their genes have more impact, just the opposite of what culture theory predicts.
 

 

Race and Heritability

 

Can heritability tell us anything about the differences between races? Yes, a lot! Studies show that when the heritability is high in Whites, it is also high in Orientals and Blacks. When it is low in Whites, it is also low in Orientals and Blacks. For example, the heritability of IQ is about 50% for Blacks, Orientals, and other groups, just as it is for Whites. So there is a genetic basis for intelligence in all three races.

One study used the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), given to many men and women going into the military. It found that in all three races the similarity among siblings was the same. The genetic influence on IQ in Orientals, Whites, and Blacks is about equal. There is no special factor, like the history of slavery or White racism, that has made cultural influences stronger for one race than for another.
 

 

Trans-racial Adoption Studies

 

The best evidence for the genetic basis of race-IQ differences comes from trans-racial adoption studies of Oriental children, Black children, and Mixed-Race children. All these children have been adopted by White parents at an early age and have grown up in middle-class White homes.

One well known trans-racial adoption study is Sandra Scarr’s Minnesota project. The adopted children were either White, Black, or Mixed-Race (Black-White) babies. The children took IQ tests when they were seven years old and again when they were 17.

In their initial report, the authors thought that their study proved that a good home could raise the IQs of Black children. At age 7, their IQ was 97, well above the Black average of 85 and almost equal to the White average of 100. However, when the children were retested at age 17, the results told another story (reported in the 1992 issue of Intelligence).

At age seven, Black, Mixed-Race, and White adopted children all had higher IQ scores than average for their group. Growing up in a good home helped all the children. Even so, the racial pattern was exactly as predicted by genetic theory, not by culture theory. Black children reared in these good homes had an average IQ of 97, but the Mixed-Race children averaged an IQ of 109, and the White children an IQ of 112.

[Page 31]

The evidence for genetic theory got stronger as the children grew older. By age 17, the IQs of the adopted children moved closer to the expected average for their race. At age 17 adopted White children had an IQ of about 106, Mixed-Race adoptees an IQ of about 99, and adopted Blacks had an IQ of about 89. IQ scores are not the only evidence in this study. School grades, class ranks, and aptitude tests show the same pattern.

When Sandra Scarr got the results of her follow-up study at age 17, she changed her mind about the cause of why the Blacks and Whites differed. She wrote, “those adoptees with two African American birth parents had IQs that were not notably higher than the IQ scores of Black youngsters reared in Black families.” Growing up in a White middle-class home produced little or no lasting increase in the IQs of Black children.

Some psychologists disagreed with her. They claimed “expectancy effects,” not genes, explained the pattern. They argued that the Black and White children were not treated the same. Even if parents took good care of their children, the schools, classmates, and society as a whole discriminated against Black children and this hurt their IQs. Because we expected Black children to do poorly in school, they lived up to our low expectations.

Is there any way to decide between the genetic theory and the expectancy theory? There is. A special analysis of the Scarr study compared parents who believed that they had adopted a Black baby but, really, had adopted a Mixed-Race (Black-White) child. The average IQ for these Mixed-Race children was just about the same as for other Mixed-Race children and above that for adopted Black children. This was true even though the parents who adopted these Mixed-Race children thought their babies really had two Black parents.

Chart 9 summarizes the results for Oriental children adopted into White middle-class homes. Korean and Vietnamese babies from poor backgrounds, many of whom were malnourished, were adopted by White American and Belgian families. When they grew up, they excelled in school. The IQs of the adopted Oriental children were 10 or more points higher than the national average for the country they grew up in. Transracial adoption does not increase or decrease IQ. The three-way pattern of race differences in IQ remains.

The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study also showed that there are race differences in personality. Black 17-year-olds were more active and more disruptive than White 17-year-olds. Korean children raised in White American families were quieter and less active than White children.
 

 

Heritabilities Predict Racial Differences

 

There are other ways to test the influence of genes and environment on race differences in IQ. Some test items have higher heritability, i.e. they are more the result of heredity than others. If genes cause the Black-White IQ differences, then Blacks and Whites should differ on these high heritability items. Arthur Jensen’s 1998 book, The g Factor, shows that indeed race difference are higher on tests with higher heritability, even for toddlers.

Inbreeding depression gives us still another way to test if genes explain Black-White differences. It occurs when harmful recessive genes combine and lowers height, health, and IQ. Inbreeding depression is more likely when children are born to closely related people (such as cousins). Most IQ tests are made up of several sub-tests such as vocabulary, memory, and logical reasoning.

The children of cousin marriages have a lower IQ than do other children and their scores are more depressed on some IQ sub-tests than on others. The more inbreeding depression affects a sub-test, the more we know that genes affect sub-test performance. Therefore, genetic theory predicts that the tests showing the most inbreeding depression will also show the most Black-White difference.

In a study published in Intelligence in 1989 I looked at the amount of inbreeding depression on scores among cousin marriages in Japan for 11 sub-tests of a well known IQ test. Then I compared which sub-tests showed the most inbreeding depression and which ones had the most Black-White difference in the U.S. The sub-tests that showed the most inbreeding depression also showed the most Black-White differences. Since the inbreeding depression numbers came from a study of Japanese cousin marriages, the cultural differences between Blacks and Whites in the U.S. cannot explain why Blacks find some IQ sub-tests harder than others.

[Page 32]

 

Chart 09
 

 

Regression to the Average

 

Regression to the Average provides still another way to test if race differences are genetic. The children of very tall parents are taller than average. But they are shorter than their parents and nearer the average of their race. Similarly, children of very short parents are shorter than average, but taller than their parents. This is called the Law of Regression to the Average. It is not true just for height, but for IQ as well. Most physical and psychological traits show some regression effect.

Regression to the Average happens when very tall (or very high IQ) people mate because they pass on some, but not all, of their exceptional genes to their offspring. The same thing happens with very short (or very low IQ) people. It’s like rolling a pair of dice and having them come up two sixes or two ones. The odds are that on the next roll, you’ll get some value that is not as high (or as low).

Here’s why regression is important to our studies. Because Whites and Blacks come from different races, they have many different genes. The Law of Regression predicts that for any trait, scores will return to the average of their race. The Regression Law predicts that in the U.S., Black children with parents of IQ 115 will regress toward the Black average of 85, while White children with parents of IQ 115 will regress only toward the White average of 100.

The law also works at the other end of the scale. Black children with parents of IQ 70 will move up toward the Black average IQ of 85, but White children with parents of IQ 70 will move further up toward the White average of 100. When we test these predictions about Regression to the Average from parent to child they prove true.

[Page 33]

The Regression Law also works for brothers and sisters. Black and White children matched for IQs of 120 have siblings who show different amounts of regression. Black siblings regress toward an IQ of 85, while White siblings regress only to 100. The opposite happens at the lower end of the scale. Black and White children matched for IQs of 70 have siblings who regress differently. Black siblings regress toward an average of 85, whereas White siblings move to 100.

Regression to the Average explains another interesting finding. Black children born to rich parents have IQs that are two to four points lower than do White children born to poor parents. The high IQ Black parents were not able to pass on their IQ advantage to their children even though they did give them good nutrition, good medical care, and good schools. Only genes plus environment tell the whole story.
 

 

Conclusion

 

Genes play a big part in IQ, personality, attitudes, and other behaviors. This is true for Orientals, Whites, and Blacks. Trans-racial adoption studies (where infants of one race are adopted and reared by parents of a different race), studies of regression to the mean (which compare parents and siblings in the different racial groups), and of inbreeding depression (which study the children of closely-related parents) all provide evidence for why genes cause the races to differ in IQ and personality. No purely cultural theory can explain these results, which are not only explained but predicted by genetic theory.
 

 

Additional Readings

 

Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g Factor. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Weinberg, R. A., Scarr, S., & Waldman, I. D. (1992). The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study: A follow-up of IQ test performance at adolescence. Intelligence, 16, 117-135.

 

======================================

 

Click here for Race, Evolution and Behavior >>>

Part 1: Preface; Race is More Than Skin Deep

Part 2: Maturation, Crime, and Parenting

Part 3: Sex, Hormones, and AIDS

Part 4: Intelligence and Brain Size

Part 5: Genes, Environment, or Both?

Part 6: Life History Theory

Part 7: Out of Africa

Part 8: Questions and Answers

 

 

 

 

 

 

PDF of this blog post.
Click to view or download. (1.0 MB) >>   Race, Evolution, and Behavior – Part 5 Ver 2

 

 Race, Evolution and Behaviour - COVER

 

Version History

 

Version 2: Aug 13, 2015 — Added Cover page; improved  formatting; expanded Contents page; added updated PDF (ver 2).
 

 

Version 1Published Jun 18, 2014

Read Full Post »

Race, Evolution and Behaviour - COVER

 

 

RACE, EVOLUTION, AND BEHAVIOR:

 

A Life History Perspective

 

 [Part 4]

 

2nd Special Abridged Edition

By Professor J. Philippe Rushton

 

 Race, Evolution and Behavior - Rushton

 

University of Western Ontario

London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2

 

Author

J. Philippe Rushton is a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. Rushton holds two doctorates from the University of London (Ph.D. and D.Sc) and is a Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American, British, and Canadian Psychological Associations. He is also a member of the Behavior Genetics Association, the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, and the Society for Neuroscience. Rushton has published six books and nearly 200 articles. In 1992 the Institute for Scientific Information ranked him the 22nd most published psychologist and the 11th most cited. Professor Rushton is listed in Who’s Who in Science and TechnologyWho’s Who in International Authors, and Who’s Who in Canada.

 

[Page 5]

Contents

 

Preface 6

1. Race is More Than Skin Deep 7

Race in History
Race in Today’s World
Why Are There Race Differences?
Conclusion
Additional Readings

2. Maturation, Crime, and Parenting 13

Maturation
Crime
Personality, Aggression, and Self-Esteem
Parenting and Out-of-Wedlock Births
Longevity and Population Growth
Conclusion
Additional Readings

3. Sex, Hormones, and AIDS 18

Sexual Behavior and Attitudes
Sexual Physiology and Anatomy
AIDS and HIV
Conclusion
Additional Readings

4. Intelligence and Brain Size 22

Culture Fair Tests
Intelligence and Brain Size
Race Differences in Brain Size
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Brain Weight at Autopsy
Measuring Skull Size
Measuring Living Heads
Summarizing Brain Size Differences
Conclusion
Additional Readings

5. Genes, Environment, or Both? 28

Heritability Studies
Adoption Studies
Race and Heritability
Trans-racial Adoption Studies
Heritabilities Predict Racial Differences
Regression to the Average
Conclusion
Additional Readings

6. Life History Theory 34

r-K Life History Theory
Race Differences and r-K Strategies
Testosterone — The Master Switch?
Conclusion
Additional Readings

7. Out of Africa 39

The Evidence
Geography and Race
Conclusion
Additional Readings

8. Questions and Answers 42

Is Race a Useful Concept? (Chapter 1)
Are the Race Differences Real? (Chapters 2 through 5)
Is the Relationship Between Race and Crime Valid? (Chapter 2)
Is the Relationship Between Race and Reproduction Valid? (Chapter 3)
Is the Genetic Evidence Flawed? (Chapter 5)
Is r-K Theory Correct? (Chapter 6)
Aren’t Environmental Explanations Sufficient? (Chapter 5)
Is Race Science Immoral? (Chapter 1)
Closing Thoughts
Additional Readings

[Page 6]

 

 

 

4: Intelligence and Brain Size

 

[Page 22]

 

IQ tests measure intelligence and predict real life success. The races differ in brain size and on IQ tests. On average Orientals have the largest brains and highest IQs. Blacks average the lowest, and Whites fall in between. The brain size differences explain the IQ differences both within groups and between groups.

 

Psychologists use IQ tests to measure what we call “intelligence” or “mental ability.” Brighter people score higher on IQ tests than most people. Less bright people score lower. IQ tests are not perfect, but they are useful and tell us a lot.

IQ tests are made to have an average of 100. The “normal” range goes from “dull” (IQ around 85) to “bright” (IQ around 115). IQs of 70 suggest handicap, while IQs of 130 and above predict giftedness. The average Oriental IQ is about 106, the White IQ about 100, and the Black IQ about 85. This pattern is found around the world, with Blacks in Africa having a lower IQ than Blacks in America.

The 1994 best seller The Bell Curve shows how IQ predicts success in education, jobs, and training. Low IQ predicts child abuse, crime and delinquency, health, accident proneness, having a child out of wedlock, getting a divorce before five years of marriage, and even smoking during pregnancy. Groups with higher IQs have more gifted people. While Orientals developed complex societies in Asia, and Whites produced complex civilizations in Europe, Black Africans did not.

The Black-White difference in IQ appears as early as three years of age. If the races are matched for education and income, the gap only goes down by 4 IQ points. So, Black-White differences are not due only to social class. It is less well known that Orientals have a higher IQ than Whites.

The Bell Curve highlighted British psychologist Richard Lynn’s 20 year survey of the global pattern of IQ scores. He found Orientals in the Pacific Rim to have IQs in the 101 to 111 range, Whites in Europe to have IQs of 100 to 103, and Blacks in Africa to have IQs of around 70 (see Chart 6).

The average IQ of 70 for Blacks living in Africa is the lowest ever recorded. The Raven’s Progressive Matrices measures reasoning, not culturally specific information. Using this test, Kenneth Owen found a Black African IQ of 70 for 13-year-olds in the South African school system. So did Fred Zindi, a Black Zimbabwean, in a study of 12-to 14-year-olds in his country. Interestingly, the Mixed-Race students in South Africa had an IQ of 85 — the same as Blacks in the United States, Britain, and the Caribbean. Genetic methods (like those used in paternity tests) show that Mixed-Race Blacks have about 25% White ancestry. Their IQs fall half way between pure Blacks (70) and pure Whites (100).

[Page 23]

 

Chart 06
 

 

Culture Fair Tests

 

Is it fair to compare race and IQ? Yes. First, IQ tests predict achievement in school and on the job just as well for Blacks as for Whites and Orientals. Second, the very same race differences show up on tests made to be “culture-free” as well as on standard IQ tests. In fact, Blacks score slightly higher on standard IQ tests than they do on these “culture-free” tests. This is the opposite of what culture theory predicts.

Blacks score higher on verbal tests than they do on nonverbal tests, and they do better on tests of school knowledge than they do on tests of reasoning ability. From grades 1 to 12, Blacks fall just as far below Whites in school work as they do on IQ tests. Blacks score below even more disadvantaged groups, such as American Indians. Again, this is not what culture theory predicts.

Black-White differences are greatest on tests of reasoning and logic. Blacks do best on tests of simple memory. For example, Blacks do almost as well as Whites on tests of Forward Digit Span, in which people repeat a series of digits in the same order as they have heard them. Blacks do much poorer than Whites, however, on tests of Backward Digit Span, in which people repeat the digits back in reverse order. Hundreds of studies reviewed in Arthur Jensen’s book The g Factor show how hard it is to explain race differences in IQ just in terms of cultural bias.

[Page 24]

Probably reaction time is the simplest culture free mental test. In the “odd-man-out” test, 9- to 12-year-old children look at a set of lights. They have to decide which one goes on, and then press the button closest to that light.

The test is so easy that all children can do it in less than one second. Even here, children with higher IQ scores are faster than lower IQ children. Around the world, Oriental children are faster than White children who are faster than Black children.
 

 

Intelligence and Brain Size

 

My article with C. D. Ankney “Brain Size and Cognitive Abilityin the 1996 issue of the journal Psychonomic Bulletin and Review surveyed all the published research on this topic. It included studies that used the state-of-the-art technique known as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) which gives a very good image of the human brain. There were eight of these studies with a total sample size of 381 adults. The overall correlation between IQ and brain size measured by MRI is 0.44. This is much higher than the 0.20 correlation found in earlier research using simple head size measures (though 0.20 is still significant). The MRI brain size/IQ correlation of 0.44 is as high as the correlation between social class at birth and adult IQ.
 

 

Race Differences in Brain Size

 

Chart 7 shows that there are race differences in brain size. Orientals average 1 cubic inch more brain matter than Whites, and Whites average a very large 5 cubic inches more than Blacks. Since one cubic inch of brain matter contains millions of brain cells and hundreds of millions of connections, brain size differences help to explain why the races differ in IQ.

[Page 25]

Chart 07

The rest of this chapter documents that four different methods used to measure brain size all produce the same results. The methods are MRI, weighing the brain at autopsy, measuring the volume of an empty skull, and measuring the outside of the head. Note that race differences in brain size remain even after you adjust for body size.
 

 

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

 

One MRI study of race differences in brain size looked at over 100 people in Britain. (It was published in the 1994 issue of Psychological Medicine). The Black Africans and West Indians in the study averaged smaller brains than did the Whites. Unfortunately, the study did not give much information on the age, sex, and body size of the people tested.
 

 

Brain Weight at Autopsy

 

In the 19th century, the famous neurologist Paul Broca found that Orientals had larger and heavier brains than did Whites, while Whites had larger and heavier brains than did Blacks. Broca also found that White brains had more surface folding than Black brains. (The more folded the surface of the brain, the more brain cells it can contain.) White brains also had larger frontal lobes which are used in self control and planning.

By the early 20th century, anatomists had reported brain weights at autopsy in journals such as Science and the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. These early studies found the brain weights of Japanese and Koreans were about the same as those of Europeans, even though the Orientals were shorter in height and lighter in weight.

In 1906, Robert Bean reported on 150 brains of autopsied Blacks and Whites in the American Journal of Anatomy. Brain weight varied with the amount of White ancestry from no White ancestry = 1,157 grams to half-White ancestry = 1,347 grams. He found the brains of Blacks were less folded than those of Whites and had fewer fibers leading to the frontal lobes.

Many other studies followed. In 1934, Vint noted the results of an autopsy study of brain weights from Black Africans in the Journal of Anatomy. He found that the brains of Africans were 10% lighter than those of Whites. In the 1934 issue of Science, Raymond Pearl reviewed autopsy results from Black and White soldiers who had died in the American Civil War (1861-1865). He found the brains of Whites weighed about 100 grams more than the brains of Blacks. And among Blacks, Pearl also found that brain weight increased with the amount of White ancestry.

In a 1970 article in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Philip V. Tobias claimed that all these early studies were wrong. He said they ignored factors like “sex, body size, age of death, childhood nutrition, origin of sample, occupation, and cause of death.” However, when I myself averaged all the data in Tobias’s review, I found it still showed that Orientals and Whites have heavier brains than Blacks. Even Tobias finally had to agree that Orientals have “millions” more extra neurons than Whites who have “millions” more than Blacks.

In 1980, Kenneth Ho’s team confirmed the Black-White differences. Their autopsy study was published in the Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. It avoided the possible errors claimed by Tobias. Original brain weight data for 1,261 American adults showed that Whites averaged 100 grams more brain weight than did Blacks. Because the Blacks in the study were similar in body size to the Whites, differences in body size do not explain away these race differences in brain size.

[Page 26]
 

 

Measuring Skull Size

 

Another way to measure brain size is by filling skulls with packing material. In the 19th century, over 1,000 skulls were studied by American anthropologist Samuel George Morton. He found that Blacks had skulls about 5 cubic inches smaller than Whites.

In 1942, anatomist Katherine Simmons reported on over 2,000 skulls in the journal Human Biology. She confirmed Morton’s earlier work finding that Whites have larger skulls than Blacks. Because the Blacks in her sample were taller than the Whites, the skull size differences could not be due to body size.

Kenneth Beals and his team further confirmed these findings in the 1984 issue of Current Anthropology. They reported the measurements of up to 20,000 skulls from around the world. Skull sizes varied with place of origin. Skulls from East Asia were 3 cubic inches larger than those from Europe which were 5 cubic inches larger than skulls from Africa.
 

 

Measuring Living Heads

 

Brain size can be measured by taking outside head measurements. These results confirm the findings based on the method of weighing brains and filling skulls.

I reported (in the journal Intelligence, 1992) on a sample of thousands of U.S. Army personnel. Even after correcting for body size, Orientals had a larger head size than Whites, who had a larger head size than Blacks (see Chart 2, page 23). In 1994, I reported (also in Intelligence) a study of tens of thousands of men and women collected by the International Labour Office in Geneva, Switzerland. Head sizes (corrected for body size) were larger for East Asians than for Europeans. Europeans had larger heads than Blacks.

In another study (in the 1997 issue of Intelligence), I reported the measurements for 35,000 children followed from birth to age 7 by the famous Collaborative Perinatal Study. At birth, four months, one year, and seven years, Oriental children had larger cranial sizes than White children, who had larger cranial sizes than Black children (see Chart 2, p. 23). These differences were not due to body size because the Black children were taller and heavier than the White and Oriental children.
 

 

Summarizing Brain Size Differences

 

Chart 7 shows average brain size for the three races using all four measurement techniques and also (where possible) correcting for body size. Orientals averaged 1,364 cm 3 , Whites averaged 1,347 cm 3, and Blacks averaged 1,267 cm 3. Naturally the averages vary between samples and the races do overlap. But the results from different methods on different samples show the same average pattern — Orientals > Whites > Blacks.
 

 

Conclusion

 

Studies of race differences in brain size use a number of methods, including MRI. All methods produce the same results. Orientals have the largest brains (on average), Blacks the smallest, and Whites in between. These differences in brain size are not due to body size. Adjusting for body size still results in the same pattern. The three-way pattern is also true for IQ. These race differences in brain size mean that Orientals average about 102 million more brain cells than Whites, and that Whites have about 480 million more than Blacks. These differences in brain size probably explain the racial differences in IQ and cultural achievement.
 

 

Additional Readings

 

Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g Factor. Westport, CT: Praeger.

[Page 27]

Rushton, J. P. & Ankney, C. D. (1996). Brain size and cognitive ability: Correlations with age, sex, social class, and race. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 21-36. 

======================================

 

Click here for Race, Evolution and Behavior >>>

Part 1: Preface; Race is More Than Skin Deep

Part 2: Maturation, Crime, and Parenting

Part 3: Sex, Hormones, and AIDS

Part 4: Intelligence and Brain Size

Part 5: Genes, Environment, or Both?

Part 6: Life History Theory

Part 7: Out of Africa

Part 8: Questions and Answers

 

 

 

 

 

 

PDF of this blog post.
Click to view or download. >>   Race, Evolution, and Behavior – Part 4 Ver 2

 

 Race, Evolution and Behaviour - COVER

 

Version History

 

Version 2: Aug 13, 2015 — Added Cover page; improved  formatting; expanded Contents page; added updated PDF (ver 2).
 
Version 1: Published Jun 16, 2014

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »