Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

News & Supplemental  

Race Science and the Pioneer Fund

Note: Orig­i­nally pub­lished as “The Fund­ing of the Sci­ence” in Search­light No 277 (Jul7 1998). This ver­sion is slightly revised and expanded.

This spe­cial issue of Search­light devoted to race sci­ence con­tains arti­cles on Amer­i­can Renais­sance mag­a­zine, Richard J. Her­rn­stein and Charles Murray’s The Bell Curve, Right Now! mag­a­zine, and two back­ground arti­cles on the his­tory and mod­ern appli­ca­tions of race sci­ence. If one scratches the sur­face of any of these top­ics one finds that the Pio­neer Fund has played a sig­nif­i­cant role.

The Pio­neer Fund has been involved in the his­tory of race sci­ence since its estab­lish­ment in 1937. One of its founders, Harry Laugh­lin wrote a model ster­il­iza­tion law widely used in both the United States and Europe. Many of the key aca­d­e­mic racists in both Right Now! and Amer­i­can Renais­sance have been funded by the Pio­neer and the Pio­neer was directly involved in fund­ing the par­ent orga­ni­za­tion of Amer­i­can Renais­sance, the New Cen­tury Foun­da­tion. Indeed, most of the lead­ing Anglo-American aca­d­e­mic race-scientists of the last sev­eral decades have been funded by the Pio­neer, includ­ing William Shock­ley, Hans J. Eysenck, Arthur Jensen, Roger Pear­son, Richard Lynn, J. Philippe Rush­ton, R. Travis Osborne, Linda Got­tfred­son, Robert A. Gor­don, Daniel R. Vin­ing, Jr., Michael Levin, and Sey­mour Itzkoff — all cited in The Bell Curve. (1)

The Pio­neer Fund’s orig­i­nal endow­ment came from Wick­liffe Draper, scion of old-stock Protes­tant gen­try. Draper grew up in Hope­dale, Mass­a­chu­setts — a com­pany town built by his fam­ily. Liv­ing in what one his­to­rian has called a “a quasi-feudal manor house.” The com­pany main­tained almost total con­trol over the lives of com­pany work­ers until 1912 when the IWW orga­nized the Draper Com­pany at Hope­dale after a four month strike.(2)

Colonel Draper, as he was often called by his friends and admir­ers was a man search­ing for a way to restore an older order. Draper believed geneti­cists could sci­en­tif­i­cally prove the infe­ri­or­ity of Negros. Accord­ing to Bruce Wal­lace, a geneti­cist who tutored Draper in the later 1940s, Draper “was sure that we had all the answers and that we were just too fright­ened to say what they meant.”(3) Under his direc­tion, the Pio­neer Fund’s orig­i­nal char­ter out­lined a com­mit­ment to “improve the char­ac­ter of the Amer­i­can peo­ple” by encour­ag­ing the pro­cre­ation of descen­dants of the orig­i­nal white colo­nial stock.

Aban­doned by the polit­i­cal main­stream after World War II,(4) Draper turned more and more to aca­d­e­mic irre­den­tists still ded­i­cated to white supremacy and eugen­ics. Most promi­nent among these early recruits was Henry Gar­rett, Chair of Psy­chol­ogy at Colum­bia Uni­ver­sity from 1941–1955. A Vir­ginia born seg­re­ga­tion­ist, Gar­rett was a key wit­ness in defend­ing seg­re­ga­tion in Davis v. County School Board (1952) one of the con­stituent cases in the land­mark Brown v. Board of Edu­ca­tion (1954).(5)

It is worth exam­in­ing the changes in Pio­neer grants over the past four decades. For those inter­ested we are pro­vid­ing a spread­sheet of all Pio­neer grants from 1971 to 1996. Dur­ing the 1950s and 1960s, Gar­rett helped to dis­trib­ute grants for Draper and was one of the founders of the Inter­na­tional Asso­ci­a­tion for the Advance­ment of Eugen­ics and Eth­nol­ogy (IAAEE) in 1959. The IAAEE brought together aca­d­e­mic defend­ers of seg­re­ga­tion in the U.S. and apartheid in South Africa. The Pio­neer Fund sup­ported the IAAEE and other insti­tu­tions work­ing to legit­imis­ing race sci­ence, includ­ing the IAAEE’s jour­nal, Mankind Quar­terly. (6)

In the 1970s the chief ben­e­fi­cia­ries were the Foun­da­tion for Human Under­stand, an orga­ni­za­tion directed by R. Travis Osborne; Arther Jensen’s Insti­tute for the Study of Edu­ca­tional Dif­fer­ences, Shockley’s Foun­da­tion for Research and Edu­ca­tion in Eugen­ics and Dys­gen­ics; and the IAAEE.

By the decade of the eight­ies, the largest Pio­neer grants went to the Uni­ver­sity of Min­nesota, Arthur Jensen’s Insti­tute for the Study of Edu­ca­tional Dif­fer­ences, the Fed­er­a­tion for Amer­i­can Immi­gra­tion Con­trol, Roger Pearson’s Insti­tute for the Study of Man, the Uni­ver­sity of West­ern Ontario, and the Uni­ver­sity of London.

Dur­ing the 1990s, the major recip­i­ents of Fund grants have been the Uni­ver­sity of Min­nesota, the Uni­ver­sity of West­ern Ontario, the Ulster Insti­tute for Social Research, the Fed­er­a­tion for Amer­i­can Immi­gra­tion Reform (FAIR), the Insti­tute for the Study of Man, and the Uni­ver­sity of Delaware.

When Draper first founded the Fund in 1937, he was look­ing for “use­ful sci­ence.” He was con­vinced that sci­en­tists had the answers he was look­ing for, but were too timid to admit the truth of race dif­fer­ences, Negro infe­ri­or­ity and the value of eugen­ics. From the 1960s to the 1990s the Fund has sin­gled out indi­vid­ual aca­d­e­mics whose work proved use­ful in the polit­i­cal strug­gles against inte­gra­tion, open immi­gra­tion and other right wing causes. While orga­ni­za­tions such as FAIR have received sig­nif­i­cant fund­ing, pref­er­ence has always been given to the more gen­eral pur­pose (or multi-purpose) schol­ar­ship sup­port­ing bio­log­i­cal deter­min­ism, genet­i­cally based race dif­fer­ences, and eugen­ics. In the early years, Pio­neer funds were fun­neled through small orga­ni­za­tions such as the IAAEE and FHU which were set up by mar­gin­al­ized schol­ars to dis­sem­i­nate work for which there were few main­stream out­lets. By the 1990s, most of the funds were being dis­trib­uted directly to uni­ver­si­ties for sup­port of Pio­neer affil­i­ated scholars.

Lead­ing Grant Recip­i­ents, 1994–1996

Uni­ver­sity of West­ern Ontario (J. Philippe Rush­ton) $334,405

Ulster Insti­tute for Social Research (Richard Lynn) $289,000

Uni­ver­sity of Min­nesota (Thomas Bouchard) $218,967

Uni­ver­sity of Delaware (Linda Got­tfred­son) $177,541

Insti­tute for the Study of Man (Roger Pear­son) $159,500

Fed­er­a­tion for Amer­i­can Immi­gra­tion Reform $100,500

___________________________________

Com­pared to the largest Amer­i­can foun­da­tions, the Pio­neer Fund is very small. Its assets have never exceeded $6.5 mil­lion (£4 mil­lion) and its total annual grants have never exceeded $900,000. But the Pio­neer Fund’s impor­tance in the his­tory of post-war race sci­ence far exceeds its size or the size of its grants. With almost laser-like pre­ci­sion, the Pio­neer Fund has been at the cut­ting edge of almost every race con­flict in the United States since its found­ing in 1937.

SHOCKLEY AND JENSEN

The Pio­neer Fund has changed lit­tle since its incep­tion. An arti­cle in the New York Times on Decem­ber 11, 1977 char­ac­ter­ized it as hav­ing “sup­ported highly con­tro­ver­sial research by a dozen sci­en­tists who believe that blacks are genet­i­cally less intel­li­gent than whites.” In the 1960s Nobel Lau­re­ate William Shock­ley (1910–1989), a physi­cist at Stan­ford Uni­ver­sity best known for his “vol­un­tary ster­il­iza­tion bonus plan” received an esti­mated $188,710 from the Pio­neer Fund between 1971 and 1978. Arthur Jensen, an edu­ca­tional psy­chol­o­gist, gar­nered more than a mil­lion dol­lars in Pio­neer grants over the past three decades. Three years after being recruited by Shock­ely, Jensen pub­lished his now famous attack on Head Start in the pres­ti­gious Har­vard Edu­ca­tion Review. Jensen claimed the prob­lem with black chil­dren was that they had an aver­age IQ of only 85 and that no amount of social engi­neer­ing would improve their per­for­mance. Jensen urged “eugenic fore­sight” as the only solu­tion. (7)

ROGER PEARSON

Roger Pear­son, whose Insti­tute for the Study of
Man has been one of the top Pio­neer ben­e­fi­cia­ries over the past twenty years ($870,000 from 1981–1996) is the clear­est exam­ple of the extrem­ist ide­ol­ogy of the Fund’s lead­er­ship. Pear­son came to the United States in the mid-sixties to join Willis Carto and the group around Right mag­a­zine. In 1965 he became edi­tor of West­ern Des­tiny, a mag­a­zine estab­lished by Carto and ded­i­cated to spread­ing fas­cist ide­ol­ogy. Using the pseu­do­nym of Stephan Lang­ton, Pear­son then became the edi­tor of The New Patriot, a short-lived mag­a­zine pub­lished in 1966–67 to con­duct “a respon­si­ble but pen­e­trat­ing inquiry into every aspect of the Jew­ish Ques­tion,” which included arti­cles such as “Zion­ists and the Plot Against South Africa,” “Early Jews and the Rise of Jew­ish Money Power,” and “Swindlers of the Cre­ma­to­ria.” Tak­ing account of all groups linked to Pear­son, Pio­neer sup­port between 1975–1996 exceeds one mil­lion dol­lars — nearly ten per­cent of the total Pio­neer grants for that period.

J. PHILIPPE RUSHTON

For the past few years, Uni­ver­sity of West­ern Ontario psy­chol­ogy pro­fes­sor J. Philippe Rush­ton has replaced Jensen as the top indi­vid­ual ben­e­fi­ciary of Pio­neer largess. Since 1981 he has ben­e­fited from more than a mil­lion dol­lars in Pio­neer grants. Rush­ton argues that behav­ioral dif­fer­ences among blacks, whites, and Asians are the result of evo­lu­tion­ary vari­a­tions in their repro­duc­tive strate­gies. Blacks are at one extreme, Rush­ton claims, because they pro­duce large num­bers of off­spring but offer them lit­tle care; at the other extreme are Asians, who have fewer chil­dren but indulge them; whites lie some­where in between. Despite Rushton’s con­tro­ver­sial race the­o­ries, he has been embraced by the sci­en­tific main­stream, hav­ing been elected a fel­low of the Amer­i­can Asso­ci­a­tion for the Advance­ment of Sci­ence, and the Amer­i­can, British, and Cana­dian Psy­cho­log­i­cal Associations.

The Pio­neer Fund seved as a small part of “a mul­ti­mil­lion dol­lar polit­i­cal empire of cor­po­ra­tions, foun­da­tions, polit­i­cal action com­mit­tees and ad hoc groups” active in 1980s (Wash­ing­ton Post, March 31, 1985, p. 1; A16) devel­oped by Tom Ellis, Harry Wey­her, Mar­ion Par­rott, R.E. Carter-Wrenn and Jesse Helms. The Fund has served as a nexus between aca­d­e­mic the­ory and prac­ti­cal polit­i­cal ide­ol­ogy. It’s lead­er­ship, espe­cially, Harry Wey­her, Thomas F. Ellis and Mar­ion A. Par­rott are part of an inter­lock­ing set of direc­torates and asso­ciates link­ing the Pio­neer Fund to Jesse Helms’ high-tech polit­i­cal machine. Ellis, for exam­ple, simul­ta­ne­ously served as Chair­man of the National Con­gres­sional Club and the Coali­tion for Free­dom, co-founder of Fair­ness in Media, a board mem­ber of the Edu­ca­tional Sup­port Foun­da­tion and Direc­tor of the Pio­neer Fund. Harry Wey­her, pres­i­dent of the Pio­neer Fund served as lead coun­sel for Fair­ness in Media.

AFTER THE PIONEER FUND?

The Pio­neer Fund has defined, in impor­tant ways, a dis­tinct era in the his­tory of con­tem­po­rary think­ing about race. This era began after World War II, when anti-egalitarian race sci­en­tists were sci­en­tif­i­cally and polit­i­cally mar­gin­al­ized and defeated, and it con­tin­ued long enough to wit­ness their sub­se­quent vic­tory, with the Pio­neer Fund’s sup­port, in an aggres­sive cam­paign to reha­bil­i­tate the notion of incor­ri­gi­ble racial dif­fer­ences as a car­di­nal sci­en­tific and civic fact. This era may now be com­ing to an end. Harry Wey­her and the oth­ers who have guided the Fund’s activ­i­ties for sev­eral gen­er­a­tions will prob­a­bly soon pass from the scene, and many of the grant recip­i­ents with whom it has been most closely iden­ti­fied also are approach­ing the end of their pro­duc­tive lives.

The envi­ron­ment within which the Fund oper­ates has also changed. Over the past decade the Fund has responded to these cir­cum­stances, and to the win­dow of oppor­tu­nity afforded it in recent years for advanc­ing its agenda, by accel­er­at­ing its grant-making to a rate sus­tain­able only by spend­ing its cap­i­tal. Wey­her was quoted in GQ mag­a­zine after the pub­li­ca­tion of The Bell Curve as say­ing, “It seemed to make more sense to spend the money than to save it, so we spent it. Once it’s gone, we’ll just quit.”(8) As a result of this pol­icy, by the end of 1996 the Fund’s assets had declined in real terms to less than 40 per­cent of their 1986 level. If this trend con­tin­ues, the Fund will not long out­last its cur­rent offi­cers. At the same time, the devel­op­ment of alter­na­tive sources of fund­ing is mak­ing work­ers in the fields that the Fund tra­di­tion­ally has sup­ported less depen­dent on it. These changes in fund­ing arrange­ments will change the char­ac­ter of dis­course on immi­gra­tion and indi­vid­ual and group dif­fer­ences in ways that can­not now be foreseen.

For now, how­ever, it is a use­ful mea­sure of the Pio­neer Fund’s suc­cess that anti-egalitarian race sci­en­tists are more con­fi­dent and bet­ter orga­nized in the United States than at any time since the 1920s, and pub­lic pol­icy inter­na­tion­ally has begun ineluctably to reflect their assump­tions and pref­er­ences.
Barry Mehler, Direc­tor
Keith Hurt, Research Asso­ciate
•Insti­tute for the Study of Aca­d­e­mic Racism, 1998

FOOTNOTES:
1. Pio­neer Grants were made to the New Cen­tury Foun­da­tion (NCF) in 1994, 1995, and 1996. 1997 and 1998 data is not yet avail­able (see our spread­sheet). The first Pio­neer grant to NCF was $12,000 approved as of Sept 21, 1994 “for pub­lish­ing & dis­sem­i­nat­ing writ­ings which enable the pub­lic to under­stand sci­en­tific find­ings about the human race and which oth­er­wise might not be pub­lished.” A $500 grant was approved as of Dec 8, 1995 “for the dis­tri­b­u­tion of sci­en­tific man­u­scripts.” And finally, a $4,990 grant was paid to NCF dur­ing 1996. It is prob­a­ble that the mate­r­ial dis­trib­uted included work by such major Pio­neer grantees as J.P. Rush­ton and Michael Levin. They were among the speak­ers at the 1994 and 1996 AR con­fer­ences, and the money might have gone to sup­port­ing dis­tri­b­u­tion of the pro­ceed­ings of the conferences.

2. Mar­garet Craw­ford, Build­ing the Workinginan’s Par­adise: The Design of Amer­i­can Com­pany Towns. Hay­mar­ket Series. Lon­don and New York: Verso, 1995.

3. Taped inter­view with Bruce Wal­lace 24 Jan­u­ary 1990. Between March and May 1960, Ronald W. May wrote a series of arti­cles on Draper’s rela­tion­ship to the House Un-american Activ­i­ties Com­mit­tee. In prepa­ra­tion for these arti­cles he inter­viewed a num­ber of well-known geneti­cists, includ­ing Bruce Wal­lace. Wal­lace was quoted by May in “Genet­ics and Sub­ver­sion,” The Nation (May 14, 1960). Defend­ers of the Pio­neer Fund have raised ques­tions about the authen­tic­ity of these quotes, so in 1990, I called Dr. Wal­lace. Dr. Wal­lace did not remem­ber the inter­view with May, but after hear­ing the quotes attrib­uted to him said: “I can say this and that is that the tenor of quo­ta­tions you have cited to me are prob­a­bly correct.”

4. Fred­er­ick Osborn, for exam­ple, a founder of the Pio­neer Fund along with Harry Laugh­lin, dis­tanced him­self from the Pio­neer Fund. In a dra­matic part­ing of ways in 1954, Draper offered Osborn full sup­port for the finan­cially ail­ing Amer­i­can Eugen­ics Soci­ety if Osborn would sup­port “mea­sures for estab­lish­ing racial homoge­ni­ety in the United States.” Osborn turned down Draper’s offer and resigned from the Pio­neer board.

5. Newby, I. (1969). Chal­lenge to the court: Social Sci­en­tists and the defense of seg­re­ga­tion, 1954–1996. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State Uni­ver­sity Press; Kluger, R. Sim­ple Jus­tice: The his­tory of Brown v. Board of Edu­ca­tion and Black America’s strug­gle for equal­ity. (New York: Knopf, 1976).

6. Win­ston, A. S. (1998). “Sci­ence in the ser­vice of the far right: Henry E. Gar­rett, the IAAEE, and the Lib­erty Lobby.” Jour­nal of Social Issues, 54, no. 1, 179–209.

7. Hirsch, J. “To Unfrock the Char­la­tans,” Sage Race Rela­tions Abstracts 6 #2 (May 1981) pp. 1–68 and “Jensenism: The Bank­rupcy of “Sci­ence” With­out Schol­ar­ship Edu­ca­tional The­ory 25 No 1 (Win­ter, 1975) pp. 3–27.

8. Sed­wick, John. “The Mena­tal­ity Bunker,” Gentlemen’s Quar­terly (Novem­ber 1994).

Discussion

8 comments for “Race Science and the Pioneer Fund”

  1. Charles Mur­ray as a new op-ed in the Wall Street Jour­nal about grow­ing cul­tural inequal­ity between the upper and lower classes in the US. He has solu­tions too! Appar­ently, fam­i­lies need to start act­ing in their self-interest, and the upper class need to move into poorer neigh­bor­hoods, become openly judg­men­tal, and “preach what they prac­tice” towards the uncul­tured lower classes about their poor morals(which is why they are in the lower class to being with, you see). Also, chang­ing mar­ginal tax rates and more col­lege finan­cial aide is def­i­nitely not going to help:

    JANUARY 21, 2012

    The New Amer­i­can Divide
    The ideal of an ‘Amer­i­can way of life’ is fad­ing as the work­ing class falls fur­ther away from insti­tu­tions like mar­riage and reli­gion and the upper class becomes more iso­lated. Charles Mur­ray on what’s cleav­ing Amer­ica, and why.

    By CHARLES MURRAY

    Amer­ica is com­ing apart. For most of our nation’s his­tory, what­ever the inequal­ity in wealth between the rich­est and poor­est cit­i­zens, we main­tained a cul­tural equal­ity known nowhere else in the world—for whites, any­way. “The more opu­lent cit­i­zens take great care not to stand aloof from the peo­ple,” wrote Alexis de Toc­queville, the great chron­i­cler of Amer­i­can democ­racy, in the 1830s. “On the con­trary, they con­stantly keep on easy terms with the lower classes: They lis­ten to them, they speak to them every day.”

    Amer­i­cans love to see them­selves this way. But there’s a prob­lem: It’s not true any­more, and it has been pro­gres­sively less true since the 1960s.

    Peo­ple are start­ing to notice the great divide. The tea party sees the aloof­ness in a polit­i­cal elite that thinks it knows best and orders the rest of Amer­ica to fall in line. The Occupy move­ment sees it in an eco­nomic elite that lives in man­sions and flies on pri­vate jets. Each is right about an aspect of the prob­lem, but that prob­lem is more per­va­sive than either polit­i­cal or eco­nomic inequal­ity. What we now face is a prob­lem of cul­tural inequality.

    ...

    Why have these new lower and upper classes emerged? For explain­ing the for­ma­tion of the new lower class, the easy expla­na­tions from the left don’t with­stand scrutiny. It’s not that white work­ing class males can no longer make a “fam­ily wage” that enables them to marry. The aver­age male employed in a working-class occu­pa­tion earned as much in 2010 as he did in 1960. It’s not that a bad job mar­ket led dis­cour­aged men to drop out of the labor force. Labor-force dropout increased just as fast dur­ing the boom years of the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s as it did dur­ing bad years.

    As I’ve argued in much of my pre­vi­ous work, I think that the reforms of the 1960s jump-started the dete­ri­o­ra­tion. Changes in social pol­icy dur­ing the 1960s made it eco­nom­i­cally more fea­si­ble to have a child with­out hav­ing a hus­band if you were a woman or to get along with­out a job if you were a man; safer to com­mit crimes with­out suf­fer­ing con­se­quences; and eas­ier to let the gov­ern­ment deal with prob­lems in your com­mu­nity that you and your neigh­bors for­merly had to take care of.

    But, for prac­ti­cal pur­poses, under­stand­ing why the new lower class got started isn’t espe­cially impor­tant. Once the dete­ri­o­ra­tion was under way, a self-reinforcing loop took hold as tra­di­tion­ally pow­er­ful social norms broke down. Because the process has become self-reinforcing, repeal­ing the reforms of the 1960s (some­thing that’s not going to hap­pen) would change the trends slowly at best.

    Mean­while, the for­ma­tion of the new upper class has been dri­ven by forces that are nobody’s fault and resist manip­u­la­tion. The eco­nomic value of brains in the mar­ket­place will con­tinue to increase no mat­ter what, and the most suc­cess­ful of each gen­er­a­tion will tend to marry each other no mat­ter what. As a result, the most suc­cess­ful Amer­i­cans will con­tinue to trend toward con­sol­i­da­tion and iso­la­tion as a class. Changes in mar­ginal tax rates on the wealthy won’t make a dif­fer­ence. Increas­ing schol­ar­ships for working-class chil­dren won’t make a dif­fer­ence.

    The only thing that can make a dif­fer­ence is the recog­ni­tion among Amer­i­cans of all classes that a prob­lem of cul­tural inequal­ity exists and that some­thing has to be done about it. That “some­thing” has noth­ing to do with new gov­ern­ment pro­grams or reg­u­la­tions. Pub­lic pol­icy has cer­tainly affected the cul­ture, unfor­tu­nately, but unin­tended con­se­quences have been as grimly inevitable for con­ser­v­a­tive social engi­neer­ing as for lib­eral social engineering.

    The “some­thing” that I have in mind has to be defined in terms of indi­vid­ual Amer­i­can fam­i­lies act­ing in their own inter­ests and the inter­ests of their chil­dren. Doing that in Fish­town requires sup­port from out­side. There remains a core of civic virtue and involve­ment in working-class Amer­ica that could make head­way against its prob­lems if the peo­ple who are try­ing to do the right things get the rein­force­ment they need—not in the form of gov­ern­ment assis­tance, but in val­i­da­tion of the val­ues and stan­dards they con­tinue to uphold. The best thing that the new upper class can do to pro­vide that rein­force­ment is to drop its con­de­scend­ing “non­judg­men­tal­ism.” Mar­ried, edu­cated peo­ple who work hard and con­sci­en­tiously raise their kids shouldn’t hes­i­tate to voice their dis­ap­proval of those who defy these norms. When it comes to mar­riage and the work ethic, the new upper class must start preach­ing what it practices.

    ...

    That’s it? But where’s my five-point plan? We’re sup­posed to trust that large num­bers of par­ents will spon­ta­neously, vol­un­tar­ily make the right choice for the coun­try by mak­ing the right choice for them­selves and their children?

    Yes, we are, but I don’t think that’s naive. I see too many signs that the trends I’ve described are already wor­ry­ing a lot of peo­ple. If enough Amer­i­cans look unblink­ingly at the nature of the prob­lem, they’ll fix it. One fam­ily at a time. For their own sakes. That’s the Amer­i­can way.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | January 22, 2012, 8:56 pm
  2. Here’s a Krug­man piece about an argu­ment just put forth by Tyler Cowan that maybe falling social mobil­ity isn’t such a bad thing. Some of the argu­ments were rem­i­nis­cent of the Charles Mur­ray WSJ arti­cle in the pre­vi­ous com­ment. It’s a nice pre­view of rehashed argu­ments of yes­ter­year for a Dick­en­sian tomor­row.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | January 25, 2012, 7:49 pm
  3. Oh my, it looks like Charles has a fan:

    Op-Ed Colum­nist
    The Great Divorce
    By DAVID BROOKS
    Pub­lished: Jan­u­ary 30, 2012

    I’ll be shocked if there’s another book this year as impor­tant as Charles Murray’s “Com­ing Apart.” I’ll be shocked if there’s another book that so com­pellingly describes the most impor­tant trends in Amer­i­can society.

    ...

    Murray’s story con­tra­dicts the ide­olo­gies of both par­ties. Repub­li­cans claim that Amer­ica is threat­ened by a deca­dent cul­tural elite that cor­rupts reg­u­lar Amer­i­cans, who love God, coun­try and tra­di­tional val­ues. That story is false. The cul­tural elites live more con­ser­v­a­tive, tra­di­tion­al­ist lives than the cul­tural masses.

    Democ­rats claim Amer­ica is threat­ened by the finan­cial elite, who hog society’s resources. But that’s a dis­trac­tion. The real social gap is between the top 20 per­cent and the lower 30 per­cent. The lib­eral mem­bers of the upper tribe latch onto this top 1 per­cent nar­ra­tive because it excuses them from the cen­tral role they them­selves are play­ing in dri­ving inequal­ity and unfairness.

    It’s wrong to describe an Amer­ica in which the salt of the earth com­mon peo­ple are preyed upon by this or that nefar­i­ous elite. It’s wrong to tell the famil­iar under­dog moral­ity tale in which the prob­lems of the masses are caused by the elites.

    The truth is, mem­bers of the upper tribe have made them­selves phe­nom­e­nally pro­duc­tive. They may mimic bohemian man­ners, but they have returned to 1950s tra­di­tion­al­ist val­ues and prac­tices. They have low divorce rates, ardu­ous work ethics and strict codes to reg­u­late their kids.

    Mem­bers of the lower tribe work hard and dream big, but are more removed from tra­di­tional bour­geois norms. They live in dis­or­ga­nized, post­mod­ern neigh­bor­hoods in which it is much harder to be self-disciplined and productive.

    I doubt Mur­ray would agree, but we need a National Ser­vice Pro­gram. We need a pro­gram that would force mem­bers of the upper tribe and the lower tribe to live together, if only for a few years. We need a pro­gram in which peo­ple from both tribes work together to spread out the val­ues, prac­tices and insti­tu­tions that lead to achievement.

    If we could jam the tribes together, we’d have a bet­ter elite and a bet­ter mass.

    So after we move all the rich and poor folks into the same neigh­bor­hood, do the poor kids still get to work as the school jan­i­tor or will they have absorbed enough moral char­ac­ter from their neigh­bor­hood betters?

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | January 31, 2012, 3:22 pm
  4. I would call this an instance of Der­byshire ‘drop­ping the mask’ if he was still wear­ing it.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | April 7, 2012, 5:32 pm
  5. Oh look, Der­byshire just found a new home...at VDARE. Now he can pon­tif­i­cate on the unfair neg­a­tive con­no­ta­tions asso­ci­ated with the term ‘white-supremacy’ in peace.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | May 14, 2012, 1:44 pm
  6. Charles Mur­ray has a col­umn in the WSJ about why cap­i­tal­ism has been get­ting a bad wrap lately:

    Updated July 30, 2012, 1:20 a.m. ET

    Why Cap­i­tal­ism Has an Image Prob­lem
    Charles Mur­ray exam­ines the cloud now hang­ing over Amer­i­can business—and what today’s cap­i­tal­ists can do about it.

    mBy CHARLES MURRAY

    Mitt Romney’s résumé at Bain should be a slam dunk. He has been a suc­cess­ful cap­i­tal­ist, and cap­i­tal­ism is the best thing that has ever hap­pened to the mate­r­ial con­di­tion of the human race. From the dawn of his­tory until the 18th cen­tury, every soci­ety in the world was impov­er­ished, with only the thinnest film of wealth on top. Then came cap­i­tal­ism and the Indus­trial Rev­o­lu­tion. Every­where that cap­i­tal­ism sub­se­quently took hold, national wealth began to increase and poverty began to fall. Every­where that cap­i­tal­ism didn’t take hold, peo­ple remained impov­er­ished. Every­where that cap­i­tal­ism has been rejected since then, poverty has increased.

    Cap­i­tal­ism has lifted the world out of poverty because it gives peo­ple a chance to get rich by cre­at­ing value and reap­ing the rewards. Who bet­ter to be pres­i­dent of the great­est of all cap­i­tal­ist nations than a man who got rich by being a bril­liant capitalist?

    ...

    But the prob­lem of crony cap­i­tal­ism is triv­ial com­pared with the col­lu­sion engen­dered by gov­ern­ment. In today’s world, every business’s oper­a­tions and bot­tom line are affected by rules set by leg­is­la­tors and bureau­crats. The result has been cor­rup­tion on a mas­sive scale. Some­times the cor­rup­tion is retail, whereby a sin­gle cor­po­ra­tion cre­ates a com­pet­i­tive advan­tage through the coop­er­a­tion of reg­u­la­tors or politi­cians (search on “ear­marks”). Some­times the cor­rup­tion is whole­sale, cre­at­ing an indus­try­wide poten­tial for profit that would not exist in the absence of gov­ern­ment sub­si­dies or reg­u­la­tions (like ethanol used to fuel cars and low-interest mort­gages for peo­ple who are unlikely to pay them back). Col­lu­sive cap­i­tal­ism has become vis­i­ble to the pub­lic and increas­ingly defines cap­i­tal­ism in the pub­lic mind.

    Another change in objec­tive con­di­tions has been the emer­gence of great for­tunes made quickly in the finan­cial mar­kets. It has always been easy for Amer­i­cans to applaud peo­ple who get rich by cre­at­ing prod­ucts and ser­vices that peo­ple want to buy. That is why Thomas Edi­son and Henry Ford were Amer­i­can heroes a cen­tury ago, and Steve Jobs was one when he died last year.

    When great wealth is gen­er­ated instead by mak­ing smart buy and sell deci­sions in the mar­kets, it smacks of inside knowl­edge, arcane finan­cial instru­ments, oppor­tu­ni­ties that aren’t acces­si­ble to ordi­nary peo­ple, and hocus-pocus. The good that these rich peo­ple have done in the process of get­ting rich is obscure. The ben­e­fits of more effi­cient allo­ca­tion of cap­i­tal are huge, but they are really, really hard to explain sim­ply and per­sua­sively. It looks to a large pro­por­tion of the pub­lic as if we’ve got some fab­u­lously wealthy peo­ple who haven’t done any­thing to deserve their wealth.

    The objec­tive changes in cap­i­tal­ism as it is prac­ticed plau­si­bly account for much of the hos­til­ity toward cap­i­tal­ism. But they don’t account for the unwill­ing­ness of cap­i­tal­ists who are get­ting rich the old-fashioned way—earning it—to defend themselves.

    ...

    And so capitalism’s rep­u­ta­tion has fallen on hard times and the prin­ci­pled case for cap­i­tal­ism must be made anew. That case has been made bril­liantly and often in the past, with Mil­ton Friedman’s “Cap­i­tal­ism and Free­dom” being my own favorite. But in today’s polit­i­cal cli­mate, updat­ing the case for cap­i­tal­ism requires a restate­ment of old truths in ways that Amer­i­cans from across the polit­i­cal spec­trum can accept. Here is my best effort:

    The U.S. was cre­ated to fos­ter human flour­ish­ing. The means to that end was the exer­cise of lib­erty in the pur­suit of hap­pi­ness. Cap­i­tal­ism is the eco­nomic expres­sion of lib­erty. The pur­suit of hap­pi­ness, with hap­pi­ness defined in the clas­sic sense of jus­ti­fied and last­ing sat­is­fac­tion with life as a whole, depends on eco­nomic lib­erty every bit as much as it depends on other kinds of freedom.

    “Last­ing and jus­ti­fied sat­is­fac­tion with life as a whole” is pro­duced by a rel­a­tively small set of impor­tant achieve­ments that we can rightly attribute to our own actions. Arthur Brooks, my col­league at the Amer­i­can Enter­prise Insti­tute, has use­fully labeled such achieve­ments “earned suc­cess.” Earned suc­cess can arise from a suc­cess­ful mar­riage, chil­dren raised well, a val­ued place as a mem­ber of a com­mu­nity, or devo­tion to a faith. Earned suc­cess also arises from achieve­ment in the eco­nomic realm, which is where cap­i­tal­ism comes in.

    Earn­ing a liv­ing for your­self and your fam­ily through your own efforts is the most ele­men­tal form of earned suc­cess. Suc­cess­fully start­ing a busi­ness, no mat­ter how small, is an act of cre­at­ing some­thing out of noth­ing that car­ries sat­is­fac­tions far beyond those of the money it brings in. Find­ing work that not only pays the bills but that you enjoy is a cru­cially impor­tant resource for earned success.

    Mak­ing a liv­ing, start­ing a busi­ness and find­ing work that you enjoy all depend on free­dom to act in the eco­nomic realm. What gov­ern­ment can do to help is estab­lish the rule of law so that informed and vol­un­tary trades can take place. More for­mally, gov­ern­ment can vig­or­ously enforce laws against the use of force, fraud and crim­i­nal col­lu­sion, and use tort law to hold peo­ple liable for harm they cause others.

    Every­thing else the gov­ern­ment does inher­ently restricts eco­nomic free­dom to act in pur­suit of earned suc­cess. I am a lib­er­tar­ian and think that almost none of those restric­tions are jus­ti­fied. But accept­ing the case for cap­i­tal­ism doesn’t require you to be a lib­er­tar­ian. You are free to argue that cer­tain gov­ern­ment inter­ven­tions are jus­ti­fied. You just need to acknowl­edge this truth: Every inter­ven­tion that erects bar­ri­ers to start­ing a busi­ness, makes it expen­sive to hire or fire employ­ees, restricts entry into voca­tions, pre­scribes work con­di­tions and facil­i­ties, or con­fis­cates prof­its inter­feres with eco­nomic lib­erty and usu­ally makes it more dif­fi­cult for both employ­ers and employ­ees to earn suc­cess. You also don’t need to be a lib­er­tar­ian to demand that any new inter­ven­tion meet this bur­den of proof: It will accom­plish some­thing that tort law and enforce­ment of basic laws against force, fraud and col­lu­sion do not accomplish.

    Peo­ple with a wide range of polit­i­cal views can also acknowl­edge that these inter­ven­tions do the most harm to indi­vid­u­als and small enter­prises. Huge banks can, albeit at great expense, cope with the Dodd-Frank law’s absurd reg­u­la­tory bur­dens; many small banks can­not. Huge cor­po­ra­tions can cope with the myr­iad rules issued by the Occu­pa­tional Safety and Health Admin­is­tra­tion, the Envi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency, the Equal Employ­ment Oppor­tu­nity Com­mis­sion and their state-level coun­ter­parts. The same rules can crush small busi­nesses and indi­vid­u­als try­ing to start small businesses.

    ...

    I’d also add the end­less rehash­ing tired “all gov­ern­ment is inher­ently bad and inef­fi­cient and free mar­kets are the default best model for all cir­cum­stances” argu­ments we see in the above col­umn to the list of fac­tors con­tribut­ing to capitalism’s cur­rent conundrum.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | July 30, 2012, 1:28 pm
  7. Be it noted that this is the same Charles Mur­ray, co-author of the infa­mous racist tract “The Bell Curve”:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Murray_%28author%29

    As an apolo­getic for Cap­i­tal­ism it’s a real pot­boiler. And it’s telling that such a noto­ri­ous char­la­tan is deployed to do so.

    It’s pri­mary thesis...

    “From the dawn of his­tory until the 18th cen­tury, every soci­ety in the world was impoverished...”

    ...is bunk.

    If the bless­ings of Civ­i­liza­tion™ and Cap­i­tal­ism are so over­whelm­ing how come so much blood has been shed to resist it and mur­der­ous oppres­sion required to impose it globally?

    From the enclo­sure move­ments in Britain to the dec­i­ma­tion of indige­nous peo­ples in the Amer­i­cas, Capital’s blood-drenched rise to global hege­mony has been fought back by millions.

    Those poor benighted souls just could not grasp it’s many bless­ings I guess, eh Charles?

    Posted by ironcloudz | August 2, 2012, 8:17 am
  8. Whoops! The Her­itage Foun­da­tion just had to issue a “we’re not racists we merely hire them!” state­ment in response to this uncom­fort­able lit­tle dis­cov­ery about the author a recent Her­itage Foun­da­tion study that made a big splash about the mas­sive pro­jected costs of pro­posed immi­gra­tion reform. It tuns out the guy is ... wait for it ... kinda racist:

    Wash­ing­ton Post
    Her­itage study co-author opposed let­ting in immi­grants with low IQs

    Posted by Dylan Matthews on May 8, 2013 at 9:00 am

    The Her­itage Foun­da­tion made some­thing of a splash with its study sug­gest­ing that immi­gra­tion reform will cost the pub­lic tril­lions. Past work by one of its co-authors helps put that piece in context.

    Jason Rich­wine is rel­a­tively new to the think tank world. He received his PhD in pub­lic pol­icy from Har­vard in 2009, and joined Her­itage after a brief stay at the Amer­i­can Enter­prise Insti­tute. Richwine’s doc­toral dis­ser­ta­tion is titled “IQ and Immi­gra­tion Pol­icy”; the con­tents are well sum­ma­rized in the dis­ser­ta­tion abstract:

    The sta­tis­ti­cal con­struct known as IQ can reli­ably esti­mate gen­eral men­tal abil­ity, or intel­li­gence. The aver­age IQ of immi­grants in the United States is sub­stan­tially lower than that of the white native pop­u­la­tion, and the dif­fer­ence is likely to per­sist over sev­eral gen­er­a­tions. The con­se­quences are a lack of socioe­co­nomic assim­i­la­tion among low-IQ immi­grant groups, more under­class behav­ior, less social trust, and an increase in the pro­por­tion of unskilled work­ers in the Amer­i­can labor mar­ket. Select­ing high-IQ immi­grants would ame­lio­rate these prob­lems in the U.S., while at the same time ben­e­fit­ing smart poten­tial immi­grants who lack edu­ca­tional access in their home countries.

    Richwine’s dis­ser­ta­tion asserts that there are deep-set dif­fer­en­tials in intel­li­gence between races. While it’s clear he thinks it is partly due to genet­ics — “the total­ity of the evi­dence sug­gests a genetic com­po­nent to group dif­fer­ences in IQ” — he argues the most impor­tant thing is that the dif­fer­ences in group IQs are per­sis­tent, for what­ever rea­son. He writes, “No one knows whether His­pan­ics will ever reach IQ par­ity with whites, but the pre­dic­tion that new His­panic immi­grants will have low-IQ chil­dren and grand­chil­dren is dif­fi­cult to argue against.”

    Toward the end of the the­sis, Rich­wine writes that though he believes racial dif­fer­ences in IQ to be real and per­sis­tent, one need not agree with that to accept his case for bas­ing immi­gra­tion on IQ. Rather than exclud­ing what he judges to be low-IQ races, we can just test each individual’s IQ and exclude those with low scores. “I believe there is a strong case for IQ selec­tion,” he writes, “since it is the­o­ret­i­cally a win-win for the U.S. and poten­tial immi­grants.” He does cau­tion against refer­ring to it as IQ-based selec­tion, say­ing that using the term “skill-based” would “blunt the neg­a­tive reaction.”

    ...

    Update: Mike Gon­za­lez, VP for Com­mu­ni­ca­tions at Her­itage, emails: “This is not a work prod­uct of The Her­itage Foun­da­tion. Its find­ings in no way reflect the posi­tions of The Her­itage Foun­da­tion. Nor do the find­ings affect the con­clu­sions of our study on the cost of amnesty to the U.S. taxpayer.”

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | May 8, 2013, 2:42 pm

Post a comment