This is aWHAT MATTERS ISSUE DU JOUR
We are not proud.
Dr. Phillippe Rushton, a psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario in London, Ontario, Canada, had been declaring in his classroom and in public appearances (the National News Magazine, the Geraldo show) the thesis that the races are not equally endowed but exhibit measurable, intellectual gradations. As usual, the Negroid race occupied the lowest position in such speculations, though this time round, Caucasians were found inferior to Orientals.
Regardless of the win, place and show in this version of the Social Darwinian position, it is clear that it is the historical successor to that which saw the full harvest of its previous fruit in the ovens of Auschwitz and widespread devastation on a couple of continents.
The theories are not new. Not only are they not new, they are blatantly inevitable in the evolutionary postulate and Rushton was only remaining intellectually open to the direction to which that postulate tends. Others less courageous prefer to subordinate their own understanding to maintain an ethical purity in their research and in their lives. Once unleashed, however, the force of logic must energize the intuitive conclusions of this belief system and the world will not be a better place.
Logic is no more related to truth than is precision to accuracy and men willing to follow the direction of a foolish premise must reap the consequences of their preferences. The consequence of a belief in the evolutionary development of isolated populations of hominids is, logically, racism, especially given the episodic theorizations popularly promoted to replace the exhausted and inadequate Darwinian, selection/mutation propositions.
Racism in this context is not the fruit of a malignant mindset, such as might be predicted and expected from the skinhead or Aryan Nations segment of our society, but rather it flows from the heights of apparent intellectual acuity, becoming more alluring, more credible, more acceptable, more dangerous.
What evolutionists will do with this renewed confrontation with their 'Pandoric Truth' is the immediate question. Politicians (Ontario's premiere of the day, Robert Peterson, notably) denounced the scientist for his uncomfortable conclusions, as they must. However, if the data, as presented, are persuasive, even those perceiving the moral abyss must yield something of importance, either their ethical posture or their scientific integrity.
The only other option would be to declare 'early twenty-first century man' a new sub-species, sufficiently advanced over 'early twentieth century man' to be able to handle such revelations with compassion instead of arrogance, with magnanimity rather than oppression ... a risky wager. (That segment of scientists, willing to declare itself competent to manage the billion-year process of biological evolution within one hundred and fifty years of its first, orderly exposition, might approach such pomposity of assertion!)
The dark side of man is only barely beneath the surface, kept there by our recognition of, and aspirations for, 'The Good'. Acceptance of this evolutionary error - total acceptance, stripped of the accumulated veneer of sentiment and morality - could significantly erode the extraneous trappings of our social intercourse leaving only the perceived, biological imperative as Prime Mover.
From Berchtesgarden to the good people of Jasper, Texas (or to Kosovo, or Rwanda, or to London, Ontario - or to a thousand other places on this globe) is really no great leap; it is merely a logical step ... one frighteningly easy, logical step for the evolutionary thesis.