En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

jeudi, 30 juin 2016

Racism, Eugenics, & the Progressive Movement


Racism, Eugenics, & the Progressive Movement

Thomas C. Leonard
Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics & American Economics in the Progressive Era [2]
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016

eugenics2book.gifIn many ways the Progressive Era embodies the best of white America. It was a period of compassion, community concern, attempts to raise the living standard of average Americans, a desire to achieve class harmony, to end (or at least reduce) capitalist corruption, and to create a workable, harmonious racial nationalism that would ensure the long-term fitness of American society. The concerns of the Progressives were as much for the future as they were for the present, something almost wholly lacking in contemporary American politics. These scholars, politicians, and activists thought deeply about future generations and recognized, almost to a man, the validity of race science and the crucial role race plays in the historical trajectory of any country.

Thomas Leonard, a research scholar and lecturer in economics at Princeton University, has written an interesting history of the interaction between race, eugenics, and economics in the context of the Progressive movement. It is broadly informative and happily lacking the willful opacity of much contemporary scholastic writing, thus making it accessible to a wide audience. Unfortunately, yet unsurprisingly, this book begins with a blatant lie upon which he constructs his narrative: “Eugenics and race science are today discredited” (p. xiv). As such, the book is fundamentally flawed. Dr. Leonard offers no evidence whatsoever as to why Progressive notions of racial health and eugenics were wrong but, in keeping with contemporary academic fashion, merely resorts to shaming words and moral judgments rather than even a cursory investigation into the validity of the claims.

The book provides a detailed history of the many important Progressive intellectuals who believed that race was a fundamental concern and how they thought it should be dealt with politically, socially, and economically. The Progressives are perhaps the best example of a genuine American attempt to transcend the awkward political dichotomy of Left and Right for the sake of the greater good and a vision of a better and healthier future. Progressive diagnoses and predictions of racial degeneration and a dystopian future were so accurate that one suspects this book, to the extent it is read by objective and open-minded readers, will emphasize rather than deemphasize the importance of these issues.

The first chapter, entitled “Redeeming American Economic Life,” the author sets the context for the development of Progressivism by describing their reaction to the cycle of boom and bust of the dramatically expanding postbellum American economy: the rapid industrialization and urbanization of American society; and the tensions between labor, farmers, and capitalists. Despite the range of attitudes within the Progressive movement towards possible solutions to the problems faced at this time, Progressives shared three things in common: first, discontent with liberal individualism; second, “discontent with the waste, disorder, conflict, and injustice they ascribed to industrial capitalism”; and third, a concern with the problems of monopoly (pp. 8-9). Their understanding of these issues drove them to believe in the necessity of an administrative state to remedy these root problems and their many offshoots. As Dr. Leonard writes, the “progressives had different and sometimes conflicting agendas” but “nearly all ultimately agreed that the best means to their several ends was the administrative state” (p. 9). Those intellectuals who would become Progressives began to turn their focus away from the traditional and reflective scholarly disciplines and towards active ones, i.e. economics, politics, sociology, and public administration (p. 11). This activist turn was integral to the movement.

The author traces some of this activist drive for public improvement to the “social gospel” wing of Protestantism, but as knowledge of science and the use of scientific language increasingly became a marker of intellectual sophistication, the two were eventually combined into a mutually-reinforcing reformist spirit. Following World War I, after which the West experienced something of an existential crisis, the specifically Christian reform rhetoric mostly faded, or, as the author terms it, was “socialized” (p. 13), and mostly replaced by the hard empirical language of the above-mentioned burgeoning “active” disciplines. However, the sense of missionary zeal and notions of secular “salvation” remained a hallmark of the Progressive movement. If salvation could be socialized so too could sin (p. 13). That is to say, those problems that had previously been seen at least partially as religious in nature became social. Laissez-faire capitalism, for example, was not rapacious and exploitative merely because it was a sinful system run by sinful people but because it was “scientifically” incorrect. The Bible could offer insights into social problems but ultimately the responsibility fell to the state to re-make society in accordance with Christian ethics.

In the second chapter, “Turning Illiberal,” Dr. Leonard describes the professionalization of economics, the turn away from British classical liberalism towards German economic theory, and the origins of tensions within the Progressive movement between those who believed in democracy and those who did not. Germany, by the late 19th century had become the premier destination for graduate students wishing to study political economy. Germans were on the cutting edge of this newly formalized discipline — one that was almost entirely nonexistent in American universities. In contrast to Anglo-American classical liberalism, Germans saw the economy as a “product of a nation’s unique development” and believed that its “workings were not unalterable natural laws, [but] were historically contingent and subject to change” (p. 17). The author writes:

The progressives’ German professors had taught them that economic life was historically contingent. The economy wrought by industrial capitalism was a new economy, and a new economy necessitated a new relationship between the state and economic life. Industrial capitalism, the progressives argued, required continuous supervision, investigation, and regulation. The new guarantor of American progress was to be the visible hand of an administrative state, and the duties of administration would regularly require overriding individuals’ rights in the name of the common good (pp. 21-22).

Germans had demonstrated to American students that economics could be a tool of statist reform with a sound theoretical basis. They also demonstrated that it could be a distinguished and respected career path (p. 18). Those students who returned from Germany came home with a very different conception of the role of the economy in relation to the state and, at the same time, had little competition in establishing themselves in American universities and think tanks. It was a powerful position from which to begin their activism, both in terms of knowledge and opportunity.

Just as the German view of the relationship between state and economy had informed American Progressives, so too did the German Historical School’s conception of the nation as an organism (p. 22). This, coupled with the tremendous influence of Darwinist evolutionary theory in all intellectual circles, caused a distinct shift away from American individualism. Richard Ely, founder of the American Economic Association and a highly influential Progressive, explicitly rebuked the notion that the individual comes before society. Washington Gladden, a charter member of the same organization, argued that American individualism was “a radical defect in the thinking of the average American” (p. 22). The concept of the autonomous individual was seen by Progressive economists as a relic of a soundly refuted, old-fashioned ideology. A new class of superior, scientifically-informed men had to take charge of society if it were to rid itself of such antiquated and backwards beliefs.

In the third chapter, “Becoming Experts,” the author delves deeper into the tensions between expertise and democracy, the differences between Left and Right Progressives, the building of the administrative state, and “war collectivism.” Progressives maintained that the good of the people could best be guaranteed by limiting the power of the people — or, expressed positively, by entrusting the care of the people to experts. Dr. Leonard writes: “Financial crisis, economic panic, violent labor conflict, a political war over monetary policy, and the takeoff of the industrial merger movement combined to generate a groundswell of support for economic reform” (p. 30). This convinced many important Progressive intellectuals that government service was a far more important use of their expertise than was the role of public intellectual. Activism was a crucial strategic and ideological element of their project. The future, according to Progressives, should not be left to chance. It had to be engineered, and someone had to engineer it. If one genuinely cared for future generations, a processes to guarantee their success had to be put in motion rather than simply theorized.


In his discussion of the distinction between Left and Right, Dr. Leonard accurately dismantles the problems with this dichotomous analytical tool. He writes that “progressive” is a “political term and political historians tend to an ideological lens . . . Ideology is [a] useful tool of taxonomy, but when it is reduced to one dimension, it is the enemy of nuance” (p. 38). Rather than frame Progressives as either Left or Right, he usually prefers the term “illiberal” — the belief that, contra liberalism, society takes preference over the individual. Indeed, the very concept of “reform” is often tainted with a Leftism that isn’t always quite there. Many of the positions that modern progressives hold today would be abhorrent to historical Progressives, just as many positions that conservatives hold today would be abhorrent to conservatives of the era. For example, the Progressive Republican Theodore Roosevelt was no fan of laissez-faire capitalism and favored an increase in the regulatory powers of the government, while William Graham Sumner, a conservative opponent of Progressivism, was a believer in free markets but a staunch opponent of imperialism and big business (pp. 39-40). The political battle lines of today differ greatly from those of the past, a fact which seems to validate the 19th century Germanic conception of the relationship of state, economy, and law as being historically contingent. What we think of now as Left or Right was largely absent from Progressive discourse.

Dr. Leonard goes on to discuss the creation of what he calls the “fourth branch” of government (the administrative agencies). The quintessential example of the ascendancy of the fourth branch is the Wisconsin Idea — the integration of government and academic experts in Wisconsin in order to govern the state with maximum efficiency. Many involved in the creation of this integrated system credited its success specifically with the heavy German population of the state. In his 1912 book on the subject, Charles McCarthy described the architect of the Wisconsin Idea, Robert Ely, “as a pupil of German professors, who returned from Germany with German political ideals to teach German-inspired economics at a German university (the University of Wisconsin) in the German state of Wisconsin, where the young men he most inspired were, yes, of German stock” (p. 41). The state government was, to a previously unknown degree, put in the charge of Progressive experts who created on American soil what was in effect an ethnic German state. The Progressive movement, both in theory and in practice, was distinctly Teutonic in conception.

This “fourth branch” of government was established in Washington D.C. by Woodrow Wilson and solidified during World War I by the success of “war collectivism.” The hand of the federal government was greatly strengthened at this time in order to aid the war effort. This is the period in which the income tax was established and was soon followed by corporate and inheritance taxes as well as numerous other reforms and the creation of various administrative agencies (pp. 43-45). Having established themselves as experts, the expert recommendations of the Progressives usually included the establishment of permanent regulatory agencies — “ideally an independent agency staffed by economic experts with broad discretionary powers to investigate and regulate” (p. 43). The author credits much of this to personal ambition rather than idealism, which is doubtless true to some extent but is at odds with his earlier descriptions of the visionary reformist mission of Progressives. Perhaps writing a century later it is hard not to be cynical about such things, but little in his prior discussion would indicate personal ambition as a primary motivating force. And even if it had been the case, their efforts were consistent with their ideology. Personal ambition without value-compromise can hardly be seen as a negative. But throughout the book attempts to tarnish the images of Progressives by insinuating that they were somehow morally compromised (how else to explain their illiberal views?).

Toward the end of the chapter, the author begins his discussion of race, a central concern of Progressives. It was simply understood by Progressives (and most others of the time) that blacks were incapable of freedom. Woodrow Wilson wrote that blacks were “unpracticed in liberty, unschooled in self-control, never sobered by the discipline of self-support, never established in any habit of prudence . . . insolent and aggressive, sick of work, [and] covetous of pleasure” (p. 50). The sociologist Edward Ross, in a statement the author refers to as demonstrating contempt for his “imagined inferiors” (p. 50) wrote: “One man, one vote . . . does not make Sambo equal to Socrates” (p. 50). Such statements seem to contradict the Progressive belief in the elevation of the common man (as contemporarily understood) but as Dr. Leonard points out, the “progressive goal was to improve the electorate, not necessarily expand it” (p. 50). The whole of the country would be better off if its leadership could be entrusted to a superior piece of the American electorate. This was a fundamental tension among Progressives: “Democracies need to be democratic, but they also need to function . . .” (p. 51). American democracy could not function with unintelligent people voting but, given American history, the concept of voting was not up for debate. Thus began the deliberate disenfranchisement of blacks and others deemed unfit for equal rights in American society.

In chapter four, “Efficiency in Business and Public Administration,” the author details the Progressive push for efficiency, the influence of Taylorism, and the beginning of the scientific measurement of mankind for utilitarian purposes. Objective as possible in their approach to the economy, Progressives (with few exceptions) did not regard big business itself as a problem. Scale was, for them, unrelated to efficiency. Efficiency was a goal that could be handled by experts regardless of the size of the project. The classical liberal notion of market efficiency, even if it could be demonstrated to be true, was, like Darwinian evolution, a slow and haphazard process that could be sped up and forced in entirely desirable directions with proper management. Big business was simply a fact of the new economy. As such, it was not undesirable in and of itself, but required outside guidance to achieve socially acceptable results while avoiding “market-made waste” (p. 57). Progressives famously feared monopoly because it could produce political corruption as well as reduce innovation but, as the author writes, “progressives distinguished monopoly from size, and because of this, were not antimonopoly in the populist sense of the term” (p. 57). Indeed, big business was generally thought to be inherently more efficient than small business. As with everything else, proper administration was the key to success.

scientificmanagement.jpgThe 1911 publication of Frederick Taylor’s The Principles of Scientific Management was a watershed moment for Progressives. It offered a scientific method for improving workplace efficiency. By measuring and analyzing everything from workplace break times to the weight of shoveled material, industry would be able to maximize efficiency down to the minute and the pound. Taylorism has since become an epithet, used to describe the dehumanizing effects of the time clock, the oppressive nature of constant managerial supervision, and the turn away from skilled labor in the workforce. However, for Progressives it promised a new approach to the workplace that could make life better for everyone. Those experts who would take charge of industry would be able to maximize the public good while minimizing the power of capitalists and financiers. Men such as the Progressive political philosopher Herbert Croly believed that Taylorism would “[put] the collective power of the group at the hands of its ablest members” (p. 62). For Progressives, scientific management was a noble goal and a model to be followed. It fit perfectly with their basic beliefs and soon spread elsewhere, including into the home, the conservation movement, and even churches (p. 66-69).

The Progressive era was the era of social science. Scholars, commissioners, politicians, and journalists set out to understand the reality of American social life through scientific methods. Few reading this will be surprised with the conclusions of virtually all of these efforts. What this research — into race, into immigration, into domestic behavior, into social conditions — demonstrated was that there was a clear correlation between race and intelligence and the ability to function in American society. Intelligence tests and vast amounts of data collected from the military and immigration centers were collected and analyzed. For Progressives, race science was obviously and demonstrably real and had to be treated with the same scientific objectivity as the economy or any other facet of human existence. America was then, as it is now, being populated rapidly with provably inferior and/or inassimilable human beings. Progressives began to warn of the dangers of Jewish and other non-white immigration to the United States, as well as the problems stemming from rapidly breeding inferior American citizens.[1]

Chapter five, entitled “Valuing Labor: What Should Labor Get?,” describes how Progressives dealt with the question of labor. They sought to determine what labor was getting, how wages were determined, and what labor should get (p. 78). Dr. Leonard writes:

For nearly all of recorded history, the notion of laborers selling their labor services for wages was nonsensical. Labor was the compelled agricultural toil of social inferiors in the service and under the command of their betters. In the United States, this remained true well into the nineteenth century. The value of labor depended on what the worker was — free or slave, man or woman, native or immigrant, propertied or hireling — not what the worker produced or wished to consume (p. 78).

The thinking behind these categories is treated with contempt by the author, of course. The idea that the labor of a black man could be worth less than that of a white man based on something external to mere prejudice against “skin color” or that the labor of an immigrant could be worth less than the labor of a citizen to those who might feel a deeper affinity for their own countrymen was, to him, symptomatic of a “hierarchy that plagued economic life” (p. 79). He relates the claims of race science with contempt but offers no justification for his disdain. But, by simply ignoring the reality of race and sex differences, the author is able to trace the concept of inferior labor back to the Greeks — as if attitudes towards labor even between similar peoples are not themselves historically contingent.

The author sees two fundamental and separate approaches to political economy throughout history: “market exchange and administrative command” (p. 79). He notes correctly that in the centuries between Socrates and Adam Smith, the market was seen as a place of chaos, disorder, Jews (he uses the semi-cryptic “Shylocks” rather than Jews), and unscrupulous persons of various sorts. The Greek prioritization of the political over the economic is, for Dr. Leonard, the source of the various manifestations of human hierarchies in Western societies and economies.[2] [3] Greek men somehow just decided for no valid reason whatsoever that women should supervise the household, market services be left to foreigners, and labor relegated to non-Greeks. These were simply ideas that had “extraordinary staying power in Europe” (p. 80) and thus led to aristocracy and other unnatural hierarchies until Adam Smith blessed Europe with his belief in individualism and natural liberty. Again, the author deliberately chooses to ignore the very real biological bases for such facts of human social life. Command economies are, to the author, somehow “bad” because he sees them as having been based in ignorance and vaguely conspiratorial hierarchical social arrangements.

Enlightenment notions of individualism and liberty were, of course, central to the rhetoric of the American project. However, America did not practice what it preached (nor did it really preach “what it preached” but that is far beyond the scope of this piece): slavery existed in the South and was defended by Southerners as far more humane than the wage-slavery of the North; Northern abolitionists saw this as an absurd comparison and argued that at least free laborers could get up and leave if they were unhappy. But both saw the laborer in one form or another as being an inferior creature. This attitude was to carry through to the Progressive era. As the author puts it, “reformers still saw a bit of the slave in the wage earner, no matter how ubiquitous the employee now was” (p. 84). He goes on to note that when millions of women and immigrants joined the workforce, this reinforced the notion of the laborer as inferior.[3] [4]

If the laborer is inferior, what should they be paid? Progressives believed in the power of the government to change social conditions. As such, they believed that policies could be enacted that would enable laborers to live comfortably, with enough money to be upstanding citizens and raise healthy families. Differing theories existed for how fair wages should be determined, but Progressives tended to reject the idea that wages were anything less than a “worker-citizen’s rightful claim upon his share of the common wealth produced when the laborer cooperated with the capitalist to jointly create it” (p. 86). As is always the case among economists, vigorous debate ensued. The goal was for workers to receive a living wage but how this was to be accomplished was a matter of some controversy. The author discusses some of these theoretical disagreements but concludes that the one thing that united all Progressives in this matter was the belief that “work will always go to the lowest bidder . . . there was a race to the bottom, and the cheapest labor won” (p. 88). However, he pathologizes this as an “anxiety” rather than a real problem experienced by rational people so that Progressive concerns about the intersection of economy and race be seen by the reader as a kind of irrational social “disease,” a collective neurosis with deep roots in the American (read white) psyche.

eugenics3755357.jpgIn chapter six, “Darwinism in Economic Reform,” Dr. Leonard relates how Darwinism was used by Progressives to acquire the “imprimatur of science” (p. 105). Darwinism proved to be a very flexible conceptual tool. It allowed for incorporation into various fields of thought and, within those, still more differing points of view: it was used to advocate for capitalism and for socialism; war and peace; individualism and collectivism; natalism and birth control; religion and atheism (p. 90). Darwinism and related ideas (such as Lamarckism) provided Progressives with a scientific basis upon which to argue for both economic improvement and biological improvement. There was no consensus on which aspects of Darwinism to incorporate into their logic but something the vast majority had in common was the belief in the importance of heredity and that artificial selection, as opposed to natural selection, was the most efficient means of securing a healthy society comprised of evolutionarily fit individuals.

Social Darwinism was a concept championed by believers in the free market. As the author notes, it was always a used as a pejorative and Progressives had to distance themselves from it (p. 99). They did so by challenging laissez-faire using Darwinist principles, an idea that came to be known as Reform Darwinism. The Reform Darwinists, led by the sociologist and botanist Lester Frank Ward, challenged laissez-faire by asserting that capitalists thrived in the Gilded Age because “they had traits well adapted to the Gilded Age” but that these traits were not necessarily “socially desirable” (p. 100). They also asserted that society was an organism that “had a necessary unity” but “not an inclusive one” (p. 102). An organism must always protect itself from threats and an organism must also prioritize the whole over the part. This organic model of society influenced every Progressive concern. If, for example, a corporation was a legal person entitled to the same protections as an individual citizen, then surely “the state was an even larger organism, one that encompassed and thus subsumed corporate and natural persons alike” (p. 100).

Progressives also attacked natural selection as “wasteful, slow, unprogressive, and inhumane” (p. 100). Agreeing that robber barons and rich fat cats were an example of the degenerative tendencies of capitalism, society had a duty to protect itself from such people (p. 100). Natural selection did not always lead to progress. It was environmentally contingent. Richard Ely argued that “Nature, being inefficient, gives us man, whereas society ‘gives us the ideal man'” (p. 104). The free market rewarded those who could make the system work to their advantage by any means necessary, not those who possessed traits that were desirable for a healthy, moral society. Regulation could help fix this problem. Woodrow Wilson wrote that “regulation protected the ethical businessman from having to choose between denying his conscience and retiring from business” (p. 105). Combined with German economics, German historical theory, an activist sociology, and a commitment to the benefits of efficiency, the influence of Darwinism made the development of workable eugenics policies almost a certainty.

In the seventh chapter of the book, “Eugenics and Race in Economic Reform,” Dr. Leonard provides a brief overview of the history of eugenics. He also describes how it entered American intellectual discourse and how it was applied to race science. With roots as far back as Plato and popularized by Francis Galton in the late 19th century, eugenics was the obvious solution to many of the social problems that the Progressives were tackling. The author quotes Galton for a broad explanation: “what nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly and kindly” (p. 109). The ideas of eugenicists gained mainstream traction rapidly. By the early 20th century, states were passing sterilization laws. By the end of World War I, concerns about the terrible death toll of white men had prompted many American intellectuals to worry deeply about the crisis caused by the loss of so much “superior heredity” (p. 110). American universities began teaching eugenics courses, textbooks on eugenics were written, journals were published, and societies devoted to encouraging the spread of eugenics programs and race science were created.

Francis Galton had gone so far as to declare a “Jehad [sic]” on the “customs and prejudices that impair the physical and moral qualities of our race” (p. 112). Influential Progressives like Irving Fisher and John Harvey Kellogg sought to make this a reality by creating a sort of religion out of eugenics (p. 112). Concern for the white race played an explicit part in Progressive thought. There was nothing coded about it. Like the social gospelers of early Progressivism, the eugenics movement evangelized very effectively. The concept of racial health was soon to be found virtually everywhere one turned, from women’s magazines, movies, and comic strips to “fitter family” and “better baby” contests at agricultural fairs across America (p. 113). Lothrop Stoddard published his classic The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy in 1920, and the famous Supreme Court decision in the case of Buck v. Bell in 1927 affirmed that the state had a right to sterilize individuals deemed a genetic threat to society. It is important to note that not all eugenicists were Progressives but the vast majority of Progressives were eugenicists. For them, things such as environmental conservation went hand in hand with racial “conservation.”

For Progressive eugenicists, the administrative state was the most effective defense against racial degeneration (the effects of adverse conditions on a race of people) and race suicide (the effects of a superior race being outbred by inferior races) (p. 117). Poor and uneducated whites were seen to be redeemable given the proper environmental conditions and thus genetically able to assimilate into American society. Non-whites were incapable of assimilation because of their lower intelligence and racially-specific habits and attitudes. Of particular concern was the American black population. White Progressives saw them, at best, as docile children who should be treated as such for the good of all, and, at worst, as a weight that would sap American energy and  character (p. 122). Even among the handful of black Progressives, such as W.E. B. DuBois and Kelly Miller, race was seen as a problem for America. Though they rejected the notion of the genetic inferiority of blacks, they recognized that the rapidly breeding lowest IQ blacks threatened to overwhelm the elite few — the “Talented Tenth,” as DuBois famously described them (p. 122).

But non-whites were not the only concern of the Progressive eugenicists. As indicated above, racial degeneration was of great concern. Literature on degenerate families became wildly popular at this time, bringing to the American lexicon such names as the Jukes and the Kallikaks. These families (given aliases by the authors of these studies) had their histories published as warnings about the dangers of what some would now refer to as “white trash.” The contradictions here are apparent: Progressives sought to improve the conditions of the white poor while at the same time wrestling with the question of whether poor whites were genetically unfit and simply irredeemable by external measures. The latter question, however, was also asked of the rich, who some Progressives saw as even better evidence of racial degeneracy. As with every other issue, there was a certain amount of disagreement among Progressives about specific questions and how to best administer solutions, but the concerns themselves were universal.

Perhaps the greatest concern was with the effects of immigration on the American gene pool. The author subscribes to the notion of an imagined “whiteness” and, as is customary, uses the Anglo-Saxonist tendencies of Progressives to call into question the validity of race science. This is to be expected and can be ignored. But it was indeed a concern of the era, especially as immigrants poured onto American shores. Some Progressives argued that democracy had its origins in the Anglo-Saxon race and that immigration from other areas of Europe was detrimental to survival of the American way of life. Walter Rauschenbach, a “radical social gospeler” (p. 124) argued that capitalism “drew its ever-increasing strength from the survival of the unfit immigrant” (p. 125). Rauschenbach was a committed Anglo-Saxonist and such views had long held sway in Progressive circles, from social gospelers to anti-Catholics to Prohibitionists. But it does not follow that concerns about immigration were irrational because one particular group of whites at the time did not like the customs of another group of whites. Nor do these antiquated distinctions invalidate the entirety of race science, however many times they are used in attempts to do so by this author and so many others.

Chapter eight is entitled “Excluding the Unemployable.” In it the author delves into how Progressives related racial inferiority and other traits deemed as markers of inferiority to labor and wages. He writes: “The Progressive Era catalog of inferiority was so extensive that virtually any cause could locate some threat to American racial integrity” (p. 129). Obviously, non-whites were seen as a threat, but so were white alcoholics, the poor, epileptics, and others. He argues that in antebellum America, laborers knew their place and stayed there. From slaves to women, strict social and sometimes legal controls assured the maintenance of this hierarchy. Postbellum industrialization and the emancipation of slaves threatened this order: “Inferiors were now visible and perceived to be economic competitors” and were either “portrayed as the exploited dupes of the capitalist” or “as the capitalist’s accomplices” (p. 130). Those who were literally incapable of work and those who were willing to work for lower wages than “superior” Anglo-Saxon stock were given the label “unemployable.”

citizens-l.jpgThese “unemployables” were seen as being parasitic. They undercut wages and threatened American racial integrity. The capitalist drive towards cheap labor was certainly seen as partly to blame for this problem, but Progressive discourse began to focus more on biology than economics. Blame was increasingly shifted towards the actual laborers themselves rather than the system that encouraged them to accept lower wages. In what was known as the “living-standard theory of wages,” the unemployables were seen as being able to live on less than the average American worker due to their willingness (either racially-determined or resulting from inferior minds) to accept poor living conditions. The white American worker, it was believed, would reduce his number of children rather than sacrifice his standard of living, thereby increasing the risk of Americans being outbred by inferior stock. This line of argument gained popular currency with the sometimes violent union activism against Chinese workers. Edward Ross wrote that “should wors[e] come to the worst, it would be better for us if we were turn our guns upon every vessel bring [Asians] to our shores rather than permit them to land” (p. 135). The notion of immigrants and others being regarded as scab labor was widely accepted across the political spectrum but was central to Progressive concerns because they were able to see it as symptomatic of multiple grave problems with American society. In order to correct these problems, better methods were needed to identify and exclude the inferiors who were threatening American jobs and lowering the American quality of life.

In chapter nine, “Excluding Immigrants and the Unproductive,” Dr. Leonard examines the methods used for exclusion. The most obvious method was the use of immigration restrictions. Numerous laws were enacted either limiting or barring entirely immigration from certain parts of the world. Restrictions were also imposed by those otherwise deemed a threat to the country, i.e. anarchists, polygamists, and epileptics (p. 142). In 1905, a law was passed that prohibited contract labor altogether (companies paying immigrants to come to America in exchange for labor). A literacy test was also proposed for anyone trying to enter the country, however the effort actually failed when Woodrow Wilson inexplicably vetoed the bill in 1917. Edward Ross blamed Jews for this loss. He wrote that they were financing the anti-restrictionist campaign and pretending that it was for the benefit of all immigrants but was actually “waged by and for one race” (p. 158). But does the author investigate this claim? Of course not. It is easier to label Ross an anti-Semite and move on. To do otherwise might turn up some uncomfortable facts.

Other restrictionist actions met with success: in 1907, the Expatriation Act required American women who married foreigners to surrender their citizenship; massive federal investigations were undertaken to study the problems of immigration; and various private organizations sprung up devoted to anti-immigration advocacy. (p. 143). For Progressives, the issue of race had become one of their deepest concerns. It was, generally, either considered the main determinant of historical change, for better or for worse, or at least an extremely important one. It comes as no surprise that the founding of the United States would be interpreted through a Darwinist lens by Progressives. The author spends some time critiquing their use of Darwinist concepts to defend the original colonists as pioneers and conquerors (that is, “fit”) and later immigrants as simply following a path already tread in opportunistic fashion (“unfit”). Never mind that this is quite obviously at least partially true. He even fails to see the distinction between a colonist and an immigrant, wholeheartedly buying into the ridiculous “nation of immigrants” theory of American demographics that is so popular today.

Progressive eugenicists saw the immigration problem as an opportunity to assert their particular interests. Interest in race science grew exponentially. Various classificatory systems were proposed, studied, and refined, each of which generally had the expected hierarchies: whites at the top, blacks on the bottom. Within each category were, of course, numerous other sub-categories. But almost all races (both in the contemporary sense and in older sense meaning “ethnicity”) was charted and described in great detail. It was crucial from the standpoint of the Progressive eugenicists to use this information to prevent the race conflict that they believed would naturally arise from the intermingling of dissimilar peoples from across the globe. Even the few Progressive intellectuals who were genuinely egalitarian in outlook believed that race-based immigration policies were crucial. John Dewey, for example, supported them because he believed average Americans were too primitive to adopt his supposedly enlightened view that race was a fiction, thus making race conflict inevitable anyway (p. 153). Unsurprisingly, those who opposed immigration restrictions tended to be Jews such as Franz Boas, philosemites such as Emily Balch, and/or laissez-faire capitalists. The motives of the restrictionists are called into question by the author — but not those of the anti-restrictionists, of course. They were simply uniquely informed and tolerant for their time.

The above also fueled the debate over the minimum wage. It was commonly accepted that a legal minimum wage would put some people out of work. Progressives tended to see this as a good thing insofar as it removed inferior laborers from the job market. Dr. Leonard writes: “It deterred immigrants and other inferiors from entering the labor force, and it idled inferior workers already employed. The minimum wage detected the inferior employee, whether immigrant, female, or disabled, so that he or she could be scientifically dealt with” (p. 161). Ways in which these inferiors could be dealt with “scientifically” included simple things such the return of formerly-employed women to the home and far more complex solutions such as labor colonies for the unfit and forced sterilization. As was the case with all internecine Progressive debates, however, the thinking was always keenly focused on future generations. One particular intellectual might disagree with another about a certain policy proposal or belief, but the goal was the same: a harmonious society and healthy race. And since neither can exist without women, it was natural for Progressives to consider the role of women in society.

In the tenth and final chapter of the book, entitled “Excluding Women,” Dr. Leonard examines the views of women’s employment and civil rights within the Progressive movement. Women were always an important part of efforts at labor reform and the drive to improve various aspects of social life. But most Progressives had very strong views on the proper role of women in society. Richard Ely argued that women should be barred from the workplace (p. 170). Many, however, did not go to quite to this extreme. Efforts were made to simply limit the number of hours women were legally allowed to work, for example. The idea behind this was, of course, that women were physically weaker and needed protection from exploitative employers. But there were other issues of importance to Progressives as well, including the desire to combat prostitution. This concern was sometimes used to defend the minimum wage. If working women could make more money per hour they would be less likely to resort to prostitution to make ends meet. The obvious problem here is that the minimum wage was supposed to make certain people unemployed, and this group included women. It was assumed, however, that unemployed women would be cared for by the men in their lives, thereby providing the benefits of higher wages to men, a more appropriate environment for women, and helping to guarantee the health of the race. Whatever limitations this placed on a woman’s individual rights were explicitly justified by concern for the race.

For some Progressive feminists, male social domination had had a dysgenic effect by punishing the race’s strongest women by confining them to the household (p. 179). Most Progressives, however, believed that motherhood was the duty of women and had to be encouraged and thought such ideas absurd. Theodore Roosevelt, for example, had special contempt for those women from privileged backgrounds who did not have enough children despite being able to afford it. Referring to them as “race criminals,” he believed that such behavior was the height of selfishness (p. 180).

The debate over birth control was related to this attitude. Birth control, then as now, was mostly used by the most privileged in society and less so by the lowest classes. It thus had an obvious dysgenic effect. The author sees the synchronic concerns of Progressives with women’s health, sexual virtue, economic competition with men, and health of the race as contradictory. He writes:

If she were paid very little, she was admonished for endangering her health, risking her virtue, and threatening hereditary vigor. If she commanded a slightly higher but still modest wage, she was condemned for undercutting men’s family wages and for neglected [sic] her maternal duties. If she were well paid, she was admonished for selfishly acquiring an education, pursuing a career, and thus shirking her reproductive responsibilities to society and the race (p. 182).

Though there is a superficial tension between these things, he fails to see that there is no necessary contradiction here. It is entirely possible for women to be economically exploited laborers whose employment lowered men’s wages and for their ideal place to be in the home, nurturing the future of the race. Progressives generally saw the employment of women as a precursor to starting a family or as a result of misfortune anyway (p. 178). Sex-specific protections in the workplace, as well as a minimum wage that would displace many of them, would be a perfectly sensible goal for any state that had the future of the race as a primary focus. Dr. Leonard’s concern with finding hypocrisy in every statement relating to race and sex blinds him to reasonable conclusions. The Progressives, however, were not handicapped by ideological taboos and ultimately rejected the small, internal strain of equal-rights feminism within their ranks in favor of protecting the race. Progressives fought hard against the Equal Right Amendment of 1923, but by the mid-1920s, the Progressive Era was winding down and within a few years the zeitgeist would change considerably.

We see in the Progressive movement the last explicit, mainstream advocacy for the white race on American soil. The author clearly realizes this and chooses to ignore every single claim made by Progressives that does not fit with contemporary notions of social constructivism. He quotes Progressives in order to mock them, not to investigate whether what they said had a basis in fact. One might object by saying that it is beyond the scope of the book to investigate race science itself in order to discuss its role in the Progressive era. But the book starts out with the lie that race science has been discredited and everything that follows is therefore either directly based on a lie or has a lie as its overarching context. The point of the book, however, is not to enlighten the reader about anything of substance. His goal is merely to frown upon “racists” and “sexists” with the reader, to roll his eyes at ignorant Progressives along with his academic colleagues, and pray that his book is assigned in universities across the country in order to further indoctrinate students into the secular religion of egalitarianism.

This is not to say that there are not important issues discussed in the book. Clearly, there are. Nor is any of the above meant to suggest that Progressives were correct about everything. Clearly, they were not. But one cannot help but wonder how different America would look today if the Progressives had been able to further investigate and discuss these important issues as a part of the mainstream. What would this country look like now if such ideas had not been turned into “thought crimes?” In so many ways what we see in progressives today is a complete about-face from the intellectual heritage they claim. And in so many ways what we can see in the real Progressive movement is profoundly, devastatingly prescient and of utmost relevance to the contemporary American sociopolitical landscape. These issues are just too important to be left to a hack.


1. As many readers will be aware, there was a distinct bias towards Nordics among American whites at this time. Many Southern and Eastern European whites were deemed inferior–a hammer used frequently to hit racialists over the head in arguments intended to “deconstruct” whiteness. It is also, unfortunately, still found in White Nationalist circles. Nordicism is dealt with very well by Greg Johnson here (http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/03/nordics-aryans-an... [5]).

2. One wonders how he might explain similar hierarchies in non-European civilizations.

3. How labor would have fared in the 20th century without the presence of millions of women and immigrants to bolster notions of their inferiority is a question that should be asked of every contemporary “progressive.” One might also ask why, if racial diversity is such a tremendous and obvious social good, how it is that highly-educated Progressives completely failed to realize this — especially considering that theirs was a mission to increase the standard of living in America.

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/06/racism-eugenics-and-the-progressive-movement/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/IlliberalReformers.jpg

[2] Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics & American Economics in the Progressive Era: http://amzn.to/293MqYr

[3] [2]: #_ftn2

[4] [3]: #_ftn3

[5] http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/03/nordics-aryans-and-whites/: http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/03/nordics-aryans-and-whites/

jeudi, 20 août 2015

MIT wetenschapper: In 2025 is helft alle kinderen autistisch dankzij genvoedsel

monsanto kinderen 01.jpg

MIT wetenschapper: In 2025 is helft alle kinderen autistisch dankzij genvoedsel

Daar bovenop: CDC verwacht dat over 10 jaar 1/3 alle kinderen door vaccins aan neurologische stoornis zal lijden – CDC: Moeders moeten (tijdelijk) stoppen met borstvoeding, anders werken vaccins niet goed

Een complete generatie mensen lijkt te worden verwoest door een fatale combinatie van genetisch gemodificeerd voedsel (GMO, kortweg genvoedsel) en vaccinaties. Een hooggeplaatste wetenschapper van het gezaghebbende MIT waarschuwde eerder dit jaar dat in 2025 maar liefst de helft (!!) van alle kinderen een autistische stoornis zal hebben als gevolg van het consumeren van genvoedsel. Daar bovenop komt het recente bericht dat het Amerikaanse CDC (Centers for Disease Control) verwacht dat in datzelfde jaar minstens 1/3 van alle kinderen een neurologische stoornis zal hebben opgelopen door alle vaccinaties die worden toegediend.

Volgens MIT bioloog dr. Stephanie Seneff –die in ruim 30 jaar al meer dan 170 wetenschappelijke artikelen publiceerde- is glyfosaat, een ingrediënt van het omstreden product ‘Round-Up’ van het beruchte concern Monsanto, een van de belangrijkste veroorzakers van de autisme epidemie, die in het komende decennium een ware pandemie dreigt te worden. Het veelvuldig gebruik van glyfosaat veroorzaakt onder andere Alzheimer, autisme, kanker, hartziekten, stofwisselingstoornissen en mineralen- (zink en ijzer) en voedingsgebreken.

Over 10 jaar heeft helft alle kinderen autisme

Dr. Seneff verklaarde in het voorjaar op een conferentie dat het aantal kinderen met autisme inmiddels zo snel toeneemt, dat in 2025 –bij ongewijzigd beleid- maar liefst de helft van alle kinderen aan een autistische stoornis zal lijden, wat de Amerikaanse samenleving jaarlijks $ 400 miljard zal kosten. Op dit moment is 1 op de 68 nieuw geborenen in de VS autistisch, wat al een stijging van bijna 120% is ten opzichte van het jaar 2000.

De MIT wetenschapper wees erop dat de symptomen van glyfosaat vergiftiging sterk lijken op die van autisme. Ook had ze een consistent verband gevonden tussen het gebruik van het bestrijdingsmiddel Round-Up (en het creëren van ‘Round-Up-ready’ genetisch gemodificeerde gewassen) en de sterke stijging van kinderen met autisme.

Glyfosaat zit in bijna alles

In de VS zijn zo goed als alle graan- en sojaproducten genetisch gemodificeerd en daarom besmet met Round-Ups glyfosaat. Hetzelfde geldt voor bijna alle soorten voedsel waarin graan/maïs en soja is verwerkt, inclusief frisdranken met veel fructose, stroop, chips, cornflakes, snoep en sommige soja-proteïne repen. Bovendien krijgen runderen en ander vee vaak genvoedsel te eten, waar eveneens sporen van glyfosaat in zitten.

Ook tarwe wordt vlak voor de oogst in veel gevallen besproeid met Round-Up chemicaliën, wat betekent dat brood en broodproducten eveneens niet veilig zijn, tenzij ze uitdrukkelijk ‘niet GMO’ en/of ‘organisch’ op het etiket hebben staan.

Niet afzonderlijk product, maar optelsom is fataal

Het komt er dus op neer dat de Amerikanen –en dankzij de EU straks ook de Europeanen- bijna niet kunnen ontkomen aan het consumeren van voedsel en dranken waarin glyfosaat is verwerkt, waarvan aangetoond is dat het diverse stoornissen en ernstige ziekten veroorzaakt. Dr. Seneff zei dat de hoeveelheid glyfosaat in ieder afzonderlijk product weliswaar niet groot is, maar dat het de optelsom is van talloze geconsumeerde ‘GMO’ producten die fataal is – zozeer, dat sommige zwangere vrouwen zelfs glyfosaat in hun bloed, urine en foetuscellen hebben. (1)

CDC: Borstvoeding slecht voor vaccins

Bij dit ronduit schokkende nieuws kwam recent nog eens het bericht van het Amerikaanse CDC (Centers for Disease Control) dat over 10 jaar minstens 1/3 van alle kinderen een neurologische stoornis zal hebben opgelopen door alle vaccinaties die worden toegediend (2). Desondanks adviseert datzelfde CDC dat moeders het geven van borstvoeding rond de tijd dat hun baby wordt gevaccineerd tijdelijk zouden moeten opgeven, omdat de immuun versterkende cellen in borstmelk de virusdeeltjes in ieder vaccin aanvallen, waardoor het vaccin mogelijk minder effectief wordt.

Critici wijzen erop dat dit CDC-onderzoek enkel bewijst dat het immuunsysteem van baby’s, als dat wordt ondersteund en versterkt door borstvoeding, uitstekend in staat is om zichzelf te verdedigen, en zo’n vaccin dus helemaal niet nodig is. Als het CDC niet zo afhankelijk zou zijn van de grote farmaceutische bedrijven, die jaarlijks miljarden verdienen aan het produceren van onbewezen en overbodige –en veelal schadelijke- vaccins, dan zouden moeders ongetwijfeld nooit het krankzinnige advies krijgen om te stoppen met het geven van immuun versterkende borstvoeding. (3)


(1) Infowars
(2) Infowars
(3) Infowars

Zie ook o.a.:

05-06: EU moet zwaar giftige chemicaliën toelaten door vrijhandelsakkoord met VS
30-04: Nieuwe wet Californië: Niet gevaccineerde kinderen mogen niet meer naar school
11-11: Artsenorganisatie: VN steriliseert miljoenen vrouwen in Kenia met tetanus vaccin
28-09: Gevaarlijk virus treft enkel gevaccineerde kinderen in VS en Canada (/ Recente onderzoeken bewijzen dat gezondheid fors en permanent wordt beschadigd door vaccins)
26-09: Nieuw onderzoek: Autisme en leukemie door cellen geaborteerde baby’s in vaccins
06-09: CDC wetenschapper erkent verband vaccins en autisme

lundi, 22 septembre 2014

Milieu gegen Gene?

Milieu gegen Gene?

von Ernst Hofer

Milieu gegen Gene?

Sozialbiologische Ansätze sind heute nachhaltig diskreditiert. Andreas Vonderach macht sich damit seit Jahren unbeliebt.

Wer aus dem gesellschaftlich „erlaubten“ Schema von Soziologie und Politikwissenschaft ausbricht, riskiert unwiderruflich als Nazi oder Biologist beschimpft zu werden. Dabei verläuft die Entwicklung in den Naturwissenschaften und der Psychologie durch neue Forschungsergebnisse immer mehr in eben diese Richtung. In zunehmendem Maße werden die Erblichkeit und die genetische Determiniertheit bestimmter Verhaltensmuster und Befähigungen erkannt.

Vonderach stellt klar, dass neben biologischen auch soziale Prägungen eine Rolle spielen, aber eben nur in einem bestimmten Umfang. In seinem Buch Sozialbiologie: Geschichte und Ergebnisse geht er der Geschichte der Sozialbiologie und ihren neueren Forschungsergebnissen nach.

Darwin, Galton und der Beginn der Eugenik

An den Anfang stellt Vonderach Charles Darwin. Mit seiner Theorie der Selektion und der dadurch bedingten Artenbildung legte er den Grundstein für sämtliche sozialbiologischen Theorien. Danach muss unweigerlich der Begriff des Sozialdarwinismus folgen und erklärt werden. Unterschieden werden muss zwischen einem rein ökonomischen Sozialdarwinismus im Sinne des Laissez-​faire–Prinzip des Manchester-​Kapitalismus und einem nach außen gewandten Sozialdarwinismus, der den Kampf zwischen verschiedenen Menschengruppen beschwört. Letzterer wurde durch Ernst Haeckel und seinem Fortschrittsoptimismus in Deutschland bekannt.

Begründer der Erblichkeitstheorie von Intelligenz war ein Vetter von Darwin, Francis Galton. Galton war methodischer Vorreiter der Psychologie. Er entwickelte viele Test zur Begabung von Menschen, die heute noch in Gebrauch sind. Seine wichtigsten Erkenntnisse fasste er im Buch Hereditary talent and character von 1865 zusammen. Darin verglich er die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse von 415 herausragenden Männern der englischen Geschichte. Im Ergebnis stellte sich heraus, dass die Begabung zu hervorragenden Leistungen mit dem Grad der Verwandtschaft zu anderen Hochbegabten korreliert.

Eugenik in Deutschland

Galton begründete mit der Eugenischen Bewegung auch die pessimistische Variante des Sozialdarwinismus. Nach ihr würden (aus dem damaligen Blickwinkel betrachtet) in einem Jahrhundert die unteren sozialen Schichten die oberen zu 82 Prozent überholt haben. Galton fand mit dieser Hypothese viele Anhänger im gebildeten Milieu.

In Deutschland entwickelte sich in den 1890er-​Jahren unabhängig von Galton unter den Privatdozenten Alfred Ploetz und Wilhelm Schallmayer eine eigene eugenische Bewegung. Die zu befürchtende Degeneration der Bevölkerung schlossen beide aber nur deduktiv ohne empirische Belege aus der darwinschen Evolutionstheorie. 1910 rief Ploetz dann auch eine Gesellschaft für Rassenhygiene ins Leben, wobei Ploetz unter Rasse – leicht missverständlich – keine Großgruppe oder Unterkategorie des Menschen verstand, sondern lediglich die gesamte menschliche Population.

Der Sieg der Milieutheorie

Etwas später entwickelte sich in den USA unter Franz Boas der Kulturrelativismus. Boas war der Ansicht, dass nur das jeweilige soziale Milieu prägend für die Entwicklung eines Menschen sei und die genetischen Grundlagen nahezu irrelevant wären. Kurz nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg standen sich in der Debatte um genetische Anlage und Umweltbeeinflussung Boas-​Schüler und physische Anthropologen gegenüber. Als Bestätigung galten der Fraktion um Boas explizite Untersuchungen der Boas-​Schülerin Margaret Mead, die Feldforschungen auf der Südseeinsel Samoa durchführte. Ihr Ergebnis, dass die Kinder auf Samoa frei von gesellschaftlichen Konventionen, unbeschwert aufwüchsen, galt lange Zeit als Bestätigung von Boas Theorie.

Der Behaviorismus entstand zur selben Zeit auch in den USA. Der Tierpsychologe John Watson schloss aus jahrelangen Rattenversuchen, dass tierisches und menschliches Verhalten nahezu unbegrenzt konditionierbar ist. Der Behaviorismus wurde in der Folgezeit zur wichtigsten Grundlage linker Pädagogik. Nachdem sich die Eugeniker durch die menschlichen Experimente im Nationalsozialismus diskreditiert hatten, wurden der Boassche Kulturrelativismus und der Behaviorismus nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg zur uneingeschränkten Grundlage aller politischen Entscheidungen.

Die Eugenische Bewegung löste sich selbst auf, ihre Fachzeitschriften benannten sich um oder befassten sich nicht mehr mit dem Thema. Der einzige Wissenschaftler, der sich weiterhin mit eugenischen Maßnahmen auseinandersetzt, ist der nordirische Psychologe Richard Lynn. Die einzige noch verbliebene Fachzeitschrift ist das Mankind Quarterly. Eugenische Maßnahmen finden heute auf freiwilliger Basis auf Zypern und unter orthodoxen Juden in Israel statt.

Neuere Erkenntnisse zur Erblichkeit von Intelligenz

In den 1960er– und 70er-​Jahren gab es wieder eine engagierte Fraktion von Forschern, welche die Erblichkeit von Intelligenz für gegeben hielt. Sie stützten sich dabei auf Zwillings-​und Adaptionsstudien. Danach nähern sich eineiige Zwillinge, die ein völlig gleiches Erbgut haben, in ihrer Intelligenz stark an, auch wenn sie in unterschiedlichen Milieus aufgewachsen sind. Häufig haben sie auch die gleichen Verhaltensauffälligkeiten. In den Adaptionsstudien wurde herausgefunden, dass adoptierte Kinder in Intelligenztests ähnlich den biologischen Eltern abschneiden und nicht ähnlich zu der neuen Familie, in der sie aufgewachsen sind.

Zu dieser Fraktion gehören weitgehend prominente angloamerikanische Psychologen wie Hans Jürgen Eysenck, Richard Herrnstein, Arthur Jensen und Cyril Burt. Als sie in ihren Studien auch den geringen Intelligenzquotienten der afroamerikanischen Bevölkerung thematisierten, sahen sie sich der vehementen Kritik durch Anhänger der Milieutheorie ausgesetzt.

Jede Zeit hat ihre Wissenschaftstrends

Derzeit geht man von einer Erblichkeit der Intelligenz von etwa 80 Prozent aus. Der Rest wird durch das Umfeld geprägt. Einem völligen Determinismus wird also nicht mehr das Wort geredet. Die deutschen Übersetzungen der Bücher von Eysenck, Herrnstein, Jensen und Burt fanden auch die Unterstützung des damaligen Leiters des Wissenschaftsressorts der Zeit Dieter Zimmer. Auch die Ergebnisse des Behaviorismus sind durch die Ethologie von Konrad Lorenz und die Humanethologie von Irenäus Eibl-​Eibesfeldt stark eingeschränkt worden.

Dennoch sieht Vonderach nach wie vor ein starkes Überwiegen der Milieutheorie in der westlichen Politik. Alle Parteien gehen in ihren politischen Überlegungen durchgängig von der Milieutheorie aus und nicht von der Erblichkeit wesentlicher Faktoren, die für den Sozialerfolg wichtig sind. Grundsätzlich ist Vonderachs Buch sehr informativ und gut zu lesen. Man merkt an allen Stellen, dass der Autor von der Materie reichhaltige Kenntnisse besitzt. Jedoch behandelt er die einzelnen Teilgebiete an manchen Stellen zu knapp und stellt den Stoff dann auf zu wenigen Seiten dar. Der Fairness halber muss hier noch angesprochen werden, dass Vonderach im Anhang eine ausführliche kommentierte Bibliographie zu den einzelnen Kapiteln beigefügt und somit eine Grundlage gelegt hat, auf der gezieltes Weiterlesen möglich ist.

Andreas Vonderach: Sozialbiologie: Geschichte und Ergebnisse. 221 Seiten, Verein für Staatspolitik 2012. 15,00 Euro.

vendredi, 14 février 2014

The Importance of Population Structure & Dynamics


The Importance of Population Structure & Dynamics

By Andrew Hamilton 

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com

In trying to conceptualize what a current, or indeed ongoing, global head count of whites would look like (no such reliable enumeration exists [2]), it is imperative to keep in mind the age structure and reproductive profile of whatever population exists, as well as the dynamics of rapid change along key vectors. Nothing is stationary or mirrors the past. Habitual patterns of thought quickly become outmoded without anyone being aware of it.

Contemporary demographic statistics conceal racial information. Elites are obsessed by race, and particularly with accelerating in any way possible the decline and disappearance of the white race. But meaningful data on ethnicity do not exist. It is the only major variable not regularly measured or recorded by demographers. If such figures were available, they might jeopardize indefensible policies.

Given replacement migration, exceptionally high non-white birth rates, sub-replacement fertility among whites, and widespread culturally-encouraged hybridization with non-whites in all formerly white homelands around the world, the opposite ends of the national age spectrum everywhere now feature a predominantly white elderly population and an increasingly non-white youth population.

As a consequence, former First World nations are composed more and more of non-whites and hybrids. The process is taking place with lightning speed. Thanks to an indispensable assist from dishonest media, academia, and governments, plus draconian and repressive laws, even white racialists, never mind the public, fail to grasp the urgency of the situation.

The aging and death of baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964, currently in progress, will in short order eradicate a numerically large proportion of the remaining white populace. Despite the lack of precise data, we nevertheless know the overall trends, so revolutionary and sweeping are the top-down social changes that have been imposed.

To better understand the crisis, it is helpful to employ a demographic tool known as the population pyramid. A population pyramid is a graphical representation of the distribution of age groups, usually by country or region, shaped like a pyramid when populations are young and growing.

There are three basic shapes.

The classic pyramid: A young, rapidly growing population with a high birth rate. This is characteristic of many non-white races today, and of vibrant subpopulations such as Orthodox Jews.

The box: A stable, replacement-level population characterized by low infant mortality, little or no demographic growth, and long life expectancy.

The inverted, or upside-down, pyramid: Low birth rate, collapsing population, long life expectancy. This is characteristic of the white race.

Pyramid graphs consist of two back-to-back bar graphs, with population plotted on the X-axis and age on the Y-axis, one showing the number of males and the other females in five-year age cohorts. Males are conventionally shown on the left and females on the right, measured either by raw numbers or as a percentage of the total population. Typically there are more women than men in older age categories due to females’ longer life spans. On the other hand, women have shorter reproductive periods than men, a fact useful in interpreting the graphs though not incorporated directly into them.

Although population pyramids by race cannot be constructed due to lack of relevant statistics, the device is nevertheless useful to illustrate general trends that everyone knows are occurring. Broadly speaking, rapidly expanding nonwhite races both outside and inside the First World are characterized by age structures indicative of growing populations: a “population explosion” with many young and few old, many births and few deaths. The shape of the population pyramid for Angola (an African country) may be taken as representative of nonwhite birthrates, inside and outside the “West,” be they Mestizo, Muslim, or anything else. (There are some notable exceptions.)

Representative Age Pyramid for an Expanding Nonwhite Race (Angolan age pyramid, 2005) [3]

Representative Age Pyramid for an Expanding Nonwhite Race (Angolan age pyramid, 2005)

This is how the white population looked in the 19th and early 20th centuries. But one must go beyond the static snapshot to the underlying dynamics. A race such as this has built-in momentum for future growth because so many young people will reproduce at high rates in the future even if total fertility gradually falls.

Contrast this with the rapidly aging and collapsing white populations of today, characterized by many old and few young, many deaths and few births. A contemporary population pyramid for our people would resemble the following hypothetical construct (not a representation of any actual white population, the data for which is unavailable):

Hypothetical Inverted Age Pyramid of the White Race (demographic collapse) [4]

Hypothetical Inverted Age Pyramid of the White Race (demographic collapse)

A simple head count (census) of living whites, though indispensable, does not convey an accurate picture of what is really happening. Older cohorts constituting the largest chunk of an upside-down pyramid, though still alive, do not directly contribute children to future generations because they are beyond the close of their reproductive period.

Female fertility peaks between ages 18 and the mid-20s. As a woman approaches 30 her hormone levels start to decline and her fertility also begins to slowly decline. After age 35 the decline accelerates.

A Mayo Clinic guide states that female fertility rates “remain relatively stable until the early 30s, and then they decrease to very low levels by the early 40s.” Broken down further by the same source (Robert V. Johnson, M.D., Editor-in-Chief, Mayo Clinic Complete Book of Pregnancy & Baby’s First Year, New York: William Morrow, 1994, p. 5):

  • Ages 18-24: peak female fertility
  • Ages 30-35: fertility is 15%-20% less than maximum
  • Ages 35-39: fertility is 25%-50% below maximum
  • Ages 40-45: fertility falls to 95% below maximum

“Ultimately, age is still the most important factor when it comes to fertility prediction,” Dr. Mark Perloe, an Atlanta fertility specialist says. “If you’re in your early 40s, the odds are against getting pregnant without help, no matter what the tests say. The odds are much better in your late 30s or younger.”

The risk of miscarriage also increases after age 35, and even more after 40, as do numerous other risk factors, including having a child with chromosome abnormalities such as Down syndrome (mental retardation).

Menopause, which occurs in the late 40s or early 50s in most women, marks the end of the natural ability to bear children. However, as the preceding discussion demonstrates, it is necessary to differentiate between fertility and menopause. It is not as clear-cut as “I can have children until I reach menopause.”

Curiously, in other primate species females continue to reproduce until decrepitude or death overtake them. But among humans a woman loses her capacity to reproduce while still in vigorous middle age.

“‘Certain ethnic groups may have menopause at slightly different ages. Hispanic and African-American women reach menopause a little earlier, and Chinese and Japanese women a little later, than the average Caucasian woman, who reaches menopause at about age 51.5.’ Those are averages; every woman is different.” (Source [5].)

Widespread Ignorance About the Biological Clock

Surprisingly, many contemporary women have little idea how rapidly fertility declines with age. By the time a woman hits 44, it is almost nonexistent. Pregnancy beyond 47 is extremely rare, although it has been medically documented as late as 61.

Fertility treatments may extend the reproductive window slightly, but are extremely expensive and subject to age cut-offs. In Canada, fertility specialists generally will not accept women past their mid-40s. At age 40, even with in vitro fertilization (IVF), the success rate is only about 40%.

According to Dr. Roger Pierson, a Canadian fertility specialist, “Everybody in the reproductive world is shocked at how much ignorance there is. Women get their information from the rather dubious magazines that tend to lurk around the checkout counters of grocery stores.”

In 2009, Britain’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) went so far as to issue a public warning [6] that women should become mothers by the age of 35 or risk infertility, miscarriage, or other health problems:

Our statement has been prompted by concern among obstetricians and gynaecologists because we are seeing more and more [older] women who are confronting the heartbreak of infertility and miscarriage. Every week in my clinic I see women who say ‘if only I had known this, I could have planned for this. I wouldn’t have postponed my plans for pregnancy’.” The college fears too many women still do not understand that their fertility declines after 35.

A University of Calgary professor added: “Women have been given the impression that biology doesn’t matter and they can do whatever they like.”

Male fertility (as distinct from related problems, including erectile dysfunction) likewise declines with age, though far less radically. Some men are biologically capable of having children well into old age. However, as a practical matter this does not happen very often. Therefore, most men by their 50s can probably be considered reproductively irrelevant.

Such information suggests roughly where you should draw an imaginary line through the upside-down pyramid to indicate the age level below which, as a practical matter, the population remains potentially reproductive. Whether it actually reproduces white (non-hybrid) children within stable, nurturing family structures is another matter entirely. Sub-replacement fertility even after large-scale nonwhite and hybrid birthrates are misleadingly factored in strongly suggests that it does not.

In racial terms, selection occurs whenever one ethnic group successfully propagates its genes relative to other groups. “Differential fecundity,” Ukrainian-American geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky observed, “is, in principle, as powerful a selective agent as differential survival or mortality” (Genetics of the Evolutionary Process, 1970, p. 97).

Human races can expand and contract quickly, both in absolute terms and relative to other races. They grow, shrink, collapse, and become extinct. William Pierce, a physicist steeped in mathematical knowledge, noted that “wherever two racial groups occupying the same territory have different growth rates, the faster-growing group will always overwhelm the slower-growing group numerically, given sufficient time, no matter how much larger the latter may be in the beginning.” (“World’s Deadliest Threat: The Race Bomb,” National Vanguard newspaper, Issue No. 82, 1981; reprinted in Kevin Alfred Strom, ed., The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard Tabloid, 1970–1982 [1984], p. 207)

Italian demographer Massimo Livi-Bacci summed up the dynamics of the present crisis:

We are able to recognize the exceptional nature of the current situation if we keep in mind that a population growing at an annual rate of 4 percent will double in about 18 years, while another declining by 1 percent per year will halve in 70. Two populations of equal size [emphasis added] experiencing these different growth rates will find themselves after 28 years (barely a generation) in a numerical ratio of four-to-one! (A Concise History of World Population, 4th ed., Blackwell Publishing, 2007, p. 20)

The widespread obliviousness to race, or even preference for non-whites (including but not limited to blacks), now observable everywhere, has been culturally-inculcated into the minds (and resultant sexual behavior) of a greatly diminished youth population. Some unspecifiable (but easily seen) proportion of reproduction occurring outside or inside marriage (the term “intermarriage” should be jettisoned as obsolete) is between whites and non-whites. The hybrid offspring of such unions should not be counted as white, and must be rigorously excluded from both the social circle and the gene pool.

In former times, when the white population was large and growing, more introgression of non-white genes could be tolerated (though not on a widespread scale) than is the case when the population is swiftly collapsing.

The connection between demographic strength and political power has long been recognized. As the white population contracted, nations became markedly more tyrannical in the Communist sense—characterized by closed, untouchable, uncriticizable elites not unlike an imperial god cult, universal surveillance, and the criminalization and rigid suppression of thought, speech, association, and authentic political activity.

So overwhelming now is alien control of the culture that even the psychological mores and institutional structures essential to biological and cultural survival have been systematically and efficiently expunged. Diminished numbers, lack of political influence, and the rapid growth of totalitarian-racist institutions have occurred hand in hand. It is a vicious, ever-accelerating cycle that becomes harder and harder to break the more time that passes.

Supplemental Section

As noted, government officials and demographers do not conduct reliable racial head counts. The crucial demographic variable of race is concealed (through non-counting) for ideological reasons. Nevertheless, population pyramids could be constructed from racial data rather than heterogeneous geographical or political units. Such graphical representations would be most enlightening—better than the population projections typically available.

Following are a few illustrative examples of unusual local population pyramids. Keep in mind that the US Census Bureau employs overly-broad definitions of “white [7],” including in this and related categories Jews, Middle Easterners, North Africans, Lebanese, Arabs, Moroccans, etc.

To add to the confusion, large proportions of America’s massive Mestizo population are evidently also classified as “white.” According to the Population Reference Bureau in Washington, D.C. [8], “Since Hispanics or Latinos are considered an ethnic and not a racial group, they are asked on census questionnaires to select a racial category. In the 2000 Census, almost half (48 percent) of Latinos classified themselves racially as ‘white’ while more than two-fifths (43 percent) identified themselves racially as ‘Other.’”

The Census Bureau proceeded to fiddle with the categories:

Changes in the census questionnaire [since then] appear to have changed the way Latinos identify themselves racially. For example, the percentage of Latinos selecting the white racial category increased from 48 percent in the 2000 Census to 63 percent in the 2009 ACS [American Community Survey]. In contrast, the percentage of Latinos preferring the “Other” racial category dropped from 43 percent to 29 percent. This trend is consistent across Latino subgroups.

Clearly, the size of the official “white” population is artificially inflated. It is smaller than census figures indicate.

Ann Arbor, Michigan [9]

Ann Arbor, Michigan, a small city of 116,000 that is home to the University of Michigan. Even the 2010 census could identify only a 70% “white” population in the small Midwestern city. It is obviously less if illegitimate groups are excluded. The bulge caused by students attending the University of Michigan is easily identifiable.

Fort Bragg, North Carolina [10]

The US Army post at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, named for Confederate General Braxton Bragg and home to the US Army airborne forces and Special Forces, the U.S. Army Forces Command and U.S. Army Reserve Command. It had a population of 39,500 in 2010.  In 2000, it was 58 percent “Caucasian,” the rest non-white. Only 1.2% of the population is over 45, the median age is 22, and males significantly outnumber females.

Punta Gorda, Florida [11]

Punta Gorda, a retirement community of 17,000 on Florida’s Gulf coast. In 2000 it was 94% “white,” the rest black, Mestizo, Amerindian, Asian, Pacific Islander, hybrids, and “other.” However, the community has two synagogues, one Chabad [12], the other Reconstructionist, and nearby are 10 more, so some unknown part of the 94% is Jewish. Note the lopsided age structure accounted for by the elderly. In exaggerated form its shape is illustrative of the age structure of the white race as a whole worldwide.

Buffalo Co., SD (Crow Creek Indian Reservation-Sioux) [13]

Buffalo County, South Dakota, home of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe (Crow Creek Indian Reservation). The 2010 population was 1,900. According to the 2000 census, 82% of county residents were Amerindian, 16% “white,” and 3% other, mostly hybrids and Mestizos. Unemployment is 57%; many homes lack kitchens and/or indoor plumbing. Per capita income was $5,213, the lowest in the nation, with more than half of residents living below the poverty line. Note the classically-shaped pyramid, indicative of a youthful if numerically small population.

Sources (supplemental section only): Lina Trullinger, Bryan Station High School teacher (now evidently a Database Analyst at Mississippi State University), “Understanding Population Pyramids” [14] (2009); Wikipedia.


Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/02/the-importance-of-population-structure-and-dynamics/

dimanche, 07 avril 2013

Scientific American über die Realität von Rassen

Scientific American über die Realität von Rassen

By Michael Polignano

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

 Übersetzt von Deep Roots

English original here

[Scientific American, dessen Titelseite oben zu sehen ist, ist übrigens das amerikanische Mutterschiff der deutschen Ausgabe „Spektrum der Wissenschaft“, in der neben deutschen Beiträgen auch Übersetzungen aus Scientific American mit ein bis zwei Monaten Verzögerung erscheinen.]

Anmerkung des Herausgebers [Greg Johnson]:

Dieser Essay stammt aus Michael Polignanos Buch „Taking Our Own Side“, das hier [3] als Hardcover, Paperback und PDF erhältlich ist. [Anm. d. Ü.: Dieses Buch kann ich sehr empfehlen – ich habe es auch.]

Finnische Übersetzung hier [4].

16. Dezember 2003

Das wissenschaftliche Studium der Rassen befindet sich an einem Scheideweg. Durch die Kartierung des menschlichen Genoms wissen die Wissenschaftler mehr über Rasse und Rassenunterschiede als je zuvor. Aber da die Gesellschaft immer mehr in die Lüge von der Rassengleichheit investiert, wird es für Wissenschaftler immer schwerer, diese Wahrheiten auszusprechen. Außerdem haben egalitäre Spin-Doctors in einem verzweifelten Versuch, die schlimmen politischen Konsequenzen der rassischen Wahrheit abzuwenden, eine große Menge Desinformation über die kürzlichen genetischen Entdeckungen verbreitet.

Man sagt uns zum Beispiel, daß die Unterschiede zwischen den Rassen vom genetischen Standpunkt aus vernachlässigbar sind, eine Sache von bloß ein paar Genen. Daher sollen wir schlußfolgern, daß Rassenunterschiede vernachlässigbar sind, Punkt. Rassenunterschiede, sagt man uns, sollten überhaupt keine praktischen Implikationen haben.

Aber das ist genauso absurd, wie wenn man argumentieren würde, daß es – nachdem feste Objekte aus dem Blickwinkel der subatomaren Physik großteils leerer Raum sind – bloß reines Vorurteil ist, daß wir lieber auf einer Straße fahren statt über eine Klippe.

Die Wahrheit ist: aus kleinen genetischen Unterschieden erwachsen große physische, spirituelle, kulturelle und politische Unterschiede. Falls die Genetiker diese Unterschiede nicht sehen können, dann suchen sie vielleicht an der falschen Stelle.

Man sagt uns auch routinemäßig, daß es eine größere genetische Variationsbreite innerhalb der Rassen gibt als zwischen ihnen. Es kann einen Unterschied von 100 IQ-Punkten geben zwischen einer extrem klugen und einer extrem dummen weißen Person. Aber es gibt nur 30 Punkte Unterschied zwischen dem Durchschnitt der Weißen und dem der Schwarzen. Daher, sollen wir schlußfolgern, sollten wir uns nur mit Individuen befassen und die Gruppendurchschnitte ignorieren.

Das Problem bei diesem Argument ist, daß Gesellschaften nicht aus isolierten Individuen bestehen, denn Individuen sind Bestandteile und Produkte von Fortpflanzungspopulationen. Fortpflanzungspopulationen, die über einen langen Zeitraum isoliert und unterschiedlichen Umweltbedingungen ausgesetzt waren, werden zu verschiedenen Rassen.

Und wenn die durchschnittliche Intelligenz – oder irgendeine andere wichtige Eigenschaft – zweier Fortpflanzungspopulationen, die dasselbe geographische Gebiet teilen, sich dramatisch unterscheidet, dann muß es zu Konflikten kommen. Die überlegene Gruppe wird sich unvermeidlicherweise über den hemmenden Effekt der unterlegenen ärgern, und die unterlegenen Gruppen werden die unmöglichen Standards verübeln, die von der überlegenen aufgezwungen werden.

Aber die praktischen Implikationen der rassischen Wahrheit sind schwer zu leugnen, und die Wahrheit sickert durch, manchmal an unwahrscheinlichen Stellen. Ein Beispielsfall ist der Titelartikel der Ausgabe Dezember 2003 von Scientific American, das trotz seines Titels üblicherweise so politkorrekt ist wie jedes Nachrichten- oder Unterhaltungsmagazin. Die Titelseite zeigt sechs weibliche Gesichter, die verschiedenen Rassen anzugehören scheinen, zusammen mit dem Bildtext: „Does Race Exist? Science Has the Answer: Genetic Results May Surprise You.“ [„Gibt es Rassen? Die Wissenschaft hat die Antwort: Genetische Resultate könnten Sie überraschen.“] Im Inhaltsverzeichnis lesen wir: „Gibt es Rassen? Vom rein genetischen Standpunkt, nein. Trotzdem können genetische Informationen über die Abstammung von Individuen manchmal medizinisch relevant sein.“

Das hat meine Aufmerksamkeit geweckt. Wenn Rasse medizinisch relevant ist, warum ist sie dann nicht genauso auch psychologisch relevant, kulturell relevant, moralisch relevant und politisch relevant? Und wenn die Wissenschaft von der Genetik solche drängend relevanten Unterscheidungen als unreal oder winzig betrachtet, ist dann nicht etwas faul an der genetischen Wissenschaft oder an unserer Interpretation und Anwendung ihrer Befunde?

Die Autoren des Artikels, Michael Bamshad und Steve Olson, argumentieren, daß „Menschen unter Verwendung genetischer Daten grob in Gruppen sortiert werden können.“ Diese Gruppen scheinen weiters geographisch getrennt zu sein – zumindest vor den massiven Bevölkerungsverschiebungen der Moderne. Nun ist dies ein riesiges Eingeständnis, denn die Existenz genetisch verschiedener Menschengruppen ist gewiß ein Teil dessen, was mit „Rasse“ gemeint ist, und genau das, was von jenen verleugnet wird, die behaupten, daß Rasse bloß ein „Sozialkonstrukt“ ist.

Die Basis für die Behauptung, daß Rassen „vom rein genetischen Standpunkt aus“ nicht existieren, ist der Konflikt zwischen genetischen Klassifizierungen und traditionellen rassischen Kategorien. Solche Kategorien beruhen nicht auf einer Analyse der Gene (Genotyp), sondern auf dem sichtbaren Ausdruck dieser Gene (Phänotyp). Dies mag stimmen, aber es beweist nicht, daß „Rasse nicht existiert“. Es beweist nur, daß es einen Konflikt zwischen genotypischen und phänotypischen Rassedefinitionen gibt.

Zum Beispiel merken die Autoren an, daß sub-saharische Afrikaner und australische Aborigines ähnlich aussehen und sich ähnlich verhalten, daß aber genetische Marker anzeigen, daß sich ihre Vorfahren vor langer Zeit getrennt haben. Aber der Konflikt zwischen den Klassifikationsschemen ist eher real als scheinbar, denn Australoide und Negroide sehen sich nur für das ungeschulte Auge ähnlich. Jeder, der Mitglieder der beiden Gruppen miteinander vergleicht, wird leicht die Unterschiede sehen, und mit ausreichend Erfahrung ist es buchstäblich unmöglich, sie miteinander zu verwechseln.

Die Autoren merken auch an, daß die sozialen Rassedefinitionen von Region zu Region variieren: „jemand, der in den Vereinigten Staaten als ‚schwarz’ klassifiziert wird… könnte in Brasilien als ‚weiß’ betrachtet werden und als ‚farbig’… in Südafrika.“ Aber dies ist ebenfalls ein Versuch, die Unterscheidung nach Phänotyp zu diskreditieren, indem man nur auf ihre gröbsten Formen verweist. Jedoch können phänotypische Klassifizierungsschemen in Gesellschaften mit einem großen Maß an Rassenvermischung recht komplex sein, um die Komplexitäten der zugrundeliegenden Genotypen wiederzugeben:

Die frühen französischen Kolonisten in Saint-Domingue [heute: Haiti] identifizierten 128 unterschiedliche Rassentypen, die recht präzise nach einer mathematischen Skala definiert wurden, welche durch einfache Berechnungen der Abstammungsanteile bestimmt wurde. Sie reichten vom „wahren“ Mulatten (halb weiß, halb schwarz) durch das Spektrum von marabou, sacatra, quarterón bis hin zum sang-mêlé (Mischblut: 127 Teile weiß und ein Teil schwarz)… Die Soziologin Micheline Labelle hat 22 rassische Hauptkategorien und 98 Unterkategorien gezählt (für variierende Haartypen, Gesichtsstrukturen, Farbe und andere Unterscheidungsfaktoren), die in den 1970ern unter Haitis Mittelklasse in Port-au-Prince verwendet wurden. Innerhalb jeder Kategorie waren die Worte oft genauso einfallsreich, wie sie beschreibend waren: café au lait („Milchkaffe“), bonbon siro („Zuckersirup“), ti canel („ein wenig Zimt“), ravet blanch („weißer Kakerlak“), soley levan („aufgehende Sonne“), banane mûre („reife Banane“), brun pistache („erdnußbraun“), mulâtre dix-huit carats („18karätiger Mulatte“)… [1]

Ein tieferes Problem mit der Betonung des Genotyps durch die Autoren ist, daß, auch wenn unterschiedliche Genotypen zu ähnlichen Phänotypen führen können – die Natur kann verschiedene Mittel einsetzen, um dasselbe Ziel zu erreichen – die Kräfte der Evolution sich keinen Deut um spezifische Genotypen scherten, sie „scherten“ sich nur darum, wie sich jene Genotypen in einem Individuum ausdrückten. Daher ist der Phänotyp vom praktischen Gesichtspunkt aus wichtiger als der Genotyp.

Die Autoren geben jedoch zu, daß phänotypische Rassenkategorien gut funktionieren, um Gruppen nach ihrer Neigung zu gewissen Krankheiten zu unterteilen, wie Sichelzellenanämie (am häufigsten unter Afrikanern) und zystische Fibrose (am häufigsten unter Europäern). Die Allele für Sichelzellenanämie und zystische Fibrose nahmen an Häufigkeit zu, weil ihre Träger (d. h. jene mit einer Kopie vom Vater oder der Mutter; zwei Kopien sind für die Krankheit nötig) gegenüber parasitischen Mikroorganismen resistent waren, die jeweils in Afrika und Europa vorkommen. Ein weiteres Beispiel ist, daß bewiesen wurde, daß derselbe Polymorphismus im CCR5-Gen den Krankheitsverlauf von AIDS bei Weißen bremst, aber bei Schwarzen beschleunigt.

Wegen der zunehmenden genetischen Beweise für die medizinische Relevanz von Rasse hat die US Food and Drug Administration der unvermeidlichen Kontroverse getrotzt und im Januar 2003 empfohlen, daß Forscher bei klinischen Versuchen Rassedaten sammeln.

Daher die extrem vorsichtige Schlußfolgerung der Autoren: „In Fällen, wo die Zugehörigkeit zu einer geographisch oder kulturell definierten Gruppe mit gesundheitsbezogenen genetischen Merkmalen korreliert worden ist, könnte es wichtig sein, etwas über die Gruppenzugehörigkeit eines Individuums zu wissen.“

Dies ist ein weiteres riesiges Eingeständnis. Denn wenn rassische Unterschiede medizinisch relevant sind, warum sind sie dann nicht genauso auch kulturell, sozial und politisch relevant? Zum Beispiel bedeutet die Tatsache, daß Neger im Durchschnitt mehr Testosteron produzieren als andere Rassen, daß schwarze Männer ein höheres Risiko für Prostatakrebs haben. Aber höhere Testosteronproduktion bedeutet auch, daß schwarze Männer mehr zu aggressivem Verhalten neigen. Wenn also Ärzte schwarze Männer rassisch profilieren sollten, warum sollten das dann nicht auch Polizisten tun?

Verglichen mit Weißen, haben Schwarze auch einen niedrigeren IQ und ein niedrigeres Empathieniveau, ein schwächeres Gefühl für persönliche Leistungsfähigkeit und Verantwortung, eine größere Neigung zu Soziopathie und Psychosen, weniger Verhaltenshemmungen, größere Impulsivität, höhere sexuelle Aktivität und geringere elterliche Investition etc. Sicherlich haben diese rassischen Unterschiede ebenfalls wichtige praktische Implikationen.

Wenn man die nervösen Einschränkungen und vorsichtigen Wortklaubereien der Autoren wegschnippelt, dann gibt „Does Race Exist?“ zu, daß es eine genetische Basis für Rassenunterschiede gibt und daß diese Unterschiede praktische Bedeutung haben. Dies ist ein ermutigendes Zeichen im heutigen Klima der ideologischen Rassenverleugnung™. Offen gesagt ist es bemerkenswert, daß es überhaupt in Scientific American veröffentlicht wurde.

Eine Erklärung dafür, daß es veröffentlicht wurde, könnte man im Leitartikel „Racing to Conclusions“ von John Rennie und Ricki Rusting finden. Sie beginnen damit, daß sie das Scheitern von Proposition 54 in Erinnerung rufen, der kürzlichen kalifornischen Wählerinitiative, die der Regierung auf vielen Gebieten verboten hätte, rassische Daten zu sammeln. Obwohl Proposition 54 die Sammlung rassischer Daten für Gesundheitszwecke ausdrücklich erlaubte, behaupteten viele Ärzte und medizinische Gruppen, daß die Maßnahme Bemühungen behindern würde, Krankheiten nachzuverfolgen und zu behandeln, die sich auf verschiedene Rassen unterschiedlich auswirken. Die Redakteure stellen diese düsteren Prophezeiungen in Frage, nicht weil Proposition 54 ihre Besorgnisse zerstreut hätte, sondern weil sie den Artikel von Bamshad/Olson mißverstanden und fälschlicherweise behaupten, daß seine Autoren fest gegen die Verwendung rassischer Klassifizierung in der Medizin seien. Man fragt sich, ob der Artikel in Druck gegangen wäre, wenn die Redakteure ihn verstanden hätten!

Die Redakteure zitieren die Schwierigkeiten rassischer Klassifizierung, besonders der Klassifizierung gemischtrassiger Individuen. Dann beklagen sie, daß „Rasse in der Forschung als Surrogat für genetische Unterschiede“ benutzt wird, als ob die Korrelation zwischen den beiden bedeutungslos wäre. Sie verweisen auf die Empfehlung der FDA und zitieren J. Craig Venters Bemerkung: „Die selbstzugeschriebene Rasse als Surrogat dafür zu verwenden, eine Person direkt auf ein relevantes Merkmal zu testen, ist ähnlich, als würde man das Durchschnittsgewicht einer Gruppe aufzeichnen, statt jedes Individuum zu wiegen.“

Natürlich kann man von Venter erwarten, daß er gegen rassische Klassifizierungen in der Medizin ist. Damit ist er nicht nur politisch korrekt, sondern nimmt auch eine Position ein, von der er beträchtlich profitieren könnte, nachdem seine Firma Celera die erste war, die das menschliche Genom sequenziert hat und wahrscheinlich die erste wäre, die das individuelle Gensquenzieren massenmarktfähig machen würde.

Die Redakteure lassen jede Erwähnung der Vorteile rassischer Klassifizierung in der Medizin weg. Wer den Hauptartikel nicht liest, würde unrichtigerweise schlußfolgern, daß Rasse in der Medizin keine Verwendung hat. Noch ein Beispiel dafür wie die Medien die Wahrheit verdrehen und verzerren. Zum Glück kann jeder, der den Artikel liest, die Verdrehung durchschauen. Wenn solch eine Geschichte jedoch von den Breitenmedien gebracht würde, dann könnten Sie sicher sein, daß die Verdrehung alles ist, was das Publikum bekommen würde.

Das Titelbild riecht ebenfalls nach politisch korrekter Rassenverleugnung™. Die Bilder von sechs attraktiven Frauengesichtern aus scheinbar verschiedenen Rassen wurden von Nancy Burson unter Verwendung eines Morphing-Programms geschaffen, das dazu bestimmt ist, verschiedene Rassenmerkmale zu simulieren. Nur die blonde, blauäugige Frau ist echt. Die anderen Bilder wurden durch Abänderung ihres Bildes geschaffen. Aber man kann sehen, daß die darunterliegende Knochenstruktur, Lippen und Nase der Frau unverändert bleiben, obwohl diese zwischen den Rassen beträchtlich variieren. Nur Hautfarbe, Augenfarbe und Haarfarbe scheinen zu variieren. Die offensichtliche Botschaft des Fotos ist, daß Rasse nur eben bis unter die Haut geht. Die Welt besteht bloß aus Weißen mit unterschiedlichen Farbschattierungen. Was kann das schon schaden?




Das erinnert mich an ein Bild in einem Bilderbuch, das ich als Kind gesehen habe, wo Löwen sich an Lämmer kuscheln und Wölfe mit Schafen tanzen, wo allein die äußerliche Erscheinung Tiere unterscheidet, die ansonsten tief drinnen alle gleich sind und daher in der Lage, in Glück und Harmonie zu leben.

Anscheinend hängen manche Erwachsene immer noch solchem Wunschdenken an.

Source: http://fjordman.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/scientific-american-uber-die-realitat-von-rassen/ [6]

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/06/scientific-american-uber-die-realitat-von-rassen/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ScientificAmericanRace.jpg

[2] here: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/05/scientific-american-on-the-reality-of-race/

[3] hier: http://www.counter-currents.com../2010/12/taking-our-own-side-paperback/

[4] hier: http://www.counter-currents.com../2011/05/scientific-american-rodun-todellisuudesta/

[5] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/LionAndLamb.png

[6] http://fjordman.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/scientific-american-uber-die-realitat-von-rassen/: http://fjordman.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/scientific-american-uber-die-realitat-von-rassen/

lundi, 07 février 2011

Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt: Ist der abendländische Mensch vom Aussterben bedroht?


Schon vor 15 Jahren wurde von Eibl-Eibesfeldt eigentlich bereits alles gesagt zur gegenwärtigen Misere. (Ich stimme ihm dabei zu 100 Prozent zu) Aber es hat nichts verändert. Das zeigt doch wohl, daß die bestehende gesellschaftliche Struktur wahrscheinlich nicht mehr aus sich heraus reformfähig ist....

Lesenswertes Interview mit Irenaeus Eibl-Eibesfeldt aus dem Jahr 1996

Sagen Sie mal, Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt ...
Von Michael Klonovsky
Eibl-Eibesfeldt: So gefährlich ist die Situation nicht. Der abendländische Mensch ist sehr dynamisch, findig, einfallsreich und neugierig, und er wird seine Probleme sicher meistern.

FOCUS: Sie warnen seit Jahren vor den Folgen der Immigration; zugleich schauen Sie so gelassen auf die Zukunft des Abendländers?

Eibl-Eibesfeldt: Es geht mir zunächst einmal um die Erhaltung des inneren Friedens. Entscheidend ist deshalb auch, wer einwandert. Die europäische Binnenwanderung hat es immer gegeben, mitunter auch massive Immigrationswellen und kriegerische Überschichtungen. Aber die Bevölkerung im breiten Gürtel von Paris bis Moskau hat etwa die gleiche Mischung, sie ist anthropologisch nah verwandt. Die europäischen Nationalstaaten haben das Glück, relativ homogen zu sein.

FOCUS: Der Begriff des Ausländers müßte also durch den des Kulturfremden ersetzt werden?

Eibl-Eibesfeldt: Ich würde sagen: Kultur-fernen. Die integrieren und identifizieren sich nicht so leicht. Bei den innereuropäischen Wanderungen wurden die Leute integriert.

FOCUS: Und das ist Bedingung?

Eibl-Eibesfeldt: Es gibt diese schöne Idee, daß Immigranten ihre Kultur behalten und sich als deutsche Türken oder deutsche Nigerianer fühlen sollen, weil das unsere Kultur bereichert. Das ist sehr naiv. In Krisenzeiten hat man dann Solidargemeinschaften, die ihre Eigeninteressen vertreten und um begrenzte Ressourcen wie Sozialleistungen, Wohnungen oder Arbeitsplätze konkurrieren. Das stört natürlich den inneren Frieden. Die Algerier in Frankreich etwa bekennen sich nicht, Franzosen zu sein, die sagen: Wir sind Moslems. Vielfalt kann in einem Staate nebeneinander existieren, wenn die Kulturen verwandt sind, jede ihr eigenes Territorium besitzt und keine die Dominanz der anderen zu fürchten braucht – wie etwa in der Schweiz.

FOCUS: Also müssen die Türken in Deutschland die Deutschen fürchten?

Eibl-Eibesfeldt: Gegenseitig. Wenn man über Immigration Minoritäten aufbaut, die sich abgrenzen und ein anderes Fortpflanzungsverhalten zeigen, wird das Gleichgewicht gestört. Immigrationsbefürworter sagen: Die werden sich angleichen. Nur: Warum sollten sie eigentlich? Deren Interesse kann doch nur sein, so stark zu werden, daß sie bei Wahlen eine Pressure-Gruppe darstellen, die ihre Eigen-interessen durchsetzen kann.

FOCUS: In Amerika werden die Weißen in hundert Jahren vermutlich Minderheit sein . . .

Eibl-Eibesfeldt: Das hat in erstaunlicher Offenheit das „Time-Magazine“ ausgesprochen. Die Amerikaner haben gerade kulturferne Immigranten gefördert in dem Glauben, man dürfe nicht diskriminieren. Aber Diskriminierung – auf freundliche Weise – betreibt ja jeder! Die eigenen Kinder stehen uns näher als die der anderen, die Erbgesetze nehmen darauf Rücksicht, und es ist ja auch schon diskriminierend, daß kein Fremder in meinen Garten darf. Auch ein Land darf seine Grenzen verteidigen. Wenn jemand den Grenzpfahl in Europa nur um zehn Meter verschieben würde, gäbe es furchtbaren Krach, aber die stille Landnahme über Immigration soll man dulden?

FOCUS: Das gebietet der Philanthropismus, sofern der nicht ein evolutionärer Irrläufer ist.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt: Es wird nicht in Rechnung gestellt, daß wir, wie alle Organismen, in einer langen Stammesgeschichte daraufhin selektiert wurden, in eigenen Nachkommen zu überleben. Europäer überleben nun mal nicht in einem Bantu, was gar keine Bewertung ist, denn für den Biologen gibt es zunächst einmal kein höheres Interesse, das sich im Deutschen oder im Europäer verwirklicht – nicht mal in der Menschheit.

FOCUS: Solche Ansichten haben ihnen den Vorwurf des Biologismus eingetragen, wobei Sie sich im Lasterkatalog der Wohlmeinenden noch zum Rassisten oder Faschisten hocharbeiten können.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt: Die Leute, die so de-monstrativ ihren Heiligenschein polieren, tun das ja nicht aus Nächstenliebe, sondern weil sie dadurch hohes Ansehen, hohe Rangpositionen, also auch Macht, gewinnen können – früher als Held, heute als Tugendheld. Der Mensch kann alles pervertieren, auch Freundlichkeit oder Gastlichkeit, und wenn die Folgen sich als katastrophal erweisen, schleichen sich die Wohlmeinenden meist davon und sagen: Das haben wir nicht gewollt.

FOCUS: Aber dieses Verhalten ist doch evolutionär schwachsinnig.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt: Sicher. Es sterben ja immer wieder Arten aus. Fehlverhalten im Politischen kann eine Gruppe immer wieder gefährden, wie man zuletzt am Marxismus gesehen hat.

FOCUS: Was sollten wir also tun?

Eibl-Eibesfeldt: Wir müssen von dem fatalen Kurzzeitdenken wegkommen. Wie alle Organismen sind wir auf den Wettlauf im Jetzt programmiert. Wir sind aber zugleich das erste Geschöpf, das sich Ziele setzen kann, das seinen Verstand und seine Fähigkeit, sozial zu empfinden, fürsorglich zu sein, auch mit einbringen kann.

FOCUS: Was bedeutet das praktisch?

Eibl-Eibesfeldt: Ein generationsübergreifendes Überlebensethos. Ich würde vorschlagen, daß sich Europa unter Einbeziehung Osteuropas großräumig abschottet und die Armutsländer der Dritten Welt durch Hilfen allmählich im Niveau hebt. Wenn wir im Jahr 1,5 Millionen Menschen aus der Dritten Welt aufnähmen, würde das dort überhaupt nichts ändern – das gleicht der Bevölkerungsüberschuß, wie Hubert Markl unlängst betonte, in einer Woche wieder aus, solange es keine Geburtenkontrolle gibt. Man kann gegen eine Bevölkerungsexplosion in diesem Ausmaß sonst nichts tun, bestenfalls das Problem importieren, wenn man dumm ist.

FOCUS: Das ist dann, wie Sie schreiben, „Überredung zum Ethnosuizid“?

Eibl-Eibesfeldt: Die heute für die Multikultur eintreten, sind eben Kurzzeitdenker. Sie sind sich gar nicht bewußt, was sie ihren eigenen Enkeln antun und welche möglichen Folgen ihr leichtfertiges Handeln haben kann.

FOCUS: Ist der moderne Westeuropäer überhaupt noch vitalistisch erklärbar? Leistet er sich aus evolutionärer Warte nicht zuviel Luxus wie Immigration, Feminismus, Randgruppendiskurse, den Wohlfahrtsstaat?

Eibl-Eibesfeldt: Das wird sich wieder moderieren, wie man in Wien sagt . . .

FOCUS: Über Katastrophen?

Eibl-Eibesfeldt: Nicht nur. Ich glaube, daß die Leute Vernunftgründen doch zugänglich sind. Konrad Lorenz hat gesagt, es sei doch sehr unwahrscheinlich, daß von einer Generation auf die andere alles kulturelle Wissen auf einmal hinfällig und überholt ist. Die Tradition mitsamt der Offenheit für Experimente in gewissen Bereichen und die Bereitschaft zur Fehlerkorrektur, das zusammen eröffnet uns große Chancen. Aber alles umzubrechen und Großversuche wie das Migrationsexperiment anzustellen, das ja nicht mehr rückgängig zu machen ist, halte ich für gewissenlos. Man experimentiert nicht auf diese Weise mit Menschen.

FOCUS: Sie sagen, daß Xenophobie – Fremdenscheu, nicht Fremdenhaß – stammes-geschichtlich veranlagt ist.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt: Das ist in der Evolution selektiert worden, um die Vermischung zu verhindern. Die Fremdenscheu des Kleinkindes sichert die Bindung an die Mutter. Später hat der Mensch das familiale Ethos zum Kleingruppenethos gemacht. Mit der Entwicklung von Großgruppen erfolgte eine weitere Abgrenzung. Die ist unter anderem an Symbole gebunden, die Gemeinsamkeit ausdrücken sollen. Beim Absingen von Hymnen überläuft viele ein Schauer der Ergriffenheit, was auf die Kontraktion der Haaraufrichter zurückzuführen ist. Es sprechen da kollektive Verteidigungsreaktionen an; wir sträuben einen Pelz, den wir nicht mehr haben.

FOCUS: Das ist alles etwas Gewordenes. Kann sich nicht eines Tages den türkischen Deutschen und den deutschen Deutschen beim Abspielen der gemeinsamen Nationalhymne gemeinsam der Pelz sträuben?

Eibl-Eibesfeldt: Wenn das über Integration erfolgte, ja. Eine langsame Durchmischung kann durchaus friedlich verlaufen, und es kann etwas Interessantes herauskommen. Wir sprechen aber davon, ob in einem dichtbevölkerten Land über Immigration das Gesundschrumpfen der Bevölkerungszahl aufgehalten werden soll. Das fördert sicherlich nicht den inneren Frieden, sondern könnte selbst zu Bürgerkriegen führen – wir haben ja bereits das Kurdenproblem. Das ist nicht böse gemeint, es zeigt eben, daß diese Gruppen ihre Eigeninteressen ohne Rücksicht vertreten. Ich verstehe da übrigens auch die Grünen nicht, die sich gegen jede Autobahn sträuben und klagen, daß das Land zersiedelt wird. Dann kann man nicht zugleich alle reinlassen wollen.

FOCUS: Würden Sie bitte zu den folgenden Personen einen Satz sagen: Edmund Stoiber.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt: Ein sehr klarer, engagierter Geist; ein Lokalpatriot, der aber auch gut nach Bonn passen würde.

FOCUS: Alice Schwarzer.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt: Das Anliegen der Gleichberechtigung ist berechtigt, man sollte aber nicht die Rolle der Frau als Mutter abwerten.

FOCUS: Jörg Haider.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt: Ein stürmischer, sicherlich national betonter Mann, ein Hitzkopf, aber natürlich kein Rechtsradikaler – es wählen nicht 23 Prozent der Österreicher rechtsradikal.

FOCUS: Madonna.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt: Was soll man dazu sagen? Lustig, daß es so etwas gibt.

FOCUS: Nietzsches „Zarathustra“ hat die Ära des „verächtlichsten Menschen“ beschworen, des „letzten Menschen“, der alles klein macht und meint, er habe das Glück erfunden . . .

Eibl-Eibesfeldt: Das ist sicherlich kein wünschenswerter Typus, denn der will ein passives Wohlleben ohne Dynamik.

FOCUS: Interessanterweise hat dieser letzte Mensch, wenn auch mit russischer Hilfe, den Zweiten Weltkrieg gegen die blonde Bestie gewonnen.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt: War das der letzte Mensch? Das waren doch ganz tüchtige, mutige Leute. Ich würde sagen, wir haben den Krieg verloren, weil wir den Satz Immanuel Kants vergessen haben, man müsse sich auch im Krieg so verhalten, daß ein späterer Friede möglich ist. Man kann daraus übrigens lernen, daß Inhumanität kein positiver Selektionsfaktor ist.

FOCUS: Wie auch immer, der letzte Mensch steuert scheinbar unaufhaltsam der Weltzivilisation entgegen. Halten Sie einen globalen Einheitsmenschen für vorstellbar?

Eibl-Eibesfeldt: Ich kann mir vorstellen, daß es große Blöcke geben wird, in denen der Bevölkerungsaustausch eine ziemlich einheit-liche Population hervorbringt. Aber der Verlust an Differenzierung wäre schade. Das würde eine Weltsprache bedeuten oder eine Sprache des eurasischen Blockes. Niemand würde mehr spanische oder italienische Autoren lesen . . .

FOCUS: Aber Sie als Ethologe müßten solche Verluste doch in den Skat drücken können. Die verschiedenen Sprachen sind doch bloß Neandertaler.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt: Dann bin ich eben ein Neandertaler. Ich liebe die kulturelle Buntheit. Die Neigung, sich abzugrenzen und eigene Wege zu gehen, ist schon im Tier- und Pflanzenreich ausgeprägt. Artenfülle ist die Speerspitze der Evolution, da wird dauernd Neues probiert. Der Mensch macht das kulturell, und wenn er seine kulturelle Differenzierung verliert, verliert er sehr viel von dem, was ihn zum heutigen Menschen gemacht hat. Wir wissen, daß es andere Möglichkeiten gibt; der Ameisenstaat ist perfekt. Die Frage ist nur, ob wir uns das als Individuen wünschen können.

FOCUS: Jetzt sind Sie so anthropozentrisch.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt: Ich gehöre der Gattung Homo sapiens an. Ob sich die Humanität bewährt, für die ich ja plädiere, wissen wir nicht, aber ich sehe durch die ganze Geschichte, daß sie sich bewähren könnte.

FOCUS: Das Glück des letzten Menschen scheint unverträglich mit der Idee zu sein, als Glied einer Generationenkette zu existieren.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt: Das ist ein schrecklicher Irrglaube. Wer keine Kinder in die Welt setzt, steigt aus dem Abenteuer der weiteren Entwicklung aus.

FOCUS: Das ist denen ja egal.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt: Ja, aber die Natur sorgt schon dafür, daß dann deren Gene nicht weiterleben. Ich glaube, daß diese Leute um einen Teil ihres Lebensglücks betrogen wurden. Zum Individuum gehört das Bewußtsein, daß man eben nicht nur Individuum ist, sondern eingebettet in eine größere Gemeinschaft und in einen Ablauf von Generationen und daß wir den Generationen vor uns unendlich viel verdanken.

FOCUS: Es handelt sich also um das freiwilliges Ansteuern einer evolutionären Sackgasse?

Eibl-Eibesfeldt: Ich kann im Hirn des Menschen über Indoktrination und dauernde Belehrung Strukturen aufbauen, die diese Menschen gegen ihre Eigeninteressen und gegen die Interessen ihrer Gemeinschaft handeln lassen. Ein Kollektiv kann ja von religiösem Wahn befallen werden und sich umbringen.

FOCUS: Da haben wir den Bogen zurück zur Eingangsfrage: Schafft sich der westliche hedonistische Individualmensch kraft nach-lassender Vitalität allmählich selbst ab?

Eibl-Eibesfeldt: Zu allen Zeiten haben Gruppen andere verdrängt, und es gibt sicherlich kein Interesse der Natur an uns. Aber es gibt ein Eigeninteresse. Man muß nicht notwendigerweise seine eigene Verdrängung begrüßen.

„Wenn man über Immigration Minoritäten aufbaut, die sich abgrenzen, wird das Gleichgewicht gestört“

„Das Kurdenproblem zeigt, daß fremde Gruppen ihre Eigeninteressen ohne Rücksicht vertreten“

„Inhumanität ist kein positiver Selektionsfaktor“

„Wer keine Kinder in die Welt setzt, steigt aus dem Abenteuer der weiteren Evolution aus“


HERKUNFT: 1928 in Wien geboren

BILDUNGSWEG: Studium Naturgeschichte und Physik, 1949 Promotion (Zoologie) in Wien

KARRIERE: 1949-69 Schüler und Mitarbeiter von Konrad Lorenz. 1963 Habilitation (Uni München). Seit 1975 Leiter der Forschungsstelle f. Humanethologie der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (in Andechs). Seit 1992 Direktor des Instituts f. Stadtethologie Wien