Doused and Denounced

Ray Wolters

A cold civil war has been brewing within academe, a war between “biologians” and “culturists.” Many modern biologists, genomic scientists, and physical anthropologists are biologians.  They think evolutionary adaptations are partly responsible for some racial disparities.   On the other hand, most historians, social scientists, public leaders, and mainstream journalists are culturists.  They minimize the importance of biology and evolution and say that history and culture explain the variations in the distribution of human characteristics.

One of the landmark events in this academic civil war occurred in 1975, when E. O. Wilson, a biology professor at Harvard, published Sociobiology: The New Synthesis.  Professor Wilson presented a mountain of evidence to establish that biology influenced many forms of social behavior in the animal kingdom.  Then, in the last chapter of the book, Professor Wilson maintained that this was also true for human beings.

Among biologists, the initial reaction to Sociobiology was overwhelmingly favorable.  The response of many historians and social scientists, however, was quite critical.  This was not surprising, for most historians and social scientists regard human nature as relatively unaffected by our evolutionary past, as something that is shaped by social forces.  Some scholars, especially those with Marxist beliefs, have emphasized the special importance of economic forces that are extraneous to human biology.

As it happened, a Marxist group at Harvard, Science for the People, responded to Sociobiology with printed leaflets and teach-ins that were harshly critical of Professor Wilson.  For a few days a protester in Harvard Square used a bullhorn to demand that the university fire Professor Wilson, and on one occasion two students invaded the professor’s class on evolutionary biology to shout slogans and deliver anti-sociobiology monologues.  To make matters worse, Professor Wilson received little support from his colleagues on the Harvard faculty, and to avoid embarrassment he stayed away from department meetings for an entire year.

Professor Wilson considered offers to move to other universities, but he decided to stay at Harvard.  “The pressure was tolerable,” he has written, “since I was a senior professor with tenure . . . and could not bear to leave Harvard’s ant collection, the world’s largest and best.”

The opposition reached something of a climax in 1979, when Professor Wilson was scheduled to speak at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.    As he sat at a table near the lectern, a young man from the audience grabbed the microphone and harangued the assembled scholars.  A young woman then poured a pitcher of water over Professor Wilson’s head and demonstrators chanted, “Wilson, you’re all wet,” and “Racist Wilson, you can’t hide. We charge you with genocide.”

Despite the vilification he received in the 1970s, things eventually turned out well for Professor Wilson.  By the turn of the twenty-first century, he was widely celebrated as the pioneering founder of two new academic fields, the evolutionary biology of humans and evolutionary psychology.  He was the author of two Pulitzer Prize-winning books, and he received many academic awards.  When Harvard University Press published a twenty-fifth anniversary edition of Sociobiology in 2000, it was evident that Professor Wilson’s theory appealed to many of the best minds in science.  By then listed 416 titles under “sociobiology” and 1, 218 under “human evolution.”

Nevertheless, as I have recently learned the hard way, many historians know little or nothing about sociobiology, evolutionary biology, or evolutionary psychology.

Some months ago, the American Historical Review (AHR) invited me to write a review of a new book, Making the Unequal Metropolis, by Ansley T. Erickson, an Assistant Professor of history and education at Teachers College, Columbia University.  I began the review by stating that Professor Erickson deserved “high praise for the depth of her research,” but I “demur[red]” when it came to her argument.  I then summarized one of Professor Erickson’s main points –– that the Supreme Court erred in the 1990s and in 2007 when the Court turned away from court-ordered metropolitan busing for racial balance that an earlier Supreme Court had ordered in decisions handed down between 1968 and 1973.  I explained why I did not agree with Professor Erickson and then, in the final sentence of my review, I wrote, “Like most historians and social scientists, Professor Erickson says nothing about sociobiology.”   This sentence was a declarative statement of fact, but one that contained the implication that Professor Erickson’s book would have been better if it had been informed by an acquaintance with recent science and scholarship on evolutionary biology, psychology, and anthropology.

The Interim Editor of the AHR, Professor Robert A. Schneider, has acknowledged that he “linger[ed] over that last sentence.”   One of his assistants wrote and asked me, “Could you explain what you mean by sociobiology?  What indeed, today, is sociobiology?”  “’Sociobiololgy,’” I answered, “is an approach that focuses on the way biology influences social behavior.  The pioneering work in this field is Sociobiology: The New Synthesis . . . by the naturalist and biologist E. O. Wilson.  This field focuses on the way biology (including genetic adaptations to evolution in different environments) affects the social behavior of humans and other living beings.”

My answer seemed to satisfy the Interim Editor.  There were no more questions, and the AHR published my review of Professor Erickson’s book in its issue for February 2017.   I was surprised, however, by one thing.  The controversy over sociobiology had been widely publicized in the 1970s, with some journalists calling the controversy the academic debate of the decade.  I was taken aback when I discovered that the Interim Editor and his staff apparently knew nothing of this controversy.

After the AHR published my review, a small group of historians exchanged e-mails and text messages and then wrote letters of complaint to the AHR.  The general theme, mentioned in all the published letters, took exception to my mentioning “sociobiology.”  It is “a term that has no standing in our field or any of the social sciences,” one writer declared.  Others dismissed “sociobiology” as merely a “theory,” as a doctrine of “white racial supremacy,” as a “twenty-first century version of scientific racism.”  These statements are false.

One complainant admitted that he had “no idea” what “sociobiology” meant.  So he read some of my essays and discovered that I had written that “people of different continental ancestries differ statistically in the distribution of some important aptitudes”; that “different groups had developed different aptitudes that were suited to their respective environments.”  True.  I have written that, and I stand by that statement.  I think it is a mistake to think that each of the major population groups has the same distribution of predispositions, proclivities, and aptitudes, regardless of whether the group evolved in cold climates or the tropics, regardless of whether their long line of ancestors were hunter-gatherers, settled farmers, merchants, or bankers.  If Charles Darwin established anything, it is that natural selection gives an edge in the struggle for survival to those who have adapted to their particular environments.  I think most historians would do better if, instead of propounding the false idea that racial differences are only skin deep, they recognized the reality of natural selection while also noting that there is a great range of aptitudes within each group and that each individual person should be treated decently, whatever his or her capabilities.

Of course history has taught us to be skeptical of racial theories.  But that is not an excuse for my critics’ insistence that sociobiology is so far beyond the pale that it should not be mentioned in the pages of the American Historical Review.  This amounts to a denial of science.  It is an example of what anthropologist Gregory Cochran had in mind when he wrote that a person would have to be an “idiot” if he or she thought “the optimum mental phenotype . . . [is] the same in tropical hunger-gathers, arctic hunter-gatherers, Neolithic peasants, and medieval moneylenders. . . .  Natural selection must have generated significant differences between populations; differences whose consequences we see every day, and that have been copiously documented by psychometricians.”

 In my review of Professor Erickson’s book, however, all I did was mention that Professor Erickson (“like most other historians and social scientists”) did not say anything about sociobiology.

My critics also complained about the company I keep.  One found fault with me for granting “a personal interview to a website called, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has classified as a ‘white nationalist hate website.’”  This critic also took exception to my having published essays in what she called “the shadier corners of the Internet.”  But this critic did not identify the publications or mention any specifics about what I wrote or said.

The Interim Editor of the  AHR acknowledged that I had “a fairly long and solid publication record . . . in credible scholarly venues [seven books and many articles and reviews in academic publications].”  But the Interim Editor also said he would have pulled my review of Ansley Erickson’s book if he had known about some of my recent publications — presumably the opinion essays I wrote for and and a talk I gave to the H. L. Mencken Club.  The Interim Editor did not mention any particular statements or comments that he found offensive.  But he implied that my association with these groups was enough to “discredit [me] as a legitimate scholar.”  This took me by surprise, for these organizations are headed by distinguished men — Peter Brimelow, Jared Taylor, and Paul Gottfried.


This incident may have begun as an instance of hyper-sensitive academics defending a like-minded friend from slight criticism.  But some of my critics’ comments, and especially the comments of the Interim Editor of the AHR, amount to an effort to censure discourse.  The Interim Editor is warning historians to beware, lest they be defenestrated for even mentioning the connection between evolution and race.

Writing in the AHR a decade ago, historian Michelle Brattain observed, “Historians have come to the consensus that race is a social construction, but . . . many people outside the humanities have not.”   Professor Brattain then recommended that historians try to discredit sociobiology by “problematizing” or “historicizing” both race and science.

Nevertheless, sociobiology has remained in vogue.  As historian Marshall Poe noted in 2009, DNA researchers are no longer “talking about skin, hair, or eye color.”  They are “talking about intelligence, temperament, and a host of other traits.”  They are saying, “The races . . . are differently abled in ways that really matter.”  Rank-and-file professionals and many ordinary citizens are recognizing this.  We are living at a time when doctors can be censured, even fired, if they do not take race into account when prescribing certain drugs.  Nowadays pulmonary and other medical devices have different settings for people of different continental ancestries; and more and more people are getting in touch with and 23 and me.

The trend is so strong that even some historians have broken away from the standard social science model — the belief that human behavior is shaped by history and culture, but not by evolution and heredity.  A case in point was Carl Degler (1921–2014), a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian at Stanford and at different times the President of the American Historical Association, the Organization of American Historians, and the Southern Historical Association.  In an important book of 1991, In Search of Human Nature, Degler reviewed a large body of scientific research and showed that in the debate over the relative importance of nature and nurture, the pendulum has shifted from stressing the importance of nurture in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s to emphasizing the importance of nature and evolution in recent decades.

Nevertheless, many historians — probably most members of the guild — still believe that race is entirely or primarily a social construct.   They persist in dismissing sociobiology.  One example was evident in 1992, when Professor Dorothy Ross reviewed Carl Degler’s book for the American Historical Review.  Professor Ross began by noting that Degler was “a partisan of sociobiology” and was trying “to convince historians and social scientists to abandon their long dismissal of biological explanations of human behavior.”  She then proceeded to employ “historicism” to discredit Degler.   She said Degler was mistaken because he had made “the error of . . . failing to ground his own theory in history.”  Had Degler historicized the rise, decline, and revival of Darwinism, Professsor Ross wrote, he would have recognized that Darwinism came into vogue in America as a rationale for inequality during the Age of Big Business; that it fell from fashion during the more egalitarian era when Progressivism and the New Deal held sway; and that the revival of Darwinism has occurred in an allegedly conservative era that has stretched from President Eisenhower to President Reagan and beyond.

When he was writing In Search of Human Nature, Degler had anticipated and answered this criticism.  He did so by repeatedly noting that many of the scientists who emphasized the role of biology in human behavior were “personally liberal, rather than conservative, in political outlook.”  Degler did not think sociobiologists were trying to “to preserve and strengthen the dominant political and economic interests.”  He thought they were seeking (and in fact had discovered) the truth.  And he thought this outweighed the possibility that somehow sociobiology would take the United States back toward the unfair racial discrimination that prevailed in the years before the Civil Rights Movement.


Times change.  In 1992 Carl Degler was unfairly criticized for not “historicizing” and “problematizing” sociobiology.  Nowadays, the pressure from radical students and professors is stronger, and I have been condemned for mentioning sociobiology in a book review!

What is going on?  It’s complicated.  But this much is clear.  When it comes to resisting the unwarranted demands of academic liberals and radicals, ignorance and pusillanimity have recently prevailed on many college campuses and also, I think, in the editorial office of the American Historical Review.

In retrospect the 1980s and 90s seem like a halcyon era, a time when social problems could be discussed realistically.  Those were decades when major commercial presses published three landmark books that candidly departed from the familiar liberal line: Peter Brimelow’s book on immigration, Alien Nation (1995); Jared Taylor’s book on race relations, Paved with Good Intentions (1992); and Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray’s book on intelligence, The Bell Curve (1994).  It was also a time when this writer could find a university press that would publish my account of school desegregation, The Burden of Brown (1984), with its emphasis on the vagaries of federal judges and the misbehavior of Black students.  It was a time when the American Bar Association chose that book for its major book award for 1985, the Silver Gavel Award.

Those books would be feted these days. Charles Murray is still publishing best-sellers, but he cannot speak at a college campus without precipitating an uproar.  Peter Brimelow and Jared Taylor are still writing, but mostly at their own webzines.  And now I have been banished from the American Historical Review, where I had previously published on ten different occasions.  Six months ago the Interim Editor was not familiar with the word sociobiology.  But after he received a few letters complaining about my use of the word, he effectively decreed that, if scholars wish to discuss racial matters in the AHR, they should not suggest that evolution may be responsible for some well documented disparities.

Why has this come to pass?  One of the long-term effects of World War II and the triumph of the Civil Rights Movement was to give rise to what is sometimes called “tolerance education.”  And that has led to indoctrination that favors immigrants and non-whites while casting aspersions on Whites and on Darwinism.  Not in biology classes but in the social sciences and humanities.  Students have been told that the different races of humanity have the same distribution of aptitudes.  And students who question this message have come to understand that, if they are to get ahead in many fields, they must adhere to politically correct explanations of ethnic and racial disparities.  They must affirm that Mother Nature is not responsible for these disparities — that group inequalities are due to discrimination or privilege, or in some cases to the accidents of history and culture.  But never to natural selection.

We are living in a new Dark Age where scholars are expected to stay away from sociobiology, not because E. O. Wilson and Carl Degler were mistaken but because modern egalitarians are facing a challenge similar to the one that evolution once posed for Christian fundamentalists.  At first, most Christians denounced Darwin’s theory of evolution as, in the words of William Jennings Bryan, jeopardizing “the doctrine of brotherhood,” undermining “the sympathetic activities of a civilized society,” and “paralyzing the hope of reform.”   And now sociobiology is under attack by social justice warriors who are concerned about the implications that racial genetics may have for racial policies.

I do not wish to minimize the complexity of this situation.  There may be good reasons for public leaders to avoid discussion of sociobiology.  A recently released tape recording of a 1971 conversation reveals that President Richard Nixon and his advisor, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, understood the implications of evolution but nevertheless insisted that it was not their responsibility to disseminate this knowledge.

But the obligations of scientists and scholars differ from those of politicians.  Academics should pursue the truth.  They should not conspire to suppress it — not by “historicizing,” not by “problematizing,” not at all.  Whatever the implications for social policy may be, it will never do for scholars, for reasons of expedience, to lie to the world as Galileo once lied when his mind held the truth.

Raymond Wolters is the Thomas Muncy Keith Professor of History, Emeritus, at theUniversity of Delaware.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

35 Comments to "Doused and Denounced"

  1. George Kocan's Gravatar George Kocan
    June 6, 2017 - 11:00 am | Permalink

    The ideological environmentalists, more specifically, socialists and their allies, depend completely and unreservedly on Lamarck’s theory explaining the inheritance of acquired characteristics. This was the theory of the time, when both Charles Darwin and Karl Marx wrote. Marx adapted both for his theory of socialism, which we must contend with today. The theory claims that the state, because it alone is powerful enough, can eliminate war and injustice by controlling the upbringing and the environment of every human being and create a new kind of man, a new kind of species. Biology and the science of genetics, as applied in sociobiology, have blown this theory to smithereens. Animals of all kinds are aggressive and murderous and unjust towards each other because of, primarily, what they have inherited from the species, condition which M.F. Ashley-Montague termed, “original sin.” This, the famous (environmentalist) anthropologist dismissed out of hand, in a radio interview I heard in the 1970’s. I explained in one of his books that gorillas had large canines to help them peel bark off trees and not as tools for aggression and social dominance.

  2. June 6, 2017 - 11:52 am | Permalink

    Thank you, Mr. Wolters, for the engrossing tale of skirmishes between Biologians and Culturalists. I find it remarkable that that battle continues in academia! As I completed reading your essay, two thoughts came to mind.

    The first thought concerned Hegelian dialectics, leading me to wonder whether “sociobiology” indeed served, and likely still serves, as a waystation for synthesis in a much more expansive and inclusive process. I suggest “transhumanism” looms as the next stop along this train of thought.

    The second thought spoke of a trinity, namely, body, mind, and soul. It seems to me that both sociobiology and transhumanism lack a third essential component, that pertaining to soul, and thus remain incomplete, perhaps by design. I come by this opinion (or judgement) from my own sojourn in academia.

    Having earned the Ph.D., I began professional life as a Pharmacologist. I entered that discipline intrigued by the so-called “Mind-Body Problem”. I soon discovered one great divide. “Biologians” postulated that molecules move men, at least as studied in the rat or mouse or monkey; “Behavorists”, especially Skinnerians, demonstrated the power of situation and circumstance as implemented through operant conditioning. In the day, one synthesis — epiphenomalism as Karl Popper exposited — first caught and held my attention. Eventually, I abandoned what seemed to me hopelessly fruitless rationalizations. While completing my formal education, I took up courses of spiritual study, convinced that, otherwise, never would I have the twain of Mind and Body meet.

    Ever since, I have remained circumspect when I sense or glean no appreciation, awareness, or acknowledgement of Spirit, or soul, in such debates as you have so well described. Other readings have convinced me that the “Hegelian dialectic” has been weaponized and honed for purposes of “social engineering” and, for individuals, “psychological operations”. My limited understanding has led me to conclude that, for all practical purposes, the Law of the Triangle trumps dichotomies.

    • Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
      June 6, 2017 - 4:10 pm | Permalink

      The dichotomy Heredity versus Environment remains entirely in the material sphere. Though Heredity is a better description of reality, it is not enough. There is such a thing as “soul”. In order to express itself in the material world, different souls need different bodies, which are procured by different genes. Genes are not the cause of psychic differences, but its necessary mechanism.

    • Jud Jackson's Gravatar Jud Jackson
      June 7, 2017 - 1:16 am | Permalink

      I too have studied the mind/body problem for many years. No form of materialism works as is amply demonstrated by David Chalmers who, in my mind, may be the world’s greatest living philosopher. However, Chalmers’ own view of property dualism also seems problematic. Perhaps the solution is hylopmorphic dualism which is that the mind is the form of the body. One very shap philosopher who defends this view is Edward Feser. See his many books and articles at his website for more details.

  3. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    June 6, 2017 - 2:49 pm | Permalink

    I read this article two days ago at VDARE, and a couple of pointlessly misleading things in it continue to nag at me.

    … scholars are expected to stay away from sociobiology, not because E. O. Wilson and Carl Degler were mistaken but because modern egalitarians are facing a challenge similar to the one that evolution once posed for Christian fundamentalists..

    Perhaps it wasn’t Professor Wolters’s intent to lead his readers to think that what he calls Christian fundamentalists were Darwin’s principal opponents—they weren’t; the leading fossil experts of Darwin’s time were—but it sure sounds that way to me. Surely he knows better and thus ought to do better by us.

    … it will never do for scholars, for reasons of expedience, to lie to the world as Galileo once lied when his mind held the truth.

    It ill behooves Professor Wolters to conclude an article involving suppression of evidence with a statement that embodies even more PC fantasy than the statements of his own (((established))) adversaries. Put otherwise and employing the gentleman’s own words, it will never do for a self-identified scholar to close his scholarly defense by treating a long-acknowledged slander—that Galileo muttered under his breath “eppur, si muove” while swearing under solemn oath to the contrary to the Holy Office—as if it were fact. I call it a slander because blithely declaring Galileo a perjurer is rather more damning than what his clerical opponents among the Dominicans and in the Holy Office formally charged him with.

    Not to make a mountain of a molehill, but this is the second time in the past week or so that someone has referred in passing to false elements of the Galileo story as if they were truths so well known that supporting evidence or explication was no longer required (think, e.g., of “diversity is our greatest strength”). As this is a matter I have researched in depth for fifty years, I hope that the moderators will allow me to distort the fantasy account with a few facts.

    In 1632, when he returned to Rome and was summoned to appear before the Holy Office, Galileo’s “conviction” (far better characterized as a plea bargain), such as it was, had ultimately as much to do with the civil crime of lèse-majesté as with faith and dogma. Like Martha Stewart nowadays, what Galileo was actually charged with had little relation to what “historians” and journalists declare he was charged with. Far from lying or having to lie, Galileo insisted beforehand that he would sooner be condemned to death than declare himself guilty of heresy, of willful defiance of a directive he had sworn to obey, or of being an unfaithful and disobedient Catholic. A careful examination of his formal statement partly acquiescing to the charges laid against him show that he simply ignored the wording that was plainly inaccurate. As tacitly agreed beforehand at Pope Urban VIII’s insistence, the statement was accepted by his judges—except, that is, by a minority led by Cardinal Francesco Barberini, the pope’s nephew, which called the accusations scandalous and demanded a complete dismissal of all the charges against Galileo (Vatican politics anyone?).

    The sentence Galileo endured was to be placed under house arrest, the house being his beautiful and spacious villa at Arcetri. To say that this is a distinction without a difference is to succumb to misleading anachronism. Think for a moment of what would have happened barely yesterday to anyone who pointedly insulted the Sacred Jigaboo, Barack Obama, in the same terms in which Galileo insulted Urban VIII.

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      June 6, 2017 - 2:59 pm | Permalink

      At a minimum, anyone interested in learning the facts should consult The Crime of Galileo, by Giorgio de Santillana (1955), and, not least for several important scholarly corrections to Santillana, Galileo Observed: Science and the Politics of Belief, by William R. Shea and Mariano Artigas (2006). Neither book is beach-blanket reading; both are “dry” works of scholarship and thus heavily footnoted and annotated. But Santillana in particular—who was by no means pro-Catholic, but who also despised the Enlightenment legend of Galileo—writes like an angel, albeit not a “friendly” or chatty one.

      In sum, the standard Galileo saga, as (((invariably presented))) and popularly understood, is best described as a lie piled upon a falsification and reinforced with willful misrepresentation. In its true form, it is a tale from which no one emerges with entirely clean hands but where genuine moral heroism pops up in the least expected places.

      • June 7, 2017 - 12:06 pm | Permalink

        We have often pondered the absurdity – the irony – the improbability – of the people of Western Culture, a culture notable for the Scientific Method, suddenly turning against their heritage and rejecting scientific inquiry, even throwing out advances like early brain surgery from Rome. The burning of the library of Alexandria during Hepatia’s time is also an example of supposed Christian wrongdoing.

        We speculate that since this behavior is more in keeping with the patterns of the rabbis or imams who make pronouncements without proofs, just like modern day Jewish academics, perhaps in the early church and carrying forward, Jewish influence dominated when these uncharacteristic events took place.

        If anyone knows of an article or book touching on this we would very much like to know about it. If not, may I suggest it?

        • Gbon's Gravatar Gbon
          June 7, 2017 - 5:55 pm | Permalink

          CM Miller

          The first burning of the library of Alexandria was done by Julius Cesear around 50 BC before Jesus was born.

          Cesear wanted to destroy the Egyptian navy as part of his conquest of Egypt. The entire Egyotian navy was in home port in Alexandria harbor. Cesear set fire to all those wooden ships. The library and other civic buildings were right on the harbor. The library was one of the many buildings that caught fire. The scrolls burned.
          The last fire that finished the library was in the 900ADs. There was a series of severely cold winters. The trees were cut down centuries before. The Egyptians burnt everything they could get their hands on, including books and scrolls in the library. That’s when the Caliph answered the protesting scholars with the famous saying, ” the Koran is the only book we need”

          Actually, a lot of the Alexandria library was saved over the years. After the Muslim conquest many of the scrolls and books were removed to monastic and the Vatican libraries.

        • George Kocan's Gravatar George Kocan
          June 8, 2017 - 5:42 am | Permalink

          I would appreciate a citation.

  4. David's Gravatar David
    June 6, 2017 - 3:09 pm | Permalink

    The post-modernists have supplied the technique of “democratically” decided perceptions or preferences as a cynically-uttered, constructed, “reality.” First, nothing in their vision has anything to do with policies being chosen ‘democratically’, but rather has to do with things being determined solely by the whims of the elites and given the appearance of democratic ratification by push polling, controlled mediation, judicial craft and selective acceptance of voter expressions. Second, the post-modernists are un-realists. Any use of the term, ‘reality’, is a kind of technical tongue-in-cheek but is permitted based on efficacy. It is the post-modernist version of taqiyya.

    The utility of this system of slight of hand for their cause of disruption is that the post-modernists are at complete liberty to employ any word, term or phrase to mean whatever they choose depending only upon what its imagined and desired effect will be–not any dictionary definition. Imagine it to be like choosing among various fishing lures in your tackle box. The job is to catch a fish, not to account for the neurobiological reasons a particular lure works for catching this or that fish. The emphasis is always on ‘apparent effect’, not ‘true effect’ (which can be media filtered and adjusted if necessary), and not ’cause’ in any sense you are likely to mean ’cause’. This should, naturally, provoke the question as to what these post-modernists mean when they imply that such-and-such environmental condition ’causes’ some terrible (usually exaggerated) social effect. For example, consider how they assert that White privilege causes very subtle forms of micro-discrimination that, cumulatively, drags down legally-approved minorities. Their use of ’cause’ does not mean anything outside of the theater that evokes the screams of an arational, emotively-charged audience responding to “cheer” and “applaud” sign help up by a crowd handler (the elites and their proxies). The tactic of the post-modernist is like throwing mud balls at the wall in order to determine, empirically, what sticks. Nothing more.

    The post-modernist might on one occasion argue for “science reality,” and another reject “Western scientism” or “phallo-logocentrism.” They might argue in another case for the pre-eminence of physiological forces, or intelligence, or subliminal memories–and on another occasion act as though humans are disembodied spirits acting as uncaused causes (e.g., feministic, transsexual, racial or even species-istic self-identification). There may be a demand for freedom while denying that human volition is even possible–certainly for members the Right–where who only believe, act or vote in a certain way because they have been caused (there you go again, this is a cause-positive use of the word) to do so by crafty political operatives using dog-whistling techniques.

    Are there real differences or not, one wonders–and the answer is that it depends on what your opponent desires in a given moment for reasons that do not need to be disclosed to you. And even more importantly, you are the ‘universal opponent’ in every situation if you are a White, heterosexual male. No advantages can accrue to your effort to defend against any charges leveled.

    You must always repeat, “I (whatever that means) am GUILTY even before charged. I am ontologically guilty, not even of sin (which does not exist), but essentially guilty prior to intent or act. I exist as evil itself and must be destroyed at any cost.”

    • David's Gravatar David
      June 6, 2017 - 9:43 pm | Permalink

      If we are courageous and aggressive enough, we can, on our own, begin to assert a practical realism against post-modernism. Indeed, you authors are doing just that. We can effectively disengage from the philosophical and political hallucinations and cacophony of Leftist blabber. They are dissolving themselves into lunacy. Yes, it is true that unfortunately they and their cowardly and compliant collaborators occupy the offices of power in our institutions—for now, but not for ever. Lunacy will yield to rationality as bureaucratic offices are handed over to another generation that you have been quietly training.

      And Mr. Ryckaert, I am quite agreed. As the likes of Heisenberg, von Neumann and Wheeler all argued contrary to the common misconception–explaining the non-material is the easy part. Matter is the tricky concept. Yet all of those clever fellows, and more, believed both were necessary for a complete description of the various aspects of reality. And though a remaining leap, it is not–as you point out–a complete story without the spiritual. But at least it is comforting to realize that there is no scientific warrant for one’s thoughts to be enslaved to the notion of a material, billiard-ball universe. An informational and a spiritual world seem easier to bridge.

  5. Poupon Marx's Gravatar Poupon Marx
    June 6, 2017 - 7:11 pm | Permalink

    Only (((One Group))) benefits from all this. Work it backwards and then examine why. Who benefits? Keeping all aspects of culture, politics, society unstable, fractious, factious, and divided is the Way Of The Talmud. Turning various-even artificially created-factions toward hate, despondency, envy, and false causation has its purpose for the Chosen. No one can mount significant opposition, and chaotic conditions are rich in enrichment opportunity if you caused them, direct then, and therefore can predict outcomes.

    See how easy and alluring Satanism is?


    (Mod. Note: The tech who takes care of the site is looking into the editing feature.)

  6. Fredrick Toben's Gravatar Fredrick Toben
    June 6, 2017 - 8:46 pm | Permalink

    Splendidly written – of course it is refreshing to note there is no mention of matters Holocaust-Shoah but the parallels with the fate of those labelled “Holocaust deniers” and “antisemites” is striking. F

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      June 7, 2017 - 8:49 am | Permalink

      Striking indeed. Yet I wonder whether Wolters would feel intellectually and morally comfortable with Professor MacDonald’s views, let alone those of some of the more, shall we say, forthright and plainspoken commenters here at TOO. (NB: I write descriptively, not censoriously, of Wolters’s attitude.) Although publication of his article at VDARE necessitated discretion anent the Tribe and its poisonous impact on scholarly discourse, my sense is that he wouldn’t.

  7. June 7, 2017 - 8:24 am | Permalink

    Of what value is academia when run by Jews? It no longer is an institution of learning, but an institution of programming that alters, slants, omits, distorts, redacts and inverts every aspect of education non-Jewish academicians traditionally held as sacrosanct.

    America’s judaized education is offered not to help students achieve something of value in life or add a productive member to society, but merely to fulfill the Jew’s agenda for power and avaricious acquisition of wealth.

    There should be a Socratic oath for all teachers especially college professors and academicians – “As teachers, We vow not to instill our personal ideas, beliefs and philosophies in the student. We vow never to manipulate or purposely alter a student’s thought process to meet an agenda – personal, political, religious or otherwise. We vow to reject all lies, deceptive and misleading information. We vow to present only truth as far as it can be discerned and substantiated. Above all, we will do no harm to the student’s mind.”

    Paint that on the Judas goat’s hallowedhoax hide, put it on their altar to god and smoke it. Of course, since Jewish professors and academicians cannot be expected to swear honestly, they will be offered the traditional cup of hemlock.

    And speaking of Greeks bearing knowledge, hereis a fascinating non-Hollywood movie about Hypatia of Alexandria. The movie is well worth the time to watch as it provides an interesting view into early Christianity. Another interesting portrayal is that of Saint Cyril. This character leaves one wondering what the Pope was thinking when he canonized this saint.

    The scene where Christians trap Jews in their synagogue and stone them was a refreshing change from the traditional genius/victim status accorded them by their Hollywood brethren. Although never one to indulge in Schadenfreude, it was a delight to see Jews finally receive their comeuppance, even if it is only a cinematic comeuppance.

    Ah those were the good ol’ days, when Christians acted according to their known opposition with the people responsible for murdering their savior.

  8. Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
    June 7, 2017 - 8:32 am | Permalink

    Egalitarian scholars will tell as many lies as it takes and spend as much of our money as needed to promote their dream. One has only to look at the Monticello Restoration Project website to realize that truth. Luckily, we have authors such as M. Andrew Holowchak (Framing a Legend) to confront them.

  9. Pat Kittle's Gravatar Pat Kittle
    June 7, 2017 - 9:00 am | Permalink

    Yes, there was a Jewish Holocaust, and tomorrow happens to be its 50th anniversary:
    — [ ]

  10. June 7, 2017 - 2:12 pm | Permalink may yet delist Prof. Wilson’s books and their ilk on grounds that they are offensive. On March 7, 2017, Amazon delisted over 70 titles that objectively treated the Holocaust, including the canonical The Hoax of the 20th Century by Arthur Butz. Amazon had carried many of these books for decades, but if you look for them now (try it), you’ll get a “huh?”
    Down the memory hole.

  11. Gbon's Gravatar Gbon
    June 7, 2017 - 6:04 pm | Permalink

    Anyone who owns a pre 1970 edition of any encyclopedia, including children’s encyclopedias can find more truthful history there than in the entire post 1960 output of the American Historical Society.

    Here is a little joke. Harvard, Yale and other prestige colleges were established as preachers colleges for the production of closed minded, doctrinaire, Puritan preachers who believed in witches.
    350 years later Harvard, Yale and the rest have come full circle. Their purpose is to turn out close minded, doctrinaire Puritan Preachers devoted to hunting down and destroying heretics and witches.

  12. Derek's Gravatar Derek
    June 8, 2017 - 12:32 am | Permalink

    If they could, the left would even have science abolished like King Canute stopping the waves.

    “Genetics has a blighted past with regards to race. Even
    today, important figures from its history – notably James
    Watson, co-discoverer of the double helix – express
    unsupportable racist views . The irony is that while
    Galton spawned a field with the intention of revealing
    essential racial differences between the peoples of the
    Earth, his legacy – human genetics – has shown he was
    wrong. Most modern geneticists are much less like
    Galton and more like Darwin. A dreadful book published
    last year by former New York Times science writer
    Nicholas Wade espoused views about racial differences
    seemingly backed by genetics. As with Watson, the
    reaction from geneticists was uniformly dismissive, that
    he had failed to understand the field, and
    misrepresented their work.”

    The truth is racist.

    “Massive inbreeding within the Muslim culture during the last 1.400
    years may have done catastrophic damage to their gene pool. The
    consequences of intermarriage between first cousins often have
    serious impact on the offspring’s intelligence, sanity, health and on
    their surroundings”

  13. George Kocan's Gravatar George Kocan
    June 10, 2017 - 7:08 am | Permalink

    Massive inbreeding among Muslims may have indeed created a problematic population for those who must live with or near them. The polygyny reflects a high degree of aggression among the men, while marriages to first cousins promotes tribal loyalty. I propose this as an hypothesis which requires deeper study.

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      June 10, 2017 - 11:53 am | Permalink

      Mr. Kocan: Your hypothesis has been receiving deeper study for decades. For a start, search the archives of this site.

      There shouldn’t be a need to reinvent the wheel every time someone discovers the (((Establishment’s))) game plan.

      • David's Gravatar David
        June 10, 2017 - 8:10 pm | Permalink

        Pierre & George: Yes, Pierre–but I would soften it a bit. New entrants need to have fun stretching their ideas. I consider myself a newbie to this area of politico-biology, so I sympathize with George. this is a different kind of research methodology than what I am use to. And not everyone is equally familiar with researching at all. I kind of like encouraging people to play. The sentence “I propose this as an hypothesis which requires deeper study,” could be considered as expressively equivalent to “This would be an interesting comparison, perhaps it has been done.”

        I have also witnessed in the laboratory that restatements of what is considered, even scoffed at, the obvious by those considering themselves seasoned players (and they are), can produce surprisingly fertile new ideas on occasions.

        Educe, educe, educe. And for mutual edification:

        • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
          June 13, 2017 - 3:12 pm | Permalink

          Dear David: A fair comment and fairly expressed.

    • David's Gravatar David
      June 10, 2017 - 1:29 pm | Permalink

      First, maybe this has all been done.

      I think this would be difficult, but I would defer to the experts.

      Teasing apart the genetic-social factor from learned-social factor would be take some doing to get a good signal-to-noise ratio. On first blush, I would think that we are talking about a genetic factor that has its action on social/cultural aspects of the group. Thus, one might posit things like a genetic pre-disposition to more or less strongly ‘sexually imprint’, so to speak, on bodily and facial characteristics of those within proximity during some developmental window. Thus, it would not matter what racial/ethic type was around an individual–let’s say–at the time of puberty, THAT would be the type of individual one would forever have a preference for. Given that most individuals would been surrounded by co-ethnics (in the pre-multicultural society), this would naturally result in reinforcement of the sym-ethnic sexual, search-image preference. This would be confounded by the fact that given a sufficiently attractive member of the opposite sex (and depending upon the individual’s drive/motivation to mate), most individuals can find members of at least some other ethnic or racial group a possibility for having sex with–certainly influenced by cognitive criteria.

      What interests me are the mental (intellectual, emotional, volitional) & expressed behavioral characteristics of individuals in combination with visual appearance, not only for sexual relations, but in all forms of social intercourse. I think this is even more important than appearance, and I think it is what really predicts racial or ethnic compatibility. Skin color and facial characteristics are secondary, proxy markers for the mental/behavioral differences.

      But, this is not my area of research. I will yield to others who have a more informed and convincing comments.

      I suppose one could do studies of degrees of consanguinity and response to faces, and do this in a manner in which one controls for, or factors out, the effects of test subjects who remained in a homogenous social structure in contrast to those who had been transported, at some critical age, to another ethnic environment.

      I suppose the Merkel-Welt will provide lots of opportunity for grant seekers to come up with interesting studies and university careers.

      • George Kocan's Gravatar George Kocan
        June 11, 2017 - 10:07 am | Permalink

        In the animal world, polygyny is association with sexual dimorphism. The dimorphism appears in the area of social aggression. Dominant males succeed in attracting (or controlling) all the relevant females, by defeating other males with superior size, weapons, and strategy. In some animals, the process has resulted in extreme dimorphism as can be seen in elephant seals. I assume that humans have not escaped such a process, which must, logically, have genetic consequences that among other things increases testosterone levels. While elephant seals show great individual aggression, they do not combine into groups and wage war on conspecifics. Humans do. And group solidarity must contribute greatly to the success of aggression. This group solidarity comes from concepts related to reproductive fitness. That is, alliances are built on genetic relatedness, brothers band with brothers, with cousins and so on. First cousin marriages over a few generations should produce gene frequencies which are identical among individuals of the same families, where one could logically consider first cousins and even second cousins as brothers. Something like 1.2 billion Muslims now live in this world. This testifies to the great success of the Muslims reproductive strategy. This contrasts with the reproductive strategy of. let us call it, Liberal Protestantism, which seems to have a negative reproductive strategy which deliberately avoids genetic solidarity in favor of some mystical kind of diversity and negative population growth.

        • David's Gravatar David
          June 12, 2017 - 10:37 am | Permalink

          Well, I do not think you are urging more 1st-cousin marriage among Europeans, but maybe you are. (I do have some cute cousins in West Virginia, come to think of it. Hmmm.) One of the natural effects of regional, relatively-homogenous populations–may be to enhance the strength of identity-solidarity via subtle genetic similarities with sufficient variability to make. This is stuff that Kevin McDonald is better able to address with authority.

          I believe that there are other ways of encouraging the establishment of a new steady-state position along the spectrum of cooperativity-individualism, but these are admittedly more difficult when there is not a sufficient ethnic/racial homogeneity to the matrix of society. By analogy, too many solutes in the solvent matrix disrupt the interactions of the solvent particles. This is unquestionably a deliberate goal of those wishing to destroy Europeans: genocide by invasive immigration.

          We did not get to this point of grim condition regarding European solidarity without outside interference via the means well chronicled here at T.O.O., specifically the Jewish Effect and it subsequent secularity. I think it possible to overdo the notion that Western Europeans have an inborn error that propels them to self-destruction, but I certainly accept that they have genetic-cognitive predispositions made into vulnerabilities by the manipulation of their environments by outsiders.

          A White taxi driver once described for me how happy that he was that a “nice” Hispanic couple have moved into their protestant church, began “pastoring,” and would eventually no doubt take over their church (read: transfer of property and wealth). The naïveté bothers me more than anything else. Western European religious bodies are notorious for having internal principles parallel to the legal rules of civil business practices that do not always benefit groups based on White identity but which do expose them to exploitation by non-Europeans. The various eastern Christian groups have wisely retained national and ethnic church identity, in my opinion, as an extension of familial duties and loyalty.

          We just do not know how things are going to sort out with regard to European identity and its basis for a vivified solidarity that almost certainly has never yet existed. My satisfaction is that this is an exciting time of great new possibilities.

          In my estimation, Christianity will be important in the future identification because it does have the mode of creating solidarity (Communion). Attention will have to be paid to instruction that universality of salvation and humanity does not undermine the truth and importance of ethic and racial identity. Thus, we will need the biologians to start regaining ground in the church as well as in academia. Perhaps a slightly more Orthodox influence seasoning added to the scholasticism of the Roman church would help–as well as countering the hypertrophied feminism of latter. But the Aristotelian-Thomistic foundation of Western culture is poorly appreciated, especially by protestants–by design. Yet these philosophic systems are essential to both science and the interfacing of science to non-scientific necessities of human culture and life.

          The patriarchal nature, and the ethnocentricity, of eastern churches would be a welcomed inspiration of fresh air for re-ordering family life and the marketplace. So too would a revival of literary, cultural, artistic and non-religious mythological remembrances of what is natural to the European psyche be beneficial.

          My personal hope is that intentional communities and aggregations will be nodes in the networks through which European group cognition finds freer room for action. But we need to borrow some things from the Jewish people. Jews seem to know how to imagine and to create within their context of doing what is good for the Jews. They know how to trust other Jews–in this world. At its best, I do not think that European Christianity had ever achieved this to the same degree.

          It is time to start.

          • David's Gravatar David
            June 12, 2017 - 11:00 am | Permalink

            [Sorry, an after-thought.] There should not be any anxiety regarding the re-discovery of our European mythologies, as one imagines a re-formed Christianity that emerges like a Phoenix from the wreckage of its effete, corrupted, collectivist & feminist modernism. Indeed, because (at least non-protestant) versions of Christianity are strongly incarnational, the unity of the body, spirit and soul are foundational principles. Thus, for Europeans, the Euro-neurobiology as we might call it, expressed itself in the psychology that it did. As we look for how Grace builds on Nature specifically for the European, one would err grievously to ignore the hints of who we are that we gather form the Mythos of our ancestors.

    • David's Gravatar David
      June 10, 2017 - 2:15 pm | Permalink

      And, as usual, my first thought is too complicated. A much simpler and direct reformulation of your hypothesis would be number of cousin-matings and some metrics for tribalism, e.g., number of conflicts or occasions of sharing with others in or outside of a group (if indeed you could in practice measure that easily). Again, Merkel-Welt to the rescue to freak experiments where relationship status can be assumed a priori without genetic studies required.

      One might find insights in comparisons with non-genetic ‘pseudo-tribes’, viz., ‘cults’, the ‘propositional tribe’.

  14. David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
    June 11, 2017 - 3:34 pm | Permalink

    The Anglophile Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana wrote, for example, in his famous “The Life of Reason” (1906) [I select just a few sentences]:

    “Community of race is a far deeper bond than community of language, education or government…. Some races are obviously superior to others…. Reason protests as much as instinct against any fusion, for instance, of white and black peoples…. Large contact and concentrated living bring out native genius, but mixture with an inferior stock can only tend to obliterate it.” Such comments have been “red crayonned” out of modern editions of his work.

    Penalties large or small have been visited upon those who dared to dissent from the post-WW2 racial egalitarian ideology; e.g. Carleton Coon, Hans Eysenck, Philippe Rushton, Ruggles Gates, Richard Lynn, James Watson, John Baker, etc.

    • David's Gravatar David
      June 12, 2017 - 8:01 am | Permalink

      At present, almost all of the “energy” of academic activity is trapped in a square-well depression of distorted ideology surrounded by the high walls of reality. We would do well to tunnel in some fresh young minds. This will require some exceptional individuals with talent, rigorous training, great virtues, and unshakeable mettle. But let’s not overlook the importance of an army of competent scholars to fill colleges and second-tier institutions as well.

      Cultural battles are won by people of a wide variety of skills and attributes that contribute to the progress of a giant–well–amoebic blob, as much as they do to a Spartan army of brawny, statuesque figures. (Forgive my imagery.)

      Some will no doubt prefer to think of the reappearance of a more balanced makeup of scholarly institutions as a natural outcome as arguments in the political world win the day. Indubitably, more wholesome intellectual environments will sprout up like spring flowers as societies regain their sanity. There are those, nonetheless, that possess a desire and capacity for more consciously-directed activity. There are aspects of this that will emerge from both as an organic evolution as well as from provocation of man against things as they are.

      There are obvious steps–or assaults–that can be taken towards this end as things progress (cultivating donors for chaired positions in a well-defined discipline) as well as developing the farm club of pre-graduate school students (as early as high school) who can be encouraged to pursue certain avenues of enquiry. Others are better able in this area of planning than me to offer useful tools.

      The challenge is that we will have to find ways of playing baseball without a stadium. The alt-right, nationalist and race realist literature, conferences, publishing houses, blog sites, videos, etc. represent and contribute in just this manner to this early phase campaign beautifully.

      It is never too early for investing appropriate levels of effort in outlining future stages of such things as the Reconquista of academe. Even in dream form, it is not misdirected work in that these imaginings and discussions provide critical hope as well as the practical vision to draw people towards a common, convergent Good.

      The Left were masterful in this in many of these aspects of cultural war, and they were not afraid to make many mistakes and invest in an enormous amount of work that superficially might be judged fruitless.

      But in such struggles, even tiny, component vectors in the right direction are incredibly valuable when seen in summation.

      • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
        June 13, 2017 - 8:04 am | Permalink

        @ David

        Reason does not always win in political debate, even when it is allowed to take place. But reason and facts are on our side, along with patriotism AND genuine ethics. A multitude of tactics are necessary, as was the case with prewar communist fronts and the postwar “pyscholonialism” of empty minds and infantile hearts by the “race-gender-class” subversives.

        One danger to avoid is giving our powerful enemies hostages to perpetual misfortune by self-caricature as outliers with attitudes merely crude, cruel, crackpot or criminal.

        Cheer up with “Oswald Mosley Europe Lives and Marches On” on You Tube!

  15. pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
    June 15, 2017 - 4:50 am | Permalink

    This article demonstrates the details of how the left have taken control of academia. Academia is not a place for open minds, clearly the opposite. Politics is more important than truth.

    This demonstrates how weak and cowardly they are, as not all academics subscribe to lefty thinking, and not all subscribe to the idea of readily abandoning the principles of science whenever it clashes with lefty ideas. Yet despite many of them not wanting to abandon the principles of science (abandoning science means not allowing data or argument to be published that challenge a theory, such as the current theory that men and women are the same in behaviour, or races are the same) – despite many scientists in academia not approving of this anti-science attitude (of not allowing theories to be challenged, and forming a wall of protection around them) they decide to bow and cower to the minority who declare loudly that this or that though needs to be banned. This cowering attitude in the face of bullying explains why the author’s review was not published – the cowering attitude perhaps explains the banning more than the political views of the editors does. Ie the urge to ban did not arise from their own personal views, rather from pressure/atmosphere they picked up all around them.

    The lefty loud academics who create this atmosphere are in effect declaring that Nature is not allowed to violate their equality legislation: Nature is not allowed to make human males and human females different in behaviour – it would be illegal. Nature is not allowed to make races different – such notions are now illegal, and even Mother Nature has been ordered to comply.

  16. pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
    June 15, 2017 - 5:10 am | Permalink

    “people of different continental ancestries differ statistically in the distribution of some important aptitudes”

    In my view it is important to distinguish between natural selection and evolution. Evolution incorporates actual changes in genes that includes NEW FEATURES that arise from mutations. There is no need to invoke such changes to explain the differences in human races.

    Take dogs as an example. They have been intensively selected for thousands of years and we now have a pit bull at one extreme and a friendly labrador guide dog for the blind at the other. These are examples of the extremes of what the gene pool has within it. Dogs are selected to be like humans in their behaviour, but they can go no further without actual evolution occurring, which would enable them to start to speak eventually, if it ever could happen.

    Yet when domestic dogs run wild, eg after a disaster such as flood or earthquake, they all end up as a sort of wolf like animal within just a few generations. This shows (1) it is hard to separate the genes (2) it is easy to mix them all up again (3) no new features arose as all the dogs can breed together. The dalmation’s spots disappear in the mix – but could, if required, be bred by humans from the mongrel gene pool all over again.

    This also is illustrated by the more recent article about the buffalo and the cows.

    Natural selection is taking a pack of cards and picking out all the hearts to be the genes for people on one island, and all the spades and clubs for the people on the other island. Evolution would be a new suit, not a diamond, heart, club or spade, but a ‘fork’ card ie a completely new one. Such that in the end the people on the two islands can no longer breed.

    Another point is that not everything we see has to be explained in terms of ‘why would natural selection pick that out – it must be good’. When the Fred Bloggs tribe ran away from Africa to get away from the tribal wars and backwardness, they did not carefully select all their traits. Some are quite random. Some are burdens carried by the group. Some features, – such as that of Professor MacDonald’s own aunts – are, in concentrated form, a disadvantage to the group. (His aunts wanted to dedicate their energies to helping other races, out of an excess of virtue, without realising that in the end these other tribes are not going to return the hug they received with another hug back)

  17. pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
    June 15, 2017 - 5:16 am | Permalink

    … perhaps the trait of the Jews to feel hostile to other tribes (as opposed to being friendly back to those who extend the hand of friendship – clearly more advantageous a strategy to have in your gene pool) , perhaps this hostility is not a ‘naturally selected trait that must have a long term benefit to them’ , perhaps it is a burden carried in their genes that in the end has led them to be expelled from various countries and persecuted.

Comments are closed.