by Ron Unz

ALTHOUGH my own academic background is in theoretical physics, I’m the first to admit that field seems in the doldrums these days compared with human evolutionary biology.

The greatest physics discoveries of the last couple of years–the Higgs Boson and strong evidence for Cosmological Inflation–merely confirm the well-established beliefs that physicists have had since before I entered grad school. It’s nice that such experimental evidence means that individuals such as Peter Higgs, Alan Guth, and Andrei Linde, whose names have been prominent in the standard textbooks for decades, have received or will surely soon receive their long-deserved Nobel Prizes, but little new has been learned. Or so is the impression of a lapsed theoretician who left that field over twenty-five years ago and who mostly follows it through the pages of the major newspapers.

Meanwhile, human evolutionary biology has been on a tear, partly due to the full deciphering of the human genome over the last couple of decades and our increasing technical ability to effectively read archaic DNA from thousands or even tens of thousands of years in the past. In recent years we have seen shocking discoveries that most humans possess small but probably significant Neanderthal ancestry and that important genetic changes have regularly swept through our genome. On the theoretical side, it was long assumed that human genes had changed little since Cave Man days, but we now understand that in some respects human evolution may have actually accelerated during the last ten thousand years as our rapidly growing population provided a much larger source of potentially favorable mutations, while agriculture and civilization were simultaneously applying strong selective pressures.

Although my other projects have prevented me from following these developments except through newspapers, blogs, and books, such evolutionary issues have long fascinated me. During the early 1980s I even participated in the field, studying under Harvard’s E.O. Wilson and felt that if physics had not been an option, evolutionary biology would have been my next choice. I remember telling all my skeptical friends in 1979 that Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene was probably one of the most important books of the decade, and I stand by that opinion today.

Yet although our understanding of the origins of modern humans and their biologically-influenced behavior has grown by leaps and bounds over the last couple of decades, these world-changing developments seem to have received extremely scanty coverage in the mainstream press, meaning that many of them have probably not penetrated into the public consciousness of those who are not academic specialists. The assumptions and world-views of most American intellectuals and journalists often seem stuck in the 1980s, clinging to ideas that are almost completely outmoded and incorrect, much like Soviet biology into the 1960s was still crippled by the Stalinist legacy of Trofim K. Lysenko, who had argued for the inheritance of acquired characteristics and purged all those biologists who disagreed.

America’s own Lysenko is surely the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, whose platform in the prestige media and widely assigned books have massively influenced entire generations of college students and thinkers. Unfortunately, just like his Soviet counterpart, Gould promoted ideologically motivated misrepresentations of reality, sometimes backed by outright scientific fraud, and people who read his books are regularly absorbing falsehoods.

In a further parallel to the Soviet case, Gould and his Marxist circle of friends and allies, including Richard Lewontin, Steven Rose, and several others, regularly sought to purge or otherwise silence their most honest and courageous colleagues. During the 1970s, Harvard’s Wilson became their particular target for daring to publish his landmark book Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, and their wild ideological charges led radical student demonstrators to demand the university fire one of its brightest tenured stars and even to physically assault the mild-mannered Wilson at a meeting of the American Academy of Sciences. Although Gould seems to have been a rather mediocre scientist, some of his radical allies such as Lewontin were first-class researchers, but also ideologues who allowed their politics to dictate their science.

While I was a graduate student at Cambridge University during the mid-1980s, these events occasionally came up in casual discussions across the dining tables. On one such occasion, a former grad student of Lewontin’s said that during the height of the sociobiology controversy he had asked his mentor why he was leveling such ridiculous accusations against a colleague, with the reply being that those accusations were admittedly scientific nonsense, but they served the political interests of Marxism, which was far more important. Meanwhile, given Gould’s strength in words but his weakness in thinking, I find it reasonably likely that he simply believed many of the absurdities he was spouting.

As the years and the decades have gone by, I’ve always assumed that Gouldism was about to lose its grip on American intellectual life, but that assumption has always proven wrong. The totally absurd notion that genetics plays a relatively small role in influencing most human behaviors represents a zombified doctrines, absorbing endless seemingly fatal scientific wounds at the hands of prominent scholars but remaining almost unkillable, more like a religious dogma than a scientific doctrine.

For example, in 2002 Harvard’s Steven Pinker, one of America’s most prominent evolutionary psychologists, published The Blank Slate, an outstanding critique of this incorrect reigning dogma, which specifically included a lengthy debunking of Gould, Lewontin, and their circle. Not only was the book a huge seller and glowingly discussed throughout the MSM, but I was stunned to read an equally favorable review in The Nation, pole-star of America’s political Left. I naturally assumed that the full collapse of Gouldism was underway, an impression enhanced once the august New York Times later published an article describing an important instance of Gould’s scientific fraud.

But a year or two ago, when I heard smart intellectuals still citing Gould, I asked a prominent academic how that would possibly be the case. He explained that whereas in the 1990s, probably 99% of intellectuals believed in Gould, the massive revelations of recent years had merely reduced that support to 95%, leaving Gouldism almost as entrenched as ever. Whereas worldwide support for Stalinism substantially collapsed following Khrushchev’s 1956 “Secret Speech” Gouldian nonsense seems to have largely avoided that fate.

But perhaps that is now about to change.

One of the oddities of American intellectual life is that although a full-fledged scientific revolution in human genetics and evolution has been taking place for the last couple of decades, very little of this has been reported in the mainstream media, perhaps because the findings so totally contradict the numerous falsehoods that so many senior editors presumably imbibed during the introductory anthropology courses they took to satisfy their science distributional requirement as undergraduates.

Indeed, when I consider the major news stories on evolutionary breakthroughs I have read in our MSM over the last dozen years, the overwhelming majority seem to have been written by a single individual, Nicholas Wade of The New York Times, who recently retired after twenty years as a editor and reporter at our national newspaper of record, following previous decades of work at top scientific publications such as Nature and Science.

When I asked around a little, my impression was confirmed. Our nation of over 300 million may be in the forefront of evolutionary discovery, but Wade has long been almost the only reporter seriously covering these fascinating developments in the mainstream print media. Meanwhile, the weekly New York Times Science Sectionseems to be moving in the direction of People Magazine, with so much of the coverage seemingly focused on phone apps, dieting, and phone apps to assist with dieting. For example, fully half of the Letters page in this morning’s print edition was devoted to a heated debate on the “Science of Overeating.”

But while his former colleagues often focus on the transient and the trivial, Wade has spent the last couple of years producing an outstanding book to bring awareness of the revolutionary discoveries of modern genetic research to a broader American audience. Generations of Soviets had been taught the inheritance of acquired characteristics in their universities, and I assume they must have been shocked to discover it was all an ideologically motivated hoax. I suspect that many complacent American intellectuals may have a similar reaction to Wade’s book, which focuses on the highly touchy subject of the genetic nature of our distinct human races and the implications for society and history, bearing the descriptive title A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History. I’d certainly rank Wade’s book as the most important popular presentation of these ideas at least since Pinker’s Blank Slate. In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I was also very pleased to see him substantially cite my own major articles from the last couple of years on race, IQ, and wealth and the Social Darwinist roots of modern China.

All too many socially-conditioned Americans have absorbed the Lewontin-Gould mantra that “Race Does Not Exist” which from a scientific perspective is roughly similar to claiming that “Teeth Do Not Exist” or perhaps “Hills Do Not Exist,” with the latter being an especially good parallel. It is perfectly correct that the notion of “hill” is ill-defined and vague–what precise height distinguishes a pile of dirt from a hill and a hill from a mountain?–but nevertheless denying the reality or usefulness of such a concept would be an absurdity. Similarly, the notion of distinct human races–genetic clusters across a wide variety of scales and degrees of fuzziness–is an obviously useful and correct organizing principle, and one which was probably accepted without question by everyone in the history of the world except for deluded Americans of the last fifty years.

Anyway, let us suppose that the Gouldians rising up to denounce the heretic, such as anthropologist Agustin Fuentes, are given their way and the common term “race” is purged from our scientific vocabulary as being meaningless. Well, large-scale genetic population clusters obviously continue to exist in the real world and are an important element in ongoing research, both medical and evolutionary. So it would make sense to conveniently replace an overly cumbersome multisyllabic phrase with a short single-syllabic word now suddenly gone unused, namely “race.”

Indeed, I would suggest that one of the sources of present-day confusion is that the very term “race” has undergone an unfortunate metamorphosis over the course of the 20th century. Today, when people speak of “races” they are almost invariably referring to the continental-scale mega-races such as Asians, Africans, and Europeans. These “races” certainly exist and are highly meaningful and distinct in genetic terms, with blogger Steve Sailer slyly noting that the cover of Prof. Luca Cavalli-Sforza definitive tome on human genetic diversity displays a colored worldwide map looking much like what Sen. Strom Thurmond in his dotage might have drawn on a napkin with crayons.

But I would argue that restricting the term race to merely that small handful of huge groupings is extremely wasteful and we are far better off also applying the term to its traditional meaning, typically aimed at much smaller population groups. One hundred years ago, every educated individual casually used phrases such as “the Anglo-Saxon race,” “the Hungarian race,” and “the Chinese race,” and this is exactly the usage to which we should restore. To be sure, these particular genetic population clusters are naturally grouped into higher-level clusters as well–with Russians, Ukrainians, and Poles all being branches of the larger Slav race, itself a component of the European mega-race, but the word can remain flexible in scale without producing any serious confusion. All these groups are exactly the sort of natural statistical clusters that regularly appear during genetic population analysis, and we might as well use the traditional popular term for them rather than inventing an entirely new one.

As for the full contents of Wade’s book, several reviews have already noted a few small glitches here and there and I myself certainly took issue with some of his arguments. For example, I think he is much too accepting of Gregory Clark’s influential 2007 book arguing that the Industrial Revolution occurred in Britain because the British had undergone nearly a thousand years of uniquely strong selection for economic success, a thesis I find extremely doubtful. I also think Wade should have given far more attention to the seminal Cochran-Harpending theory that the rapid growth of human population after the development of agriculture has produced an equally rapid acceleration in mutation-driven evolution during the last ten thousand years, and Wade’s omission surely explains why the notoriously arrogant and irascible Gregory Cochran published such an unfriendly review on his own blogsite. Certainly everyone should explore all sides of the ongoing debate and a small racialist website has conveniently gathered together annotated links to the dozens of reviews across the web, favorable, unfavorable, and mixed. But reading the book itself is essential for anyone interested in the current state of human evolutionary science.

I’d originally intended to publish my own perspective several weeks ago and was delayed by other pressing matters. But I have been very pleased to see that Wade’s book is beginning to receive the major attention it so greatly deserves. American intellectuals must begin shedding a half-century of lies and dishonesty based on the dismally unscientific dogma of Stephen Jay Gould and instead start to discover what modern evolutionary biologists and genetic researchers have all known for years or even decades. A Troublesome Inheritance by Nicholas Wade of the New York Times may represent a huge step forward in achieving this important goal.

* * *

Source: The Unz Review

A MORE THAN casual look at The Environmental Movement shows it to be mostly a facade of noisy rhetoric. If the speechifying is largely surrealistic, the problems are real. Basic resources for industry, as well as exotic ones, are getting scarcer. Cheap oil is a thing of the past. Even if there are no real shortages at the moment, unlimited growth is a mathematical absurdity. Nothing is growing so fast as the population of the Third World nations. Neither governments nor professional ecologists offer more than symbolic solutions.

As the Sierra Club Bulletin (October 1975) summed it up: “In the ten-year span from 1960 to 1970, Americans alone consumed more raw materials and energy than were used by all of mankind before 1960,”

Rather than review all the frightening statistics, which has been done over and over again, it might be worthwhile to consider first what kind of mentality caused them. If we listen to the shamans of minority racism, we will hear the blame pinned on “the culture of white, Western masculinity” (Theodore Roszak, Where the Wasteland Ends). There is an iota of truth here. Many of the leading polluters are indeed white males of Teutonic or Celtic descent. But the principal culprit is Commercial Man, a cultureless, raceless, unisex creature, who has purged himself of all ethnic feelings and devoted his whole being to the exchange of goods and services.

Commercial Man is not going to solve the environmental problems because he is the cause of them. He did not invent the modern technology which amplifies them, but he is the one who utilizes technology to turn everything in sight into goods and money. Science started out as the hobby of eccentrics. It was only in the nineteenth century that Commercial Man really took notice of the science kooks and decided there was unlimited wealth in store for those who could exploit science. A few geniuses like Edison and Henry Ford straddled both worlds and became legends in their own times.

The great fallacy of the ecology-minded is that modern technology is the key factor in environmental degradation. Technology is a factor, but irrigation and the stone axe could also do the job, as any serious study of the ancient world quickly reveals. Of course today’s advanced technology provides fantastic leverage for human stupidity. The scientists and engineers who created it are unfortunately lacking in the mental scope or emotional maturity needed to utilize such power properly. All they know is to speed up the growth demanded by Commercial Man. Konrad Lorenz has compared the situation to cancer (Civilized Man’s Eight Deadly Sins). This is a perfectly valid simile, since the cancer cell has lost the ability to function cooperatively in the organism. It multiplies and multiplies and the malignancy grows and grows. The tumor fattens until the organism dies. Faith healers report that they have persuaded some cancers to reform in their own best interest. What are the chances of our social cancer coming to its senses? Very little. Antibodies are needed, not gentle persuasion.

Commercial Man cannot do anything meaningful to prevent this planet from being plundered and destroyed because very candidly that is his entire reason for being. In his socialistic, humanitarian garb his goal is to maximize the tonnage of human protoplasm on the earth and to provide these quivering masses of hominid tissue with goods and services. Optimizing the process is outside his scope; in fact it is antagonistic to his values and his way of thinking. His outlook on life is so one-dimensional that he offers only stopgap solutions for problems caused by his mindless quest for more of everything. Replication is his forte, not creativity. A billion mediocre things are better than one good one.

The mania for quantity and production has made efficiency a virtue. High efficiency means rigid stability. Natural processes operate at about ten percent efficiency. As efficiency rises above this level, the ability of a mechanism to adjust to changes declines dramatically. Lessons like this are totally lost on Commercial Man.

Commercial Man, in fact, is a creature of all humanity. He can be an Anglo-Saxon liberal member of the Junior Chamber of Commerce, a de-ethnicized American Jew, an overseas Chinese, a Hindu in Africa, a multiracial comprador in Latin America. His camp followers are the bureaucrats and intellectuals who sometimes claim to be his enemies, but are more appropriately his heirs.

The essence of Commercial Man has loomed over very diverse societies – the Third Reich, liberal America, the People’s Republic of China, the Soviet Union, Israel and the United Arab Republic. Having existed for a long time, longer than historical records, he serves a useful purpose, but becomes a serious problem when his is the dominant class.

Reading between the lines of liberal-minority environmentalists reveals their solution consists of eliminating technology, in part by downgrading white nations and eliminating white scientists and engineers. Since the Chinese, Japanese and other Asiatics have plenty of good engineers and plenty of good Commercial Men, the disappearance of whites will by no means signify the end of industrialism. If anything, what will vanish will be any and all restraints on industrial expansion. The world will not return to being a beautiful wilderness inhabited by noble savages. Instead it will be covered by an endless favela teeming with rats, lice, roaches and nonwhites. There is no way of telling how long this global squalor will endure before the last so-called human creature perishes. Probably not too long.

With little doubt Commercial Man’s days are numbered, just as they were in classical times. The only serious question is whether there are any alternatives to the world favela.

A return to the true values of the West would entail a rejection of the false and hypocritical humanitarianism of Commercial Man. The population explosion in the Third World would be halted. Each nation would eventually have the population it could support at whatever level it deemed suitable for itself. National liberation in the Third World would also mean national responsibility instead of anti-white racism. The liberal is indeed a perverse being who wants to destroy his own race and society, but only after he has made the rest of mankind just like him. He will be gone, thankfully, and this alone will make the earth a better, cleaner, healthier place to live.

With other nations and peoples pursuing their own destinies, the Majority could turn its attention to much needed self-improvement. Marginal souls could be discouraged from having children and the childbearing of those with genetic potential would be encouraged. Without racial antagonisms and recriminations, government could be used for solving social problems, instead of treating the symptoms and breeding the causes. Welfare budgets would decline. Freedom would be available to those who wanted it and security would be there for those who valued it more highly than freedom. An increasing ratio of brighter people would supply the drive to keep such a system going.

An unculled herd deteriorates. This is why we have suffered genetic decay. Society in contrast to nature selects not the best for massive reproduction, but the very worst. The poorest and least successful among us have the largest families, so the liberal democrats have the strongest voting blocs.

The gene pool of a race is not stationary. It changes with every generation. Without information inputs from the environment, such as differential reproduction rates and infant mortality, the race will deteriorate. Since we have reproduction rates favoring the worst of our own race, not to mention the worst of the blacks, things are getting bad very fast. This is what Elmer Pendell said in Sex and Civilization, and what has been known for thousands of years to animal breeders. It is formally demonstrable in the quasi-mathematical communications theory. Those who don’t understand the dynamics of genetic decay have been born into the wrong universe and had better find another one for their next reincarnation.

The nobility of the Middle Ages maintained large forest areas, despite a growing need for more agricultural land. Part of the motivation was the sport of hunting and varieties of game for the table; part was the need for a supply of lumber and other forest products. If the barons and earls allowed all the trees to be cut, there would be more, not fewer, hungry peasants and no game or wood for anybody.

The contrasting survival styles of different people is reflected in domestic animals. The dog is like the average Third Worlder. He breeds promiscuously and copiously until there are no more scraps and garbage to feed him. His cousin the wolf acts more like the nobleman. Commercial Man acts like vermin.

If we are not to sink into the mainstream of humanity and then out of sight, a small but influential portion of us must somehow move the rest off their collision course with the second law of thermodynamics (genetic entropy). Technology must be utilized to improve man, not tailor the world for increasing numbers of hard-to-feed bipeds.

The world’s mineral resources are fast disappearing. So are the genetic advantages of the American Majority. If we continue to tolerate the liberal, the bureaucrat, the financial manipulator and our own aimless whimsy, if we who know better continue to be the servants of Commercial Man, we will not only be his gravedigger but our own.

* * *

Source: Instauration magazine, February 1976

Studies in Britain and America have found they have IQs 14 points above average.

The findings dispel the myth of the dumb blondes or good-looking men not being very bright.

It appears that those already physically blessed attract partners who are not just good looking but brainy too, according to research by the London School of Economics.

The children of these couples will tend to inherit both qualities, building a genetic link over successive generations between them.

LSE researcher Satoshi Kanazawa told the Sunday Times: ”Physical attractiveness is significantly positively associated with general intelligence, both with and without controls for social class, body size and health.

‘The association between attractiveness and general intelligence is also stronger among men than among women.’

In other research on social standing, he found that middle-class girls tended to have higher IQs than their working- class counterparts.

Among the millions of examples of  beauty and brains, there’s supermodel Lily Cole (pictured, top of page) who went  to  Cambridge University, actress Kate Beckinsale, an Oxford graduate, and physicist Brian Cox (pictured), one-time keyboard player with Dream.

In Britain, the study found that men who are physically attractive had IQs an average 13.6 points above the norm while women were about 11.4 points higher.

Kanazawa’s findings were based on the National Child Development Study which followed 17,419 people since their birth in a single week in March, 1958.

Throughout their childhood up to early adulthood, they were given a series of tests for academic progress, intelligence and marked on appearance.

The American research was taken from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health which involved a similar study of 35,000 young Americans.

Read the full article at the Daily Mail

I OFTEN WONDER how much sound and nourishing food is fed to the animals in the zoological gardens of America every week, and try to figure out what the public gets in return for the cost thereof. The annual bill must surely run into millions; one is constantly hearing how much beef a lion downs at a meal, and how many tons of hay an elephant dispatches in a month. And to what end? To the end, principally, that a horde of superintendents and keepers may be kept in easy jobs. To the end, secondarily, that the least intelligent minority of the population may have an idiotic show to gape at on Sunday afternoons, and that the young of the species may be instructed in the methods of amour prevailing among chimpanzees and become privy to the technique employed by jaguars, hyenas and polar bears in ridding themselves of lice.

So far as I can make out, after laborious visits to all the chief zoos of the nation, no other imaginable purpose is served by their existence. One hears constantly, true enough (mainly from the gentlemen they support) that they are educational. But how? Just what sort of instruction do they radiate, and what is its value? I have never been able to find out. The sober truth is that they are no more educational than so many firemen’s parades or displays of sky-rockets, and that all they actually offer to the public in return for the taxes wasted upon them is a form of idle and witless amusement, compared to which a visit to a penitentiary, or even to Congress or a state legislature in session, is informing, stimulating and ennobling.

Education your grandmother! Show me a schoolboy who has ever learned anything valuable or important by watching a mangy old lion snoring away in its cage or a family of monkeys fighting for peanuts. To get any useful instruction out of such a spectacle is palpably impossible; not even a college professor is improved by it. The most it can imaginably impart is that the stripes of a certain sort of tiger run one way and the stripes of another sort some other way, that hyenas and polecats smell worse than Greek ‘bus boys, that the Latin name of the raccoon (who was unheard of by the Romans) is Procyon lotor. For the dissemination of such banal knowledge, absurdly emitted and defectively taken in, the taxpayers of the United States are mulcted in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. As well make them pay for teaching policemen the theory of least squares, or for instructing roosters in the laying of eggs.

But zoos, it is argued, are of scientific value. They enable learned men to study this or that. Again the facts blast the theory. No scientific discovery of any value whatsoever, even to the animals themselves, has ever come out of a zoo. The zoo scientist is the old woman of zoology, and his alleged wisdom is usually exhibited, not in the groves of actual learning, but in the yellow journals. He is to biology what the late Camille Flammarion was to astronomy, which is to say, its court jester and reductio ad absurdum. When he leaps into public notice with some new pearl of knowledge, it commonly turns out to be no more than the news that Marie Bashkirtseff, the Russian lady walrus, has had her teeth plugged with zinc and is expecting twins. Or that Pishposh, the man-eating alligator, is down with locomotor ataxia. Or that Damon, the grizzly, has just finished his brother Pythias in the tenth round, chewing off his tail, nose and remaining ear.

Science, of course, has its uses for the lower animals. A diligent study of their livers and lights helps to an understanding of the anatomy and physiology, and particularly of the pathology, of man. They are necessary aids in devising and manufacturing many remedial agents, and in testing the virtues of those already devised; out of the mute agonies of a rabbit or a calf may come relief for a baby with diphtheria, or means for an archdeacon to escape the consequences of his youthful follies. Moreover, something valuable is to be got out of a mere study of their habits, instincts and ways of mind — knowledge that, by analogy, may illuminate the parallel doings of the genus homo, and so enable us to comprehend the primitive mental processes of Congressmen, morons and the rev. clergy.

But it must be obvious that none of these studies can be made in a zoo. The zoo animals, to begin with, provide no material for the biologist; he can find out no more about their insides than what he discerns from a safe distance and through the bars. He is not allowed to try his germs and specifics upon them; he is not allowed to vivisect them. If he would find out what goes on in the animal body under this condition or that, he must turn from the inhabitants of the zoo to the customary guinea pigs and street dogs, and buy or steal them for himself. Nor does he get any chance for profitable inquiry when zoo animals die (usually of lack of exercise or ignorant doctoring), for their carcasses are not handed to him for autopsy, but at once stuffed with gypsum and excelsior and placed in some museum.

Least of all do zoos produce any new knowledge about animal behavior. Such knowledge must be got, not from animals penned up and tortured, but from animals in a state of nature. A college professor studying the habits of the giraffe, for example, and confining his observations to specimens in zoos, would inevitably come to the conclusion that the giraffe is a sedentary and melancholy beast, standing immovable for hours at a time and employing an Italian to feed him hay and cabbages. As well proceed to a study of the psychology of a jurisconsult by first immersing him in Sing Sing, or of a juggler by first cutting off his hands. Knowledge so gained is inaccurate and imbecile knowledge. Not even a college professor, if sober, would give it any faith and credit.

There remains, then, the only true utility of a zoo: it is a childish and pointless show for the unintelligent, in brief, for children, nursemaids, visiting yokels and the generality of the defective. Should the taxpayers be forced to sweat millions for such a purpose? I think not. The sort of man who likes to spend his time watching a cage of monkeys chase one another, or a lion gnaw its tail, or a lizard catch flies, is precisely the sort of man whose mental weakness should be combatted at the public expense, and not fostered. He is a public liability and a public menace, and society should seek to improve him. Instead of that, we spend a lot of money to feed his degrading appetite and further paralyze his mind. It is precisely as if the community provided free champagne for dipsomaniacs, or hired lecturers to convert the army to the doctrines of the Bolsheviki.

Of the abominable cruelties practised in zoos it is unnecessary to make mention. Even assuming that all the keepers are men of delicate natures and ardent zoophiles (which is about as safe as assuming that the keepers of a prison are all sentimentalists, and weep for the sorrows of their charges), it must be plain that the work they do involves an endless war upon the native instincts of the animals, and that they must thus inflict the most abominable tortures every day. What could be a sadder sight than a tiger in a cage, save it be a forest monkey climbing despairingly up a barked stump, or an eagle chained to its roost? How can man be benefitted and made better by robbing the seal of its arctic ice, the hippopotamus of its soft wallow, the buffalo of its open range, the lion of its kingship, the birds of their air?

I am no sentimentalist, God knows. I am in favor of vivisection unrestrained, so long as the vivisectionist knows what he is about. I advocate clubbing a dog that barks unnecessarily, which all dogs do. I enjoy hangings, particularly of converts to the evangelical faiths. The crunch of a cockroach is music to my ears. But when the day comes to turn the prisoners of the zoo out of their cages, if it is only to lead them to the swifter, kinder knife of the schochet, I shall be present and rejoicing, and if any one present thinks to suggest that it would be a good plan to celebrate the day by shooting the whole zoo faculty, I shall have a revolver in my pocket and a sound eye in my head.

(1918)

“HEY MAN,” said Homeless Jack, ” let me tell you a little more about Arman’s teachings.

“Arman says that we have to think in terms of ‘our people’ and ‘not our people,’ if we are to head off our extinction, expand our kind and prosper.

“But, you won’t understand what he really means so long as you have an incorrect mindset that holds that the person you see in the mirror is the whole of the essential you.

“See, Arman repeatedly says that if you start your thought process by thinking about yourself as the complete organism you are, this gets you off the correct path and then leads you to think about human races in an incorrect way and leaves you open to having false ideas planted in your subconscious by those who want us to blend back in with the rest of humanity. You have to start your thinking way upstream from this.

“A good place to start your upstream thinking is by realizing that ‘you’ — the person in the mirror — are a manifestation of your DNA code. That DNA code is the core that has spun out that person you see in the mirror. But it’s not as though the unique DNA code you carry has an existence separate from you, because it doesn’t. You and it are one. It ‘projects’ you from within every cell of your body. You need it to exist and it needs you to exist in the form it has within you, and as you.

“People in other religions talk about a raceless, usually non-physical or non-material soul or spirit that they believe is the real person, and they believe that it inhabits a body that is often considered evil and a burden on the soul or spirit.

“They’re wrong, man, and they’ve been wrong for centuries. You are the real you — and the DNA code that has made you and which is inside you is the part of you that goes on after your death if you’ve had children in your image who survive you. And, remember, the DNA code is physical and material and it’s not raceless.

“You also need to understand, man, that the DNA code inside all life that we are aware of, including us, is the offspring of that first DNA molecule that came into existence. The basic DNA code is about as close to something immortal as we’re going to find on Earth. It just keeps spinning out life in myriad forms.

“But once that life is spun out in whatever form it takes and however different or similar it is from other life forms, it is up to that life form to struggle to compete and try to dominate as much of existence as it can. This struggling is an automatic process and is seen in the organism as a will to comfort. With the differences, nature also gives all organisms means to defend themselves in the struggle — often, ‘tooth and claw.’

“However, one of the side-effects of our human version of ‘tooth and claw’ — our brain — is that we can think about such things. This being the case, it appears that we have been given the keys to guide our own evolution, but they are keys that must be used or we will devolve. In a sense, nature has kicked us out of our mother’s basement and told us to make our own way in life as fully functioning adults.

“So, what are we to do? Well, we must understand the natural way of existence and we must realize that whether we live or die as individuals is less important in the larger scheme of things than whether or not we expand ourselves by having as many children in our image as possible. By having as many children in our image as possible, we expand the code that we carry. That is the goal of the DNA code that makes and sustains us, and that is the purpose of all life.

“What if you have children outside of our people or if you have no children? Your code does not go on, man. It’s like I told you before. A human male contributes 23 of his 46 chromosomes to a new child and a human female also contributes 23 of her chromosomes to that child so that a child is born with the 46 chromosomes that is normal for our species. Those chromosomes carry our DNA code. If you mate outside the people — outside your race (race is actually a sub-species) — the child who is born does not get the full complement of 46 chromosomes of our people. In other words, you do not survive if your DNA code does not survive.

“You don’t have to overthink this, man. Nature has made your eyes the king of your senses so you can usually tell who is like you and who isn’t. Your eyes are connected to your libido and to your survival instincts for a reason. If you’re a mentally healthy person who has been deprogrammed from the genocidal beliefs of society today, just trust your eyes and you’ll be okay under most circumstances.

“In fact, your brain is automatically programmed to tell like from non-like. It’s a survival mechanism. One glance at another and you can usually tell — at least subconsciously — if they are like you or not.

“But, here’s the rub, man. Society is trying to condition you away from this survival mechanism. Society is trying to convince you that such things as physical appearance are superficial. This is an error in thinking. Don’t buy it man. Trust your eyes and you’ll be safer. And, by trusting your eyes you may live longer to breed more and expand your individual version of the code.

“Okay, now I’m gettin’ pissed off, because this makes me think about the numbnuts who try to minimize the importance of our white skin. You’ve heard these dimwits saying things like ‘Skin color doesn’t matter,’ or ‘I just happened to have been born white,’ or ‘We’re all the same under the skin.’ Well, that’s all BS, man.

“You know where they’re going wrong? They’re equating skin color to paint. And, they’re dead wrong. Skin color isn’t sprayed on some samey-same universal human blank coming off an assembly line like it’s an automobile.

“Our skin color is an integral and essential part of who and what we are, and it comes from within. It is part of our unique code and is just one of many differences we have that are taking us on a different evolutionary path to a different destiny if we make the right choices in life.

“So, ‘looking like us’ starts with white skin. Then it involves bone structure, eye color, hair color and type and on and on. We’re not clones of each other so there will still be plenty of differences, but the basic similarities are there so that anyone with any intelligence will usually recognize like from not like. Just look, man. Just look.

“You with me so far? The real us is the genetic code that we carry. It is the code that makes us who and what we are and it is that code that is passed on to our children if we have children with those like us. It is the code that gives us life beyond the death of our particular body.

“Nah, this ain’t some ego kind of thing. It’s nature and nature’s way for life. Nature’s prime command for life — all life — is to make more like itself.

“Nature constantly tinkers with the basic code that reads: ‘life,’ so that the code will be able to expand in some form of life that is comfortable and able to prosper in every niche and every environment. But it isn’t the fact that we all started with that single molecule of DNA that is important to us on this level of existence, but the fact that we have evolved into different types. It is up to us to see that our type expands — no one or anything else will ensure that.

“Okay, man, let me back up a little and make a picture for you while leaving out all the minutiae. Millions of years ago, some so-called non-living chemicals somehow got mixed together and formed a DNA molecule. Now, this was and is a remarkable molecule because it endlessly ‘eats’ other chemicals in order to expand itself so that it can fill all environments and niches with itself.

“But, how does it do this? This way: It has the remarkable ability to change parts of itself to adapt to different conditions. If there’s water, the DNA will adapt and bring forth organisms to carry it and to live and prosper there. If there’s land, it will adapt to bring forth organisms to carry it and to live and prosper there. If it’s hot, cold, rainy, dry, whatever, the code will change so it brings forth life that will carry it and will be comfortable and prosper. The DNA code is eating its way across the universe, man, and as it does so it is transforming so-called non-living chemicals into life forms that can carry it.

“Just how changeable the code is still isn’t known, but as far as the Earth goes, we find life of some type living and prospering in just about every niche possible. That means the basic DNA code is still here after all these millions of years.

“Humans are just one manifestation of that DNA code that started millions of years ago and as with all life, we continue to evolve.

“However, as I just told you, humans have reached a point where we can think about these things. Arman says that because we have reached this point, not only can we think about these things, but we must think about them and we must, in our own interest, start guiding our own evolution.

“I’ll tell you more next time, man. But for now, remember to breed to your fullest and start eating your way across the universe to expand your DNA code. It is nature’s way.”

(© 2010 H. Millard)

* * *

“Millard is an original. His books aren’t like your typical fiction. If you don’t know where to put his books, try the same shelf with Kerouac, Kafka, Sartre and Nietzsche…”

Ourselves Alone & Homeless Jack’s Religion messages of ennui and meaning in post-American America by H. Millard In Ourselves Alone and Homeless Jack’s Religion, H. Millard, the hard-to-pigeonhole author of The Outsider and Roaming the Wastelands, has put together some of his category-bending commentaries on post-American America. The commentaries deal with politics, philosophy, free speech, genocide, religion and other topics; all in Millard’s edgy style. They lead up to Homeless Jack’s Religion, in which Homeless Jack lays out revelations he found in a dumpster on skid row. Click here to buy. ISBN: 0-595-32646-3

ROAMING THE WASTELANDS– (ISBN: 0-595-22811-9) H. Millard’s latest sacred cow toppling book, is now available at Amazon.com by clicking on this link or by calling 1-877-823-9235. “A fun—and sobering—thing to read” – Alamance Independent

THE OUTSIDER – (ISBN: 0-595-19424-9) H. Millard’s underground classic story of alienation is available at Amazon.com by clicking on the this link or by calling 1-877-823-9235.