Last year I published Race, IQ, and Wealth, presenting the overwhelming evidence that group IQs were far more malleable and shaped by social influences than is widely acknowledged in many quarters. The result was a lengthy and ferocious Internet debate, including an overwhelmingly negative and even hostile response to my suggestions, mostly by bloggers who had long specialized in that forbidden topic.
As the dozen or so rounds of the debate played out, some of my critics, including the most scholarly, began to acknowledge that my arguments actually had quite a bit of merit, and these “second thoughts” continued after the controversy had died down.
For example, late last year an erstwhile blogger-critic informed me that he had discovered the precise details of the huge but hotly-disputed 1972 IQ study in Ireland that I had repeatedly cited, and the methodology seemed exceptionally well-designed and sound. Therefore, I think it can not longer be seriously disputed that just forty years the population of Ireland did indeed have a mean IQ of only 87.
The recent defenestration of the unfortunate Dr. Jason Richwine has brought these issues once again back to the fore, and apparently sparked renewed interest. During the previous debate, one of my earliest and strongest quantitative critics had been someone styling himself “The Occidentalist” and running a blog of a similar name. But a few days ago, he published an extremely detailed 5,000 word article entitled “The Argument Ron Should Have Made” in which he now grudgingly acknowledges that many of my central arguments seem to have been correct after all. This is a welcome change from his original response last year, which had characterized me as “egregiously dishonest” and my views as “laughable commentary.” Read More…
When a small publication such as The American Conservative publishes a sharp attack against the mainstream media as I recently did in American Pravda, the ultimate result largely depends upon whether that selfsame media will take any notice. Many tens or even low hundreds of thousands may read a highly popular article online, but such totals are negligible in a nation of over three hundred million, and those readers might anyway question the credibility of the charges. After all, one of my central arguments had been that our media decides what is real and what is nonsense.
With the media serving as gatekeeper to its own criticism, the impact of my efforts remained in substantial doubt over the last month, but early Monday morning the ground shifted as the venerable Atlantic—one of America’s oldest publications and still among the most influential—published a very thoughtful 2,000 word discussion of my piece, under the noteworthy heading “Why Does the American Media Get Big Stories Wrong?”. Agreeing with me on some particulars and disagreeing on others, author Conor Friedersdorf helpfully summarized my critique while also providing several suggested answers to his own title-question, something that I had not treated in detail.
The article certainly seemed to strike a nerve, reaching #2 on the The Atlantic’s most read list, and the piece has now been tweeted out well over 500 times, with perhaps a hundred of those tweeters ranked as “influential” and often themselves being members of the journalistic community. Based on the a quick sampling of particular tweets, I’d estimate that over one million individuals and possibly as many as two or three million have now been alerted to the topic. Most Americans—especially most American journalists—realize perfectly well that our media ecosystem is broken, and are very concerned about the depth of the problem. The crucial question is whether others will now continue moving the story forward by taking advantage of the opening so helpfully produced by this important Atlantic article. Read More…
For years futurists have been regularly prophesizing that the power of the Internet will level the playing field between the mighty and the weak, and one more nugget of evidence that this day is finally dawning has now come to my attention.
A few days ago my regular Google sweeps discovered that a website called ZeroHedge had picked up and reprinted my recent article American Pravda, and although I had never heard of the source, I clicked a link and casually investigated. The website seems absolutely bare-bones in style, posts long essays one after the other, is apparently run on a quasi-volunteer basis by several pseudonymous editors, and focuses on financial or political issues, especially of a controversial or scandalous nature. That description would easily apply to a hundred or a thousand other webzines, but a crucial difference is ZeroHedge’s traffic, which seems to be absolutely enormous.
Although my article was just one of many posted that day, the running total of readers quickly reached ten or twenty thousand, while tweets went out to a vast multitude of recipients. In just a couple of days it accumulated as much readership as my original version had received in a week or two, and once I investigate the website’s traffic with the Alexa tool, I soon discovered why. This self-operated webzine, apparently run on a shoestring, seems to be almost as popular as the entire Atlantic website, with all of its archives, major feature stories by prominent journalists, and popular bloggers. Put another way, ZeroHedge’s traffic is several times larger than the combined total of National Review, The Nation, and The New Republic. And I’d never even known it existed until last week.
How did ZeroHedge become aware of my piece? While I can’t be sure, I strongly suspect that the lead came a few days earlier, when Tyler Cowen, a prominent professor of economics at George Mason University, had highlighted my piece at his popular Marginal Revolution blogsite under the attention-getting title “The Most Provocative, Fascinating, and Bizarre Piece I Read Today”. His posting generated a long thread containing hundreds of comments, a major outpouring of tweets, and a huge increase of traffic back to the original article. And since ZeroHedge seems to glory in shocking stories inadequately covered by our timorous mainstream media, they probably decided my material was right up their alley. Read More…
Salon just published my piece pointing out the crucial importance of including a large rise in the federal minimum wage in the current immigration legislation:
No Immigration Amnesty Without a Minimum Wage Hike
Salon, May 18, 2013
Congress is currently considering bipartisan legislation providing an amnesty for America’s 11 million illegal immigrants, probably combined with extra visas for skilled workers and an agricultural guestworker program. But principled liberals and conservatives should both demand that any immigration reform proposal also include a sharp rise in the federal minimum wage.
The reason is simple. Any increase in the supply or job mobility of willing workers will tend to benefit Capital at the expense of Labor, stifling any growth in working-class wages, especially given our high unemployment rates. The last 40 years have seen a huge increase in immigration, and it is hardly coincidental that median American wages have been stagnant or declining throughout most of this same period. A large boost in the minimum wage, perhaps to $12 an hour or more, would be the best means of reversing our current economic race to the bottom. [READ MORE]
Also, I was very pleased to see prominent blogger and NYT economics columnist Tyler Cowen, a very mainstream figure, drawing strong attention to my American Pravda article:
The Cowen piece produced a large number of comments and tweets, and generated a great deal of additional readership traffic for my original article.
Together with the Forbes column from last week, my provocative and controversial media analysis seems to be gradually gaining attention among individuals writing for the MSM.
As I often tell people, there seems a totally unpredictable, even random aspect to major American media coverage. Whether a scandal explodes into the public eye or escapes without notice seems difficult to foretell.
Consider the recent example of Dr. Jason Richwine, late of the Heritage Foundation, whose ideological travails became one of Washington’s major scandals-of-the-month over the past week. Googling his exact name now yields half a million web results, and I’d guess that 99% of these are of extremely recent vintage.
As some media commentators have suggested, Richwine himself may be wondering Why Me and Why Now? After all, the racial writings and opinions that provoked so much media fury had never been secretive or disguised; they were always hiding in plain sight.
His Harvard doctoral dissertation asserting the strong connection between race and IQ and suggesting that American immigration policy should be changed to reflect this relationship has been freely available on the Internet for years, as have been video clips of his public pronouncements on the same subject. His articles and columns arguing that Hispanics have unusually high crime rates—mostly written in rebuttal to my own contrary findings—have always been a mouse-click away, and anyone checking would have noticed that these writings had appeared in Alternative Right, a racial nationalist webzine whose ideological orientation has now suddenly been classified as poisonous by the Washington commentariat. Read More…
Amid loud cries of “Witch! Witch! Burn the Witch!” an enraged throng of ideological activists and media pundits late last week besieged the fortress-like DC headquarters of the conservative Heritage Foundation, demanding the person of one Jason Richwine, Ph.D., employed there as a senior policy analyst. The High Lords of Heritage, deeply concerned about any possible threat to their million-dollar salaries, quickly submitted, though they waited until late Friday, the dead-zone period of national news coverage, before announcing that young Dr. Richwine had been expelled into the Outer Darkness.
Only a week earlier, Richwine had reached a pinnacle of his career, listed as co-author of a widely trumpeted Heritage research study demonstrating that Congressional passage of proposed immigration reform legislation would cost American taxpayers some six trillion dollars…or perhaps the figure was six quadrillion dollars.
But then some enterprising journalist discovered the dreadful evidence of Richwine’s horrific heresy, namely that his 2009 doctoral dissertation at the Harvard Kennedy School had focused on the very low IQs of those racial groups providing most of our current immigrants, with his conclusion being that such inflows must be halted lest American society be dumbified into disaster. Taken together Race and IQ constitute an exceptionally volatile mix in modern American society, and ignited by a six trillion dollar spark, the resulting explosion blew Richwine out of his comfortable DC employment. Read More…
For a combination of demographic and ideological reasons few topics in American public life are more explosive than those involving race.
Racial factors obviously underlie a wide range of major public policy issues yet are almost always ignored by nearly all participants. However, every now and then a careless statement or uncovered document will suddenly bring these subterranean flows to the surface, producing a volcanic eruption of white-hot controversy. Thus American politicians and policy analysts, knowingly or not, spend most of their careers walking through mine fields and occasionally blowing themselves up.
Consider the newly released Heritage Foundation report sharply criticizing the fiscal impact of the proposed immigration reform legislation currently being considered by Congress. For a couple of days the focus had been on the green eyeshades issue of whether the multi-trillion-dollar claims had improperly failed to include dynamic scoring in their underlying econometric model. But then the debate suddenly took an explosively controversial turn when the media discovered that co-author Jason Richwine possessed a long paper-trail of highly heretical racial views, especially with regards to IQ matters.
Racial differences constitute the intellectual pornography of our American elites, and The New York Times, The Washington Post, and a host of web journalists are now eagerly covering this prurient debate, which seems likely to overshadow any analysis of the original 92-page report itself. Most mainstream conservative pundits have been sharply critical of Richwine, but a few associated with the VDare webzine, such as Steve Sailer and John Derbyshire, have risen to his strong defense. Read More…
The early reaction to my “American Pravda” article has been quite encouraging, with the piece attracting more traffic during its first week than nearly any of my others and with several websites discussing, excerpting, or even republishing it. Furthermore, the average time spent on the page by readers steadily rose to nearly a full hour as the days went by, seeming to indicate that visitors were carefully absorbing and digesting my material rather than merely flitting away after a casual glance or two. Tens of thousands of individuals have now apparently read part or all of my arguments, though whether they will have any lasting impact is difficult to say.
After all, we live in the Age of Television, when the images we see on the small screen—or its cinematic big brother—define our known world with far greater force than does the printed word or sometimes even the direct evidence of our own senses. Television may not be reality, but for all too many Americans, Reality is often Television.
Consider one of the most copiously sourced of the unreported scandals that I described, namely the long Vietnam POW cover-up so exhaustively documented by Pulitzer Prize-winner Sydney Schanberg. The evidence is overwhelming, the supporters include individuals of the highest credibility, and the governmental denials have largely been perfunctory. But since the story has not been widely featured on popular cable news chat shows, the events remain almost entirely “unreal” to the vast majority of today’s American journalists and the public they purport to inform. Read More…
In mid-March, the Wall Street Journal carried a long discussion of the origins of the Bretton Woods system, the international financial framework that governed the Western world for decades after World War II. A photo showed the two individuals who negotiated that agreement. Britain was represented by John Maynard Keynes, a towering economic figure of that era. America’s representative was Harry Dexter White, assistant secretary of the Treasury and long a central architect of American economic policy, given that his nominal superior, Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr., was a gentleman farmer with no background in finance. White was also a Communist agent.
Such a situation was hardly unique in American government during the 1930s and 1940s. For example, when a dying Franklin Roosevelt negotiated the outlines of postwar Europe with Joseph Stalin at the 1945 Yalta summit, one of his important advisors was Alger Hiss, a State Department official whose primary loyalty was to the Soviet side. Over the last 20 years, John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr, and other scholars have conclusively established that many dozens or even hundreds of Soviet agents once honeycombed the key policy staffs and nuclear research facilities of our federal government, constituting a total presence perhaps approaching the scale suggested by Sen. Joseph McCarthy, whose often unsubstantiated charges tended to damage the credibility of his position.
The Cold War ended over two decades ago and Communism has been relegated to merely an unpleasant chapter in the history books, so today these facts are hardly much disputed. For example, liberal Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein matter-of-factly referred to White as a “Soviet spy” in the title of his column on our postwar financial system. But during the actual period when America’s government was heavily influenced by Communist agents, such accusations were widely denounced as “Red-baiting” or ridiculed as right-wing conspiracy paranoia by many of our most influential journalists and publications. In 1982 liberal icon Susan Sontag ruefully acknowledged that for decades the subscribers to the lowbrow Readers Digest had received a more realistic view of the world than those who drew their knowledge from the elite liberal publications favored by her fellow intellectuals. I myself came of age near the end of the Cold War and always vaguely assumed that such lurid tales of espionage were wildly exaggerated. I was wrong.
The notion of the American government being infiltrated and substantially controlled by agents of a foreign power has been the stuff of endless Hollywood movies and television shows, but for various reasons such popular channels have never been employed to bring the true-life historical example to wide attention. I doubt if even one American in a hundred today is familiar with the name “Harry Dexter White” or dozens of similar agents.
The realization that the world is often quite different from what is presented in our leading newspapers and magazines is not an easy conclusion for most educated Americans to accept, or at least that was true in my own case. For decades, I have closely read the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and one or two other major newspapers every morning, supplemented by a wide variety of weekly or monthly opinion magazines. Their biases in certain areas had always been apparent to me. But I felt confident that by comparing and contrasting the claims of these different publications and applying some common sense, I could obtain a reasonably accurate version of reality. I was mistaken.
Aside from the evidence of our own senses, almost everything we know about the past or the news of today comes from bits of ink on paper or colored pixels on a screen, and fortunately over the last decade or two the growth of the Internet has vastly widened the range of information available to us in that latter category. Even if the overwhelming majority of the unorthodox claims provided by such non-traditional web-based sources is incorrect, at least there now exists the possibility of extracting vital nuggets of truth from vast mountains of falsehood. Certainly the events of the past dozen years have forced me to completely recalibrate my own reality-detection apparatus.
Thoughtful individuals of all backgrounds have undergone a similar crisis of confidence during this same period. Just a few months after 9/11 New York Times columnist Paul Krugman argued that the sudden financial collapse of the Enron Corporation represented a greater shock to the American system than the terrorist attacks themselves, and although he was widely denounced for making such an “unpatriotic” claim, I believe his case was strong. Although the name “Enron” has largely vanished from our memory, for years it had ranked as one of America’s most successful and admired companies, glowingly profiled on the covers of our leading business magazines, and drawing luminaries such as Krugman himself to its advisory board; Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay had been a top contender for Treasury secretary in President George W. Bush’s administration. Then in the blink of an eye, the entire company was revealed to be an accounting fraud from top to bottom, collapsing into a $63 billion bankruptcy, the largest in American history. Other companies of comparable or even greater size such as WorldCom, Tyco, Adelphia, and Global Crossing soon vanished for similar reasons.
Part of Krugman’s argument was that while the terrorist attacks had been of an entirely unprecedented nature and scale, our entire system of financial regulation, accounting, and business journalism was designed to prevent exactly the sort of frauds that brought down those huge companies. When a system fails so dramatically at its core mission, we must wonder which of our other assumptions are incorrect.
Just a few years later, we saw an even more sweeping near-collapse of our entire financial system, with giant institutions such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Wachovia, and AIG falling into bankruptcy, and all our remaining major banks surviving only due to the trillions of dollars in government bailouts and loan guarantees they received. Once again, all our media and regulatory organs had failed to anticipate this disaster.
Or take the remarkable case of Bernie Madoff. His colossal investment swindle had been growing unchecked for over three decades under the very noses of our leading financial journalists and regulators in New York City, ultimately reaching the sum of $65 billion in mostly fictional assets. His claimed returns had been implausibly steady and consistent year after year, market crashes or not. None of his supposed trading actually occurred. His only auditing was by a tiny storefront firm. Angry competitors had spent years warning the SEC and journalists that his alleged investment strategy was mathematically impossible and that he was obviously running a Ponzi scheme. Yet despite all these indicators, officials did nothing and refused to close down such a transparent swindle, while the media almost entirely failed to report these suspicions.
In many respects, the non-detection of these business frauds is far more alarming than failure to uncover governmental malfeasance. Politics is a partisan team sport, and it is easy to imagine Democrats or Republicans closing ranks and protecting their own, despite damage to society. Furthermore, success or failure in public policies is often ambiguous and subject to propagandistic spin. But investors in a fraudulent company lose their money and therefore have an enormous incentive to detect those risks, with the same being true for business journalists. If the media cannot be trusted to catch and report simple financial misconduct, its reliability on more politically charged matters will surely be lower.
The circumstances surrounding our Iraq War demonstrate this, certainly ranking it among the strangest military conflicts of modern times. The 2001 attacks in America were quickly ascribed to the radical Islamists of al-Qaeda, whose bitterest enemy in the Middle East had always been Saddam Hussein’s secular Baathist regime in Iraq. Yet through misleading public statements, false press leaks, and even forged evidence such as the “yellowcake” documents, the Bush administration and its neoconservative allies utilized the compliant American media to persuade our citizens that Iraq’s nonexistent WMDs posed a deadly national threat and required elimination by war and invasion. Indeed, for several years national polls showed that a large majority of conservatives and Republicans actually believed that Saddam was the mastermind behind 9/11 and the Iraq War was being fought as retribution. Consider how bizarre the history of the 1940s would seem if America had attacked China in retaliation for Pearl Harbor.
True facts were easily available to anyone paying attention in the years after 2001, but most Americans do not bother and simply draw their understanding of the world from what they are told by the major media, which overwhelmingly—almost uniformly—backed the case for war with Iraq; the talking heads on TV created our reality. Prominent journalists across the liberal and conservative spectrum eagerly published the most ridiculous lies and distortions passed on to them by anonymous sources, and stampeded Congress down the path to war.
The result was what my late friend Lt. Gen. Bill Odom rightly called the “greatest strategic disaster in United States history.” American forces suffered tens of thousands of needless deaths and injuries, while our country took a huge step toward national bankruptcy. Economics Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz and others have estimated that with interest the total long-term cost of our two recent wars may reach as high as $5 or $6 trillion, or as much as $50,000 per American household, mostly still unpaid. Meanwhile, economist Edward Wolff has calculated that the Great Recession and its aftermath cut the personal net worth of the median American household to $57,000 in 2010 from a figure nearly twice as high three years earlier. Comparing these assets and liabilities, we see that the American middle class now hovers on the brink of insolvency, with the cost of our foreign wars being a leading cause.
But no one involved in the debacle ultimately suffered any serious consequences, and most of the same prominent politicians and highly paid media figures who were responsible remain just as prominent and highly paid today. For most Americans, reality is whatever our media organs tell us, and since these have largely ignored the facts and adverse consequences of our wars in recent years, the American people have similarly forgotten. Recent polls show that only half the public today believes that the Iraq War was a mistake.
Author James Bovard has described our society as an “attention deficit democracy,” and the speed with which important events are forgotten once the media loses interest might surprise George Orwell.
Consider the story of Vioxx, a highly lucrative anti-pain medication marketed by Merck to the elderly as a substitute for simple aspirin. After years of very profitable Vioxx sales, an FDA researcher published a study demonstrating that the drug greatly increased the risk of fatal strokes and heart attacks and had probably already caused tens of thousands of premature American deaths. Vioxx was immediately pulled from the market, but Merck eventually settled the resulting lawsuits for relatively small penalties, despite direct evidence the company had long been aware of the drug’s deadly nature. Our national media, which had earned hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising revenue from Vioxx marketing, provided no sustained coverage and the scandal was soon forgotten. Furthermore, the press never investigated the dramatic upward and downward shifts in the mortality rates of elderly Americans that so closely tracked the introduction and recall of Vioxx; as I pointed out in a 2012 article, these indicated that the likely death toll had actually been several times greater than the FDA estimate. Vast numbers Americans died, no one was punished, and almost everyone has now forgotten.
Or take the strange case of Bernard Kerik, New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s police commissioner during 9/11, later nominated by President Bush to be America’s first director of national intelligence, a newly established position intended to oversee all of our various national-security and intelligence agencies. His appointment seemed likely to sail through the Republican-controlled Senate until derailed by accusations he had employed an undocumented nanny. With his political rise having been blocked, the national media suddenly revealed his long history of association with organized-crime figures, an indictment quickly followed, and he is currently still serving his federal prison sentence for conspiracy and fraud. So America came within a hairbreadth of placing its entire national-security apparatus under the authority of a high-school dropout connected with organized crime, and today almost no Americans seem aware of that fact.
Through most of the 20th century, America led something of a charmed life, at least when compared with the disasters endured by almost every other major country. We became the richest and most powerful nation on earth, partly due to our own achievements and partly due to the mistakes of others. The public interpreted these decades of American power and prosperity as validation of our system of government and national leadership, and the technological effectiveness of our domestic propaganda machinery—our own American Pravda—has heightened this effect. Furthermore, most ordinary Americans are reasonably honest and law-abiding and project that same behavior onto others, including our media and political elites. This differs from the total cynicism found in most other countries around the world.
Credibility is a capital asset, which may take years to accumulate but can be squandered in an instant; and the events of the last dozen years should have bankrupted any faith we have in our government or media. Once we acknowledge this, we should begin to accept the possible reality of important, well-documented events even if they are not announced on the front pages of our major newspapers. When several huge scandals have erupted into the headlines after years or decades of total media silence, we must wonder what other massive stories may currently be ignored by our media elites. I think I can provide a few possibilities.
Consider the almost forgotten anthrax mailing attacks in the weeks after 9/11, which terrified our dominant East Coast elites and spurred passage of the unprecedented Patriot Act, thereby eliminating many traditional civil-libertarian protections. Every morning during that period the New York Times and other leading newspapers carried articles describing the mysterious nature of the deadly attacks and the complete bafflement of the FBI investigators. But evenings on the Internet I would read stories by perfectly respectable journalists such as Salon’s Laura Rozen or the staff of the Hartford Courant providing a wealth of additional detail and pointing to a likely suspect and motive.
Although the letters carrying the anthrax were purportedly written by an Arab terrorist, the FBI quickly determined that the language and style indicated a non-Arab author, while tests pointed to the bioweapons research facility at Ft. Detrick, Md., as the probable source of the material. But just prior to the arrival of those deadly mailings, military police at Quantico, Va., had also received an anonymous letter warning that a former Ft. Detrick employee, Egyptian-born Dr. Ayaad Assaad, might be planning to launch a national campaign of bioterrorism. Investigators quickly cleared Dr. Assaad, but the very detailed nature of the accusations revealed inside knowledge of his employment history and the Ft. Detrick facilities. Given the near-simultaneous posting of anthrax envelopes and false bioterrorism accusations, the mailings almost certainly came from the same source, and solving the latter case would be the easiest means of catching the anthrax killer.
Who would have attempted to frame Dr. Assaad for bioterrorism? A few years earlier he had been involved in a bitter personal feud with a couple of his Ft. Detrick coworkers, including charges of racism, official reprimands, and angry recriminations all around. When an FBI official shared a copy of the accusatory letter with a noted language-forensics expert and allowed him to compare the text with the writings of 40 biowarfare lab employees, he found a perfect match with one of those individuals. For years I told my friends that anyone who spent 30 minutes with Google could probably determine the name and motive of the likely anthrax killer, and most of them successfully met my challenge.
This powerful evidence received almost no attention in the major national media, nor is there any indication that the FBI ever followed up on any of these clues or interrogated the named suspects. Instead, investigators attempted to pin the attacks on a Dr. Steven Hatfill based on negligible evidence, after which he was completely exonerated and won a $5.6 million settlement from the government for its years of severe harassment. Later, similar hounding of researcher Bruce Ivins and his family led to his suicide, after which the FBI declared the case closed, even though former colleagues of Dr. Ivins demonstrated that he had had no motive, means, or opportunity. In 2008, I commissioned a major 3,000-word cover story in my magazine summarizing all of this crucial evidence, and once again almost no one in the mainstream media paid the slightest attention.
An even more egregious case followed a couple of years later, with regard to the stunning revelations of Pulitzer Prize winner Sydney Schanberg, one of America’s foremost Vietnam War reporters and a former top editor at the New York Times. After years of research, Schanberg published massive evidence demonstrating that the endlessly ridiculed claims of America’s Vietnam MIA movement of the 1970s and 1980s were correct: the Nixon administration had indeed deliberately abandoned many hundreds of American POWs in Vietnam at the close of the war, and our government afterward spent decades covering up this shameful crime. Schanberg’s charges were publicly confirmed by two former Republican House members, one of whom had independently co-authored a 500 page book on the subject, exhaustively documenting the POW evidence.
Although a major focus of Schanberg’s account was the central role that Sen. John McCain had played in leading the later cover-up, the national media ignored these detailed charges during McCain’s bitter 2008 presidential campaign against Barack Obama. One of America’s most distinguished living journalists published what was surely “the story of the century” and none of America’s newspapers took notice.
In 2010 Schanberg republished this material in a collection of his other writings, and his work received glowing praise from Joseph Galloway, one of America’s top military correspondents, as well as other leading journalists; his charges are now backed by the weight of four New York Times Pulitzer Prizes. Around that same time, I produced a 15,000-word cover-symposium on the scandal, organized around Schanberg’s path-breaking findings and including contributions from other prominent writers. All of this appeared in the middle of Senator McCain’s difficult reelection campaign in Arizona, and once again the material was totally ignored by the state and national media.
An argument might be made that little harm has been done to the national interest by the media’s continued silence in the two examples described above. The anthrax killings have largely been forgotten and the evidence suggests that the motive was probably one of personal revenge. All the government officials involved in the abandonment of the Vietnam POWs are either dead or quite elderly, and even those involved in the later cover-up, such as John McCain, are in the twilight of their political careers. But an additional example remains completely relevant today, and some of the guilty parties hold high office.
During the mid-2000s I began noticing references on one or two small websites to a woman claiming to be a former FBI employee who was making the most outlandish and ridiculous charges, accusing high government officials of selling our nuclear-weapons secrets to foreign spies. I paid no attention to such unlikely claims and never bothered reading any of the articles.
A couple of years went by, and various website references to that same woman—Sibel Edmonds—kept appearing, although I continued to ignore them, secure that the silence of all my newspapers proved her to be delusional. Then in early 2008, the London Sunday Times, one of the world’s leading newspapers, ran a long, three-part front-page series presenting her charges, which were soon republished in numerous other countries. Daniel Ellsberg described Edmonds’s revelations as “far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers” and castigated the American media for completely ignoring a story that had reached the front pages of newspapers throughout the rest of the world. Such silence struck me as rather odd.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA official who regularly writes for this magazine, suggested he investigate her charges. He found her highly credible, and his 3,000-word article in TAC presented some astonishing but very detailed claims.
Edmonds had been hired by the FBI to translate wiretapped conversations of a suspected foreign spy ring under surveillance, and she had been disturbed to discover that many of these hundreds of phone calls explicitly discussed the sale of nuclear-weapons secrets to foreign intelligence organizations, including those linked to international terrorism, as well as the placement of agents at key American military research facilities. Most remarkably, some of the individuals involved in these operations were high-ranking government officials; the staffs of several influential members of Congress were also implicated. On one occasion, a senior State Department figure was reportedly recorded making arrangements to pick up a bag containing a large cash bribe from one of his contacts. Very specific details of names, dates, dollar amounts, purchasers, and military secrets were provided.
The investigation had been going on for years with no apparent action, and Edmonds was alarmed to discover that a fellow translator quietly maintained a close relationship with one of the key FBI targets. When she raised these issues, she was personally threatened, and after appealing to her supervisors, eventually fired.
Since that time, she has passed a polygraph test on her claims, testified under oath in a libel lawsuit, expanded her detailed charges in a 2009 TAC cover story also by Giraldi, and most recently published a book recounting her case. Judiciary Committee Senators Chuck Grassley and Patrick Leahy have publicly backed some of her charges, a Department of Justice inspector general’s report has found her allegations “credible” and “serious,” while various FBI officials have vouched for her reliability and privately confirmed many of her claims. But none of her detailed charges has ever appeared in any of America’s newspapers. According to Edmonds, one of the conspirators routinely made payments to various members of the media, and bragged to his fellow plotters that “We just fax to our people at the New York Times. They print it under their names.”
At times, Congressional Democratic staff members became interested in the scandal, and promised an investigation. But once they learned that senior members of their own party were also implicated, their interest faded.
These three stories—the anthrax evidence, the McCain/POW revelations, and the Sibel Edmonds charges—are the sort of major exposés that would surely be dominating the headlines of any country with a properly-functioning media. But almost no American has ever heard of them. Before the Internet broke the chokehold of our centralized flow of information, I would have remained just as ignorant myself, despite all the major newspapers and magazines I regularly read.
Am I absolutely sure that any or all of these stories are true? Certainly not, though I think they probably are, given their overwhelming weight of supporting evidence. But absent any willingness of our government or major media to properly investigate them, I cannot say more.
However, this material does conclusively establish something else, which has even greater significance. These dramatic, well-documented accounts have been ignored by our national media, rather than widely publicized. Whether this silence has been deliberate or is merely due to incompetence remains unclear, but the silence itself is proven fact.
A likely reason for this wall of uninterest on so many important issues is that the disasters involved are often bipartisan in nature, with both Democrats and Republicans being culpable and therefore equally eager to hide their mistakes. Perhaps in the famous words of Benjamin Franklin, they realize that they must all hang together or they will surely all hang separately.
We always ridicule the 98 percent voter support that dictatorships frequently achieve in their elections and plebiscites, yet perhaps those secret-ballot results may sometimes be approximately correct, produced by the sort of overwhelming media control that leads voters to assume there is no possible alternative to the existing regime. Is such an undemocratic situation really so different from that found in our own country, in which our two major parties agree on such a broad range of controversial issues and, being backed by total media dominance, routinely split 98 percent of the vote? A democracy may provide voters with a choice, but that choice is largely determined by the information citizens receive from their media.
Most of the Americans who elected Barack Obama in 2008 intended their vote as a total repudiation of the policies and personnel of the preceding George W. Bush administration. Yet once in office, Obama’s crucial selections—Robert Gates at Defense, Timothy Geither at Treasury, and Ben Bernake at the Federal Reserve—were all top Bush officials, and they seamlessly continued the unpopular financial bailouts and foreign wars begun by his predecessor, producing what amounted to a third Bush term.
Consider the fascinating perspective of the recently deceased Boris Berezovsky, once the most powerful of the Russian oligarchs and the puppet master behind President Boris Yeltsin during the late 1990s. After looting billions in national wealth and elevating Vladimir Putin to the presidency, he overreached himself and eventually went into exile. According to the New York Times, he had planned to transform Russia into a fake two-party state—one social-democratic and one neoconservative—in which heated public battles would be fought on divisive, symbolic issues, while behind the scenes both parties would actually be controlled by the same ruling elites. With the citizenry thus permanently divided and popular dissatisfaction safely channeled into meaningless dead-ends, Russia’s rulers could maintain unlimited wealth and power for themselves, with little threat to their reign. Given America’s history over the last couple of decades, perhaps we can guess where Berezovsky got his idea for such a clever political scheme.
Major References in The American Conservative:
- Christopher Ketchum: The Anthrax Files, August 25, 2008
- Ron Unz: Was Rambo Right?, July 2010
- Sydney Schanberg: Silent Treatment, July 2010
- Sydney Schanberg: McCain and the POW Cover-Up, July 2010
- Philip Giraldi: Found in Translation, January 28, 2008
- Philip Giraldi: Who’s Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?, November 2009
[Erratum: In my text I mentioned that Bernard Kerik, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's New York City police chief during the 9/11 attacks, was a high school dropout with ties to organized crime, who is currently still serving his federal prison sentence on related charges. This was correct. However, President George W. Bush had nominated him to run America's Department of Homeland Security rather than to be America's Director of National Intelligence.]
The notion of a Gay Germ—homosexuality transmitted as some sort of infection—probably horrifies many mainstream intellectuals unfamiliar with the details of modern evolutionary biology. Therefore, it is perhaps unsurprising that my recent column discussing that subject quickly provoked a striking example of Internet censorship. But the circumstances were different than people might naively expect.
Most of the responses to my analysis were quite reasonable and respectful. Anthropologist Peter Frost published a column questioning some of my arguments, which generated an extended comment thread. George Mason University’s Genetic Literacy Project also provided a brief summary and link.
However, a target of my critique had been Dr. Gregory Cochran, a leading Gay Germ advocate, who had recently ridiculed the intelligence of my old professor E.O. Wilson for remarks supporting the contrary Gay Gene hypothesis. I merely pointed out that to the extent powerful selective pressures would have weeded out any hypothetical Gay Gene, exactly those same selective pressures would have tended to remove susceptibility to a Gay Germ as well, so that to a considerable extent the two theories suffered from similar theoretical weaknesses and were not so obviously distinct.
Now Cochran is a notoriously arrogant and irascible researcher, and he reacted to my views by launching a blistering attack on his own blogsite, sharply questioning my intellect and knowledge. Moreover, when I showed up to explicate my analysis as a commenter, he quickly banned me, possibly because I was defending my position a bit too well, and perhaps thereby “confusing” his coterie of worshipful fanboys. My impression is that publishing a lengthy blog attack against someone and then banning the victim when he politely attempts to provide his own side of the argument is considered “bad form” on the Internet, but there are obviously individuals for whom these usual rules do not apply. Read More…
With all eyes and all headlines fixed so intently upon Boston’s two Caucasian Bombers, hardly anyone has been paying attention to revelations of a far more devastating disaster that unfolded close nearby, but which were generally buried on the inside pages of our major newspapers.
I refer, of course, to the Harvard Spreadsheet Glitch, the discovery of a calculation error in the early 2010 research of celebrity-economists Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart. The Rogoff-Reinhart findings had been cited by officials and international agencies throughout the world as proof of the devastating economic impact of accumulated national debt. As a result, most governments focused their Great Recession response on the need to minimize deficit spending and cut budgets rather than try to reduce unemployment via Keynesian pump-priming, which according to the study led to disaster. But Rogoff-Reinhardt had made an error in their calculation, so Oops! Read More…
The twists of intellectual fashion in our society are often quite peculiar, especially when “touchy” topics are involved.
Consider, for example, the analysis of human behavior. Whatever most people may privately believe or say, the vocal academics and activists who control the commanding ideological heights of our media tend to claim that people act as they do largely because of social conditioning, and they often denounce or vilify those accused of the thoughtcrime of “genetic determinism.” Note the example of (former) Harvard President Larry Summers.
But all rules have exceptions, and for some unknown reason those same activists and media organs have decided that homosexuality is genetically based, denouncing anyone who suggests otherwise. Thus, genes officially determine gayness and nothing else, which hardly seems the most logical possibility in the world. But pointing out such inconsistencies can get you into hot water, so few people do.
Given the remarkable dishonesty of our media elites across such a wide range of topics, there is a natural tendency to assume that the truth is probably the opposite of whatever they say about anything. This undermines the credibility of the Gay Gene hypothesis, as does its proponents’ practice of treating scientific disagreement as religious heresy.
But frankly, the other side of the debate sometimes seems little better in its behavior. I think one of the most highly vilified rivals to Gay Gene theory is “Gay Germ theory,” the suggestion that some sort of virus or microorganism is responsible for the behavior in question. And just a few days ago, I noticed that evolutionary theorist Gregory Cochran, one of the leading Gay Germ proponents, had viciously insulted the intelligence of my old professor E.O. Wilson for his remarks supporting the Gay Gene side. Read More…
Given the unprecedented peace and prosperity currently enjoyed by nearly all Americans, it’s hardly surprising that a symbolic issue such as Gay Marriage has now moved to the forefront of the public debate, not least among the contributors to my own magazine.
Personally, it’s not the sort of issue that keeps me in a state of great ideological agitation, but since everyone else seems to be sharing his opinion, I might as well do the same, if only by pointing to the column I’d written on the subject back in the late 1990s. I can’t say that any of my views have much changed, unlike those of a vast number of American politicians and pundits.
For me, the more important aspect of this current controversy is the insight it provides into the nature of America’s “conservative movement” and the so-called Christian Right. Some of the top leaders of the conservative anti-Gay Marriage organizations of the 2000s have now switched sides and fully endorsed the very practice they had long denounced as a social monstrosity, which is certainly a bit odd from a theological or philosophical perspective. Have the world’s “eternal verities” suddenly been reversed in just six or seven years, or might the cause of their U-turns instead be found in the opinions of their DC cocktail-party friends or the views of the plutocrats who sign their paychecks? Read More…
The season of college admissions is now upon us, weeks of envelopes fat and thin.
With so many teenagers now discovering their future life-prospects as dealt out by our academic gatekeepers, discussions of the selection process are appearing in our media, and some of these include reference to my own Meritocracy article of almost five months ago, focusing on the same topic.
For example, the Sunday New York Times carried an interesting discussion by columnist Ross Douthat on the Ivies and their role in producing our national elites, which included linked references to my main Meritocracy article as well as my short piece for the NYT Forum on Asian discrimination.
Given that the reach of the electronic media so greatly exceeds the number of people who ever bother reading anything, I was even more pleased to see that Fareed Zakaria’s Sunday CNN television show ran a segment on college admissions, heavily drawing upon the findings of my article; his Time magazine column covered the same topic. One minor point of confusion was his suggestion that I had ignored the substantial number of Asian students whose fear of racial discrimination causes them to conceal their personal background and are therefore lumped into the “Race Unknown” category. In fact, I had discussed this and similar possibilities in detail, and provided all the related data. Read More…
Developments of enormous consequence sometimes follow the most mundane of motives.
During the mid-1990s, the giant Disney Corporation became concerned that its 1928 copyright on Mickey Mouse was close to expiration. Deploying heavy lobbying efforts, it persuaded Congress to pass and President Bill Clinton to sign what was officially entitled the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, but more informally known as the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act.” The result was to extend Mickey’s copyright for another twenty years, and perhaps indefinitely if future corporate lobbying efforts bore similar fruit.
Now I have no particular burning desire to watch Mickey Mouse cartoons without paying for them, and I suspect that those around the world who feel otherwise simply ignore such legal restrictions, just as they watch pirated blockbuster movies only weeks after they are released into the theaters. So if the Disney executives had merely wanted to protect their rights to old Walt’s lucrative rodent, I wouldn’t have cared in the least. But since paying Congresspersons to enact such narrowly tailored legislation might have appeared unseemly, they decided to extend all other existing copyrights as well, including the vast number of written works possessing no financial but much intellectual value. Read More…
As an individual who often regrets his decades-old defection from the academic community, I was remarkably pleased to see anthropologist Peter Frost very generously discuss my recent China article under the rubric “the Clark-Unz Model.” The senior researcher identified is obviously economist Gregory Clark, whose influential 2007 book A Farewell to Alms had suggested a very similar evolutionary analysis for the forces shaping the British people over most of the last thousand years.
The nearly 100 total comments on that column and Frost’s previous one have most sharply focused on what certainly seems to me to be by far the weakest aspect of my theory, namely that it would predict a substantial performance gap between Chinese and Japanese, given that the traditional rural society of the latter was totally different in nature (although Frost himself argues that there may have been more similarities than I acknowledge). Obviously, if those two major East Asian peoples are very similar in their abilities, my analysis is probably wrong.
Certainly the conventional wisdom has always placed Chinese and Japanese in the same ability category, and if someone had raised that issue with me a year ago, I would have been very skeptical of any large difference. But while I was performing the research for my Meritocracy article I encountered some striking data.
California contains almost one-third of America’s total Asian population, and its Chinese outnumber its Japanese by about 3.5 to 1. But among the high-ability NMS semifinalist students in recent years, there have roughly 750 Chinese names each year as opposed to a mere 15 or so Japanese ones. Obviously, much of this difference may be explained by factors of cultural assimilation, differences in the age-distribution curves, and the impact of selective recent Chinese immigration. However, a 50-to-1 difference in the number of top academic students is large enough to catch one’s eye and make one wonder whether there might possibly also exist the sort of intrinsic factors produced by many centuries of disparate selective pressure. I’d also noticed that although a truly remarkable fraction of all the winners of America’s various national academic competitions had been Chinese, the number of Japanese names was so small that I never even bothered to separately record them. Read More…
In modern American society, few terms carry the negative and socially disreputable ring of “eugenics,” first coined by Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton and later widely advocated by Margaret Sanger, America’s founding mother of birth control and abortion. Denouncing one’s opponents as eugenicists has become a mainstay of political rhetoric across both the Left and Right, while also being an excellent means of attracting attention.
This combination of visibility and negativity left me with mixed feelings when I noticed “Chinese Eugenics” as the lead headline for the earliest discussion of my recent article suggesting that China and the Chinese may have been shaped by a thousand years or more of Social Darwinist forces. Another slight problem was that the headline was totally incorrect.
After all, “eugenics” refers to a conscious, deliberate effort to select future generations according to some particular human ideal, while my own Chinese hypothesis could not be more dissimilar. I had merely suggested that the extremely difficult conditions of life in traditional rural China ensured that only the hardest-working, most diligent, and most able Chinese peasants managed to survive and multiply in each generation, thereby gradually moving the Chinese people in that general direction during a thousand years of intense economic pressure. After all, the accepted explanation for the long necks of giraffes is that in each generation only the tallest individuals gained access to available leaves, while their shorter-necked brethren often went hungry; no eugenics involved.
Indeed, after reading my article a rightwing individual with strong eugenicist leanings dropped me an anguished note, saying that my hypothesis seemed quite persuasive but also very depressing, suggesting as it did that today’s Chinese became smart and successful because their ancestors had spent most of the previous thousand years starving to death. After all, when free market principles are taken to their “Social Darwinist” extreme, the logical result is a society in which economic achievement counts for virtually everything, and insufficiently successful families face starvation. Add in China’s Malthusian population pressure and the relentless downward mobility produced by a strongly pro-natalist socio-cultural tradition, and the consequences seem obvious. Intentional “eugenics” in any sense of the word had nothing to do with it. Read More…
中国人的学业成就也同样惊人。根据2009年“国际学生评估项目”（Program for International Student Assessment，简称PISA）的测试结果，上海（总人口1500万的大都市）学生雄踞全球之冠。1 中国其余地区的PISA结果显示，那些地区的学生的优异表现也相差无几，中国广大农村数以亿计的学生（大多出自年收入低于2000美元的农民家庭）的平均成绩足以与欧洲最发达国家（如德国、法国、瑞士）的学生相匹敌，甚或超过，与美国比较更是远远胜出。2
对于20世纪中叶的西方人来说，他们更加熟知的是中国的赤贫与毛泽东思想的革命狂热，故而中国新近的这些成就可能会令其吃惊，但对于100年前的杰出思想家来说，它们就远不是那么出乎意料了。当时的很多人都曾经预言，中国终将重新跻身一流大国之列。比如美国早期最伟大的社会学家之一A.E. Ross就曾在其著作The Changing Chinese（变化中的中国人）中忽略彼时中国的贫穷、痛苦、腐败，而把目光投向了未来的现代化中国，预测其科技实力将足以匹敌美国及欧洲领先国家。当时的公共知识分子也广泛赞同Ross的观点，比如Lothrop Stoddard就预言，中国若从长达几个世纪的沉睡中醒来，则必将对欧美国家长久以来享有的世界霸权构成挑战，而这一天也不会太遥远。
20世纪60年代或70年代美国的顶尖学者几乎无一人能预见这些新形势，而其后继者尽管就生活在这个风起云涌的时代，却同样没能认清形势。学者有多鼠目寸光，于首屈一指的发展经济学家Daron Acemoglu及James Robinson的著作中可见一斑。其著作中对中国经济升至世界主导地位的描述着墨不多，且认为这种繁盛不过是昙花一现，很快便要曲终人散，仅仅因为中国遵循的机构体制与两位作者所推荐的“超级自由市场新自由主义”大不相同。4中国政府在引导经济决策方面卷入过深，故而必将失败，虽然所有证据都截然相反；而美国高度金融化的经济必将成功，尽管我们的失业率高企，增长乏力。按Acemoglu和Robinson的看法，国际间的竞争成败取决于政府体制，由于中国现有体制不对，故而必将失败，尽管现在似乎没有任何失败迹象。
也许这些学究会被证明是对的，中国的经济奇迹将如他们所预测的那样土崩瓦解。但如果这种事情没有发生，假如过去35年间一直持续的国际趋势再继续维持5到10年，那我们就应该转而向那些久已为人遗忘的思想家（如Ross和Stoddard这样的个人）寻求解释：他们实际已经预见了我们今天所经历的世界发展形势。日本侵华、二战、内战致使中国蒙受大范围破坏，随后毛泽东思想又带来了经济上的破败，这些使先贤预测的中国崛起向后推迟了一两代人，但除去这些意外，他们对中国潜力的分析看来极具先见之明。比如，Stoddard曾心有戚戚地引用了维多利亚时代的Charles E. Pearson教授的预言：
为支持他本人的这些生动用词，Stoddard还大量引用了其他重要观察家（有西方人，也有中国人）的详细描写。Ross的描写要更加谨慎、更富经验性，写作风格没那么文学化，但其分析也颇为类似。在他关于中国人的专著中，有超过40页用于描绘中国人日常挣扎求生的动人细节，这部分内容的标题颇为耸人听闻：“中国人的挣扎求存”（The Struggle for Existence in China）。7
其中一个典型例子，要数A Farewell to Alms（别了，救济）。作者Gregory Clark在其发表于2007年的这篇文章中分析了英国工业革命的深层次根源。该文在精英圈子中广受评点与赞誉，《纽约时报》的经济学专栏作者Tyler Cowen称其可能将是“经济学中下一个热点”，加州大学伯克利分校的经济学家Brad DeLong称其“精彩”。
姑且不论历史证据是否支持Clark的假说——经济学家Robert C. Allen就发表了一篇措辞激烈且相当有说服力的文章，与之针锋相对8——他提出的理论架构看来相当言之成理。尽管文风不同、数字例证详略不同，但Clark就英国的分析显然与Stoddard、Ross等人对中国的分析遥相呼应。也许因此可以探讨一番，看看对于中国人，我们是否也能套用一下Clark的那种分析方法。
同样是这种相对比例上的不对称，令任何拿生物进化模型去套中国的做法都困难重重。Gregory Cochran和Henry Harpending令人信服地用进化论解释了欧洲Ashkenazi犹太人高智商的成因。13这些犹太人人数不多，不与外界通婚，绝大多数人从事很需要高智商的商业与金融业工作，仅有无足轻重数量的基因来自从事其他行业的外族。与之相对的是，并无证据显示成功的中国商人或学者会不乐意从普通民众中娶妻；而每代人中仅需些许此类婚姻出现，就会令有助于商业成功或学业成功的基因稀释。若想找到可以与Clark关于英国假说中所述相提并论的机制，就必须仿效前面提到的19世纪观察家们的做法，把目光投向中国数目广大的乡间农民的生活环境：他们在数百年间均占人口的百分之90以上。
历史学家Edwin E. Moise在约25年前发表了一篇重要文章，有力地展现了中国传统社会的这种趋势。24可惜的是，这篇文章白璧蒙尘，不大受人关注，这可能是因为20世纪70年代后期的学术氛围使得读者难以赞同其中呈现的进化论观点。
……在家境金字塔的再下层，是很多穷困家庭，他们的儿子虽早已过了普通的婚龄，还仍然打光棍，因此家里人口有限。黄米（音，Wong Mi）是个典型例子。他现年23，父母已经年过六十五、六；但一家人只能租种一亩薄田，无力给他娶妻。所以，他与年老的父母同住，一家仅三口人。黄春（音，Wong Chun）年过四旬，无地，务农。十年前他也出于同样的原因与父母同住。现在父母均已过世，他孤身一人。村子里总共有约10到15户人家的儿子还在打光棍。27
不过，尽管身在美国的华裔科学家愿意遵循美国社会的理念约束，中国国内的华人科学家可不用理会那些。因此，北京基因组研究所（Beijing Genomics Institute）会在人类基因组研究方面领先全球，也就不足为奇了。与之形成鲜明对照的是美国的同类机构，尽管花了数十亿的研究经费，但因为受思想理念上的局限，不敢越雷池一步，只能落乎其后。
Daron Acemoglu及James A. Robinson，Why Nations Fail（国家何以衰败），2012年
Robert C. Allen, “A Review of Gregory Clark’s A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World,”（评Gregory Clark的〈别了，救济〉：世界经济简史）Journal of Economic Literature (2008) （经济文献杂志，2008年）第946-973页
John Lossing Buck，Land Utilization in China（中国的土地利用），1964年
Tommy Bengtsson、Cameron Campbell、James Z. Lee，Life Under Pressure: Mortality and Living Standards in Europe and Asia, 1700-1900（重压下的生活：1700—1900年间欧亚的人口死亡率与生活水平），2004年
T’ung-Tsu Ch’u，Law and Society in Traditional China，(传统中国的法律与社会) ，1965年
Gregory Clark，A Farewell to Alms，（别了，救济），2007年
Gregory Cochran、Henry Harpending，The 10,000 Year Explosion（万年大爆炸），2009年
Isabel 和 David Crook，Revolution in a Chinese Village: Ten Mile Inn（中国一个村庄里的革命：十里店），1959年
Mark Elvin，The Pattern of the Chinese Past（中国历史的模式），1973年
费正清，The United States and China（美国和中国），1948年/1979年
Susan B. Hanley，Everyday Things in Premodern Japan（前现代日本的日常事物），1997年
何炳棣，“Aspects of Social Mobility in China, 1368-1911”（1368—1911年间中国社会流动性面面观），Comparative Studies in Society and History (Jun. 1959)（社会历史比较研究，1959年1月刊）第330-359页
何炳棣，The Ladder of Success in Imperial China(中国皇朝时代的成功阶梯),1971年
Philip C.C. Huang、Lynda Schaeffer Bell、Kathy Lemons Walker ，Chinese Communists and Rural Society, 1927-1934（1927—1934年间的中国共产党与农村社会），1978年
Philip C.C. Huang，The Peasant Economy and Social Change in North China（中国北方的小农经济与社会变迁），1985年
Philip C.C. Huang，The Peasant Family and Rural Development in the Yangzi Delta, 1350-1988（1350—1988年间长三角流域的小农家庭与农村发展），1990年
Charles O. Hucker，China’s Imperial Past（中国皇朝史），1975年
James Z. Lee、Wang Feng，One Quarter of Humanity（人类的四分之一），1999年
Dwight H. Perkins，Agricultural Development in China, 1368-1968（1368—1968年间中国农业发展史），1969年
James Z. Lee、Cameron Campbell，Fate and Fortune in Rural China（中国农村的命运与财富），1997年
Ts’ui-jung Liu、James Z. Lee、David Sven Reher、Osamu Saito、Wang Feng，Asian Population History（亚洲人口史），2001年
David S. Landes，The Wealth and Poverty of Nations（国家贫富论），1998年
Edwin E. Moise，“Downward Mobility in Pre-Revolutionary China”（革命前中国的向下流动性），Modern China (Jan. 1977)（现代中国，1977年1月刊），第3-31页
彭慕兰，The Great Divergence（大分流），2000年
Heiner Rindermann、Michael A. Woodley、James Stratford，“Haplogroups as evolutionary markers of cognitive ability”（以单倍群作为认知能力的进化标记），Intelligence 40 (2012)（智力40，2012年刊），第362-375页。
Edward A. Ross，The Changing Chinese（变化中的中国人），1911年
David C. Schak，“Poverty”（贫困），Encyclopedia of Modern China（现代中国百科全书），2009年
Franz Schurmann、Orville Schell，Imperial China（皇朝时代的中国），1967年
Franz Schurmann、Orville Schell，Republican China（共和时代的中国），1967年
Arthur Henderson Smith，Village Life in China（中国农村生活），1899年
Thomas C. Smith，The Agrarian Origins of Modern Japan（现代日本的农业国起源），1959年
埃德加·斯诺，Red Star Over China（红星照耀中国），1938年/1968年
Clark W. Sorensen，“Land Tenure and Class Relations in Colonial Korea”（朝鲜殖民地时代的土地使用权和阶级关系），Journal of Korean Studies (1990)（韩国研究杂志，1990年刊），第35-54页。
Lothrop Stoddard，The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy（有色人种崛起并夺取白人世界霸权的趋势），1921年
Ssu-yu Teng，“Chinese Influence on the Western Examination System”（中国对西方考试制度的影响），Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies (Sep. 1943)（哈佛亚洲研究学报，1943年9月刊），第267-312页。
Noriko O. Tsuya、Wang Feng、George Alter、James Z. Lee，Prudence and Pressure: Reproduction and Human Agency in Europe and Asia, 1700-1900（审慎与压力：1700—1900年间欧亚人口繁衍研究），2010年
Martin C. Yang，A Chinese Village: Taitou, Shantung Province（山东台头，一个中国村庄），1945年
C.K. Yang，A Chinese Village in Early Communist Transition（往共产主义过渡早期的一个中国村庄），1959a
C.K. Yang，The Chinese Family in the Communist Revolution（处于共产主义革命时期的中国家庭），1959b
1 Sam Dillon，“Top Test Scores From Shanghai Stun Educators”（上海学生的杰出成绩令教育人士震惊），The New York Times（纽约时报）, 2010年12月7日号，A1：http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/education/07education.html。
2 Sean Coughlan，“China: The world’s cleverest country?”（中国人：全世界最聪明的民族？），BBC News （BBC新闻），2012年5月8日：http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17585201。在BBC的访谈中，OECD的PISA测试主任Andreas Schleicher强调说，结果不仅显示上海学生的得分雄冠全球，即便中国各大省份的得分也“相当高”，其中包括农村地区及落后地区。这些省份的分数并未公布。随后，博客作者Anatoly Karlin发现，在中国网站上可以找到这些分数，并做了详细探讨。见Anatoly Karlin，“Analysis of China’s PISA 2009 Results”（对中国学生2009年PISA测试成绩的分析），2012年8月13日：http://akarlin.com/2012/08/13/analysis-of-chinas-pisa-2009-results/ 及Ron Unz，“Race/IQ: Irish IQ & Chinese IQ”（种族与智商：爱尔兰人的智商与中国人的智商），The American Conservative（美国保守派），2012年8月14日：http://www.ronunz.org/2012/08/14/unz-on-raceiq-irish-iq-chinese-iq/。
3 Ron Unz，“The Myth of American Meritocracy”（美国任人唯贤的神话），The American Conservative（美国保守派），2012年12月号，第14-51页，附录E：http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/meritocracy-appendices/#5。
5 Stoddard (1921) 第 页
10 本文接下来的大部分观点呈现于1983年为哈佛大学的E.O. Wilson而写的一篇论文中，该论文并未发表。2010年，我将该论文放上网，得到一定关注。Rindermann发表于2012年的一篇学术评论文章中将我的论文称作是关于特定人群中高智商现象的演化理论的最早范例。我因此决定将论文补充更新，改掉原来过于自我中心的文句，发表于此。我要特别感谢人类学家Peter Frost，是他鼓励我将原论文从本科时代的文档中翻找出来。还要感谢理论物理学家Steve Hsu，是他在博客上发表文章，引起了大家对我的原论文的兴趣。请见http://www.ronunz.org/1980/04/01/social-darwinism-and-rural-china/及http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2011/02/sociobiological-implications-of.html。
14 Elvin (1973) pp. 235-267中列举了诸多证据，表明一种“领主-雇农/佃户”的土地租赁体系（有时候雇农或佃户的工作条件可比农奴）直至清朝早期依然可见于中国大部分地区。但他认为这种体系是清早期之前中国最主要的土地拥有模式。他的这一观点似乎属于现代学者中的少数派。
29 William Hinton用第一手资料记录下了共产党“割封建主义尾巴”活动（这个活动所针对的是地主及其他剥削者的后代）所面临的这个必然难题：“在中国社会里，由于存在着将父辈家产平分的做法，财富总是趋于分散。因此，没几个人能毫不犹豫地说，自家祖上从未剥削过别人。”请见Hinton发表于1966年的著作，第203页。
32 Moise，第20页，1977年。事实上，Yang (1945) p. 12中明确将农村历史表述为“宗族的生态更替”。更替的过程是：较成功的家族人丁兴旺，越来越大，逐渐将在竞争中处于劣势的家族“挤出”去，令其最终消失于世。
34 如此解释当今中国人何以成就出众虽说得通，但要将这种逻辑套在其他高度成功的东亚民族身上就困难重重，这也成了该因果模型最大的反面证据。日本人与韩国人在经济发展、科技进步领域都成果卓著。他们在美国及其他地方的移民小群体也很混得开。但是，若说这两个国家的农村社会与中国农村共享某些对中国历史的塑造可能起到了极大作用的特点，比如无固定的封建阶层、农业产品与土地租种活动的高度商业化、因儿子均分父辈财产导致的向下流动，却毫无证据可予以支持。确实，日本社会一直为固定的贵族武士阶层所统治，而中国的统治精英出自唯才是举的科举考试，两者完全不同。所以，有鉴于（即便）现代日本人与韩国人的行为与成就均跟中国汉族人不相上下，我们必须另找（文化、经济、基因等方面的）原因去解释这种雷同（比如Richard Lynn及其他人提出的“冷冬”假说），而不是照搬本文中所探讨的传统社会经济体制来加以解释。见Rindermann，第363页，2012年。
35 “Scientist’s Study of Brain Genes Sparks a Backlash”（科学家对脑基因的研究引发强烈反对），作者Antonio Regaldo，见于The Wall Street Journal（华尔街日报），2006年6月16日号，A1：http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115040765329081636-T5DQ4jvnwqOdVvsP_XSVG_lvgik_20060628.html
My Friday Aspen Institute panel in DC on raising the minimum wage went well, though the discussion underscored the somewhat insular thinking of many of the policy elites who dominate life in our capital city.
As an example, although the audience and participants skewed heavily toward the “economic left,” several individuals mentioned how surprised they were to encounter the suggestion that our federal minimum wage be raised to $12.00 per hour—my proposal—or even higher, a notion that seemed almost unimaginable within their own policy circles. Meanwhile, former Democratic Congressman and Cabinet Secretary Dan Glickman described the politics of raising the minimum wage as being extremely difficult, given the intensity of opposition he had always encountered among many small businessmen.
These two issues are not unconnected. As I pointed out in response to Glickman’s question, a small rise in the minimum wage—such as the $9.00 figure proposed by President Obama—has limited political viability since it generates little of the enthusiasm necessarily to overcome the determined opposition of its ideological or practical opponents. Only a narrow sliver of American workers would directly benefit, their net dollar gains would be relatively small, and they represent an economic stratum that overwhelmingly votes Democratic, whenever it bothers to vote at all. How would such a measure ever stand a chance of passing the Republican-controlled House?
But consider the very different politics of a $12.00 figure. Over 40% of all American wage-workers would benefit, including 40% of the white Southerners who constitute the Republican base, and the mean gains for both those groups would be over $5,000 per year. Such an enormous sum of money would capture the imagination of its potential recipients, and also that of their immediate family members. Conservative ideologues such as Rush Limbaugh would surely denounce the proposal, but many of his ditto-heads are struggling with credit-card and mortgage loans, and for an extra $5,000 per year they’d surely turn a deaf ear to his arguments or even decide to turn their radio dial. The intensity of support for such a minimum wage hike would become every bit as great as the intensity of the regular opposition cited by Glickman. Offering people serious money may get their serious attention. Read More…
About the only detailed public criticism of my Meritocracy article by an academic has come from Prof. Janet Mertz, a Wisconsin cancer researcher. Since her analysis draws so heavily upon her own 2008 academic paper on top performing math students, I decided that paper warranted a close examination.
The primary focus of her article was a worldwide gender analysis of top performing math students aimed at refuting the controversial speculations of former Harvard President Larry Summers, who had suggested that men might be better at math than women, at least at the very high end of math ability. She and her co-authors therefore examined the previous twenty years of the International Math Olympiad, determining the exact number of male and female participants from all the leading countries. They provided their findings in Table 6 (p. 1252), which I am summarizing below in terms of the male percentages for the aggregate years 1988-2008: Read More…