- "Among white Americans, the average IQ, as of a
decade or so ago, was 103. Among Asian-Americans, it was 106. Among Jewish
Americans, it was 113. Among Latino Americans, it was 89. Among African-Americans,
it was 85. Around the world, studies find the same general pattern: whites
100, East Asians 106, sub-Sarahan Africans 70. One IQ table shows 113 in
Hong Kong, 110 in Japan, and 100 in Britain. White populations in Australia,
Canada, Europe, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States score
closer to one another than to the worldwide black average. It's been that
way for at least a century."
- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
- - Declaration of Independence
- Last month, James Watson, the legendary biologist, was
condemned and forced into retirement after claiming that African intelligence
wasn't "the same as ours." "Racist, vicious and unsupported
by science," said the Federation of American Scientists. " Utterly
unsupported by scientific evidence," declared the U.S. government's
supervisor of genetic research. The New York Times told readers that when
Watson implied "that black Africans are less intelligent than whites,
he hadn't a scientific leg to stand on."
- I wish these assurances were true. They aren't. Tests
do show an IQ deficit, not just for Africans relative to Europeans, but
for Europeans relative to Asians. Economic and cultural theories have failed
to explain most of the pattern, and there's strong preliminary evidence
that part of it is genetic. It's time to prepare for the possibility that
equality of intelligence, in the sense of racial averages on tests, will
turn out not to be true.
- If this suggestion makes you angry-if you find the idea
of genetic racial advantages outrageous, socially corrosive, and unthinkable-you're
not the first to feel that way. Many Christians are going through a similar
struggle over evolution. Their faith in human dignity rests on a literal
belief in Genesis. To them, evolution isn't just another fact; it's a threat
to their whole value system. As William Jennings Bryan put it during the
Scopes trial, evolution meant elevating "supposedly superior intellects,"
"eliminating the weak," "paralyzing the hope of reform,"
jeopardizing "the doctrine of brotherhood," and undermining "the
sympathetic activities of a civilized society."
- The same values-equality, hope, and brotherhood-are under
scientific threat today. But this time, the threat is racial genetics,
and the people struggling with it are liberals.
- Evolution forced Christians to bend or break. They could
insist on the Bible's literal truth and deny the facts, as Bryan did. Or
they could seek a subtler account of creation and human dignity. Today,
the dilemma is yours. You can try to reconcile evidence of racial differences
with a more sophisticated understanding of equality and opportunity. Or
you can fight the evidence and hope it doesn't break your faith.
- I'm for reconciliation. Later this week, I'll make that
case. But if you choose to fight the evidence, here's what you're up against.
Among white Americans, the average IQ, as of a decade or so ago, was 103.
Among Asian-Americans, it was 106. Among Jewish Americans, it was 113.
Among Latino Americans, it was 89. Among African-Americans, it was 85.
Around the world, studies find the same general pattern: whites 100, East
Asians 106, sub-Sarahan Africans 70. One IQ table shows 113 in Hong Kong,
110 in Japan, and 100 in Britain. White populations in Australia, Canada,
Europe, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States score closer to
one another than to the worldwide black average. It's been that way for
at least a century.
- Remember, these are averages, and all groups overlap.
You can't deduce an individual's intelligence from her ethnicity. The only
thing you can reasonably infer is that anyone who presumes to rate your
IQ based on the color of your skin is probably dumber than you are.
- So, what should we make of the difference in averages?
- We don't like to think IQ is mostly inherited. But we've
all known families who are smarter than others. Twin and sibling studies,
which can sort genetic from environmental factors, suggest more than half
the variation in IQ scores is genetic. A task force report from the American
Psychological Association indicates it might be even higher. The report
doesn't conclude that genes explain racial gaps in IQ. But the tests on
which racial gaps are biggest happen to be the tests on which genes, as
measured by comparative sibling performance, exert the biggest influence.
- How could genes cause an IQ advantage? The simplest pathway
is head size. I thought head measurement had been discredited as Eurocentric
pseudoscience. I was wrong. In fact, it's been bolstered by MRI. On average,
Asian-American kids have bigger brains than white American kids, who in
turn have bigger brains than black American kids. This is true even though
the order of body size and weight runs in the other direction. The pattern
holds true throughout the world and persists at death, as measured by brain
- According to twin studies, 50 percent to 90 percent of
variation in head size and brain volume is genetic. And when it comes to
IQ, size matters. The old science of head measurements found a 20 percent
correlation of head size with IQ. The new science of MRI finds at least
a 40 percent correlation of brain size with IQ. One analysis calculates
that brain size could easily account for five points of the black-white
- I know, it sounds crazy. But if you approach the data
from other directions, you get the same results. The more black and white
scores differ on a test, the more performance on that test correlates with
head size and "g," a measure of the test's emphasis on general
intelligence. You can debate the reality of g, but you can't debate the
reality of head size. And when you compare black and white kids who score
the same on IQ tests, their average difference in head circumference is
- Scientists have already identified genes that influence
brain size and vary by continent. Whether these play a role in racial IQ
gaps, nobody knows. But we should welcome this research, because any genetic
hypothesis about intelligence ought to be clarified and tested.
- Critics think IQ tests are relative-i.e., they measure
fitness for success in our society, not in other societies. "In a
hunter-gatherer society, IQ will still be important, but if a hunter cannot
shoot straight, IQ will not bring food to the table," argues psychologist
Robert Sternberg. "In a warrior society physical prowess may be equally
necessary to stay alive." It's a good point, but it bolsters the case
for a genetic theory. Nature isn't stupid. If Africans, Asians, and Europeans
evolved different genes, the reason is that their respective genes were
suited to their respective environments.
- In fact, there's a mountain of evidence that differential
evolution has left each population with a balance of traits that could
be advantageous or disadvantageous, depending on circumstances. The list
of differences is long and intricate. On average, compared with whites,
blacks mature more quickly in the womb, are born earlier, and develop teeth,
strength, and dexterity earlier. They sit, crawl, walk, and dress themselves
earlier. They reach sexual maturity faster, and they have better eyesight.
On each of these measures, East Asians lag whites and blacks. In exchange,
East Asians get longer lives and bigger brains.
- How this happened isn't clear. Everyone agrees that the
three populations separated 40,000 to 100,000 years ago. Even critics of
racial IQ genetics accept the idea that through natural selection, environmental
differences may have caused abilities such as distance running to become
more common in some populations than in others. Possibly, genes for cognitive
complexity became so crucial in some places that nature favored them over
genes for developmental speed and vision. If so, fitness for today's world
is mostly dumb luck. If we lived in a savannah, kids programmed to mature
slowly and grow big brains would be toast. Instead, we live in a world
of zoos, supermarkets, pediatricians, pharmaceuticals, and information
technology. Genetic advantages, in other words, are culturally created.
- Not that that's much consolation if you're stuck in the
21st century with a low IQ. Tomorrow we'll look at some of the arguments
against the genetic theory.
- PART TWO
- Yesterday,we looked at evidence for a genetic theory
of racial differences in IQ. Today let's look at some of the arguments
against it. Again, I'm drawing heavily on a recent exchange of papers published
by the American Psychological Association.
- One objection is that IQ tests are racially biased. This
is true in the broadest sense: On average, African and Asian kids have
different advantages, and IQ tests focus on the things at which more Asian
kids have the edge. But in the narrower sense of testing abilities that
pay off in the modern world, IQ tests do their job. They accurately predict
the outcomes of black and white kids at finishing high school, staying
employed, and avoiding poverty, welfare, or jail. They also accurately
predict grades and job performance in modern Africa. The SAT, GRE, and
tests in the private sector and the armed forces corroborate the racial
patterns on IQ tests. Kids of different backgrounds find the same questions
easy or hard. Nor do tests always favor a country's ethnic majority. In
Malaysia, Chinese and Indian minorities outscore Malays.
- If the tests aren't racist, some critics argue, then
society is. That's true, in the sense that racism persists. But that alone
can't account for the patterns in IQ scores. Why do blacks in the white-dominated
United States score 15 points higher than blacks in black-dominated African
countries, including countries that have been free of colonial rule for
half a century? And why do Asian-Americans outscore white Americans?
- Another common critique is that race is a fuzzy concept.
By various estimates, 20 percent to 30 percent of the genes in "black"
Americans actually came from Europe. Again, it's a good point, but it bolsters
the case for a genetic explanation. Black Americans, like "colored"
South Africans, score halfway between South African blacks and whites on
IQ tests. The lowest black IQ averages in the United States show up in
the South, where the rate of genetic blending is lowest. There's even some
biological evidence: a correlation between racial "admixture"
and brain weight. Reading about studies of "admixture" is pretty
nauseating. But the nausea doesn't make the studies go away.
- My first reaction, looking at this pattern, was that
if the highest-scoring blacks are those who have lighter skin or live in
whiter countries, the reason must be their high socioeconomic status relative
to other blacks. But then you have to explain why, on the SAT, white kids
from households with annual incomes of $20,000 to $30,000 easily outscore
black kids from households with annual incomes of $80,000 to $100,000.
You also have to explain why, on IQ tests, white kids of parents with low
incomes -and low IQs outscore black kids of parents with high incomes and
high IQs. Or why Inuits and Native Americans outscore American blacks.
- The current favorite alternative to a genetic explanation
is that black kids grow up in a less intellectually supportive culture.
This is a testament to how far the race discussion has shifted to the right.
Twenty years ago, conservatives were blaming culture, while liberals blamed
racism and poverty. Now liberals are blaming culture because the emerging
alternative, genetics, is even more repellent.
- The best way to assess the effects of culture and socioeconomic
status is to look at trans-racial adoptions, which combine one race's genes
with another's environment. Among Asian-American kids, biological norms
seem to prevail. In one study, kids adopted from Southeast Asia, half of
whom had been hospitalized for malnutrition, outscored the U.S. IQ average
by 20 points. In another study, kids adopted from Korea outscored the U.S.
average by two to 12 points, depending on their degree of malnutrition.
In a third study, Korean kids adopted in Belgium outscored the Belgian
average by at least 10 points, regardless of their adoptive parents' socioeconomic
- Studies of African-American kids are less clear. One
looked at children adopted into white upper-middle class families in Minnesota.
The new environment apparently helped: On average, the kids exceeded the
IQ norms for their respective populations. However, it didn't wipe out
racial differences. Adopted kids with two white biological parents slightly
outscored kids with one black biological parent, who in turn significantly
outscored kids with two black biological parents. The most plausible environmental
explanation for this discrepancy is that the half-black kids (in terms
of their number of black biological parents) were treated better than the
all-black kids. But the study shot down that theory. Twelve of the half-black
kids were mistakenly thought by their adoptive parents to be all-black.
That made no difference. They scored as well as the other half-black kids.
- In Germany, a study of kids fathered by foreign soldiers
and raised by German women found that kids with white biological dads scored
the same as kids with biological dads of "African" origin. Hereditarians
(scholars who advocate genetic explanations) complain that the sample was
skewed because at least 20 percent of the "African" dads were
white North Africans. I find that complaint pretty interesting, since it
implies that North Africans are a lot smarter than other "whites."
Their better critique is that the pool of blacks in the U.S. military had
already been filtered by IQ tests. Even environmentalists (scholars who
advocate nongenetic explanations) concede that this filter radically distorted
the numbers. But again, the complaint teaches a lesson: In any nonrandom
pool of people, you can't deduce even average IQ from race.
- Other studies lend support to both sides. In one study,
half-black kids scored halfway between white and black kids, but kids with
white moms and black dads (biologically speaking) scored nine points higher
than kids with black moms and white dads. In another study, black kids
adopted into white middle-class families scored 13 points higher than black
kids adopted into black middle-class families, and both groups outscored
the white average.
- Each camp points out flaws in the other's studies, and
the debate is far from over. But when you boil down the studies, they suggest
three patterns. One, better environments produce better results. Two, moms
appear to make a difference, environmentally and biologically. (Their biological
influence could be hormonal or nutritional rather than genetic.) Three,
underneath those factors, a racial gap persists. One problem with most
of the adoption studies is that as a general rule, genetic differences
in IQ tend to firm up in adolescence. And in the only study that persisted
to that point (the one in Minnesota), kids scored on average according
to how many of their biological parents were black.
- The best argument against genetics isn't in these studies.
It's in data that show shrinkage of the black-white IQ gap over time. From
these trends, environmentalists conclude that the gap is closing to zero.
Hereditarians read the data differently. They agree that the gap closed
fractionally in the middle decades of the 20th century, but they argue
that scores in the last two to three decades show no improvement.
- I've been soaking my head in each side's computations
and arguments. They're incredibly technical. Basically, the debate over
the IQ surge is a lot like the debate over the Iraq troop surge, except
that the sides are reversed. Here, it's the liberals who are betting on
the surge, while the conservatives dismiss it as illogical and doomed.
On the one hand, the IQ surge is hugely exciting. If it closes the gap
to zero, it moots all the putative evidence of genetic barriers to equality.
On the other hand, the case for it is as fragile as the case for the Iraq
surge. You hope it pans out, but you can't see why it would, given that
none of the complicating factors implied by previous data has been adequately
explained or taken into account. Furthermore, to construe meaningful closure
of the IQ gap in the last 20 years, you have to do a lot of cherry-picking,
inference, and projection. I have a hard time explaining why I should go
along with those tactics when it comes to IQ but not when it comes to Iraq.
- When I look at all the data, studies, and arguments,
I see a prima facie case for partial genetic influence. I don't see conclusive
evidence either way in the adoption studies. I don't see closure of the
racial IQ gap to single digits. And I see too much data that can't be reconciled
with the surge or explained by current environmental theories. I hope the
surge surprises me. But in case it doesn't, I want to start thinking about
how to be an egalitarian in an age of genetic difference, even between
races. More on that tomorrow.
- PART THREE
- Why write about this topic? Why hurt people's feelings?
Why gratify bigots?
- Because truth matters. Because the truth isn't as bad
as our ignorant, half-formed fears and suspicions about it. And because
you can't solve a problem till you understand it.
- Two days ago, I said we could fight the evidence of racial
differences in IQ, or we could accept it. Yesterday, I outlined the difficulty
of fighting it. What happens if we accept it? Can we still believe in equality?
- Let's look past our fears and caricatures and see what
the evidence actually teaches us.
- 1. Individual IQ can't be predicted from race. According
to the data , at least 15 percent to 20 percent of black Americans exceed
the average IQ of white Americans. If you think it's safe to guess that
a white job applicant is smarter than a black one, consider this: The most
important job in the world is president of the United States. Over the
last seven years, the most important judgment relevant to that job was
whether to authorize, endorse, or oppose the use of force in Iraq. Among
the dozen viable candidates who have applied for the job, one is black.
Guess which one got it right?
- 2. Subgroup IQ can't be predicted from race. Go back
and look at the German study I mentioned yesterday. Kids fathered by black
soldiers scored the same as kids fathered by white soldiers. The explanation
offered by hereditarians was that blacks in the military were screened
for IQ, thereby wiping out the racial IQ gap.
- Think about that explanation. It undermines the claim,
attributed to James Watson by the Times of London, that " people who
have to deal with black employees" find equality untrue. (The Times
purports to have Watson's interview on tape but hasn't published the whole
quote or responded to requests for it.) If employment screens out lower
IQs, you can't infer squat about black employees. And that isn't the only
confounding factor. Every time a study highlights some group of blacks
who score well, hereditarians argue that the sample isn't random. That
may be true, but it's also true of the people you live next to, work with,
and meet on the street. Every black person in your office could have an
IQ over 120.
- 3. Whitey does not come out on top. If you came here
looking for material for your Aryan supremacy Web site, sorry. Stratifying
the world by racial IQ will leave your volk in the dust. You might want
to think about marrying a nice Jewish girl from Hong Kong. Or maybe reconsider
that whole stratification idea.
- 4. Racism is elitism minus information. No matter how
crude race is as a proxy for intelligence, some people will use it that
way, simply because they can see your skin but not your brain. What if
we cut out the middleman? What if, instead of keeping individual IQs secret,
we made them more transparent? If you don't accept IQ, pick some other
measure of intelligence. You may hate labeling or "tracking"
kids by test scores, but it's better than covering up what's inside their
heads and leaving them to be judged, ignorantly, by what's on the surface.
- 5. Intermarriage is closing the gap. To the extent that
IQ differences are genetic, the surest way to eliminate them is to reunite
the human genome. This is already happening, including in my own family.
In 1970, 1 percent of U.S. marriages were between blacks and nonblacks.
By 1990, it was 4.5 percent. It may be the best punch line of the IQ debate:
The more genetic the racial gap is, the faster we can obliterate it.
- 6. Environment matters. Genetic and environmental theories
aren't mutually exclusive. Hereditarians admit that by their own reading
of the data, nongenetic factors account for 20 percent to 50 percent of
IQ variation. They think malnutrition, disease, and educational deprivation
account for a big portion of the 30-point IQ gap between whites and black
Africans. They think alleviation of these factors in the United States
has helped us halve the deficit. Transracial adoption studies validate
this. Korean adoption studies suggest a malnutrition effect of perhaps
10 IQ points. And everyone agrees that the black-white IQ gap closed significantly
during the 20th century, which can't have been due to genes.
- 7. IQ is like wealth. Many people who used to condemn
differences in wealth have learned to accept them. Instead of demanding
parity, they focus on elevating everyone to an acceptable standard of living.
Why not treat IQ the same way? This seems particularly reasonable if we
accept IQ in the role for which science has certified it: not as a measure
of human worth, but as a predictor of modern social and economic success.
- As it turns out, raising the lowest IQs is a lot easier
than equalizing higher IQs, because you can do it through nutrition, medicine,
and basic schooling. As these factors improve, IQs have risen. If racial
differences persist, is that really so awful? Conversely, if we can raise
the lowest IQs, isn't that enough to justify the effort? One of the strangest
passages in IQ scholarship is a recent attempt by hereditarians to minimize
their own mediated-learning study because, while it "did raise the
IQ of the African students from 83 to 97, this is still low for students
at a leading university." You've got to be kidding. Screw the other
universities. Going from 83 to 97 is a screaming success.
- 8. Life is more than g. Every time black scores improve
on a test, hereditarians complain that the improvement is on "subject-specific
knowledge," not on g (general intelligence). But the more you read
about progress in things other than g, the more you wonder: Does g expose
the limits of the progress? Or does the progress expose the limits of g?
- If the progress were on g, the test-takers' lives would
be easier, since g helps you apply what you've learned to new contexts.
But that doesn't make other kinds of progress meaningless. People with
low IQs can learn subject by subject. And they may have compensating advantages.
One of my favorite disputes in the IQ literature is about test scores in
Africa. Environmentalists argued that African kids lacked motivation. Hereditarians
replied that according to their own observations, African kids stayed longer
to check their answers than white kids did. Diligence, too, is a transferable
- 9. Children are more than an investment. All the evidence
on race and IQ says black kids do better at younger ages, particularly
with help from intervention programs. Later, the benefits fade. Hereditarians
say this is genetics taking over, as happens with IQ generally. Suppose
that's true. We don't abandon kids who are statistically likely to get
fatal genetic diseases in their teens or 20s. Why write off kids whose
IQ gains may not last? The economics may not pay off, but what about human
- 10. Genes can be changed. Hereditarians point to phenylketunuria
as an example of a genetic but treatable cognitive defect. Change the baby's
diet, and you protect its brain. They also tout breast-feeding as an environmental
intervention. White women are three times more likely than black women
to breast-feed their babies, they observe, so if more black women did it,
IQs might go up. But now it turns out that breast-feeding, too, is a genetically
regulated factor. As my colleague Emily Bazelon explains, a new study shows
that while most babies gain an average of seven IQ points from breast-feeding,
some babies gain nothing from it and end up at a four-point disadvantage
because they lack a crucial gene.
- The study's authors claim it "shows that genes may
work via the environment to shape the IQ, helping to close the nature versus
nurture debate." That's true if you have the gene. But if you don't,
nurture can't help you. And guess what? According to the International
Hapmap Project, 2.2 percent of the project's Chinese-Japanese population
samples, 5 percent of its European-American samples, and 10 percent of
its Nigerian samples lack the gene. The Africans are twice as likely as
the Americans, and four times as likely as the Asians, to start life with
a four-point IQ deficit out of sheer genetic misfortune.
- Don't tell me those Nigerian babies aren't cognitively
disadvantaged. Don't tell me it isn't genetic. Don't tell me it's God's
will. And in the age of genetic modification, don't tell me we can't do
anything about it.
- No, we are not created equal. But we are endowed by our
Creator with the ideal of equality, and the intelligence to finish the
- William Saletan is Slate's national correspondent and
author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War.
- Copyright 2007 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co.
- Kieth Norman - Canada
- Intelligence Quotient (for us dumbbells refers to "I.Q")
is the measure of someone's 'intelligence' as prognosticated
by a supposedly scientific statistical administrative body intelligence
test; and relates the quantitative relationship of a person's mental age
to that person's chronological age(actual)..and then it is multiplied by
- Why multiply by 100 one may ask? Else we all will appear
rather dumb, inarticulate and stupid and get allied with the lower life
maggots, snakes and monkeys. Which illustrates the point that not all
people should be afforded this enhancement. Is Bush,Blair,Olmert and Cheney
- Question: Did any of these brilliant genetic 'progressive'
biologists/scientists ever think of checking to determine whether
or not God had filed a patent claim on his work in DNA and genetic
research. Was their God better than our God, for that may be the difference.
- Evangelical Genetic Biologists will now take up
this challenge, possibly.
- Among Research Scientists and the biologist who specializes
in genetics, there are many differences in their approach and evaluation
technique which if leading to an agreed fact or principle is a good thing.
- One of these "good things"(agreements) shows
how Short Term Memory (STM-sensory memory) eventually morphs into
long term (LTM) but is subject to a number of factors. Primarily,
repetition of theme , and over-learnedness
- Possibly, we may experience the delight of achieving
a straight 'A+' passing with the additional knowledge that you have
reduced your number of neuronic hubs and connections by a proportional
amount. Not unlike the old computer memory banks
- Making the assumption that bigger brains carries and
delivers more information at any given moment in time can
be interrogated when one equates the yesterdays large (comparative)
type discrete capacitor, transistor, resistor and inductor electronic
circuits to contemporary small scale micro integrated circuits...and
- The important parameter which is also the enigma of Design
Engineers is storage and retrieval times and "total distance
to push this information."
- Smaller does mean faster information for a given circuit.
All values being equal for both big and small components, the speed will
be slower with the "bigger brain", ignoring heat and inductive
- With the larger head, the motoneuronic electrical impulse
to the nerve need to travel faster as they have to journey further
in a larger head.
- There are 'apparently' 100 billion nerve cells in
the human brain Each cell is connected to some 10,000 others. Connection
and electrical signals in your brain are over/around 1000 trillion..(figures
will vary of course, depending on the necessary academic and political
- The method of accurately enumerating or estimating the
number of connections and signals is the greatest suspect in
this articles genetic illustration. It is ONLY when accuracy is guaranteed
that one can evaluate the bigger head with a bigger 'effective brain that
MAY have more connections than its smaller counterpart.
- Currently the articles writer has assumed by default
that this is a physiological process. How sad,when one finds that
even the famed Ivan Petrovich Pavlov was convinced that everybody was agenda
guessing...and preferred to observe the conditioned salivary
responses in dogs.
- Could it be that the articles paranoiac assertiveness
specifically toward the "American Jew" indicates that ALL OTHER
Jewish peoples in all other countries of the world are comparative imbeciles,
as we whites, blacks and Asians seem to be. Tell that to the Brit Foreign
Minister and then sit back and just await some kosher words of farm animal
- The brain is made of 60% fat...lard...blubber, whatever
(intellectual sources do vary on percentage here ). Fat serves
as a source of energy. It also cushions and insulates/isolates vital
- Ann-Charlotte Granholm of the Medical University of South
Carolina in Charleston.
- "presented the results of the study, which showed
that trans-fats adversely affected rats' learning ability, at the Society
for Neuroscience meeting in San Diego, US, on Monday." New Scientist
- To keep the fat of the Bigger Brain in 'prime' condition,
one would imagine that it is necessary to eat Kosher food repeatedly or
when the Rabbi reiterates the benefits of the eating habit.
- That be the case, are the American Rabbis genetically and
intellectually superior to European and Israeli Rabbis??
- Remember the Geneticists findings on "repetition"
- So, this is the rationale for New York getting rid of
its trans fats. Are they falling to the level of just a "White American"
or God forbid, to the lunacy of a white Brit without his Oxford Dic.
- Professional Researchers and Practitioners ALL AGREE
(100%) that the understanding of the human brain is extremely limited and
for that we should ask ourselves the explanation for the articles writers
purpose, agenda and order of business that seemingly stirs the
cauldron of hatred and malice. Does he gain anything from putting out
such infantile theories of human kind.
- I ask the writer to ascertain the location of his aggressive
behavioral stance on Genetic Superiority. It is kept in the "Amygdala"
and located on the inner fold of the temporal lobe.
- When the time comes to write yet another hateful and
insulting sentence and paragraph, the writer whomever, should scratch behind
his ear vigorously and wait a few minutes.
- For all young Black kids who are beginning to believe
the intent of the article ..GO HERE
- Kieth Norman (WelshBrit)