Mechanically I replaced my legal folder in my brief case. For the moment the memories and the anger made me forget the detachment of Seal Harbor. In that folder was something from which none of us who had any part in it could ever again be detached.

The clock in the hall struck three. I turned wearily from my desk and started for bed, but half way to the door I paused. I could not shake off the haunting need to find a key—an explanation of the nightmare.

In my brief case was one last folder, one which I sometimes called my nest of needles. It contained, among other things, a variety of questions, usually but not always hostile, that had reached me in the course of the years since Race and Reason was published. Many had come by mail, although probably the majority were gleaned from question-and-answer sessions following speeches I had made at various universities. One group I remembered by rote because they arose so often in social situations among liberals in the nation's capital where I lived.

Taken as a whole, these questions covered a wide range of issues related but somewhat peripheral to the main thread of my evening's meditations. They represented in most cases the reactions, the confusions, and the doubts of a bewildered public. Some were obvious attempts to evade reality. But all in one way or another were provocative. Possibly from a consideration of these might emerge an answer to the broader question I was asking myself.

So out from the nest came the needles, and I attempted to arrange them, together with my replies, in some logical order:


Your activities acerbate the situation. Why don't you offer a solution instead of increasing tensions?

No permanent solution to any problem was ever found without going to the heart of it. The heart of the Negro problem lies in establishing the correct answer to one question, namely, are the Negro's limitations the result of his bad environment or is his bad environment the result of his limitations? Can we, by making every effort to improve the Negro's surroundings and education, reach the root cause of his comparative performance, or is it a matter of innate racial differences?

Every public policy concerning race will be decided differently depending on the answer given to that question. Obviously it will, as regards education. Can you not see that it also will, as regards housing, slum clearance, and job opportunities? And what about foreign policy? What about the administration of aid to under-developed countries, what about giving "freedom" to African Negroes? Is it not clear that in all of these vital areas, if the answer is environment, policies will be the direct opposite of what they will be if the answer is genetics?

Now consider our present predicament. We are forming every one of our programs on the environmental hypothesis, in spite of the fact that all the evidence is to the effect that this hypothesis is wrong. What, then, can be more important than correcting the hypothesis and starting to form policies on reality instead of on illusion? There is no other road to a solution. What you are seeking are not solutions. You are really looking for sleeping pills.


Yours is a gospel of hate. You must be tired of controversy and bitterness. Why not try love for a change?

I never hated anything in my life except two things: dishonesty and the appeasement of evil. These I hate with every fiber of my being. I would rather face controversy and bitterness indefinitely than surrender to either one.

Let me also point out that among hard-core leftists and race agitators (as distinguished from bemused humanitarians) the real source of hatred is envy, and you know on which side it originates.

If we can't believe the scientists on race differences, who can we believe?

It is not a question of disbelieving scientists in general. It is a question of disbelieving the current scientific hierarchy, examining the statements of its members critically, noting their political, non-scientific nature and their lack of documentation, observing their constant avoidance of the actual evidence, and then of turning to other scientists who present such evidence.

No intelligent person who does this in the context of our times can come to any conclusion other than that the hierarchy is deceiving the public for political purposes. The situation is so plain it is almost ludicrous. Unfortunately it does take a little reading and comparing, some ability to resist accepting the most publicized view one hears.


You cited a UNESCO study to substantiate that Negroes mature earlier than Whites. Please re-study the finding of this work. The reasons for early maturation of the Negro were due to climatic differences of their environment and not for biological reasons. Negroes in the same climate as the Whites mature at the same rate.

This question confuses the age of sexual maturation with a kinesthetic maturation process during the first months of life. The difference between White and Negro kinesthetic maturation is not due to climate since (1) Kampala, Uganda, where the tests were made is 2500 feet above sea level and (2) in their 1957 paper Geber and Dean{1} studied 15 European babies and 60 Indian babies in the same environment as the African babies. The European and Indian babies gave the same results as had been found in Europe.


Psychological tests of a child's "I.Q." at an early age measure motor ability and advanced motor ability is not considered


1. "Development Rates of African Children in Uganda," The Lancet (June 15, 1957), 272, No. 6981, pp. 1216-1219.

indicative of low I.Q. In fact, the correlation between motor ability at an early age and mental I.Q. at a late one is so low as to be considered not significant. Which facts—yours or mine—are right?

I have stated my sources; you do not state yours. Geber found a significantly faster kinesthetic maturation rate in Negro infants than in White infants.{2} Almost all investigators have found a significantly lower I.Q. on the average among older Negroes than among older Whites. It is likewise well known that rapid maturation of the neuromuscular system is characteristic of the lower animals. What kind of correlation does this suggest to you?

The subject may be worth a brief background examination., We have in man and the higher animals two neural pathways that control our coordinated motor functions. These two systems are the pyramidal and the extrapyramidal. They have a considerable degree of independence structurally and functionally but they have interconnections and they collaborate in executing our mature complex motor functions.

The extrapyramidal system is the old motor system. It is composed largely of cells located in deep gray matter of the cerebral hemispheres. They have some connections with the cortex. This deep gray matter of the corpus striatum (unusually highly developed in birds) presides over production and control of instinctive and some other automatic movements.

The pyramidal system is our new motor system. The cells of origin of its transmission fibers are located in the cortex, and impulses pass directly to effector nerve cells that stimulate muscle fibers. The function of the pyramidal system is to originate and transmit impulses that arise in the realm of awareness and produce precise voluntary movements. Not only is this the last motor system to arise in the evolutionary process, it is the last to mature in individual life.

In lower forms the extrapyramidal motor system is dominant and quite effective, but as it has evolved in the evolutionary series


2. For example, the uterine Moro reflex was found to disappear in white children on the average between the 8th and 12th weeks of life, but with all the 107 Negro children it disappeared before the 5th day of life.

of vertebrates this system has lost some of its independent efficiency. In man the pyramidal system is dominant, although coordination with the old extrapyramidal system seems necessary for effective action. In the human newborn the pyramidal system is immature and has not yet come into effective function; at the same time the extrapyramidal system has become subordinate in some degree to the pyramidal system. Hence, the perfection of many motor functions must await the maturation of the pyramidal system.

The facts presented by Geber and Dean suggest a greater retention in African babies of the primitive independence of the extrapyramidal system. This could account for the motor precosity of Negro babies. There is evidence for the hypothesis that the more primitive, greater independence of the extrapyramidal system of Africans is associated with a more primitive condition of the cortex. In addition to the now widely known observations of Vint on the supragranular layers, van Noort found the cellular structure of some regions of the cortex to present a different appearance in the Caucasian and Negro races.{3} I stated that this is one of the areas where the balance of the evidence has to be considered. I do not say in this case the data is conclusive. I say it is suggestive.

As to early intelligence tests, Dr. Geber, using Gesell Development Quotients, found distinct superiority among Negro children until the third year, thereafter distinct inferiority. These tests measure more complex muscular performance and probably combine simple reflexes with much more complex, cerebrally learned behavior.


Assuming for the moment that you are correct re: the racial inferiority of the Negro, why is it necessary to believe that inter-


3. C. U. Ariens Kappers, G. Carl Huber, Elizabeth Crosby, The Comparative Anatomy of the Nervous System of Vertebrates, Including Man, 1936, New York, p. 1632. For the significance of differences in the pyramidal cells, see A. F. and R. F. Tredgold, Manual of Psychological Medicine, 3rd ed., 1953, London, p. 254.


marriage would necessarily lower the quality of human beings produced and thus the quality of American civilization? That is, why assume that Negro inferior traits are dominant? Why not assume, as the human evolutionary process suggests, that superior traits are dominant, and thus intermarriage would have the effect of raising the total quality of American civilization?

It is not necessary to believe every mixed mating would lower the quality of human being produced. If a Negro of superior genetic quality were to interbreed with a genetically poor White their offspring might be superior to the poor White parent.{4}

However, we are not confronted with exceptional individuals only. We are confronted with twenty million Negroes. Scientific evidence and practical experience regarding the intelligence of large unselected groups, and their creative achievements, show that Negroes as a group, in this country and across the world, have appreciably lower average intelligence scores and a vastly lower creative record throughout history. If we absorb twenty million largely uncreative Negroes into our White gene pool, the mixed product may be expected to lack the combination of qualities (insight, foresight, intelligence and drive) necessary to maintain and advance American civilization.

Traits may be desirable or undesirable; also they may be dominant or recessive. We cannot rely upon undesirable traits being recessive or desirable traits being dominant. Achondroplastic dwarfism is undesirable and dominant. Undesirable traits are frequently dominant.

It is of course true that natural selection tends to eliminate those traits which are biologically disadvantageous in a particular environment. This, however, is a factor which has little chance to operate in a society subsidizing the poor.


How could the Negro have evolved from Homo erectus 30,000 years ago, when no fossils of this type younger than 200,000 years old are known?


4. For a contrary view see "Significant Evidence on Inheritance and Hybridization, Part 1", 1966, G. Pantel, Mankind Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 219-238.

Your facts are incorrect. A Negroid Homo erectus specimen dated about 30,000 years ago was found at Broken Hill, Northern Rhodesia, in 1921.{5} There is a fairly good continuity of erectus and sapiens skeletons in Africa. The oldest sapiens skulls found there appear to be a set of four which Leakey excavated in Kenya in 1932; their exact age is controversial but they are probably in the general range of the Broken Hill specimen.


The Eskimo has a larger brain than the White man. This disproves the importance of brain size as a measure of racial intelligence. Comment?

How does it disprove it? In the first place, you supply no data on the "other-things-being-equal" aspect of this case. You offer no study of the relative sulcification or proportion of parts of the Eskimo brain.

Nor have you provided evidence on the relative intelligence of the Eskimo, relying entirely, it would seem, on the Eskimo's primitive culture. However, the Eskimo's adaptation to his environment is remarkable. He invented the skin boat, the dome and the best cold-proof clothes in the world. He is regarded by the Air Force on the DEW line as an excellent mechanic.

Possibly the Eskimo has failed to build a civilization because of the rigors of his surroundings. The Eskimo belongs to the Mongoloid race. This race had produced great cultures in the Orient. Some substocks of the Mongoloid once produced great cultures in Central and South America. Others like the North American Indians failed to do so. The point is that both the Caucasoid and Mongoloid races have produced advanced civilizations, in spite of the existence of relict groups among them. The Negro has never produced a great civilization any time, anywhere.

As I have already said, the anatomical and physiological equipment of a race, including the brain, may be likened to tinder which may, or may not, catch fire when brought in contact with a civilization, depending on a variety of circumstances. The tinder

5. Carleton S. Coon, The Story of Man, 1962, New York, pp. 34-35.


of the Caucasoid and Mongoloid have caught fire often enough to prove their relative susceptibility in any comparison with the Negro.


How about the brain of Neanderthal man? Was it not as large as the modern Caucasoid?

Here again we shall never be able to make a histological examination of the Neanderthal brain nor a study of its sulcification. Nor can we give a Neanderthal intelligence tests. According to Coon, the frontal areas of his brain were small since the forehead was very low and slanted.{6}


Some studies in Baltimore recently showed that White and Negro infants up to 40 weeks revealed no differences. Obviously, therefore, differences thereafter are due to socio-economic factors. What is your answer?

To repeat, the lower centers of the brain and nervous system, in human beings and in animals, are the ones which mature first; the higher centers mature last. Therefore similarity of performance in the early stages of life signifies nothing as to adult potentiality.


Was not the brain of Anatole France unusually small, although he was a brilliant man?

Anatole France lived to an advanced age and his brain was, of course, examined after death. Under the circumstances senility had taken its toll. The human brain has been estimated to lose cells at the rate of 30,000 per day from birth to the end of life.{7}

Moreover in France's brain the cerebrum had marked asymmetry. The convolutions were long and tortuous, and the foldings were unusually complex. This and other peculiarities provided considerably more intellectual potential than the brain weight would indicate.{8}

It cannot be too strongly emphasized that brain weight is a

6. Carleton Coon, The Origin of Races, op. cit., 529-530.

7. John E. Pfeiffer, "How the Human Memory Functions;" 1963, Think, 29:6-10; published by I.B.M.

8. L. Guillon et al, Bulletin Academie de Medecine, XCI, 1927, 328-36.

criterion of intelligence only in dealing with group averages, never in dealing with individuals. For example, I understand there is now a theory that the hemispheres of the brain may resemble the kidneys or the lungs in that one hemisphere may act as a "spare" for the other if one fails. If this should prove true, then a large weight loss in parts of an individual brain may not be accompanied by any significant loss of intelligence in that individual.

We must concentrate on the group and the average in brain weight studies. We have enough studies of the Negro brain, under varied enough circumstances, to speak with assurance of its relative weight. When this factor is combined with studies of its other features, such as sulcification of the cortex and thickness of the supragranular layer, we can also speak with assurance of its relative evolutionary status.


Are you not aware that man alone is capable of culture and that cultural influences counteract and invalidate all your animal analogies and your references to evolutionary structure?

This question contains a non sequitur. It is true that man alone is capable of culture but it does not follow that these influences overbalance structure. On the contrary we have seen that in the case of human beings heredity overbalances environment by a ratio of about three to one. This is just another way of saying that structure overbalances culture by the same ratio.

To revert to the tinder analogy, the Negro has failed, repeatedly and invariably, to respond to the flame of advanced cultures while other races and substocks have responded in varying degrees. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the Negro has responded in a lower degree than the White or Yellow races, since obviously civilization will have some effect- on any race capable of understanding language. We note by observation and historical experience the performance of the Negro—we see the situation in Africa, Haiti, and our own slums and schools—we see countless cases of opportunity forfeited and of advantages lost. Then we examine structure and we discover the explanation. Culture can only ignite flammable tinder. It cannot make tinder flammable if it is not.

Remember this point whenever you hear an integrationist talk about the "cultural deprivation" which the Negro has suffered. The expression has become a cliché to account for all the Negro's limitations. It is meaningless because you cannot speak of depriving a race of something it is, on the average, incapable of possessing.


There are no such things as pure races. We are all a mixture of many strains—does this not make it meaningless to talk about race?

Not in the least. Race is a very convenient general term and, using it in its widest sense, we may say that there are three broad subdivisions of the human species, the White, the Yellow and the Black. Anthropologists go further—usually to the point of five subdivisions which they have named Caucasoid (White), Mongoloid (Yellow), Congoid (Sudanese, Forest, Negrito and Bantu Blacks), Capoid (Yellow-Black), and Australoid (Yellow-Brown). One may then go on to subdivide these into as many as 31 substocks or strains representing various degrees of intermixture of the above larger divisions.{9}

All of the divisions represent some degree of difference in innate characteristics, distinguishable by observation of physical form. In other words, the differences are genetic and indicate the presence of characteristic genes. In comparing the English-speaking White man (an amalgam of certain substocks of the Caucasoid) and the American Negro (West African Congoid) we are confronted with almost opposite poles of the human racial spectrum. Here are not just differences between substocks inside one of the broader divisions—these are differences between two of the largest human categories and, as we have seen, they represent differences of position on the evolutionary scale as well.

I do not mean that these cannot be mixed and produce something somewhere between, or that they have not been mixed, both in Africa, the Western Hemisphere and elsewhere. I mean that if


9. See, for example, Carleton S. Coon and Edward E. Hunt, Jr., Editors, Anthropology A to Z, 1963, New York, pp. 119-129.


we can speak of the typical Congoid Negro as the genetic essence of the Black, and the English-speaking Northwestern European Caucasian as a fair example of the White, then basically we are coming almost as close to comparing oil and water as is possible with human beings.

One does not have to have the Negro gene complex in undiluted form to make its presence recognizable and significant. If the most typical of all Congoid Negroes has certain genetic limitations, then any admixture of his genes will carry a proportional degree of limitation in the resulting combination.


Since "lower" races have a common origin and common gene pool from "superior" races, what selective factors have inhibited their (inferior) culture? If you think there are some genetic factors for culture, are these acquired traits? If they are not acquired characteristics they cannot be individual racial traits, since all Homo sapiens have their genes from a common ancestor.

You are hopelessly confused. Genetic factors cannot be acquired. If you want to find out how species and races evolve in plants, animals and man, read a good book on evolution such as Ernst Mayr's Animal Species and Evolution, 1963, Cambridge.

It seems doubtful that all races of Homo sapiens had a common Homo erectus ancestor. According to Coon and Gates the five major races of man branched off from their Homo erectus ancestors at different periods and places.


Where did you obtain your erroneous material relating to the cerebral area of the dolphin's brain—advise that you refer to the work being conducted by the University of Calif. School of Veterinary Medicine—Neurological Anatomy, Davis Campus. What Society? What university? What publisher? Is it, or is it not true that the dolphin has both a larger cerebral area and a more complex convolution pattern than the white man—why not legislate in their field too?

While it is true that dolphins have a more complex convolutional pattern than man and perhaps a larger area of cerebral cortex, I have repeatedly pointed out that such facts by themselves do not determine relative intelligence nor evolutionary grade. In the case of the dolphin, other facts are more significant: specifically, the cortex of these animals is primitive in cellular architecture, the supragranular layer is thin, and the frontal association areas are absent.{10}


Although there are differences in weight, relative sizes of fissures, numbers of neurons found in the supragranular layers, and "statistical average" differences in the weight of brains between the races, have these differences, by scientific experiments, been shown to be directly related to an individual's capacity to learn?

They have been shown to be related to evolutionary status and evolutionary status is certainly related to capacity to learn. For specific relations of parts to functions, look at Penfield and Rasmussen.{11}


Concerning the origin of man, do the findings of Leakey in the Rift Valley (East Africa) in any way contradict your postulate concerning the duration of development of races?

No. Leakey's 1961 find is about 14 million years old; his Australopithecines date from about 300,000 to 1,500,000 years ago. Thus they overlapped Homo erectus somewhat but vanished from the earth long before the erectus-sapiens transition.


What are your biological qualifications for the biological interpretations of this rather biased presentation? It has to be a biological (genetic) interpretation to be a racial characteristic. Biased literature = biased reasoning.


10. See G. R. Langworthy, "A description of the central nervous system of the porpoises," Journal of Comparative Neurology, 1932, Vol. 54. In the most recent study of the dolphin brain the authors speak of the drastic curtailment of the frontal lobe and state that there is almost no cortex anterior to the genu of the corpus callosum. See P. J. Morgane and P. I. Yakovlev, "Surface configurations of the forebrain and cortical areas in the bottlenose dolphin, tursiops truncatus," Anatomical Record, 1966, Vol. 154, p. 390. This research comes from the Division of Neurological Sciences, Communication Research Institute, Miami, Fla., and the Department of Neuropathology, Harvard Medical School.

11. Supra, pp. 49-50.

I have a science degree, as well as a law degree, but I have never pretended to be a professional scientist or a specialist in racial matters. What I have done is listen to both sides and read materials presented by both sides—at the same time noting the efforts by the scientific hierarchy to suppress and distort evidence and to persecute other scientists who offer material exploding the equalitarian dogma. Then I have tried to call the attention of the public to what is going on.


You quote Coon as stating, "Brain size is related to achievement." Is it not well documented that achievement (economic, academic, artistic, and managerial) is dependent on much more than innate intelligence?

I have mentioned the probability that the development of the frontal lobes has a relation to planning, foresight and motivation—the use of intelligence. If this be true, then the brain is still involved in many attributes which might not be called intelligence in the narrowest sense.

Beyond this we may say that a man's character is the product not only of his brain and entire nervous system but also of his glands and internal secretions, which interact with his nervous system. Negroes differ from Whites in these secretions.{12}

Finally, there is that one-quarter contribution by environment. But with full allowance for these things, it still remains true that brain size is related to achievement. There is no contradiction.


Ralph Linton in The Tree of Culture makes reference to the fact that certain Negro tribes in Africa were in the iron age long before Caucasians in Europe had reached a similar stage of development, being still on a level of stone age civilization.

I have not read Mr. Linton's book but I am advised that while he does say that some African tribes engaged early in simple operations with iron, he does not know whether this occurred before similar activities in Europe. The facts as I understand them are as follows:


12. Coon, The Origin of Races, op. cit., pp. 115-116 and works there cited.


Iron smelting was discovered in the general area of Caucasus-Anatolia around 1500 B.C., quickly was adopted by the Hittites and Assyrians, and spread thence to Egypt and the trade ports of the Mediterranean, both African and European. It developed in the interior of Northern Africa near Meroe around 400 B.C. The question, therefore, is whether those responsible can fairly be described as "Negro tribes."

Meroe is on the Nile about 100 miles north of Khartoum in what is now the Sudan. It was part of the viceroy of Kush, ruled by Egypt until the breakdown of New Kingdom power circa 1000 B.C. Kush and Meroe were next occupied and governed by an Assyrian military force, equipped with iron armor and weapons. Then in 591 B.C., a force of Greek mercenaries, with iron weapons, appeared in the area and seized part of the region. Apparently, Meroe was the most important iron-producing area of North Africa between about 400 B.C. and 350 A.D.

The reasons to believe Meroe was not Negro are: (a) it is described as "the main southern bastion of Egyptian influence" and as "the southern capital of the kingdom of the Ethiopian kings of Napata from 700 to 300 B.C."{13} The Ethiopians at the time were not Negroes; they were Hamites ruled by Semitic immigrants from southern Arabia. (b) We find at Meroe baths, temples to Isis, Apiremak and the sun, pyramids, stelae of Queen Candace and Akiniras and a head of Octavius. The inscriptions are in Egyptian hieroglyphics and in Meroitic (a debased form of Egyptian), also some fragmentary Greek. All of which shows that the Meroites were not Negro, but culturally and linguistically Egyptian, Greek and Roman."{14}


Is it not true that because of the great amount of unexplored territory, evidence will be found of an earlier conversion from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens? Is it also not true that the climatic differences between Europe and Africa make the pos-


13. Leonard Cottrell, article on Meroe, The Concise Encyclopedia of Archaeology, 1960, London.

14. Dr. Robert Gayre writes me, "Meroe was Cushitic, not Negroid, with Caucasoid overlays, some of them Semitic."

sibility of remains being preserved in Africa much less likely than in Europe?

New evidence may modify our conclusions, not only with respect to the date of the sapiens-erectus threshold among Negroes, but in all areas of science. Meanwhile we cannot and should not refuse to judge probabilities from the evidence at hand.

More specifically, it is improbable that the date of the emergence of Homo sapiens among Negroids in Africa will be pushed back very far for this reason: As a rule, Homo sapiens eliminated the earlier erectus types. We have a quite recent erectus type in Africa, namely Broken Hill man (Rhodesia) dating from 30,000 B.C. It seems probable that sapiens types in Africa, had they emerged at about the date of sapiens emergence in Europe or Asia, would have spread over the more habitable portions of the continent and eliminated the erectus type tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of years earlier.

The fact that fire was discovered in Negro Africa only 40,000 years ago as against 250,000 years ago in western Europe and 360,000 years ago in China, based on evidence now available,{15} tends further to support the hypothesis of a much later erectus-sapiens transition among Negroids than among Caucasoids and Mongoloids.

Your belief that the climate of Africa makes skeleton preservation more difficult may be valid in some areas. Of 312 fossil man sites enumerated by Coon, 49 % are in western Europe, 11 % in eastern Europe and the U.S.S.R., 4.5 % in East Asia, 7.1 % in North Africa, 7.1 % in Africa south of the Sahara. But the extent of digging in densely populated areas for building and industrial purposes also has a bearing on the matter. Sometimes it results in finding fossils, sometimes in the fossils being destroyed Likewise it must be remembered that Africa is a large continent and has a great variety of climate. Finally there have been vast changes in climate in both Europe and Africa in the last 300,000 years.

How is the Government of Liberia so stable?

15. Coon, The Story of Man, op. cit., pp. 60-63.


Because it is essentially a political dictatorship, supported economically by Firestone and the Bona Hills Iron mines. Although Liberia was founded by supposedly freedom-loving Negroes from America, the League of Nations was obliged to intervene in 1930 to stop the slave trade. It was found that the President and some of his highest officials were implicated. The President had to resign.

John Gunther in his Inside Africa makes some pertinent observations: The people are "mercilessly exploited." A country the size of Ohio, Liberia has 10 miles of paved roads. "Only two native Liberians have ever become doctors." More than 90 per cent of the population is illiterate. Infant mortality in some areas runs as high as 75 per cent. Flagrant corruption exists on all levels.

Gunther finds that prisoners in the jails are either fed by their friends and relatives or starve to death; the budget provision for their keep is devoured by grafting officials. About 15,000 Americo-Liberians rule 1,500,000 Negro natives. The True Whig Party has held power since the 1870's. People who criticize the President are arrested "on any charge."


They have been telling us at Princeton that Brazil is a good example of a multi-racial society and one which we should not hesitate to emulate. Do you agree?

No doubt Brazil satisfies the Brazilians and I have no desire to criticize it. Perhaps Brazilians would not care to see Brazil become another United States, and, I dare say, the average American would not care to see the United States become another Brazil.

The greatest concentration of Negro genes in Brazil is in the Northeast, by far the most backward part of the nation. The most advanced portions of the country are in the Southeast where the Negro population is smallest.

However, taking Brazil as a whole and comparing it with the United States, we find the following:

Brazil               United States
Life expectancy at birth                                                  35-40 years       67 years
Estimated percent
of adults illiterate                                 51                    3-4
Paper consumption per capita (mostly newsprint)             3.6 kg.              36.3 kg.
Gross National Product per capita                                  
$200.00            $2,813.00

The above indices are useful in measuring progress because they lend themselves readily to statistical statement. Political stability and government fiscal responsibility are less easy to compare in figures, but I can assure you Brazil does not rate any higher in this area than it does in the preceding items. All of these points should be called to the attention of your professors when they suggest we follow in Brazil's footsteps.


You say Negro illegitimacy has a rate of 19-22. Most South American countries have rates higher than this. Venezuela has a rate of almost 70. You may ascribe this to mongrelization of the races. How about Mexico, which has few Negroes and has a rate of 22.5? And Argentina, which has a still higher rate, and has a pure white population?

In many Latin American countries high illegitimacy rates exist, but this simply means that stable families have omitted the marriage ceremony. Reasons may include geographical isolation, ignorance, local custom, scarcity of priests or high cost of the marriage service. Illegitimacy per se is often determined by social and economic factors and is not too meaningful.{16}

American Negro illegitimacy, on the other hand, occurs in a society in which the Latin American factors are largely nonoperative. More significant is the fact that it generally reflects a broken family, in which the man plays a sexual, but not a responsibly paternal, role, in which the mother is the head of the household and the children lack necessary discipline.


a. Haitian dictators get chopped up. So do Italian and German ones (and even ancient Roman ones). Comment?

b. A sociologist who makes a study in which he declares he compared Whites and Negroes who had environmental equality is not


16. An expert on the legal aspect of this subject writes me: "In Latin America common law marriages are the normal type of marriage, but because the Roman Catholic Church's influence is dominant, and so it is impossible to get the legal system to agree to recognize such marriages, the offspring are technically illegitimate. But they are not illegitimate in the eyes of anyone who views the matter from the standpoint of common law or the civil law, but only of canon law."


worth his Ph.D. Negroes are not allowed to have environmental equality in this country, anywhere. They are always subject to discrimination. Comment?

a. The difference is in the frequency and regularity.

b. The phrase used is "as far as possible". You are correct that we cannot completely "equate" without turning the Negro into a White man which is biologically impossible. The point is that as you approach equality of environment the gap does not decrease. Note also, that when you equate for background your Negro comes from a higher level of his population than does the White.


T. Dobzhansky, foremost authority on genetics (Genetics & Origin of Species, Mankind Evolving, etc.) states burden of proof is on racists to prove their superiority. There is none. Do you dispute authorities with your biased statements and expect intelligent people to take your word over theirs?

Speaking of bias, I confess to a certain bias against Dobzhansky, a specialist in fruit flies and a man whom I have found dedicated to the political use of science for equalitarian ends. Dobzhansky, a Russian immigrant who taught zoology and genetics in Soviet universities from 1922 to 1927, belongs to the Columbia University equalitarian coterie of proteges and followers of Boas, a group which includes Margaret Mead; Gene Weltfish, who accused the United States of using germ warfare in Korea; and Ashley Montagu, who has been frequently connected as a speaker or sponsor with organizations later cited as Communist.

While none of these circumstances reflect on Dobzhansky's scientific ability, or on that of the other persons named, they suggest a chance of bias on their part. In fact, Dobzhansky's attacks on Coon's Origin of Races are singularly unconvincing.{17} Therefore, when he says that the burden of proof is on "racists" to prove "their" superiority, I find the assertion pathetic. The burden of proof is upon those who would contradict all previously accepted fact and experience, and who would alter all previously established custom.

As for the evidence itself, there is no evidence for equality.

17. See supra, p. 54n.

If the Negro is so different genetically, why is it that most Negroes raised in our segregated system cannot qualify for our colleges while many foreign Negroes can qualify to compete in our colleges?

Foreign-born Negroes are skimmed off the top of their intelligence distribution. They are the cream of Negro Africa. When we consider a race we are obliged to speak in averages, not exceptions. Nevertheless you may be interested in looking at the National Review Bulletin for February 2, 1965, p. 3, commenting upon a report of a study commission on education and world affairs endowed in 1962 by the Ford and Carnegie Foundations. This report was based upon a survey of 75,000 foreign students on American campuses—55,000 of them from Africa and Asia. The Bulletin finds the report "overwhelmingly negative" and goes on to say that too many of the students "are (1) ill prepared scholastically and linguistically for American college courses, (2) intellectually below college level, (3) unwilling to work, and (4) a headache, in the aggregate, to host colleges."

Perhaps of more importance, Clark and Plotkin reported that, on the basis of a study of 1278 Northern college students, those Negroes from Southern segregated schools did better than Negroes from Northern integrated schools.{18}


Bennett and Diamond have made studies at the University of California at Berkeley which prove that an enriched environment changes the measurements of the cortex of rats. Does not this disprove your theory of heredity?

In these experiments{19} it was found that rats with enriched experience, as compared with animals kept in isolation, showed an increase in weight of units of the cortex, an increase in thickness and in acetylcholinesterase activity (an indicator of physiological activity of nervous tissue). The differences were all small—on the order of 5 %. Vint's differences between Negroes and Whites were on the order of 15 %.


18. A Report from the National Scholarship Service and Fund for Negro Students, New York Times, Dec. 12, 1963.

19. Science, Oct. 30, 1964, 146: pp. 610-619.


The experimenters used a "bright" strain and a "dull" strain of rats. In the tests the bright strain showed larger effects in all measurements than the dull strain. Also several times greater differences in cholinesterase activity were produced by breeding than were produced by differential experience.

In other words these experiments tend to support my position rather than to contradict it. Consider your own body. You know that your physical structure can be modified within limits by physical exercise and by heavy or spare eating. But you cannot eat or exercise yourself into the body of a world champion weight lifter. The fundamentals are controlled by heredity.

I do not believe any scientist today would deny that somewhat the same principles may apply to the brain. The details cannot be considered settled, but it is safe to state that you will never think yourself into the brain of an Einstein. Most significant of all, of course, is the fact that the bright strain of rats showed greater response to improved environment than the dull. If we applied these results to our own race problem it would simply serve to illustrate further that improved environment, equally applied, increases race differences instead of lessening them.


According to the genetic evidence you provided on the difference between the average Negro and the average White, similar differences should exist between intra-marrying populations within the white race. Do you believe that such differences exist between the white populations in the civilized world? And if you do, who are the superior and who are the inferior?

Let me repeat, the differences between averages among the substocks of the White race are not similar to the differences between the White race and the Negro.{20}

I will not attempt to rank populations within the Caucasian race as to specific traits except to say that when it comes to the faculty for maintaining stable, free societies I believe that the substock


20. It is of course possible to make comparisons between substandard groups and above-standard groups among White substocks and develop differences equal to White-Negro differences, but not between substock averages.


amalgam usually referred to as the English-speaking peoples holds the championship.

What possible pertinency to the question under discussion (that of the American Negro in American society) may be inferred from the Congo situation?

If one wants to study the properties of a substance one seeks as undiluted a sample as possible. The Congo Negro is a fair sample of the West African Negro stocks from which our Negroes are derived.


a. It is an established fact that in World War II the over-all average I.Q. score was higher for the Northern Negro than the Southern White. Since this average was based on all those drafted (rather than the top and bottom), how do you explain this in terms other than environment? If environment is accepted, does this not also apply to the Negro situation?

b. Don't you believe that motivation has much to do with the achievement of the Negro? i.e., that the Negro does not see the reason for education since he does not have the opportunity to practice his skills. Also in this line how would you explain the fact (I'll be happy to cite) that Negro children have a higher aspirational level than White children?

a. There was no such thing as an "I.Q. score" in World War II. If you are talking about the Army General Classification Test, you have your facts reversed. The Southern White excelled the Northern Negro on this test. Five times as many Southern Whites as Northern Negroes, per capita, were in Grade I.{21}

b. Negroes have very high aspirations, often based on envy, but these are not matched by their performance. It is because of their high aspirational level that Negroes want the short cuts which they are unable to create themselves. The Jews, and many others, have found added motivation in hardship and persecution.


21. Shuey, p. 352.


Are you aware of the conclusions published by a University of Chicago team of M.D.'s, psychologists and educators (e.g., Atlantic Monthly, 1963) which clearly demonstrate the fact that the I.Q. shifts upward over 40 points in most cases when the poor climate for education is changed to a better one?

You apparently are referring to Murray Friedman's article in the January, 1963, Atlantic. While I find nothing in it about 40 I.Q. points, it does speak of "dramatic success achieved in raising I.Q.'s" and thus presents a question I would like to clarify.

There is much discussion today about just what an I.Q. test is intended to measure, and how far it accomplishes its purpose. I believe I state the classical view correctly when I say that ideally an I.Q. test is supposed to determine the intellectual potential of the mind—the raw or virgin brain power—divorced as much as possible from environmental factors. But no test can be given in a vacuum, some words and symbols have to be used, and the moment these are introduced environmental factors do creep in. All we can say is that the test is intended as far as possible to reduce their influence.

Theoretically, and in the ideal sense, an I.Q. score should change only to the extent that exercise of a capacity increases that capacity within the limits of innate potential. Actually an I.Q. score is made up of innate potential, plus practice, plus past experience in varying degrees. I would say that a test which showed a shift of 40 points was either not intended as a genuine I.Q. test or was poorly administered in the first instance.

If an individual is ill or scared or given a test completely alien to his experience, large changes might occur. However, the Negro child gets around quite a bit these days, more in some respects than the White child, and the terms and symbols used in Negro testing should not significantly handicap him in a properly administered test. What you have in the case you mention is probably less an improvement in I.Q. than in the tools with which the individual expressed his I.Q. Education is such a tool.

Here again we must face the fact that when you give two groups of different potential the same education you do not decrease the gap between them. You increase it, because the group with the higher potential will derive more from the education. Since no one has yet proposed that White environment be held constant while Negro environment is advanced, environmental improvement will only intensify the problem of race differences.


How can your assume any validity in I.Q. tests when those tests have been standardized exclusively from White populations?

The American Negro speaks English, has grown up in an American culture and should experience no handicap in taking "White tests." The Japanese in California don't. Moreover, the Negro must live in our White society. What we are trying to measure is his ability to adapt to our society and to contribute to it. To the extent that the Negro does experience difficulty in taking White tests to just that extent will the nature of his mind be alien to the White mind. We have a culture based on abstract thought. The Negro is poor at abstract thinking. If this shows up in a test it does not invalidate the test. It confirms its validity.


Would you comment on the superiority of the Jewish Race (via your I.Q. reasoning)?

Jews, who are not a race but a substock of the Caucasian race, test as well or better than American non-Jews on "verbal" tests, somewhat below on manipulative tests. The traits which have led to the persecution of Jews have had nothing to do with their intelligence.


The Negro population of the United States is only ten per cent of the White. Many of these Negroes have White genes. What possible difference could so small a mixture make to the country as a whole?

In the first place the ratio of Negro to White is much higher than ten per cent in the South. It ranges up to a majority in some counties, besides which there are relatively few White genes in Deep South Negroes as you can see by observation.

Secondly, and of greater importance, Sir Julian Huxley has estimated{22} that a decrease of one and one-half per cent in the


22. Sir Julian Huxley. "Eugenics in Evolutionary Perspective," 1963, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, Vol. VI, No. 2, pp. 165-6.



average I.Q. of large groups decreases by 50 per cent the number of those with an I.Q. of 160 or higher. If my arithmetic is correct, and remembering we have already allowed for the White genes in American Negroes in the 20 point I.Q. difference, then we can take ten per cent of 20 points and get 2 points as the national I.Q. drop from absorption of the Negro. This is larger than Huxley's one and one-half per cent, and would produce more than a 50 per cent drop in the over-160 I.Q. group. It might well be a 70 per cent drop.

Since a civilization is totally dependent for leadership upon a thin top layer of its population, it is obvious that such a decline would be disastrous for the United States.


You say the evidence shows as environment improves, performance doesn't improve. Have you read some contrary evidence and, if so, how do you refute it?

It depends whether you are speaking of intelligence or character. Any environment improves intellectual and physical performance when it allows for a better expression of one's abilities—it does not create abilities. Practice improves a man's golf but only so far as his innate capacity permits. Practice alone will never make an Arnold Palmer.

Crime and immorality are in a somewhat different category. I have not attempted a detailed study of the national figures, but it is common knowledge that the Negro is pushing forward faster today than ever before{23} and more efforts are being made to encourage him, yet his relative crime and illegitimacy rates are increasing. The FBI will confirm this to you.


a. You made reference to a survey in which Negroes and Caucasians coming from similar social and economic backgrounds took an I.Q. test in which the Negroes made consistently lower scores than the Whites. Is it your opinion, then, that Negroes possessing lower I.Q.'s can produce the same social and economic

23. For a recent survey of Negro advances, see U.S. News and World Report, Dec. 13, 1965, pp. 68-72.

level of living as that of the Whites who have higher I.Q.'s?

b. You compared the Negro's situation to that of a minor whose adult rights are curtailed because the average minor is not capable of using these rights properly. However, society has taken it upon itself to compensate the minor economically because of his inferior status—that is, the legal guardian or the state is legally required to support the minor until he reaches majority. Do you feel that if the Negroes' status is inferior, the government should compensate it economically?


a. Equal socio-economic backgrounds are not necessarily the result of, nor do they produce, equal I.Q.'s. They do, however, remove the argument that environment is suppressing the I.Q.

b. Because an analogy is used to illustrate one facet of a situation does not mean that it applies to all other facets of the situation, nor do I believe it to be the duty of intelligent people (through the "State") to provide unintelligent people with the same standard of living as themselves. Exceptionally strong women who, because of the limitations of the average woman, are forbidden to work overtime in factories, are not compensated by the state. Neither is the average woman.


The essence of your argument seems to be that integration in "genetic" situations would tend to decrease the standard deviation of potentialities, i.e., sacrifice exceptional individuals to decrease the percentage of substandard individuals, whereas the accumulated evidence supports the view that marital selection through social channels has tended to increase the standard deviation, i.e., increase the variability of potentials. Would you comment on this?

I have seen no evidence, accumulated or isolated, that indiscriminate marriage (which is what you end up with after total integration has operated for a few generations under the pressures of an equalitarian ideology) increases the deviation at the upper end of the scale. In fact, all the evidence is to the contrary. This is what a civilization must be most concerned about. Do you for one moment contend that the amalgamation of two groups, one with an I.Q. 15 or 20 points below the other, is not going to result in a mean I.Q. below that of the higher group?


Do you feel that tests evaluating Negro intelligence are scientifically justifiable even though contemporary society has impressed upon the Negro his innate inferiority? How can you free the Negro from the stigma of inferiority so that an honest evaluation of his intelligence can be made?

Contemporary society has impressed upon me the fact that I am not a fit bridge partner for Charles Goren. Does this lower my playing performance within my own capacity?


If "anyone's position can be improved by education," why not simply educate Negroes—it seems you have invalidated your own argument. About Brown vs. Board of Education—state your sources on "new evidence"—were these from Southern courts?

I have never suggested that Negroes not be educated. I suggest Whites be educated, too, and when both groups are educated the gap between them is simply increased, for the reason that the capacity of the White to receive education is greater than the Negro's.

As to Brown vs. Board of Education, evidence never comes from courts; it comes from witnesses. The chief witness in the Brown case was a Negro. The witnesses in Stell and Evers were from both North and South. If you want to read the evidence you can do so by ordering the transcript in any of these cases (at considerable cost) from George Leonard, 1730 K St., N.W., Washington, D. C. 20006, or you can write for the opinions and findings of fact of the judges (at modest cost), also from Mr. Leonard.


How do you account for the so-called "exceptional" Negro? Is he the result of a genetic mutation; or perhaps the result of being fortunate enough to realize his actual potential despite people like you?

Variability will account for the exceptional Negro, a factor which is supplemented in many areas and most cases by some White ancestry. In a study of bright Negroes done in Chicago, 80 per cent reported some White ancestry.{24}


If environment plays virtually no role in aiding the intelligence of a person, then why were the Negroes from Northern states able to score better than Whites from the South during World War I? Didn't you admit education was a factor in this case?

I did not say environment played "virtually no role." I said it played a minor role—about one-quarter, to be specific. I also explained the reason for the World War I results, namely, first, the best of the Negroes were compared with the worst of the Whites and, second, the test used was not for I.Q. but was one which reflected educational experience.

Certainly education is a factor. Even an animal's performance can be improved by education, up to the limits of its innate capacity.


If we assume your facts to be correct, what does a democratic society care about intermarriage, etc., of different I.Q. groups, etc.?

A democratic society ought to care about the qualities in its population which have made it capable of becoming and maintaining a stable, free civilization. No Negro population has ever been able to do this, for reasons which I have already examined; therefore, to the extent that a successful free society absorbs a Negro population, to that same extent will its success decline.


Even accepting your assertion of racial differences, if there is a significant overlap should not divisions in classes in schools be made on the basis of individual ability instead of race, putting the superior Negro with the superior Whites?

I have already quoted at some length from the federal court's findings on this point in the Stell case. Now let me give you what a federal court in another case had to say on the same subject. Here are the findings of the judge in Evers:


24. Paul Witty, "Research on the American Negro," 1940, 39th Year Book, National Society for the Study of Education, pp. 261-9.

"The differences so measured [between White and Negro children] were not limited to the change of learning rate and ultimate difference in relative mental age or I.Q. which the Court has previously noted, but included as well an even more fundamental distinction in educational patterns, that of subject interest and problem approach. The witnesses were unanimous that these differences were not only substantial in themselves but were of major importance in determining the method of teaching, the selection and content of courses and fixing the progress norms. This was true even though an individual of one group would overlap the other in one or more of the measured factors since these did not show a change in the over-all pattern."

In other words, educability is a matter of more than I.Q., and overlap in I.Q. does not necessarily mean overlap in other important factors. I might go further and point out that there is no such thing as "overlap" except in a specific quality. Educability is the learning pattern of an individual taken in totality and is made up of hundreds of traits. Overlap in all of these traits would simply mean that a child was not a Negro. To force Negro and White children into schools together may result in injury to the brighter Negro child as great as, or greater than, the injury to the average Negro.

Speaking of Evers, I would like to quote you another comment of the court in that case which has a bearing on your question:

"Apart from any differences in learning aptitude between white and Negro pupils, the evidence showed without contradiction that effective learning can only occur under conditions in which the individual's attention can be given to study without unnatural distractions. Such receptivity occurs only when the learner is in a group with which he has an empathic relation, such as with his family, his kind, his neighbors of like interests, or other groups with which he identifies himself as an individual and in which, because of his similarity of characteristic, he is an accepted group member."

All of the evidence in Stell, Evers and the companion cases{25}


25. Davis vs. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, Ala., 219 F. Supp. 542 (S.D. Ala. 1963); Armstrong vs. Board of Education of City of Birmingham, Ala., 220 F. Supp. 217 (N.D. Ala. 1963); Gibson vs. Glynn County Board of Education, U.S.D.C. Southern District of Georgia. Brunswick Division (1963). (Unreported.)

points up a fact which the Supreme Court did not consider in Brown, namely, that there is a basic human need for self-identification with one's own kind which is part of the healthy psychological development of every individual. The Court in Evers continued:

"It does not appear that this identification is caused either by school or society but rather arises primarily from a natural biological selection mechanism which plays a part in maintaining evolutionary diversity of type and is described scientifically as ethnocentrism. While race preferences resulting from gross race differences may be consciously overridden by mature individuals, they remain as an inherent mechanism so that no individual ever becomes completely unconscious of such a difference.

"In the classroom, the intermingling of two groups, each having a high degree of self-identity, causes a heightening of consciousness of group, a result which grows as the number of contacts between them is increased. Compulsory intermixing therefore exaggerates rather than diminishes any divisive forces which exist."

One of the more pathetic sights to be witnessed in schools with token, or "bright Negro pupil," integration nowadays is the isolation of the solitary Negro in the classroom and of his family at school functions. There is, of course, the embarrassed effort to make every one seem at home, there are forced smiles and synthetic gaiety as attempts are launched to digest the indigestible. But the folly on both sides, and the cruelty to the Negro child, must make the informed observer wince.

I doubt this would have been the case had progress continued along pre-1954 lines. All the uproar and justifiable opposition which follows in the wake of what is now called the Negro "revolution" have only focussed a spotlight on the exceptional Negro and made him a symbol of the compulsory integration movement. Indeed, the Negro on the light side of the spectrum, the mulatto, is always the one with the hardest problem, and the one whose occasional presence, under the old dispensation, would quietly have come to be accepted.


In what state did the Evers trial take place?

Are the actions of Black Congolese Rebels to be considered any more condemnable than the actions of White Germans under Hitler?

The Evers trial took place in Mississippi. If it had taken place in North Dakota and the decision had been different, would a Southerner be correct in accusing the Northern Court of prejudice?

The difference between the Congo and Germany under Hitler is that the behavior of the rebels in the Congo is standard procedure when the Negro is left to his own devices under similar circumstances, whereas the behavior of the Germans under Hitler was an exception to the rule among White men.

Moreover, the civilized free world combined against Hitler. The civilized free world today, befuddled by a socialist-motivated scientific fraud, is not only not combining against the atrocities in Africa—by withdrawing its controls, it is actually encouraging them.


How do you explain the fact that not one member of the National Education Association or the American Federation of Teachers has endorsed your belief that integration is bad (in the classroom situation) and that the NEA has stated positively that integration has no bad effect? (Fact citation can be found in NEA Journal.)

The NEA is part of the educational establishment whose motivations I have already examined. The record in Stell and Evers, and other companion cases, is replete with study after study on the adverse effect of integration. These were sponsored by scientific witnesses under oath and subject to cross-examination. No members of the associations you mention ventured to appear.


Why do Negro children score higher on I.Q. tests when the test is administered by Negro testers? This holds true especially on Achievement Tests.

Your facts have been disputed, but even if they are correct, what difference does it make? White children still do better than Negroes even when the latter are tested by Negroes. All that your point seems to prove is that Negroes are more relaxed and accomplish more in the presence of other Negroes, which is a good reason for Negro teachers and classmates.


If you were to take two 400-lb. alligators—one with a brain weight of 17 g. and the other with a brain weight of 13 g. and the latter were transported to a zoo and conditioned to certain responses, would you then assume that alligators with a brain weight of 13 g.—as an average, of course—have a greater intelligence? Thus, are you saying that brain weight is proportionate to intelligence? Is the size of the brain relative to intelligence?

You are mixing several factors in this question. First, I have already explained that an I.Q., properly determined, is not radically changed by education, although I have qualified this by adding that education will always improve performance up to the limits of innate capacity. Second, I have emphasized that brain weight or size is only part of the story concerning intelligence in any individual case-cortex area, proportion of parts and cyto-architecture are also involved. I leave you to apply these variables to your alligators.


If you use inferior brain potential as justification for segregation would this apply to Caucasians with damaged or slightly retarded brains as well?

By definition, damaged or slightly retarded brains are not a group characteristic of Caucasians, whereas a lower I.Q. and other differences are group characteristics of Negroes. Obviously if brain damage or retardation is significant such individual Caucasians are segregated.


You admit that the difficulty with integration is that it leads inevitably to intermarriage and this in turn would lead to abasement of the genetic stock and a degeneration of the general level of intelligence. This would occur because the frequency of high intelligence in Negroes is significantly less than in Whites. You also admit that in some cases Negroes equal or excel some Whites in intelligence. Interbreeding of these Negroes with Whites would not necessarily debase the genetic stock and in some cases might even raise the level. If we may ignore the practical difficulties a moment, should you not in consistency be advocating segregation of the intelligent from the less gifted regardless of race—since intelligence is the issue you find important?

I have already answered this question from several angles but I will summarize: First, educability is not solely a matter of intelligence. It involves subject interest and problem approach which have been found to differ between Whites and Negroes among the exceptional as well as the average. Second, we cannot ignore the practical difficulties—organizing a society is a practical matter. Consider my references to exceptional minors and women. Third, once the doors of White society are thrown open to exceptional Negroes in those areas where mates are chosen it would be virtually impossible to close them in the face of other Negroes because of the ideological pressures of the equalitarian movement. Fourth, race mixture involves not only intelligence levels, but also temperament, degrees of courage or lack of it, character, and so on, as well as physical differences which may create organic disharmony in a crossing. Fifth, your suggestion is academic because the Supreme Court's 1954 decision and the Civil Rights Act require indiscriminate integration.


How could you ask for a finer public servant than Edward Brooke, the Senator from Massachusetts? He disproves your theory of inferiority.

Look at Edward Brooke's face: Do you consider him a typical Negro? And if you do not, why do you use him as an argument? Can you not see that in doing so you are misleading the uninformed as to what the real issues are?

In any large community there are Negro men to admire and Negro women who are equally fine. From observation I would judge there is as much overlap in character and charm as there is in intelligence, although here again it usually seems related to some white blood. I touched on this problem in considerable detail in the last chapter of Race and Reason and will not repeat myself here.

a. 100 years ago how many Negroes could top White men in I.Q. tests and how many Negroes can now? That is: has not the Negro improved slightly under segregation and greatly under integration, and none in slavery?

b. Why can't a culture be adopted?

a. The Negro has improved greatly under segregation; it is not apparent that he has done as well under the limited integration he has experienced.{26}

b. Because a culture is the product of the innate capacity of the race which created it. It can to some extent be parasitically enjoyed by races of less capacity, but it can neither be advanced nor independently sustained by such races.


Since the Orientals in our society have a much lower crime rate and illegitimacy than the average White in our society, and since differences between peoples are genetic in origin by a 3 to 1 ratio—can it not therefore be inferred that the Oriental is indeed not only the Caucasian's equal, but his superior?

In some respects quite possibly. I cannot verify your figures as I have not studied them. I have stated previously that the English speaking stocks of the Caucasian race probably hold the championship in maintaining stable, free societies.


You stated that the lack of perfect evidence of the Negro's inequality (inferiority) is no reason to assume that he is equal. Is it not equally true that imperfect evidence of his equality is no reason to assume he is inferior. Particularly since, contrary to your assertion, the balance of evidence does indicate that the Negro is potentially equal, but lacking the social and cultural advantages.

Your facts are wrong. You assume that the evidence is equal, in amount and in imperfection, on each side. The truth of the matter is that the evidence is overwhelming on the side of inequality—indeed I know of no evidence at all on the side of equality. What I said was that because every item of the evidence

26. See supra, p. 113.


for inequality was not perfect was no reason for assuming that the opposite of the evidence was true.


When your group of scientists say one thing, and we are taught that a much larger group of scientists say something else, how are we to decide which is correct except by the preponderance of opinion?

By learning to think for yourselves, which is one of the chief objects of education. In this case it is not a difficult task. All you need to do is to stop taking unsupported assertions as final and demand to look at the evidence. There will soon be no question left in your mind.


Is not the right to integrate a constitutional right?

There is no "right" to integration, either in our Constitution, our moral code, or our religious precepts. Segregation for valid reasons is an accepted social procedure. I cannot claim that I am denied "equal rights" or "civil rights" as an American, or that I am made a second-class citizen, or that I am deprived of "human dignity", if I am refused the use of a ladies' rest room or if, having a contagious disease, I am placed in a segregated hospital. We need be concerned only with whether the reasons for segregating the Negro are valid, and this is where the question of the genetic versus the environmental source of his limitations becomes decisive.

The Negro's so-called "constitutional" right to integration derives solely from the Supreme Court's decision in the Brown case. As we have seen, this case was based upon misrepresentation and concealment of vital evidence bearing upon the genetic issue.


You often speak of segregation in "social" situations. What do you mean by a "social" situation?

Any situation which has genetic implications. These are the situations which produce instinctive tensions, and logical tensions as well, because they invite the possibility of interbreeding. But when it comes to deciding what is or is not a social situation we are confronted with great local variations. A restaurant in a small Mississippi town may be very different in this respect from a restaurant at the Grand Central Station in New York. The same may be true of other forms of public accommodations, or indeed any aspect of community life.

I do not suppose we have ever faced a situation where the advantages of the dispersive aspects of our federal system as originally. designed could be more wisely applied, and are being more callously disregarded. There are many areas of the North and West with relatively minor Negro populations in which policies entirely different from those in areas with large Negro populations would be justified.

They have a rule of thumb in the South that the Negro problem does not become serious until the ratio approaches ten to fifteen per cent, but regardless of this flash point, when one considers the spectrum nature of the race problem—the shift in this spectrum toward the mulatto in certain Northern areas a swell as the variability in the quantity of Negroes—it is folly to attempt to deal with it by one set of laws or customs everywhere.

I cannot over-emphasize the importance of the concept of variability in dealing with any racial problem. We have the variability of the genetic spectrum, of the population ratio, and finally of the community setting. Consider a small town in Montana which has two or three Negro families whose predominantly White genes show in blue eyes, straight hair, sharp noses, and relatively high I.Q., and whose Negro genes are only apparent in skin color; then compare this town with one in Alabama where the population is over fifty per cent Negro of pure or nearly pure blood, with prognathous jaws, kinky hair, flat noses, everted lips and relatively low I.Q. In the first situation it might be justifiable to have no segregation at all, while in the second some segregation might be essential.

What could be more apt to invite community disruption than to try to control racial problems in those two towns by the same set of laws made by politicians sitting in Washington and hoping to win the Negro vote in New York—or by a Supreme Court which has heard only one side of the evidence on genetic racial differences?

But should not everyone be equal at least before the law?

Before the law, yes, but this does not mean that the law should be everywhere the same. Circumstances alter cases. We find a great variation in laws throughout the United States. Consider the liquor laws or the speed laws. Some communities prefer certain things one way, some another. It is when the federal government steps in to force the views of one section upon another whose circumstances are different that trouble starts.


What about voting? Surely here the law should be identical everywhere?

It would undoubtedly be unreasonable to say that simply because a man is a Negro he cannot vote, but on the other hand it may be essential as a practical matter to establish a more rigorous procedure for selection of voters, both white and black, in communities with heavy Negro concentrations since the consequences of a failure in, or evasion of, the procedure are more serious.

We know, for example, that Negroes as a race have never been able to maintain a stable, free society, anywhere, any time—in fact, government by a Negro majority invariably results in chaos. We may even question whether, based on historical experience, the average Negro really prefers a republic to other forms of government. His standards of fiscal responsibility are quite different from the White. Our own American experience has proven that his vote is more easily bought and that he is more apt to vote as a bloc. With large numbers of Negroes in a community, therefore, it is vital to be sure that the level of intelligence of the voting Negro is high, even if this means cutting out larger numbers of less intelligent Whites than might be necessary in an all White community.

One of the more alarming things to me about the current political scene is the blindness and stupidity of the politician who openly seeks, and brags of capturing, the Negro vote—meaning the vote of the average Negro. This is the equivalent of saying:

"My policies have attracted the approval of a race, the degree of whose participation in public affairs has always been a measure of the deterioration of the society in which it occurs."

I am indebted to the government of Rhodesia for the following summary of the manner in which the problem is handled there. While the situation is different from that in the southern United States, the method has some thought-provoking aspects:

"The franchise is for voters of all races registered on one of two rolls and extends to all citizens aged 21 years or over, resident in the country for more than two years, subject to certain property, income or educational qualifications. Of the Legislative Assembly of 65 members, 50 are elected to represent constituencies by the more highly qualified voters of the 'A' roll, whilst 15, representing electoral districts, are elected by the voters with lower qualifications on the 'B' roll. Both constituencies and electoral districts cover the entire country and the decision as to which roll a person qualifies for, or stands for Parliament on, is in no way dependent on race.

" 'A' Roll: (a) Income of £792 or ownership of property of value of £1,650; or (b) Income of £528 or ownership of property of value of £1,100 AND completion of a course of primary education; or (c) Income of £330 or ownership of property of value of £550 AND four years' secondary education; or (d) Appointment to the office of Chief or Headman.

" 'B' Roll: (a) Income of £264 or ownership of property of the value of £495; or (b) Income of £132 or ownership of property of the value of £275 AND two years' secondary education; or (c) Over 30 years of age AND income of £132 or ownership of property of value of £275 AND primary education; or (d) Over 30 years of age AND income of £198 or ownership of property of value of £385; or (e) Kraal heads with a following of 20 or more heads of families; or (f) Ministers or religion.

"There is no legal impediment to a Rhodesian of any race becoming Prime Minister, Member of Parliament, Judge of the High Court, Head of a Government Department or practicing in any profession.

Commenting upon the above suffrage requirements the Rhodesian Minister of Information writes:

"Without the establishment of men trained in arid accustomed to the art of government, men accustomed to ensuring order and obedience to order, which is indispensable to progress, happiness and human civilization, any society must relapse into anarchy or become an absolute dictatorship.

"It is this basic fact that is at the root of our Rhodesian philosophy, which is that a country is amply justified in limiting the franchise to those of its inhabitants capable of exercising it with reason, judgment and public spirit.

"We seek to ensure this by two means—firstly an educational test on the theory that you thereby have a mind that is trained and disciplined in some degree, and secondly, a means test on the theory that a man earning more than a mere subsistence or acquiring property of some substance has the necessary qualities of character and mind.

"There can be no general rule without hard cases, but no one has yet devised a more certain, practical or logical approach to the exercise of the franchise. What we do know is that there can be no progress on the basis of an uninformed, emotional mass electorate and that adult suffrage, inherent in majority rule would, in Rhodesia, place control in the hands of those unequipped to exercise it. The mob may be able to form judgments of the personal qualities of candidates—but that is not enough, for a voter must be able to form an opinion of the merits of the policy presented to him."

The unlimited suffrage concept is marginal when applied to a homogeneous electorate consisting of an advanced and experienced race like the Anglo-American. To apply it to states or communities with high percentages of a retarded race is suicidal.


Apparently you have no faith in democracy. Are you not attacking the principle of "one man, one vote"?

There has never been any one-man-one-vote principle practiced before in our republic, or in any successful free society, if that is what you mean by "democracy". When Athenian democracy was in its prime, large segments of the population were not allowed to vote. Women were not allowed to vote in the United States when I was a boy, and they are not allowed to vote on federal issues in Switzerland today. Until recently, and under our Constitution as it has hitherto been interpreted, the qualification of voters has been left exclusively to the states, except that by constitutional amendment (1870) Negroes as such cannot be discriminated against by state laws, and women were given the vote in 1920.

It is time Americans remembered that when Daniel Webster called our government the last, best hope of earth he was referring to a representative constitutional republic, the special genius of which was the way in which the top was protected from exploitation by the bottom and vice versa. There were all sorts of provisions by which this balance was assured, many of which have been whittled away, and always in favor of the bottom. If this keeps up, it can only end in the collapse of the "the last, best hope" because it will mean injustice, and injustice to either the top or bottom will produce rebellion and violence in the long run. Exclusive victory for the top means fascism, for the bottom, communism.

What about jurors?

I feel the same way about jury duty as about voting.


Do not all your qualifications concerning treatment of the Negro result in limiting his equality of opportunity?

In the majority of cases the Negro's failure is not due to a lack of opportunity but to a lack of capability. It is always easy to blame the latter on the former because opportunity itself is not easy to define. Two runners with unequal strength do not have an equal opportunity to win a race. Must we, nevertheless, allow all runners to enter every race regardless of past performance? Must every tennis player in the world be allowed to enter the U.S. National Championships each September? Obviously this is impossible.

In the case of Negroes in general it is only natural that judgments should be made upon average past performance and the individual Negro regarded with some skepticism. For this reason there may be some opportunities that even the exceptional Negro is denied but these are relatively rare. Most Negroes with intelligence and character have made their way very well in the United States.{27}


27. See, for example, the case of S. B. Fuller, Negro president of the Fuller Products Company, Chicago. His organization contains 10 subsidiaries in 38 states, maintains 80 branch offices and employs more than 5,000 people. In addition, Fuller is publisher of The Courier chain of national weekly newspapers, director of a bank and member of the Board of the Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry. In a recent speech he said: "It is contrary to the laws of nature for man to stand still; he must move forward or the eternal march of progress will force him backward. This the Negro has failed to understand; he believes that the lack of civil rights legislation, and the lack of integration have kept him back. But this is not true; the lack of initiative, courage, integrity, loyalty and wisdom are responsible for his not making the rate of progress that he should mike." Speech before the National Association of Manufacturers, New York Herald Tribune, Dec. 7, 1963.



You refer to Abraham Lincoln's segregationist attitudes: in his day, these attitudes were liberal beyond belief. Should our society remain so static that what was a valid idea a hundred years ago remains unchanged today? Would Lincoln express these same beliefs today?

In his day Lincoln was not liberal beyond belief. It was the Northern abolitionists who were the fanatical liberals of the time. To Lincoln not slavery but secession was the issue in the Civil War.

Apparently you assume that in order not to remain static a society must move in the direction of equalitarian socialism, which is first cousin to communism. I do not agree with you. I believe such movement is deterioration, not progress.

How about references on Abe Lincoln?

The most cited reference on Lincoln is from his speech at Charleston, Illinois, in September 1858 when he was debating with Douglas. (See any collection of these debates.) In this speech he said "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office."

However, in view of the distortions in the press concerning Lincoln's views on the Negro which always appear around Lincoln's birthday, I believe it will be helpful to quote in part a letter written to the Washington Post on March 3, 1964 by Ludwell H. Johnson, Associate Professor of History at William and Mary College. It is the most impartial summary of the matter I have seen. The circumstances which gave rise to it are sufficiently explained in its first paragraph:

"I have no connection with any organizations espousing either integration or segregation, but I do have an obligation to historical accuracy. In an editorial of February 10, you commented adversely on an advertisement by the Citizens' Councils of America which quoted from one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates and from some remarks Lincoln made to a Negro delegation in 1862. In those quotations Lincoln expressed himself as being in favor of segregation and Negro colonization. Your editorial remarked that the advertisement 'dishonors the memory of Abraham Lincoln and does injustice to Negro Americans.'

"It is not at all clear to me that the century-old opinions of Lincoln shed any light on contemporary race problems, but since the Post editors consented to debate the issue on this level, some attempt should be made to rescue history from the propagandists.

"Anyone contending that Lincoln was in favor of Negro equality must assume the burden of proof. The evidence you present consists of two quotations. In the first Lincoln says: 'I adhere to the Declaration of Independence. If Judge Douglas and his friends are not willing to stand by it, let them come up and amend it. Let them make it read that all men are created equal except negroes.' This you propose to 'fling into the face of the Citizens' Council of America.' In that same speech Lincoln said: 'I also yield to all which follows from that necessity [the presence of the Negro]. What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races.' Will you also fling that in the faces of the Citizens' Council? Your animadversions about quotations taken out of context thus seem somewhat unbecoming. The plain fact is, as even the most cursory examination of the 1858 debates will show, that Lincoln repeatedly stated his belief that the Declaration applied to Negroes and also that he was in favor of white supremacy—often in the same speeches.

"No one can deny that Lincoln was opposed to slavery. But his position on the race question is altogether a different matter. During the 1850's, and especially during the debates with Douglas, Lincoln stated unequivocally that he was opposed to: (1) the state of Illinois bestowing citizenship on its Negroes; (2) enfranchising Negroes; (3) allowing them to serve on juries; (4) social equality. One of the reasons he gave for opposing territorial slavery was a desire to preserve the West for free white men. Furthermore, he was a long-time advocate of colonization in the tradition of Henry Clay, whom he so greatly admired. In 1854, for example, Lincoln said that his first impulse as to the method of dealing with slavery would be to free the slaves and send them to Liberia, although he saw grave difficulties in the way. In 1857 he was more hopeful, saying: 'The enterprise is a difficult one; but "when there is a will there is a way"; and what colonization needs most is a hearty will.' As President he attempted with remarkable persistency (even after the Emancipation Proclamation) to carry out this project. In his first annual message to Congress he asked for money to finance colonization, saying: 'On this whole proposition, including the appropriation of money with the acquisition of territory, does not the expediency amount to absolute necessity—that without which the Government itself cannot be perpetuated?' In his second annual message in December 1862, Lincoln asked for a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to appropriate money for colonization. In 1863 a colony was actually established on Ile a Vache, Haiti, but it was a dismal failure, and the survivors were brought back the following year. In July, 1864, Lincoln's private secretary, John Hay, noted in his diary that the President had finally given up colonization.

"Back in 1854, Lincoln had said, suppose colonization proved to be impracticable—'What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery, at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough for me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not.'

"The most advanced position Lincoln ever took as to the rights of Negroes was in a letter of March 13, 1864, in which he wrote to the Union governor of Louisiana to 'barely suggest for your private consideration' that those Negroes who were 'very intelligent' or who had fought in the Union army be allowed to vote in state elections; but this was, Lincoln concluded, 'only a suggestion.' Lincoln, like Jefferson and unlike the doctrinaire integrationist of today, realized the profound complexity of the race question and believed, again like Jefferson, that the only sure solution was colonization . . . .

"The other piece of evidence you present in rebuttal, a quotation from a letter Lincoln is supposed to have written early in 1864, saying that 'the restoration of the Union must rest upon the principle of civil and political equality of both races,' is of doubtful authenticity, in spite of its inclusion in the most recent collection of Lincoln's works. This purported letter was printed in the New York Tribune on September 26, 1865, in the midst of the developing controversy over Reconstruction policies. The source given by the Tribune was the Southern Advocate, a paper which has never come to light, let alone the original letter. On the face of it it appears unlikely that Lincoln would have made such a statement at the same time he was trying to induce Negroes to leave the country altogether . . ."

This should be the letter to end all letters on Lincoln and the Negro. The claims by Republican liberals at the 1964 Republican Convention that they represented the Lincoln Wing of the party are among the more fanciful fabrications of our time.


For the sake of this question, I will grant you the validity of your "facts." If you can show the average brain capacity of a group of black, green, purple, or white people less than that of a group of black, green, purple or white group—I say "good for you." It seems that you go on to assert that one should enter into social interaction only with those people of at least equal mental capacity. How, I ask, does one determine an individual's mental capacity, briefly, when meeting him on the street and faced with the momentous decision of whether to accept him as a social equal, or not? I claim that this would be an absurd undertaking, and your assertions are a mere façade for self-righteousness.

Your question involves voluntary social acceptance which is not at issue in this controversy. The purpose of the Negro movement and the practical result of the Supreme Court's decision on schools is to force social acceptance, either directly or by erosion through an ideological fraud equivalent to compulsion. You can do what you please on the street, but there are many people who are going to resent your telling them that they must put their children in schools with Negroes.


Does your concept of Equality suggest that the murderers of Evens, Herbert Lee, Louis Allen, Channey, Schwerner and Goodman not be brought to justice? Is it because Negroes being inferior must get inferior justice?

Obviously not. Justice should be universal and should prevail in Mississippi. But I will point out that when you force upon 30 million people laws which they know to be destructive of their civilization you are going to increase crime among the more violent elements of the population. The same thing would happen in the North if something equally destructive were forced upon them against their convictions.


Your whole speech appears to be more an apology for segregation than a scientific dissertation. You know that segregation has been the cause of lynching, bombing, shooting, beating, unjust jailing in Mississippi. How do you justify this? If we accept segregation on your thesis, we must also justify these things.

Your facts are wrong and your conclusion is a non-sequitur. Segregation has not been the cause of the crimes you mention; the cause has been the attempt at forced integration. To the extent that crimes against the Negro were previously committed by Whites in the South, these were few in comparison to those committed by the Negro against other Negroes. Thousands of Southern communities lived at peace with the Negro before 1954 and some still do.


Aside from genetic considerations, how much do you think segregation has to do with causing the Negro to have such low moral standards, low I.Q., and high rate of illegitimate births and disease?

If a patient has a contagious illness and is segregated from the public, for the public's protection, how much does this have to do with the patient's having the illness?


How do you justify segregation when you know that it is the means of enforcing poverty? 46 per cent of the Negro families in Sunflower County are forced to live on less than $1,000 a year.

Segregation does not enforce poverty. The Jews have frequently been segregated throughout history, but they have not been made poor.


How can you justify discrimination in voting and transportation, for example, on differences in intelligence capacity as the Constitution has no intelligence requirements? Seating in buses is, similarly, not based on I.Q.

The Constitution leaves to the several states the determination of the qualifications for voters, providing only that they be uniformly applied to all races. I have already suggested how this might be done in our South, and have illustrated how it is being done in Rhodesia.

I may remind you, first, that when the Constitution was originally adopted Negroes were chattel property and consequently received no rights thereunder and, second, that when the 14th Amendment was adopted after the Civil War, it was forced upon the South without any pretense of legality. All but one of the Southern States rejected it and it was only ratified by them when, under a law passed by a Congress from which the South had been excluded, they were given no choice save to accept it or submit to military rule. The President vetoed this law, saying that its whole character, scope and object were in palpable conflict with the plainest provisions of the Constitution. The rump Congress over-rode the veto.

However, I am still of the opinion that the Negro can now be held to have many rights under the Constitution and 14th Amendment without the disastrous interpretation placed upon it by the Supreme Court in 1954.

As to transportation, this is not normally a social situation.


You argued with a decision of our Supreme Court. Is not any decision of this Court "The Law of the Land" and not for you to dispute?

Your education has scarcely begun. It is the right of any citizen to disagree with, and lawfully seek to change, any decision of any court. Has it not occurred to you that when the NAACP obtained the decision in Brown vs. Topeka (the case on which the integration movement rests) it overthrew the decisions of ninety years? The only difference is that the NAACP obtained this decision by misrepresenting and omitting evidence, while I am trying, as best I can, to restore the original law by telling the truth.


Can you honestly say that segregated facilities in the South are equal? Here is a working example of segregation. Let us look at this.

Segregated schools for Negroes in the South were rapidly being made equal to those of the Whites in physical facilities. This was true long before 1954. Segregated eating places, hotels and stores run by Negroes are usually of low quality. Whose fault is this? Take a long look.

Are not ideas like yours responsible for the terrible way Negroes are treated in South Africa?

Let me answer this question with two of my own: (1) If you had to pick one country in which to live out of the entire African continent, which one would you choose? (2) If Negroes are treated so terribly in South Africa, why is it that 25,000 Negroes manage to enter that country illegally each year and only a few leave?

Today all of the peoples you refer to as backward are demanding their rights and their freedom. The world is in a ferment. It is part of progress. How can you expect to stop it?

Just tell a naïve person often enough that you owe him a living, that he is entitled to share your earnings, that you have cheated him for years, that he has a "right" to your savings and achievements, and watch how quickly he will start to ferment.

The world situation you mention is the product of White socialist indoctrination—of what Churchill called the "gospel of envy." It has no relation to reality. Modern means of transportation and communication have spread this gospel broadcast like a virus. How to stop it except by starting to tell the truth I cannot say. But you may be sure it is no part of "progress".

Governor Scranton suggests that one reason for Goldwater's defeat in the 1964 election was the "exclusive" nature of his appeal to voters—that the Republican party must have a "broader base" and be more attractive to minority groups. Do you agree?

The desirability of exclusiveness depends upon what is excluded. A man who tries to please everybody ends up pleasing nobody, although, if he has enough resources at his disposal, there may be quite a circus for some time.

To please indiscriminately is to do destructive things. To cater to the Negro vote, for example, is to forget that Negro voters, left to themselves, have never been able to operate a free government. When you please the Negro bloc, without carefully examining what you do, you are apt to be injecting into the bloodstream of the body politic the virus of collapse. The body politic in our case may be strong enough to stand a certain amount of such a virus, but it is bound to be weakened by it, and can be destroyed in the long run.

The United States, was founded on, and developed through, the laws, institutions and traditions of the English-speaking stocks of the White race. The majority of our population still consists of these stocks. We will be unwise if we adopt policies to please other stocks or races which either directly violate our institutions or which indirectly, through unrestricted immigration, lead to their violation by so changing the nature of our population that they will be voted or interpreted out of existence.{28}


As a lawyer you should read Prof. Cahn's article "A Dangerous Myth in the School Segregation Cases" [sic] which shows that the Supreme Court did not rely on science in deciding those cases, but just pretended in part to do so out of courtesy to Prof. Clark and his colleagues. The Court decided the cases solely on the grounds that separate but equal schools for Whites and Negroes are inherently unequal and thus violate the 14th Amendment. So all your arguments about science are really beside the point.


28. For a further discussion of this subject see Race and Reason, p. 104.


Because this article{29} was cited by the Fifth Circuit as its principal excuse for refusing the plea of the trial court in Evers (they speak of the trial court as "bewitched and bewildered by the popular myth that Brown was decided for sociological reasons untested in a trial"), I feel justified in making a few frank comments about both the article and the Fifth Circuit.

Cahn's article has two faults. It is misinformed as to the facts and irrational in handling what facts it has. Cahn begins by saying that Kenneth Clark with his doll tests was trying to prove to the Supreme Court what everybody already knew without his proving it, namely, that a sense of inferiority generated by segregation damaged the Negro child. He then admitted that Clark did not do this very well, but that his inadequacies did not matter, since the Court knew what everybody else knew anyhow.

Cahn was apparently unaware that Clark had conducted earlier tests on larger numbers of Negro children which flatly contradicted his testimony before the Court and indicated that integration caused greater damage to the Negro child than segregation. Cahn was also ignorant of the evidence available, but not offered to the Court, concerning the innate nature of the Negro's limitations—in other words the evidence showing that the "sense of inferiority" of the Negro was not something initially created by either segregation or integration, but something due simply to his biological limitations. The Fifth Circuit knew, or ought to have known, about these deficiencies in Cahn's article.

It is clear that when you, or Cahn, or a court say that "separate but equal is inherently unequal" you cannot make the statement in a vacuum. You must have some justification for it. Vassar and Yale are separate, but they are not inherently unequal. The inequality, if such it be, in the case of the separation of Negroes and Whites can result solely from the implication of inferiority, which Cahn finds cruel and the Court finds unconstitutional.

Now when evidence exists, but is not introduced at a trial, which indicates not only that integration increases the sense of inferiority as compared with segregation, but also that neither segregation


29. Edmond Cahn, Jurisprudence, 1955, 30 N.Y.U.L. Rev., p. 150.


nor integration creates the inferiority which is due rather to innate limitations and is thus a fact of life, do you, or Cahn, or the Fifth Circuit mean to say that this evidence has no bearing on the issues and that anyone who says it does is bewitched?

Of course the crowning item is the remark by the Fifth Circuit that the appeal of the White children in the Evers case "tries the patience of the Court." Let me suggest to the Fifth Circuit that their specious opinions and their lack of moral stamina may someday try the patience of history.

I will also suggest to Prof. Cahn that if he thinks this sort of thing adds to the "dignity and stature of every American" he lacks the Anglo-American concept of what dignity and stature are.


Should we be corrupt and wrong to an individual just for advancement? Should the Negro individual be sacrificed for the White man to avoid "stagnation"?

I have never suggested that we be "corrupt and wrong" to the Negro, or "sacrifice" the Negro. Do we "sacrifice" the individual strong woman when she is not allowed to work overtime in factories, or the individual smart minor when he is not allowed to vote? On the other hand, I see no reason to sacrifice the White race to give the Negro race what it has not earned and does not deserve.


You seem to recognize a certain value in Love. How do you explain in biological and racial terms the White man's apparently inbred or innate propensity to hate Negroes—to lynch and throw bombs?

The average White man has no innate propensity to hate Negroes or throw bombs. Every race has criminal elements and neurotics, including the White race, and these are often inflamed by agitators and destructive legal decisions based on deception.

Please comment on the conflict between your views and the views of Christ{1} and the founding fathers of this country,{2} that is, if there is a conflict?

{1} All men are brothers; {2} all men are created equal.

1. I can answer this point in the words of Weyl and Possony in their Geography of Intellect, 1963: "If my brother is a cripple, do I treat him as if he were physically sound? If he is mentally retarded, does a brotherly attitude consist in pretending that he is normal?"

2. The phrase you quote is taken from the Declaration of Independence which was written by Thomas Jefferson at a time when most Negroes were chattel property. Here is what Jefferson thought about the Negro race: "Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free; nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live under the same government."


I respect your faith in the many authors quoted. Perhaps the majority or even all are correct. However, should these differences, if they exist, mean that we treat an individual of this different race other than as an equal? I may be idealistic and no doubt prejudiced, but treating the Negro race as unequal can in no way help them and will only help us Whites in dislike for the colored person. On the other hand, treating the Negro as an equal may indeed help his race and ours by giving him a chance to show his worth. Thank you for an intelligent and relatively unemotional presentation. It will make many of us weigh our beliefs again, which cannot hurt any individual.

Thank you for your comments. But the evidence indicates that the average Negro cannot compete against the average White man and that throwing him into competition does not help him.

Moreover, do you really think that forcing the White children of the South, at the point of a bayonet and against the wishes of their parents, into schools with a race which the balance of the evidence today indicates to be 200,000 years behind them in evolutionary grade, is idealistic? Do you really think turning the Negro loose in the Congo to rape, murder and torture nuns is idealistic? Is this what you mean by giving him a chance to show his worth?


Talking about race differences just angers and humiliates the Negro. What good can come from it?

The correct answer to your question requires an examination of the cause of the anger. The trouble is this: The Negro has been told by White liberals that his difficulties are the result of White injustice. This has inflamed him against the White man. It has also led to a certain sympathy for, and encouragement of, Negro aggressiveness on the part of bemused Whites among the general population.

Sensing these things, the Negro has naturally indulged himself in a totally fallacious fantasy. The average Negro honestly believes himself the victim of injustice and oppression, whereas the truth is he has had endless help from the White race. In America the Negro has received more aid than anywhere else in the world. Any Negro who doubts this should ask himself why, if he dislikes it here, he does not return to Africa where he can enjoy the culture his own race created.

The Negro's present behavior is entirely a taught reaction based upon fraud. The cure for this sort of sickness is to teach the truth.


How can we tell the Negro he is inferior, particularly when we add that the inferiority is genetic and therefore hopeless?

As I said at the outset, the use of the word "inferiority" in this area is the result of deliberate calculation on the part of White leftists. It is intended to arouse anger instead of reason in the reader or listener. The Negro race is a younger race than the White race—consequently it has certain limitations. In the broadest philosophical sense this is not inferiority, and it need not be called inferiority in any sense. Kindness, tact and goodwill would avoid the word, but the leftists betray their true colors by using it often—albeit in a sort of inverted context by putting it in the mouths of their opponents.

Secondly, it should be obvious that genetic inequality is almost universal. It is just as real intra-racially as interracially. I am aware of my genetic inferiority to many men in many ways. But I do not consider that this makes my life hopeless. I try to work within my limitations to make the most of what capacities I may possess. You have often heard the old saying "Life's not in holding a good hand but in playing a poor one well." That is the real achievement, the only true title to respect, the only genuine source of human dignity. I do not ask the government to help me force myself into the company of those who are genetically my superiors, or who may differ from me in other ways.


Would not the Negro gain by social association with the White race and ought not the White race freely to grant such association to the Negro?

I suppose I might "gain" if I had lunch twice a week at the White House, spent my vacations with the British Prime Minister and dined every night with the Pope. But this is not the kind of association I have earned or that I would expect to find mutually profitable. Without such mutuality the relationships would soon become strained.


Should not human differences be tolerated by all mankind in order that we may live peaceably together?

There is a distinction between tolerating differences on the one hand and, on the other, so organizing a society that the attributes constituting the differences are incorporated or absorbed as between a lower and a higher culture. Tolerance in such a case simply results in the destruction of the higher and superior culture.

How do you know our culture is superior?

Because the other cultures envy us, not vice versa. They not only want our money and other fruits of our achievement; they would like to enter our society if they could. You will seldom find a Negro who cares to move back to Africa. At least I have never met one.

If your sort of attitude were generally accepted it would cut off most of the current programs to help the Negro. Comment?

Not if my position is understood. I have pointed out repeatedly that I believe the Negro problem varies with the genetic spectrum and that the solutions must be equally various, locality by locality. As far as one can indulge in broad generalities I would say that voluntary non-social integration is desirable—forced social integration, undesirable. I have no objection whatever, indeed I would urge, the humanitarian to gratify his passion for good works by fighting in the mass media, the churches and the schools for an attitude of greater cooperation between the races, an attitude based on reality instead of fraud.

I believe much can be done to assure the exceptional Negro higher-echelon jobs, but the statistics and the scientific facts are clear that the average Negro is not now, and in the foreseeable future cannot be made, equal to the average White man in his capacity to handle higher-echelon jobs. To demand that he be forced into such jobs, or to make him dissatisfied with lesser jobs, is a sure road to riots.

There are today literally millions of jobs going begging in the field of domestic service, which is a natural field for the average Negro but for which he has neither the training nor the desire, having been taught by the White leftist to disdain both the work and the available wage. The relationship as to both employment and welfare which existed for generations between White and Negro families in the South was almost ideal because it was based upon reality. The White family took a cradle-to-grave responsibility for the Negro family and the latter repaid the former in faithful service.

In those areas where the Negro population is a small percentage of the total, I believe voluntary, not federally compelled, integration of public accommodations is a valid objective. Where the Negro population is a large percentage I think the problem then begins to vary with the kind of public accommodation. It is far too variable a matter for us to attempt to cover every possible situation with one rule, which is why the decision should be left to local authorities.


You often use the word "leftist". What do you mean by this term?

All generalities have their exceptions and all definitions are dangerous. Keeping this in mind, I would say that a leftist is a person who believes in taking the money out of the pocket of the man who earned it and giving it to somebody else. To be a bit more cynical, often he is a man who seeks legal ways of stealing from the top in order to buy the support of the bottom. He is a man who lays stress on the Commandment "Love thy neighbor" and never mentions the Commandments "Thou shalt not covet" or "Thou shalt not steal."

The driving motivation behind the hard-core leftist, as distinguished from the bemused humanitarian, is envy—he uses the Commandment concerning love as a mask to cover his violation of the Commandments concerning theft and covetousness. Envy takes a multitude of forms and expressions. You will find relatively few men who have built their own fortunes in the hard-core group, although there are some of the former in the bemused group, and many whose fortunes are inherited.

Envy, I believe, operates widely among the academicians and intellectuals, who instinctively resent the rewards of successful industrial enterprise. The qualities of leadership, courage and executive ability—which compel one to face reality in dealing with people as well as things—are relatively rare among them. A man who is responsible for getting things done in an organization of other men in the face of ruthless economic or natural facts, is seldom by nature a leftist, but his achievements are always the source from which the leftist dispenses his liberality.

Envy of our Anglo-American civilization, and of the qualities of mind and character which built it, is widespread among certain races, and operates in the same way—there is a strong drive to dispense its benefits to everybody while denigrating the source as "Puritan" or "reactionary".

Money is not the only thing which can be coveted or stolen. It is just as possible to steal a culture, or rather to debase it, since with integration a race without the capacity to adapt can only destroy—it cannot possess. The leftist in the racial area seeks to take by force the hard-earned and long cherished customs, traditions, standards and other social and political attributes of our White society and distribute and share them with Negroes. His instinct here is the same as his instinct in the economic area.

Let me review for a moment the broader aspects of this instinct. Pity for the deserving poor and hostility toward the sort of buccaneering economic tyranny which characterized the late nineteenth century are healthy motivations. They spring from a desire for justice which is one of our higher human qualities and which all reasonable men are willing to express in the form of some taxation and levies on the public treasury.

What the leftist does is to kidnap this quality and use it to lead people across the boundary beyond justice, even beyond all reasonable mercy, to the point where the taxing power, drafts upon the public treasury and other laws are used to attract the votes of people who have no objection whatever to letting someone else meet their bills or pay the price of their mistakes. Soon a habit is formed, one of the most unbreakable habits known to man, and the beneficiaries come to expect the donations as a right. Thus the taxation of success, enterprise and thrift to support failure, indolence and improvidence is institutionalized.

If the society is a rich one with large accumulations of wealth from the past, or with a highly productive technology developed by its more intelligent members, the leftist is in his glory for many years. His popularity with the masses knows no bounds, and more and more intellectuals join his ranks as they build ingenious excuses for abandoning the old verities. Only by degrees does the irreversibility of the trend become apparent. The heritage of earlier days, enshrined in hundreds of ideals and principles, the experience of a thousand years of trial and error in building and controlling a free society, slowly are eroded away. Only at long last is it discovered that a civilization has been destroyed.


Could you tell us your qualifications for the statement that Christ never recommended integration? Are you a Christian?

My qualifications are a reading of the Bible. I am a Christian. For nearly two thousand years, in fact up until 1954, nobody supposed Christianity required integration. The idea is a recent discovery, trotting obediently along behind the Supreme Court decision. Like much of religious dogma it is an overlay on the original, put there by very fallible men, and none has proved so fallible or so weak—I might say such sheep—as the majority of our religious leaders when it comes to the race problem. I take off my hat to the minority, North and South, who still stand four square for truth. As for the rest, they have done much to discourage the confidence of honest and informed people in their leadership.{30}


When I have raised the point that the Negro problem should be solved in the area of the personal relationships between men because you cannot by law give a man a heart, I have been met by the reply: "But by law you can restrain the heartless." Have you any counter-argument?

The flaw is in your own position which assumes that the segregationist is heartless. As we have seen from the findings in the Stell and Evers cases, the segregationist is actually kinder to the Negro than the integrationist.

While there certainly are White men who are unjust and discourteous to Negroes, they are not the source of the Negro problem. Such men are unjust and discourteous to members of their own race when the opportunity arises. I do not believe the average White man is any more unkind or rude to Negroes than he is to other White men with whom he has little in common.


Negroes are mostly poor. Since our Western civilization is founded upon the principle of compassion and charity toward the poor, the government ought to take an active part in carrying out this ideal.

The difference between the government and the individual functioning in this area is that when the government acts it is no



30. For a discussion of one of the more reprehensible distortions of history by Richard Emrich, Episcopal Bishop of Michigan, on June 4, 1961, see my speech at Jackson, Miss., on Oct. 26, 1961, Congressional Record, Jan. 25, 1962, Vol. 108, No. 10, pp. 830-831.


longer charity. Charity is voluntary. The government takes by force from some to give to others. A certain amount of such taking may be generally agreed upon by all reasonable men to accomplish the relief of those wider dislocations which only the government can reach.

But there is an inevitable tendency for a government unrestricted by constitutional limitations to give more and more to please more and more voters. It becomes again a case of robbing the top to buy the support of the bottom. There is a word for this, but it isn't charity.


We as the world's most prosperous nation should be grateful for our blessings and share them gladly with other countries. You are evil and selfish.

Consider a parable. A man goes out into a desert wilderness and, by dint of effort and skill, digs himself a well. In time he develops an oasis with fruit trees and shade.

One day a caravan descends upon him with hundreds of people, all demanding water, fruit and shade. All wish to settle permanently around him but none wishes to dig his own well, nor has the capacity to do so.

Therefore the original settler agrees to supply all the others, and before long neither he nor anyone else has anything. The well has gone dry. The oasis is ravaged. The place is a desert again. The water, the fruit and the shade in this parable are not to be interpreted literally. They are the water of enterprise, the fruit of intelligence, the shade of self-control—all the elements that go to make up a stable, free society.

My point is that neither the spiritual nor the material resources of our civilization are unlimited. We cannot support the world on our own standard of living, and unless we conserve within reason the products of our culture, neither we nor the world will progress.


I am not a communist, but I believe their concept "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a sound, humanitarian objective. If not, why not?

Picture a thug with a blackjack on a dark street. He slugs a passerby and steals his wallet. The thug has a need, the passerby has the ability to satisfy it. So the wallet changes hands. Such a philosophy can only result in hanging a millstone around the necks of diligence, enterprise and foresight while encouraging indolence, shiftlessness and theft.

As a matter of fact this is precisely what is happening throughout the nation today. The more we excuse and appease evil, the more crime increases. The more we subsidize illegitimate children, the more illegitimate children are born. The more permissive we are in our attitudes towards a disorderly society, the more disorderly our society becomes.

In all these areas we see unfold a transparent truth, namely: Crime and demoralization are the fruits of the looseness of thought and attitude inherent in the communist concept you mention.


You have no conception of a world united in brotherhood. You are fifty years behind the times.

I have already said something about brotherhood, but I will add one thing more. Love, like charity, begins at home. A man who loves all countries, and all races, as much as he loves his own, is like the man who loves all women as much as he loves his wife. He merits suspicion. I have seldom seen the matter put better than by William Massey in his article "The New Fanatics,"{31} in the section entitled "Whither Brotherhood?" To that question Mr. Massey answers:

"Nowhere. The current furor over brotherhood is compounded of fallacy and foolishness. For it is fallacy to believe that men are no longer separated by enduring differences, and it is foolishness wilfully to believe this fallacy. Yet this fallacy is the basis for the present campaign for brotherhood. This is not a campaign by men who love humanity, but by men obsessed with a vision. Their vision is of a united mankind marching toward a Utopian


31. This article was originally published in The Mankind Quarterly, 1963, Vol. IV, No. 2. It is available in revised booklet form from the National Putnam Letters Committee, supra, p. 19n.


world. It is the stylized, inhuman vision they love, not man. They do not look at man dispassionately, or even with affection, to see his condition and help him. Instead they preach a mystic brotherhood of man that is both goal and means to the goal. This brotherhood is not reached by good will, understanding and tolerance. It is a fanatic's dream, a will-o'-the-wisp that gives them the self-righteousness to vent their hatreds with a clear conscience. Better an honest enemy than so strange a brother."


Have not scientists throughout history often been persecuted when their discoveries conflicted with popular views? How about Galileo?

There has never been a situation, not even in the case of Galileo, where the tampering with scientific truth has been as dangerous as it is today, because never before has the tampering been used as a tool of social revolution and genocide.


If Negroes are innately inferior, why must they be so carefully segregated by law and custom? In any competition, they would lose. If the "inferior" Negro can drag down the "superior" Caucasian race, then perhaps the latter wants to be dragged down.

The informed White man is not concerned with Negro "competition." He is concerned with the difference in average evolutionary grade and the ultimate effect of genetic infusion. As for the inferior dragging down the superior, let me quote you William Harvey's lines: "Far more and abler operations are required to the fabric and erection of living creatures than to their dissolution, and plucking of them down. For those things that easily and nimbly perish are slow and difficult in their rise and complement."

I am puzzled by the attitude of churchmen nowadays who seem to think the Christian religion demands they support policies which are certain to lead to the aforesaid plucking down. They appear to care little for the heritage bequeathed them by their forebears, or for the millenniums of self-denial and self-discipline that have been a part of the growth of Western civilization and its codes of honor and decency.

They nimbly forget, the effort and sacrifice—and the handing on of a torch—through countless generations. This is the trust which they now propose to abandon. But before they dissipate so many of those values which their ancestors committed to their keeping, let such as these remember the words of Paul to the Corinthians: "It is required in stewards that a man be found faithful."


If you have evidence in writing of the cases of academic suppression, why do you not expose these universities by naming names? If you are shielding the individual involved—are they all lacking the courage of their convictions—this seems curious to say the least.

There is nothing curious about it. When a man's livelihood and social standing are at stake, he naturally shrinks from jeopardizing both. You are naïve if you think otherwise. On the other hand there are a number of scientists, several of whom I have cited, who, because of exceptional courage, or retirement status, or both, have consistently spoken out.


If White standards are so much higher than Negro standards, why are there so many mulattoes?

Although I have said it over and over again, let me remark once more that when we speak of race we speak of averages. The average White man is not responsible for the mulatto.


If Whites developed before Negroes, why do Whites have more hair than Negroes and most animals have a lot of hair?

There seems no doubt that the best criteria of evolutionary grade are in the brain, not in the quantity of hair. The salamander has no hair.


All facts you have presented seem to be based on majority standards. Wouldn't these facts be treated differently if the Negro was a majority race? Decisions therefore are not absolute, but relative to a majority's point of view. An example: if 60 per cent of the people on the earth call a certain fruit an orange and the other 40 per cent call the same fruit an apple, who is right?

If the Negro were a majority race we would be living under conditions similar to the Congo or Haiti. Do you recommend this? Or I might put the matter another way: Who envies the other's culture the most, the White man or the Negro?


a. Would you consider President Johnson a Communist or Socialist because of his stand on civil rights?

b. Are Jews and Orientals mentally inferior to Whites?

c. Do you consider college students working in Mississippi Communists or Socialists?


a. No. In my opinion his stand on civil rights is due partly to ignorance (which in turn results from a lack of the intellectual initiative to investigate the matters we have been discussing) and in part to political expediency.

b. Chinese and Japanese school children test about the same as White children in Hawaii and California. I have already said that Jews (who are not a race) test as well as or better than American non-Jews "on verbal" tests; somewhat below on manipulative tests.

c. I would guess that their motives vary.


Provided the environment of the Negro and White were completely reversed, what would be the end result in crime, etc?

Within a generation the White and Negro would be back where they are now. Let it be repeated: The Negro's nature and behavior are the primary cause of his environment, not vice versa.


The Moynihan Report{32} shows that most of the Negro's troubles stem from the fact that a much larger percentage of Negro families are headed by women than is the case with White families. This is due to slavery which destroyed the sense of responsibility in Negro fathers, and left them no incentive to care


32. Daniel P. Moynihan, The Negro Family: The Case for National Action, 1965, Office of Policy Planning and Research, U.S. Department of Labor.


for their wives or children. This is one more injustice done by Whites to Negroes. Have you any answer?

You are aware of the ten exhibits I have offered on the evolutionary status of the Negro. I now ask you to weigh the slavery explanation you have just given me against the fact that individual control over the instinct of sexual promiscuity is a measure of civilized development. The more sexual promiscuity you have in any society the less apt you are to find fathers at home caring for the children of any particular woman.

It is true that African tribes observe their customs faithfully. But in Africa you have both polygamy and at the same time severely repressive measures to keep the individual within the confines of tribal discipline. The real test comes when these measures are relaxed and the attempt is made to fit the Negro into the framework of Western civilization.

We approach the heart of a major matter here. Whether it be in an individual, or in the average of a race or any other group, personal dedication to one's family—to one's wife and children—is a profound barometer of evolutionary grade. In the family complex the traditions and experience of the past are cherished, while the future is foreseen and secured. The better this is done, the more advanced is the civilization of which the individual is a part. It involves self-control and the putting of long-range values ahead of temporary indulgence, without which few such values are ever achieved and which in itself is a mark of an advancing evolution.

Heaven knows, the average White man is inadequate enough in this area. But if you think he is in the same class with the average Negro you are indeed hypnotized.


a. The White illegitimacy rate is increasing along with that of the Negro.

b. Whites are richer than Negroes and consequently can afford abortions. The figures on abortions prove this. That explains their lower rate. Comment?

a. There has been a rise from 2 % to 3 % in the White rate between 1940 and 1963, but to compare this rise to the Negro situation is ridiculous. In the same period the Negro rate rose from 17 % to 24 %. The rate increased by 11 per thousand among Whites, 68 per thousand among Negroes. The Negro rate is now eight times the White rate. In other words, although the improvement in the Negro's condition in the last twenty-five years has been relatively large, there has been a sharp relative decline in the moral sector of his behavior.

b. Undoubtedly relative abortions, and relative caution and responsibility in other respects, will account for some part of the difference in rate. But this in itself is due to the inherent nature of the races. Also you must remember that in all states of the Union abortions to prevent illegitimacy are illegal and performed in secrecy. Consequently when someone tells you that White women have more abortions to prevent illegitimacy than Negroes you should ask him where he gets his figures.

On the other hand, do you honestly suppose that this explanation accounts for an eight times difference in rate?


Suppose you were a Negro. How would you feel and what would you do?

It would depend upon the type of Negro I was. If I were an American citizen but genetically close to West Africa I would find work within my limitations and be contented in it. I have pointed out that there are millions of jobs going begging in domestic service today simply because Negroes have either been taught to suppose they are too good for domestic work, or else demand a wage the average White family cannot afford to pay. Consequently many such Negroes loiter or riot in slums, cursing society, and hugging the illusion that they are the victims of injustice. Instead they are the victims of a false conception of themselves, and the only injustice in the situation is due to the leftists who misled them.

If, on the other hand, I were an overlap Negro, or a mulatto, I would choose between a career of leadership in the American Negro community as a business or professional man—or, in the event I had an adventurous streak in me, I would qualify myself for service in Africa among the "emerging" peoples there, helping to carry to my racial homeland the civilizing influences I had absorbed in America.

This does not mean that I would welcome the political and social chaos that presently exists in Africa. I would certainly pray for an awakening among White men which would restore a semblance of order. The present fallacy of supposing that African tribes have any conception of self-government or the meaning of a free society, or can be expected to acquire it in a few decades, is not conducive to constructive work. I would hope for a return to the controlled conditions I mentioned in Race and Reason under mandates from an association of free and civilized nations, so that Negro pioneers from the United States might not be plunged into a total jungle.

Should such become the case, I would find it an attractive field for a career. With law and order restored, and with protection for investments of White capital, there would exist both an appeal to altruism and to enlightened self-interest. A Negro could not only be of service to his people but make money too.


How can you talk about the Negro absorbing civilizing influences in America when you see the way he is treated here?

The Negro has more advantages and opportunities in America than anywhere else on earth. If I were a Negro, I would hope to profit by them, as many Negroes have profited, instead of drifting downward into slums or whining about an environment which my race's own limitations created. I have no sympathy with writers like James Baldwin who focus on the dregs of Negro America, thereby disclosing precisely the negative attitude which keeps so many Negroes where they are.

Let us be clear on one point. The White man owes the Negro nothing. If there are any debts outstanding, they are owed by the Negro to the White man. The Negro owes the White man hospitals, medicines, schools, food, opportunity, and a standard of living he could not possibly have acquired for himself. Most of the Negroes in America today would not even exist if their ancestors had not been brought here from Africa. The majority of these ancestors would have been wiped out by savagery.

With such facts in mind it is high time Negroes like Baldwin began looking both at what they owe America and at what they can gain from America with a more positive attitude and a shrewder self-evaluation. America is a great country and a good country—and was, before 1954. Its people are tender and compassionate beyond any other on earth. If the Negro has trouble here, he had best examine himself for the answer.


It is a validated fact that you would not be here if you didn't have a mother. This is the same as the Negro's position—he wouldn't be here if he weren't the descendant of slaves brought to America. What differences does this make on White supremacy? Are you inferior to your mother because she was here first?

I am here because my mother lived in a civilization which made it possible for her to survive. Had the ancestors of our American Negroes been left in Africa, it is certain that many of them would not have survived and consequently their descendants would not be here. I did not say that this had anything to do with what you call "White supremacy." I made the point in connection with the debt the Negro owes the White man.


All your suggestions are based on Whites making the plans and decisions. What makes you think the Negro would accept such a program?

Your question reminds me of a remark in a letter I received the other day from a White man in Central Africa. He said a friend of his, another White man, had just returned from the United States and had reported that "in America the Negro has the White man on the run."

Judging by the attitude inherent in your question I would suspect the report is correct. At least I would say that the Negro has the bemused White liberal on the run. It is a disgusting spectacle. Consider it honestly.

Here is the White race, both in Britain and America, possessed of the greatest technology on earth, enjoying the fruits of a relatively advanced evolutionary status, not only as regards forms of government, standards of living and other traditions, but as to the power to enforce its will. Yet it cowers before something like the Watts riot, rushing about for solutions that will prevent a recurrence in Los Angeles or elsewhere, placating and appeasing with talk about hundreds of millions of White money that must be spent to avoid the horrors otherwise in store. This cowering and bootlicking takes place before the threats of a race 200,000 years behind the White race in evolutionary grade with no technology whatever and no force remotely comparable.{33}

It seems incredible except for the hypnosis. It brings to mind another comment made by a prominent Englishman who went to New Delhi to attend a meeting after India achieved dominion status and apologized to the assembly with the remark that no British subject could humble himself sufficiently to express his regret for the wrongs which had been done to the Indian people.{34} To say this in India, in the face of all that Britain has done for India, is bad enough. To say it in Africa or America to a race which is far more retarded than the Indians is ten times worse. There is no way of accounting for it except by an assumption of guilt based on a totally false conception of the facts.

So in answer to your question, I say it is for the White man to tell the Negro what he will accept, not vice versa. Not only was this nation built by the White man but he is still in the majority. If the Negro wants to live here, let him adapt to our requirements and decisions.


You seem to object to the United Nations as a source of mandates for reconstituted colonialism. You suggest an association


33. An interesting confirmation of this judgment is afforded by a paper delivered on December 28, 1965, before the American Historical Association's 80th Annual meeting in San Francisco by Prof. Elliott M. Rudwick of Southern Illinois University. Prof. Rudwick said in part: "One reason for the explosion of the last two summers has been the awareness that whites are to some degree in retreat, that white mobs in the North no longer organize to attack, and that to a large degree the frustrated Negroes in slums like Watts can get away with acts of destruction." Conditions appeared to be changing in the fall of 1966.

34. Speech by Viscount Stansgate, formerly Major Wedgewood Benn, as head of a British Parliamentary Delegation, reported to me by a member of the audience.


of free and civilized nations—would you define your word "civilized"?

Civilization is a matter of degree. There has never before been any problem among the great powers as to who belonged in their group, and there would be none today were it not for the cleavage between the free and communist worlds.

The free nations of Western civilization are throttling themselves in their attempts to accommodate communism. A separate organization of free countries seems to me the only solution, keeping the United Nations as a debating society for the free and communist countries combined. When I speak of a mandated colonial system I refer to one which would be set up under such an organization of free powers—these are the powers which previously administered most of the colonies which are now falling apart.

I do not hesitate to express my belief that the scientists who, over the last 30 years, have misled the British and American public and their governments on the capacity of backward races for democratic self-government are responsible for the dissolution of colonial control. In this sense they are as guilty of the horrors in the Congo as if they had put the gun to the head of Carlson or the knife to the throat of the nuns.

I will go further and suggest that, had it not been for these scientists and their equalitarian, socialist-motivated propaganda, the ideological and political entering wedge which communism is achieving in Africa and elsewhere would not be a menace today. For this reason many people are coming to feel that there is a perceptible communist influence in our educational establishment. Perhaps it was not entirely a coincidence that the FBI recently arrested a research associate in "social" anthropology at Harvard, a man named Zborowski, on a charge of perjury growing out of the Bureau's investigation of a Soviet spy ring.


You often speak of the scientific hierarchy. Isn't there also a hierarchy of money and success which tends to discriminate against the less successful, both Negro and White?

There used to be. But for the last generation, in this country at least, the shoe has been on the other foot; any man of wealth or position who fails to support racial equalitarianism finds himself ostracized by his own class. He may avoid the issue, but he cannot, for instance, actively oppose integration.

For many years socialists, communists, and left-wingers generally have been preaching the guilt of the older regimes and picturing them as rascals both in matters of business and in their racial attitudes. Now it looks as if our moneyed and successful classes had come to believe it. They appear to be ashamed that they are not failures, too. Indeed all the governments of the Western world seem anxious to apologize for our civilization to all those to whom they have tried to give it and who are proving themselves incapable of absorbing it. In other words, our ruling classes are not only ashamed of segregation, they no longer take pride in anything unrelated to "liberal" programs, government aid and a renunciation of faith in individual self-sufficiency.

Having had some experience as an observer both in business and in the academic life—both with men who have achieved money and success under our free-enterprise system and with those who have risen high as liberal intellectuals in the academic world and government—I would like to assure the former that they have no need to apologize to the latter. Our productivity as a nation and our unequalled standard of living are not primarily the result of government nor the socialist ideology, nor are they the result of organized labor, any more than Hamlet is the product of the pen Shakespeare used to write it. They are the product of the initiative, organizing ability, daring and intelligence of our business entrepreneurs, managers, inventors and engineers.

I have repeatedly heard intellectuals, and occasionally even professional men such as lawyers closely associated with business enterprise, disparage the talents of the executive at the top as if he were essentially only an ornament and all the real work were done elsewhere. Much of it of course is, but I can assure the critics of our capitalistic system that the difference between the Russian standard of living and ours does not lie in a comparison between our lawyers and theirs, or our intellectuals and theirs, or our labor and theirs. It lies in the difference between our industrial leaders and theirs, and the free-enterprise system under which ours operate.

There is a quality in the shrewd business man compounded of self-control, patience, disciplined thinking, balanced judgment, and the courage to take risks. He represents a combination of common sense, leadership, and a capacity for action which is the primary source of our achievements as a nation and our standard of living. Independence, self-confidence and decisiveness are his hallmarks. He is worth every penny he is paid.

And he is the antithesis of everything that socialism, communism and the typical left-winger stand for.{35} It is time he reasserted himself in our society, instead of apologizing for his existence and his accomplishments. If he "discriminates against the less successful, both Negro and White," it is because he cannot treat everybody alike and get anything done.

Please understand that in paying this tribute to the sparkplug in the cylinder I do not intend to disparage the rest of the engine. Nor am I unaware of the beneficial role which government has come to play at both the state and federal level in policing the business buccaneer in his relation to the stock market, to labor, to his competitors and to the public. I realize the soundness of regulatory theory and I have experienced its advantages in practice. There is, however, no connection between this kind of regulation and the equalitarian ideology.


Do you believe that the world is confronted with a class war with race overtones, or a race war with class overtones?

This is one of the more difficult questions that students of modern history have to debate. If we must use the word war,


35. For a confirming sidelight, see John W. Gardner, "The Antileadership Vaccine," being a part of the Annual Report of the Carnegie Corp. of N.Y. for 1965. Gardner was Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare at the time this report appeared, although formerly president of the corporation. In the essay he notes the inclination of intellectuals to picture the leader as having "tasted the corrupting experience of power" and their policy of "immunizing" students "against any tendency toward leadership."



then I would say that the ratio varies with the area considered. On a world scale it is probably a race war with class overtones, simply because race and class so closely coincide in many areas—and wherever this is true I think race is the more powerful force. In England it is a class war with race overtones.

In the United States I would call it about fifty-fifty. If I had to fall on one side or the other I might choose the race war with class overtones. However, no matter what you decide, establishing the scientific truth concerning human differences and educating all the people in regard to them is essential to any solution.

There need be no war where enlightened justice controls the policies of a society, both intra- and interracially. But you will have ceaseless war where you inflame one side with groundless expectations and imaginary wrongs while you plunder the other side in the process. You will likewise have ceaseless war where the top plunders the bottom.


You have criticized the South for not taking action to clear up the race-differences point. I am a Southerner, and there are three things I was taught as a child that a gentleman never did, namely, insult a woman, be cruel to an animal or hurt the feelings of a Negro.

This is all very well until the woman blackmails you, the animal goes for your throat, or the Negro leadership begins to undermine your civilization. I must remark that in my opinion you have waited far too long to defend everything that as a gentleman you were taught to value.


As a Southerner I feel it is up to Northerners to discuss race differences. We are too deeply involved with the Negro and will be called bigots and racists if we mention these differences.

Unfortunately this is true, but on the other hand there is scarcely a Northern political leader who has had any experience until recently with the Negro problem or has cared enough about it to inform himself. Traditionally the Negro is a Southern, not a Northern, problem. People tend to look to Southern leaders for an explanation of the Negro's status in our society.

To illustrate the way Northerners react to your states' rights and constitutional arguments (simply because they are misinformed about your real argument), let me quote you parts of a letter concerning the Civil Rights Bill written by Bishop Coadjutor Harry Lee Doll of Baltimore to his diocese: "It is clearly evident that the issue in this legislation is not that of States' Rights against the encroachment of dictatorial Federal powers, as men like Governor Wallace would have us believe. The real aim of the opponents of this legislation is the continuation of an outworn and immoral system of racial separation and degradation. Against this I protest in the name of the God and Father of us all, whose love and concern for all mankind regardless of race or color or creed has been manifest in Jesus Christ our Lord."

Here is a man who at least appears{36} to be bemused as to the facts, a man of great influence with the public, and a man typical of thousands of other religious leaders. This man's arguments you never meet, and no one else has as much at stake in doing so as you do.


I am a Southern political leader. Do you honestly expect me to go out and say the Negro is inferior?

Great Scott! How many times must I point out that you do not need to use either that word or that concept! The Negro is a younger race. The public has been deceived as to this fact. The evidence in Stell and Evers and their companion cases all points to damage to the Negro as well as to the White child from integration, because of differences not only in I.Q. but in subject interest and problem approach. This evidence has been concealed, and false evidence has been made the basis of a Supreme Court decision which is undermining the health of our society. These are the things you talk about, not "inferiority".


Let politicians in the North do it. They do not have Negro families in their homes who have been there for generations.



36. For polls as to the actual extent of public deception on race differences see supra, p. 5n.



Northern politicians have constituents who are more bemused than yours. If these politicians started talking they would be retired at the next election.


Southern politicians have done their best already. I remember Governor Barnett wrote a letter to every governor of every state in the country recommending they read, and urge the public to read, Race and Reason. What more do you want?

I am deeply grateful to Governor Barnett and I have had the utmost cooperation from other Southern governors, both in the promotion of Race and Reason and in affording me platforms and endorsement for speeches I have made in the South.

But this is not what I mean. What I say on this matter is of minor importance. What they could say would be listened to, particularly if they acted in concert, as for example by joint manifestoes or on national television programs—or if they spoke individually when they had national attention at the time of some crisis such as Oxford or Selma. These are the opportunities which always seem to be missed.


Get yourself elected to the Senate and maybe you will learn something about politics. If we Southerners raise the question of race differences we will lose the sympathy and help of Northern conservatives who are with us on states' rights, decentralized government, and similar issues.

You have me there. And you give me one more ground for complaint against Northern conservatives. The latter make good whipping-boys for liberals and that is about all. When they win elections they do it by providing a slight variant in liberalism; when they lose, they do it on grounds that make them a public laughing stock. They appear as hard-bitten, discredited economic reactionaries, longing for a depression, while the American people are enjoying the greatest and most widely distributed prosperity in history.

Meanwhile they leave in the barn the best horse they've got. The man in the street is burning over the race issue, which is a winning issue, even among the ignorant.{37} Heavens knows he would burn still more if he knew the truth! In any case it is not so much centralization of power that the man in the street ought to care about as it is centralization of power in the wrong hands.

Society today needs more co-ordination than it did fifty years ago. You Southerners know this, and what is more, you like your share of federal assistance. Both you and the Northern public agree there. Your real enemy is not centralized government but captive government—government captured by minority groups heading a Negro parade and followed by a bemused mob of dreamy-eyed fanatics, self-serving, short-sighted politicians, and White renegades who prate about racism and practice black racism themselves. These are dividing and confusing our native majority and winning elections on a balance-of-power basis, simply because you and your conservative friends will not give the majority courageous and truthful leadership.

I may not be a politician but my advice to you is: either convert your Northern conservatives or go it alone. Get your country back in the hands of the people who built it, and you will find a consensus on a new compound of liberal and conservative policies.


Let Northerners learn from experience. With the influx of Negroes to Northern cities they are learning already. Why should we expose ourselves to attacks as racists when experience will take care of the situation?

Judging by events in the fall of 1966, you may be right. But I fear you mistake the problem, including the depth of the hypnosis. What we learn from experience depends on how we interpret it. If one has been taught to interpret the behavior of the Negro as simply a reflection of one's own injustice, one gains nothing but deeper hypnosis. Surely you realize that Northern riots have been used as an excuse for more appeasement and more White guilt.

Besides, every year you wait additional students graduate from


37. See supra, p. 9.


our colleges, North and South, steeped in the equalitarian deception. This is where the trouble starts and where it must be stopped soon or you will have no one left to hear you. What is more, your truth-oriented scientists are growing old.

We have reached the point where the federal government must act and must purge itself at the same time. All governments throughout history have been plagued in varying degrees by financial dishonesty. Contracts have been obtained by personal influence and bribery, elections have been stolen and fortunes made at the taxpayer's expense. But I know of no instance in which intellectual dishonesty has been so widespread and is resulting in such damage as is the case today in the area of race. It is corrupting the integrity of otherwise blameless men to an extent I have never heard of before.


What about guilt in the South? Does not the South have good reason for guilt?

The South undoubtedly suffers feelings of guilt, both consciously and unconsciously, concerning the old slavery days and the fact that currently it does not always deal with the Negro in an ideal manner. No society ever has. Some forms of non-social segregation might have been discarded earlier. Some types of Southern White men, as in the North, have treated Negroes with cruel contempt. But there comes to mind a remark once made to me by a leading Georgia business man who had sat on juries there from time to time throughout most of his life. He said: "In all my experience in the courts I have never seen a Negro get justice. What he got was mercy."


You have spoken critically of President Johnson's domestic policies. How do you feel about his foreign policies?

I believe they have been inept where and to the extent they have been based on the false premise we have been discussing. There are two points involved.

First, it is folly to assume without conclusive proof that any race or substock either desires, or is capable of sustaining, a stable, free society, or, indeed, any stable government.

Second, weak or backward peoples must be protected from communist domination.

The only way I see of meeting both these requirements is through the mandating of control over such peoples by an association of advanced, free nations. If the backward or weak peoples prove themselves capable of genuine democracy, it will eventually become apparent and the mandate can then be vacated. If not, and they seem capable of maintaining law and order under variable degrees of monarchy, the mandate can also be terminated.

The destructive thing is to assume that every race and substock either is or soon will be capable of maintaining a democracy. The result is the collapse of law and order in many areas, followed by loss of life, liberty and property and a consequent end to civilization.

I will repeat what I said in Race and Reason: An advanced nation receiving a mandate over a backward area cannot be expected to act without reasonable compensation. Its citizens must be allowed to invest and to see their investments protected. The purpose of the mandate must not be to administer charity, but to distinguish between a fair return and exploitation; the association of nations granting the mandate must police the difference.

I noticed that in his State of the Union address on January 12, 1966, President Johnson said: "A peaceful world order will be possible only when each country walks the way it has chosen for itself. We follow this principle by encouraging the end of colonial rule . . . by continued hostility to the rule of the many by the few—or the oppression of one race by another."

Let us apply these ideas to Central Africa. When the Negro walks the way he has chosen for himself we have ritual murder and the murder of twins; we have the slow cutting of sections from the groin, genitals, arms and faces of live human beings to prepare fetishes, the blood being caught in billy-cans to moisten the fetishes and the operation continuing until the victim dies.

We have human sacrifices for religious purposes; we have boys and girls brought up for years in confined cages, their feet and hands mutilated, so that they can eventually be fitted with claws and become "lion-men", whereupon they are taught to murder in such a way that the victim is believed to have been killed by a lion; we have girl children tortured and terrified by initiation rites so painful that they sometimes die of fright at the prospect of the suffering; we have victims paraded alive before prospective purchasers so that portions of their bodies may be marked off and sold before the victim is slaughtered and eaten; and we have the devouring of nuns to spice the cannibalistic lust for human flesh.{38}

Finally we have governments so unstable that the following report in the New York Times, two days before Johnson's speech, has become a commonplace. It records the circumstances surrounding the arrival in Lagos of Prime Minister Wilson for a conference of the British Commonwealth regarding Rhodesia:

"Lagos, Nigeria, . . . This sprawling seaport capital resembled an armed camp as riot police attempted to crush mounting violence by opposition party mobs that seek to embarrass Sir Abubakar.

"Four more were killed last night in the suburb of Mushin, bringing the total weekend death toll to 11 with more than 80 seriously injured. Early this morning one of the two main roads from the airport was blocked by a curtain of flaming gasoline. Policemen later dispersed the demonstrators with tear gas.

"The weekend's political warfare continues an upsurge of violence that has taken more than 100 lives since October's parliamentary elections . . . "

I do not hesitate to say that when a President of the United States can stand before a national audience and take pleasure in asserting that he is "encouraging" these private and public activities, that he is going to show "continued hostility" to the control of them, and that he considers such control "oppression", then that man is in a trance dangerous to a "peaceful world order". He is ignorant of the most elementary realities necessary to wise policy.

Let me see if I can make one other thing clear: when a nation's psyche is eroded by the assumption that although it has struggled through centuries to achieve a standard of civilization,


38. See also Race and Reason, pp. 43-44, 77.

a stability of government and a degree of power unsurpassed on the face of the earth, it is nevertheless no better than races millenia below it on the evolutionary scale—then that nation loses its self-respect and the respect of all with whom it deals. Its power of leadership and its force of example evaporate. As I have said elsewhere, there is something in the most primitive people that respects and tries to emulate the people or races that know their own worth. They instinctively despise the kowtowing of superiority to inferiority—and so do gangsters and other delinquents, nationally and internationally.

Sad to say the United States in recent years has been in the hands of leaders who lack any understanding of this fact. Had they had it, we would not have gotten into our present predicament throughout the world. We would have called, and successfully called, the hand of communism again and again. There would have been no need to use "the bomb".


My textbook on Africa says "it is the divine right of every people to run its affairs in its own way; self-government, no matter how bad, is more ennobling than non-self-government, no matter how efficient; self-government with danger is infinitely better than subservience with tranquility, and there can be no peace in the world so long as men arrogate to themselves the right to govern without the consent of the governed." Comment?

This is another example of perverted platitudes and bombast. Turning the Negro loose does not result in "self-government"; it always ends in some sort of black dictatorship, through military or one-party rule, which in turn produces exploitation of the average Negro, and other retrogression, far worse than colonial rule. Your quotation sounds as if it were written by a black gangster aching to get his hands on some loot, meanwhile laughing up his sleeve that his abracadabra should work so well.

What troubles me is that any civilized White man should write such nonsense. It discloses a total failure to understand or appreciate his own civilization. He has forgotten, if he ever knew, what centuries of effort it took to develop the capacity for self government. He has no real comprehension of the worth of what his forefathers bequeathed him. Consequently, he can have little pride in himself as the legatee. It does not take many of that sort to start the erosion I spoke of in answering the preceding question.

I am troubled even more by the way this ingratitude is working in our own society. Although I have mentioned it twice before, I will repeat that one of the most alarming things about the current one-man-one-vote slogan is its bearing on the Negro problem. We have, or had, a reasonably healthy, free society which we owed to a healthy inheritance. Now we propose to inject into the blood stream of the body politic, without any control whatever, a virus of Negro votes which, based on the averages, is absolutely certain to undermine our "constitution". It has never failed to produce sickness wherever and whenever it has been tried, throughout the world and throughout history. This should please White gangsters in search of loot.

But to get back to the specifics of your question, let me offer an analogy, imperfect but perhaps instructive. Certain parents decide to allow their children to run wild in the neighborhood, without discipline or control, because this is their children's divine right. They argue that delinquency with danger is infinitely more ennobling than subservience with tranquility. Finally these children begin to murder each other by setting fire to one another's clothes. Some parents down the road object to the example being set their children but the first parents call them reactionary and threaten to use force to bring the latter's progeny into the carnage. Does his picture gratify you?

If you dislike the present trend of things, what cure do you suggest?

Tell the truth and let the public decide. I have more confidence in the judgment of an informed Anglo-American electorate than does the leftist who shouts "democracy" and "freedom" and then achieves his ends by the roster of deceit I have presented. I will wager that if, for a period of one year, the TV and radio networks, the magazines, book publishers and newspapers, the movies and the theater, in the United States and Britain, were to tell the truth about race differences—were simply to present the evidence on evolutionary grade—you would witness such a political house cleaning as history seldom records.

Speaking of "turning the rascals out", you would observe turning out of fools and rogues by the thousands. What remained of courts, Presidents and legislators would run bleating like sheep to the opposite side of the issues. You would, see an end to the race problem in the United States and abroad within another five years, and a sound administration of the affairs of backward peoples within ten.

But if you now ask me how one goes about telling the truth to millions who have been systematically and purposefully deceived over two generations, when all your channels of instruction are controlled by those responsible for the deceit, I must answer that my visibility into that problem is limited. I can only say, do the best you can.


Are not the Zionists and the international bankers really at the bottom of this brotherhood movement?

It makes little difference now who is at the bottom of it. The problem lies in the world-wide hypnosis on the subject of human equality. This is not confined to any one group, and it can no longer be solved by attacking any one group. We have seen that countless millions sincerely believe in the equalitarian dogma; it influences all their actions, including their votes. It is, if you like, the weapon in the hands of the hard-core leftist. Talking about international bankers today is like talking about states' rights or the Constitution, it is a form of evasion—it avoids the difficult and painful task of awakening the public from their trance.


Your philosophy is Hitlerian. In a world threatened by the atom bomb what possible chance for peace is there unless all races live in mutual respect and equality?

As to Hitler, the perversion of truth by evil men is no reason for abandoning truth, any more than the evils of the Spanish Inquisition were a reason to abandon Christianity. Race, being of the very texture of man's being, is one of the fundamentals of life. Another fundamental is the fact of differences between races in evolutionary grade. Blindly ignoring such matters is a ticket to destruction, especially in an atomic world.

The atom bomb was built by the intelligence and technology of the world's most advanced race. There is some question whether that race is mature enough to control what it created. But one thing is obvious. If the bomb is allowed to drift into the hands of races thousands of years less mature, it will be like putting a loaded gun in the hands of a three year old child.

Meanwhile the world sits with a mixture of bandits and bemused fanatics at the head of the Mongolian and Caucasian peoples, while the Negroes join to make up a rag-tag conglomerate of "independent" countries in the so-called United Nations. It is about as foolish and dangerous a situation as could well be imagined.

The chief responsibility lies with the United States. As the world's most powerful nation, as the builder of the first atom bomb, it was, and is, its duty to lead and to control. It has done, and is doing, neither, except to the extent that it has sponsored and encouraged the dissolution of the colonial system and the substitution for it of the current chaos. The world is seething with racial tensions and other disorders fostered by the official ideology of the United States and Britain. The people who ask your kind of question are responsible for the ideology.

You are a White supremacist. You . . .

At this point I put the question back in the folder and the folder back in the brief case. The pattern was all too obvious and had begun to be nauseating.

With few of these questioners could there by any real discussion. They wished to fight, not to reason. Either that, or they had become emotionally so incapable of facing the truth that any device of diversion, evasion or even deceit was better than genuine analysis.

The common denominator, in their case at least, was intellectual dishonesty. Reasoning on the core question, the question of innate race differences, was a waste of time, and consequently all the rest of the debate became futile. These people simply would not, indeed could not, engage in a sincere search for reality, perhaps because they knew what they would find if they did.

Where, then, was the key, the answer, to the whole fantastic situation?

I rose once more from my desk and paced the room. The first glimmer of dawn came through the windows, but my brief case seemed to offer no solutions. Was it possible there were none? On one side stood the reactionaries, the modern Hiders, the people who gave the leftists the superficial plausibility of their case. On the other stood the bemused humanitarians, oblivious of the destruction they were causing, moving endlessly in circles which returned them to the point where they started, still in a trance.

But gradually it seemed to me I was catching a glimmer of daylight, figuratively as well as literally. I walked over to an eastern window and gazed for a moment toward the sea.