Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
199906 American Renaissance

199906 American Renaissance

|Views: 66|Likes:
American Renaissance, June 1999. The Seeds of Conflict; “White Australia” Gets Jaundice; The Fight Against Racial Preferences; O Tempora, O Mores!; Letters from Readers
American Renaissance, June 1999. The Seeds of Conflict; “White Australia” Gets Jaundice; The Fight Against Racial Preferences; O Tempora, O Mores!; Letters from Readers

More info:

Published by: American Renaissance on Dec 20, 2010
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF or read online from Scribd
See more
See less



American Renaissance - 1 - June 1999
There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world.
Thomas Jefferson
Vol 10, No. 6June 1999
The Seeds of Conflict
American Renaissance
Continued on page 3
Genetic Similarity Theoryexplains the conflicts thatbaffle statesmen.
by Jared Taylor
hy are bombs falling in Yu-goslavia? Why do the Hutuand Tutsi keep slaughteringeach other? Why can’t people in LosAngeles take Rodney King’s advice and“just get along”? Since the end of theCold War, there has been a remarkableupsurge in ethnic, national, racial, andother sectarian conflicts that has baffledliberal policy-makers who predicted “theend of history.” To the contrary, a UNstudy found that if a war were definedas armed conflict that produced morethan 1,000 deaths, there have been 82wars in a recent three-year period, and79 of them were sectarian blood-lettingsthat took place
recognized na-tional borders. The current NATO ac-tion against Yugoslavia has somethingof the look of the traditional war thatpits belligerent governments againsteach other, but the real cause, of course,was civil disorder between ethnic Serbsand ethnic Albanians.The explanations most commonlygiven for the persistence of this kind of fighting are almost always implausible.Colonialism does not explain why Hutuand Tutsi hate each other any more thanslavery explains why blacks rioted inLos Angeles. Liberal sociologists comeup with strained, ad hoc explanations of this kind because they refuse to acceptthe deeper, biological origins of conflict.In explaining why NATO had decidedto kill Serbs, William Clinton did men-tion “nationalism” as one of the causes,but clearly thinks of it as a primitive,even embarrassing sentiment.J. Philippe Rushton of the Universityof Western Ontario has offered an analy-sis of conflict of this kind that links it tothe basic biological mechanisms thatgovern how people–and other organ-isms–choose their associates. His analy-sis, known as Genetic Similarity Theory,is an extension of the sociobiologicalwork of E.O. Wilson, William Hamilton,and others into the ethnic/nationalsphere. GST is firmly rooted in evolu-tion, but its perspective and insights canbe appreciated by people with otherviews as well.Ever since Darwin, the willingness of some individuals to sacrifice themselvesfor others has been a riddle for evolu-tionists. If only the fittest survive, thegenes for altruistic behavior should havebeen weeded out long ago. Any man oranimal so foolish as to lay down his lifefor his fellows stops the genes for altru-istic behavior dead in their tracks. Self-sacrifice should disappear, and evolutionshould have bred pure selfishness intopeople rather than mixing it with a doseof altruism.Animals show altruism too. When aworker bee stings something trying toget into the hive, the stinger tears out of its abdomen and it dies–to protect otherbees. If a small mammal notices a hawk or fox nearby and gives a warning cryso that others of its species can run forcover, it calls attention to itself and ismore likely to be attacked. The animal’sown chances of survival would be bestif it quietly ran into a hole and left therest of the pack to the fox. Animals sharefood, rescue each other, and fight as agroup rather than run away as individu-als. But the most widespread and impor-tant kind of altruism is care of theyoung–and this suggests the evolution-ary explanation for altruism.For parents, children are packets of their own genes, and evolutionary theoryhas an obvious explanation for parentalaltruism: At least among the higher ani-mals, parents that look after their youngare much more likely to pass along theirgenes to succeeding generations thanparents that do not. The genes that causechild-rearing and child protection aretherefore very firmly built into all higherspecies. But altruism for close relativesserves the same purpose. Brothers andsisters share 50 percent of their genesand cousins share about 12 percent. Cru-cial human traits were formed when menoperated in small, extended-familybands, and in this context it made goodgenetic sense for a warrior to fight forthe tribe, since he was fighting for hiskinfolk. When the famous British geneti-cist J.B.S. Haldane was asked for whomhe would sacrifice his life, he repliedonly half-facetiously, “for three broth-ers or nine cousins.” Either combinationadds up to more than 100 percent of one’s own genes, and from an evolution-
Prof. J. Philippe Rushton
Unconscious prefer-ences for genetic similar-ity appear to be at workin human beingsall the time.
American Renaissance - 2 - June 1999
 Letters from Readers
Sir – The last part of Jared Taylor’sarticle on the “Racial Revolution” con-firmed something I have long believed:that “conservatives” are more dangerousto us than liberals. Liberals are openlyand obviously anti-white while “conser-vatives” seem more sympathetic–but inthe end they turn out to be traitors andfrauds. Also, the pro-diversity views of today’s “conservatives” create a mono-lithic integrationist culture, similar to thesegregationist culture Mr. Taylor de-scribes as having been the norm in theold America.Most disturbing are “conservative”calls for “solving” the race problemthrough large-scale amalgamation. Thisis similar to a doctor prescribing a le-thal dose of cyanide for a difficult buttreatable case of cancer. Those who pro-mote this remedy are a questionablebunch. Ben Wattenberg has long beenidentified with an avidly pro-immigra-tion, pro-miscegenation agenda in theservice of his vision of the United Statesas a “universal nation.” Strangely, hewrote an editorial some years ago thatdiscussed Jewish-gentile inter-marriageas a problem rather than a solution.Steven and Abigail Thernstrom, por-trayed as the “conservative” oppositionto Bill Clinton’s race policy, have shownthemselves to differ with the Presidentonly on the question of affirmative ac-tion. This lap-dog opposition will ac-complish nothing.Mr. Taylor ends his article on a posi-tive note, predicting a reversal of the“racial revolution” through an awaken-ing of white racial consciousness. Per-haps he is right, but this will not happenby itself. It will take an enormousamount of hard work from dedicated andserious American patriots–and thesooner the better.Ted Sallis, Tampa, Fla.Sir – I suppose that as long as thereare unattractive white women desperatefor companionship and weak-willedwhite “men” devoid of racial pride–aswell as minorities eager to improve theirsocial status–the vile practice of misce-genation will continue. Perhaps if whiteswere better aware of the very high ratesof sexually transmitted disease amongminorities–as much as 50 times higherthan in whites–this form of genetic cor-ruption could be curbed.Alex McKenzie, Charlotte, N.C.Sir – I seldom disagree with SamuelFrancis, but I believe he is wrong, in hisarticle on the origins of “racism,” to re- ject the term. He writes that anyone whouses the term racist or racialist (theymean the same thing) to describe him-self has “lost the debate,” and that “as aterm useful for communicating ideas thatthe serious supporters of white con-sciousness wish to communicate, theterm is useless . . . .”I have studied this question for 50years, but no one has come up with abetter word to describe who we are. Letus turn the tables on our enemies anddefine racialism on our terms, as loyaltyand devotion to our race. We are racial-ists, and should not be afraid to say so.If, as Jared Taylor writes, we are the vic-tims of a revolution, let the counter-revo-lution begin!Herbert Mertz, North Palm Beach,Fla.Sir – A number of AR articles havementioned the American ColonizationSociety; the May issue lists the namesof a number of officers. However, youleave out one very prominent personwho was the society’s president. Myancestor, John Tyler, became presidentof the society on Jan 10, 1838. As youknow, he later became the 10th Presi-dent of the United States.John Stober, California, Md.Sir – The AR web site is a great idea.People who are teetering on the liberal/ conservative line, may wish to read yourmaterial but are afraid to subscribe forfear they would end up on some “gov-ernment list” (maybe not an unreason-able fear these days). [Editor’s note: TheAR list is very carefully maintained andis never in unauthorized hands.]I work for the government, and forthe most part we can use the Internetfreely for work or, during lunch and af-ter hours, for personal use. Personal useis actually encouraged so that we de-velop Internet experience that can helpus with our jobs. I have suggested that“teetering liberal/conservative” col-leagues should read the
 American Re-naissance
web page during lunch hour.Unfortunately, our office recently in-stalled commercial “nanny” softwarecalled “CyberPatrol” to censor andmonitor our Internet use. I just tried toreach your web page and here is themessage I got: “Access to the site youhave selected is restricted.” The “nanny”software blocked it. I tried the web ad-dress for the Nation of Islam and LouisFarrakhan’s publication,
The Final Call
,and got through just fine.Since “CyberPatrol” keeps a recordof attempts to reach forbidden pages, Imay have a battle on my hands whenthe in-house “cyber patrol” comes to ask why I was accessing a “restricted site.”I will challenge them to find anything“hateful” in your publication.Brian Wayne, Bethesda, Md.
American Renaissance - 3 - June 1999
American Renaissance is published monthly by theNew Century Foundation. NCF is governed by section501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code; contributionsto it are tax deductible.Subscriptions to American Renaissance are $24.00 per year. First-class postage isan additional $6.00. Subscriptions to Canada (first class) and overseas (surface mail)are $30.00. Overseas airmail subscriptions are $40.00. Back issues are $3.00 each.Foreign subscribers should send U.S. dollars or equivalent in convertible bank notes.Please make checks payable to: American Renaissance, P.O. Box 527, Oakton, VA22124. ISSN No. 1086-9905, Telephone: (703) 716-0900, Facsimile: (703) 716-0932,Web Page Address: www.amren.com Electronic Mail: AR@amren.com
Continued from page 1
American Renaissance
Jared Taylor, EditorJames P. Lubinskas, Assistant EditorGeorge McDaniel, Web Page Editorary point of view it makes more senseto die if that means the others can live.This explanation for altruism is calledkin selection theory, and there is evi-dence for it in the animal kingdom. Afemale squirrel can mate with severalmales and give birth to a litter that con-tains the children of more than one male.This mixture of full- and half-siblingsshares the same womb and grows up inthe same nest but each can tell the oth-ers apart. They are more likely to cometo the aid of full siblings and more likelyto fight and quarrel with half-siblings.Another squirrel study likewise foundthat females give food to sisters but notto strangers. Similar relations are foundin lion prides, where all the fe-males are likely to be closely re-lated to each other, and thereforecooperate to kill game. Chimpan-zees occasionally kill other chim-panzees, but the victims are al-most always isolated males fromother bands.It is not known how animalstell they are related, but even in-sects are capable of amazinglyfine distinctions. When guardbees at a hive encountered in-truder bees of 14 different degreesof kinship to them, the guardianslet in those that were closely re-lated and drove off the others. In anotherexperiment, when frog eggs from sev-eral litters were put into a single tank,after they hatched, the tadpoles that weresiblings congregated together.Humans show similar behavior. Theimmediate family is obviously the fo-cus of intense loyalty and sacrifice, butevery family reunion ever held is a trib-ute to the importance of kinship ties thatgo well beyond the nuclear family. Thevery idea of relatedness, the building of family trees, the search for ancestors–all these things reflect the importance of blood ties.Recent research has uncovered less-well-known examples of the importanceof kinship. Children who live in a house-hold with a man who is not their fatherare many times more likely to be beatenor killed by him than by their biologicalfathers. Men are violent, but they rarelykill their own children. Identical twins,who have exactly the same genes, arewilling to sacrifice more for each otherthan non-identical twins (who share onlyabout 50 percent of their genes). Identi-cal twins also show greater affection andphysical attachment to each other, andsuffer greater loss when their identicalco-twin dies. Parents grieve more forchildren who appear to share more of their own traits than those of theirspouses.Prof. Rushton and others have shownthat unconscious preferences for geneticsimilarity appear to be at work in hu-man beings all the time. When peoplechoose mates, colleagues, and closefriends, they not only show cultural pref-erences, but genetic preferences withinthe same culture. Friends and spousesresemble each other in many ways, fromtheir social attitudes to IQ scores tophysical appearance. According to onestudy that determined similarity accord-ing to blood tests, couples who producea child are 52 percent similar whereascouples chosen at random in a popula-tion are only 43 percent similar. In an-other study, best friends were found tobe 54 percent similar, whereas randompairs of people were 48 percent similar.Prof. Rushton offers even more sur-prising evidence for the power of geneticsimilarity to draw people together: Of-ten what people have in common are the
heritable rather than the most ob-vious traits. For example, biceps size isonly about 50 percent heritable becauseexercise can change it, whereas fingerlength is 80 percent heritable. Peoplemay well look into each other’s exer-cise habits, but probably no one mea-sures the lengths of a potential mate’sfingers. Still, when spouses and closefriends are compared on the basis of suchmeasures, they resemble each other moreon the traits that are the most heritable.Twin and other studies show thatsome personality traits are under greatergenetic control than others, and spousesresemble each other most on those verytraits. Likewise, when IQ scores are di-vided into subtests, spouses havethe closest scores on the most heri-table subtests.There seems to be a limit to theattraction of the similar, however;the taboo against incest is a near-universal protection against in-breeding. The most attractivematch appears to be someone ge-netically similar but not a closerelative.Genetic Similarity Theorygreatly confounds those who be-lieve in the supreme power of so-cial and economic environment.They would expect people tochoose friends and spouses for thosetraits that are most influenced by envi-ronment. Body-builders should seek outbody-builders and stamp collectorsshould fall in love with other stamp col-lectors. Instead, without even beingaware of it, human beings gravitate to-wards others who resemble them incountless subtle genetic ways. Geneticsimilarity is the glue that binds individu-
Which is more similar?

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
Liberalreaccionario liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->