THE idea of "Natural Equality" is one of the most
pernicious delusions that has ever afflicted mankind.  It is
a figment of the human imagination.  Nature knows no
equality.  The most cursory examination of natural
phenomena reveals the presence of a Law of Inequality
as universal and inflexible as the Law of Gravitation.
The evolution of life is the most striking instance of this
fundamental truth.  Evolution is a process of differentiation --
of increasing differentiation -- from the simple one-
celled bit of protoplasm to the infinitely differentiated,
complex life forms of the present day.
   And the evolutionary process is not merely quantitative;
it is qualitative as well.  These successive differentiations
imply increasingly inequalities.  Nobody but a
madman could seriously contend that the microscopic
speck of protoplasmic jelly floating in the tepid waters
of the Palaqeozoic Sea was "equal" to a human being.
   But this is only the beginning of the story.  Not only
are the various life types profoundly unequal in
qualities and capacities; the individual members of each type
are similarly differentiated among themselves.  No two
individuals are ever precisely alike.  We have already
seen how greatly this dual process of differentiation both
of type and individual has been affected the human species,
and how basic a factor it has been in human progress.
Furthermore, individual inequalities steadily increase


as we ascend the biological scale.  The amoeba differs
very little from his fellows; the dog much more so; man
most of all.  And inequalities between men likewise
become ever more pronounced.  The innate differences
between members of a low-grade savage tribe are as nothing
compared with the abyss sundering the idiot and the
genius who coexist in a high-grade civilization.
   Thus, we see that evolution means a process of ever-
growing inequality.  There is, in fact, no such word as
"equality" in nature's lexicon.  With an increasingly
uneven hand she distributes health, beauty, vigor,
intelligence, genius -- all the qualities which confer on their
possessors superiority over their fellows.
   Now, in the face of all this, how has the delusion of
"natural equality" obtained -- and retained -- so stubborn
a hold on mankind?  As to both its antiquity and
persistency there can be no shadow of doubt.  The slogan
of "equality" was raised far back in the remote past,
and, instead of lessening, was never more loudly
trumpeted than to-day.  It is a curious fact that just when
the advance of knowledge and the increasing complexity
of civilization have enhanced individual differences and
rendered superior capacities supremely important, the
cry for equality should have become fiercer than ever,
should have been embodied in all sorts of levelling
doctrines, and should have been actually attempted in
Bolshevik Russia with the most fanactical fury and the most
appalling results.
   Here is obviously something requiring careful analysis.
As a matter of fact, the passion for "natural" equality


seems to spring primarily from certain impulses of the
ego, the self, particularly from the impulses of self-
preservation and self-esteem.  Every individual is
inevitably the centre of his world, and instinctively tends to
regard his own existence and well-being as matters of
supreme importance.  This instinctive egoism is, of
course, modified by experience, observation, and reflection,
and may be so overlaid that it becomes scarcely
recognizable even by the individual himself.  Nevertheless,
it remains, and subtly colors every thought and
attitude.  In his heart of hearts, each individual feels
that he is really a person of importance.  No matter how
low may be his capacities, no matter how egregious his
failures, no matter how unfavorable the judgement of his
fellows; still his inborn instincts of self-preservation and
self-love whisper that he should survive and prosper,
that "things are not right," and that if the world were
properly ordered he would be much better placed.
   Fear and wounded vanity thus inspire the individual
to resent unfavorable status, and this resentment tends
to take the form of protest against "injustice."
Injustice of what?  Of "fate," "nature," "circumstances,"
perhaps; yet, more often, injustice of persons -- individually
or collectively (i.e., "society").  But (argues the
discontented ego), since all this is unjust, those better
placed persons have no "right" to succeed where he fails.
Though more fortunate, they are not really his superiors.
He is "as good as they are."  Hence, either he should
be up with them -- or they should be down with him.
"We are all men.  We are all equal!"


   Such, in a nutshell, is the train of thought -- or rather
of feeling -- underlying the idea of "natural equality."
It is, of course, evident that the idea springs primarily
from the emotions, however much it may "rationalize"
itself by intellectual arguments.  Being basically
emotional, it is impervious to reason, and when confronted by
hard facts it takes refuge in mystic faith.  All levelling
doctrines (including, of course, the various brands of
modern Socialism) are, in the last analysis, not intellectual
concepts, but religious cults.  This is strikingly shown
by recent events.  During the past ten years biology
and kindred sciences have refuted practically all the
intellectual arguments on which the doctrine of "natural
equality" relies.  But has this destroyed the doctrine?
Not at all.  Its devoted followers either ignore biology,
or elaborate pseudobiological fallacies (which we will
later examine), or, lastly, lose their tempers, show their
teeth, and swear to kill their opponents and get their
own way somehow -- which is just what the extreme
"proletarian" ragings mean.  Quite useless to point out to
such zealots the the inequalities of nature.  Their answer is
that superior endowment is itself a basic injustice
(injustice" of nature!) which it is society's duty to remedy
by equalizing rewards regardless of ability or service.
This is exemplified by that stock Socialist formula:
Distribution according to "needs."
   Such are the emotionsl bases of the doctrine of natural
equality.  But, as we have already stated, these emotional
bases have been buttressed by many intellectual
arguments of great apparent force.  Indeed, down to


our own days, when the new biological revelation (for it
is nothing short of that) has taught us the supreme
importance of heredity, mankind tended to believe that
enviornment rather than heredity was the main factor
in human existence.  We simply cannot overestimate the
change which biology is effecting in our whole outlook on
life.  It is unquestionably inaugurating the mightiest
transformation of ideas that the world has ever seen.
Let us glance at the state of human knowledge a few
short decades ago to appreciate its full significance.
   Down to that time the exact nature of the life process
remained a mystery.  This mystery has now been cleared
up.  The researches of Weismann and other modern
biologists have revealed the fact that all living beings
are due to a continuous stream of germ-plasm which has
existed ever since life first appeared on earth, and which
will continue to exist as long as any life remains.  This
germ-plasm consists of minute germ-cells which have
the power of developing into living beings.  All human
beings spring from the union of a male sperm-cell and a
female egg-cell.  Right here, however, occurs the basic
feature of the life process.  The new individual consists,
from the start, of two sorts of plasm.  Almost the whole
of him is body-plasm -- the ever multiplying cells which
differentiate into the organs of the body.  But he also
contains germ-plasm.  At his very conception a tiny bit
of the life stuff from which he springs is set aside, is
carefully isolated from the body-plasm, and follows a course
of development entirely its own.  In fact, the germ-plasm
is not really part of the individual; he is merely its


bearer, destined to pass it on to other bearers of the life
   Now all this was not only unknown but even unsuspected
down to a very short time ago.  Its discovery was
in fact dependent upon modern scientific methods.
Certainly, it was not likely to suggest itself to even the most
philosophic mind.  Thus, down to about a generation
ago, the life stuff was supposed to be a product of the
body, not differing essentially in character from other
body products.  This assumption had two important
consequences.  In the first place, it tended to obscure
the very concept of heredity, and led men to think of
environment as virtually all-important; in the second
place, even where the importance of heredity was dimly
perceived, the role of the individual was misunderstood,
and he was conceived as a creator rather than a mere
transmitter.  This was the reason for the false theory of
the "inheritance of acquired characteristics," formulated
by Lamark and upheld by most scientists until almost
the end of the nineteenth century.  Of course, Lamarkism
was merely a modification of the traditional
"environmentalist" attitude: it admitted that heredity
possessed some importance, but it maintained environment
as the basic factor.
   Now a moment's reflection must suggest the
tremendous practical differences between the theories of
environment and heredity.  This is no mere academic
matter; it involves a radically different outlook on every
phase of life, from religion and government to personal
conduct.  Let us examine the facts of the case.


   Down to our own days mankind had generally believed
that environment was the chief factor in existence.  This
was only natural.  The true character of the life process
was so closely veiled that it could not well be discovered
except by the methods of modern science; the workings
of heredity were obscure and easily confounded with
environmental influences.  The workings of environment,
on the other hand, were clear as day and forced
themselves on the attention of the dullest observer.  To
the pressing problems of environment, therefore, man
devoted himself, seeking in the control of his surround-
ings both the betterment of the race and the curing of its
ills.  Only occasionally did a few reflective minds catch
a glimpse of the heredity factor in the problem of life.
That marvellous breed of men, the ancient Greeks, had
such glimpses of the higher truth.  With their charac-
teristic insight they discerned clearly the principle of
heredity, gave considerable thought to it, and actually
evolved a theory of race-betterment by the weeding out
of inferior strains and the multiplication of superiors --
in other words, the "Eugenics" theory of to-day.
   For example, as early as the sixth century B.C. the
Greek poet Theognis of Megara wrote:  "We look for
rams and asses and stallions of good stock, and one be-
lieves that good will come from good; yet a good man
minds not to wed the evil daughter of an evil sire. . . .
Marvel not that the stock of our folk is tarnished, for
the good is mingling with the base."  A century later
Plato was as much interested in biological selection as the
best method for race improvement.  He suggested that


the state should mate the best with the best and the
worst with the worst; the former should be encouraged
to breed freely, while the offspring of the unfit should be
destroyed.  Aristotle likewise held that the state should
strongly encourage the increase of superior types.
   Of course, these were but the visions of a few seers,
which had no practical results.  The same is true of those
other rare thinkers who, like Shakespear with his famous
lines about "nature" and "nuture," evidently grasped
the hereditarian idea.  The mass of mankind continued
to hold that enviornment was the great matter for con-
   Now a belief in the transcendant importance of en-
vironment leads inevitably to certain conclusions of great
practical importance.  In the first place, if it be true that
man is moulded primarily by his environment, it logically
follows that he has merely to gain control over his en-
vironment in order to change himself almost at will.
Therefore, according to the environmentalist, progress
depends, not on human nature, but on conditions and
institutions.  Again, if man is the product of his environ-
ment, human differences are merely effects of environ-
mental differences, and can be rapidly modified by en-
vironmental changes.  Lastly, before the supreme im-
portance of environment, all human differences whether
individual or racial sink into insignificance, and all men
are potentially "equal."
   Such are the logical deductions from the environmen-
talist theory.  And this theory was certainly attractive.
It not only appealed to those wounded feelings of self-

preservation and self-esteem among the ill-endowed and
the unfortunate which we have previously examined, but
it appealed also to many of the most superior minds of
the race.  What could be more attractive than the
thought that humanity's ills were due, not to inborn
shortcomings but to faulty surroundings, and that the
most backward and degraded human beings might pos-
sibly be raised to the highest levels if only the environ-
ment were sufficiently improved?  This appeal to al-
truism was powerfully strengthened by the Christian
doctrine of the equality of all souls before God.  What
wonder, then, that philosophers and scientists combined
to elaborate theories about mankind of a wholly environ-
mentalist character?
  All the greatest thinkers of the eighteenth century (who
still influence our ideas and institutions to a far greater
degree than we may imagine) were convinced believers
in "natural equality."  Locke and Hume, for example,
taught that at birth "the human mind is a blank sheet,
and the brain a structureless mass, lacking inherent or-
ganization or tendencies to develop in this way or that;
a mere mass of undefined potentialities which, through
experience, association, and habit, through education,
in short, could be molded and developed to an unlimited
extent and in any manner or direction." (1)  The doctrine
of natural equality was brilliantly formulated by Rous-
seau, and was explicitly stated both in the American
Declaration of Independence and in the French Declara-
tion of the Rights of Man.  The doctrine, in its most
(1) W. McDougall, Is America Safe for Democracy?  (Lowell Institute
Lectures), p.21 (New York, 1921).


uncompromising form, held its ground until well past
the middle of the nineteenth century.  At that period
so notable a thinker as John Stuart Mill could declare
roundly: "Of all vulgar modes of escaping from the con-
sideration of the effect of social and moral influences on
the human mind, the most vulgar is that of attributing
the diversities of conduct and character to inherent nat-
ural differences."
   Mill's utterance may be considered an expression of
pure environmentalism.  At the moment when he spoke,
however, the doctrine had already been considerably
modified.  In fact, by the beginning of the nineteenth
century, the progress of science had begun to lift the
veil which obscured the mystery of heredity, and scien-
tists were commencing to give close attention to such
matters.  At first the phenomena of inheritance were not
believed to effect the basic importance of environment.
This idea was clearly stated early in the nineteenth cen-
tury by the French naturalist Lamarck.  Lamarck as-
serted that the forms and functions of living beings arose
and developed through use, and that such changes were
directly transmitted from generation to generation.  In
other words, Lamarck formulated the theory of the "in-
heritance of acquired characteristics" which was destined
to dominate biological thinking down to a generation
ago.  This theory, which is usually termed "Lamarck-
ism," was merely a modification of the old environmen-
talist philosophy.  It admitted the factor of heredity,
but it considered heredity dependent upon environmental
  It is difficult to overestimate the tremendous practical


consequences of Lamarkism, not merely upon the nine-
teenth century but also upon our times.  the primal
importance of heredity may to-day be accepted by most
scientists and by an increasing number of forward-looking
persons everywhere, but it has as yet neither deeply pene-
trated the popular consciousness nor sensibly modified
our institutions.  The march of new ideas is slow at best,
and however much we may be changing our thinking, we
are still living and acting under the environmentalist
theories of the past.  Our political, educational, and so-
cial systems remain alike rooted in Lamarckism and
proceed on the basic premise that environment rather
than heredity is the chief factor in human existence.
  The emotional grip of Lamarckism is very strong.  It
is an optimistic creed, appealing to both the hopes and sym-
pathies.  To Lamarckism was due in large measure the
cheery self-confidence of the nineteenth century, with its
assurance of automatic and illimitable progress.  Indeed,
in some respects, Lamarckism increased rather than
diminished the traditional faith in environment.  Before
Lamarck, men had believed that the new-born individual
was a blank sheet on which society could write.  Now
came Lamarck, asserting that much of this writing could
be passed on by inheritance to succeeding generations
with cumulative effect.  Considering the powerful agen-
cies which society had at its disposal -- government, the
church, the home, the school, philanthropy, etc. it was
easy to believe that a wiser and intenser application of
these social agencies offered a sure and speedy road to
the millennium.


  Accordingly, "the comfortable and optimistic doctrine
was preached that we had only to improve one generation
by more healthy surroundings, or by better education,
and, by the mere action of heredity, the next generation
would begin on a higher level of natural endowments
than its predecessor.  And so, from generation to gen-
eration, on this theory, we could hope continually to
raise the inborn character of a race in an unlimited prog-
ress of cumulative improvement." (1)
  On this common environmentalist basis all the political
and social philosophies of the nineteenth century arose.
  They might differ widely and wrangle bitterly over which
environmental factor was of prime importance.  Political
thinkers asserted that progress depended on constitu-
tions; "naturalists" like Buckle claimed that peoples
were moulded by their physical environments like so
much soft clay; while Socialists proclaimed that man's
regeneration lay in a new system of economics.  Never-
theless, they were all united by a common belief in the
supreme importance of environment, and they all either
ignored heredity or deemed it a minor factor.
  We need to stress this point, because we must remem-
ber that it is precisely these doctrines which still sway
the thought and action of most persons -- even the edu-
cated.  "Whether they know it or not, most people who
have not made a particular study of the question still
tacitly assume that the acquirements of one generation
form part of the inborn heritage of the next, and the pres-
(1) W.C.D. and C.D. Whetham, Heredity and Society, p.4 (London

ent social and educational systems are founded in large
part on this false foundation." (1)
  Let us now consider the rise of the new biology, which
has already exerted so powerful an influence upon our
philosophy of life and which promises to affect profoundly
the destines of mankind.  Modern biology can be said
to date from the publication of Darwin's work on The
Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, in the
year 1859.  This epoch-making book was fiercely chal-
lenged and was not generally accepted even by the scien-
tific world until the last quarter of the nineteenth century.
Its acceptance, however, marked nothing short of a revo-
lution in the realm of ideas.  Darwin established the
principle of evolution and showed that evolution pre-
ceeded by heredity.  A second great step was soon taken
by Francis Galton, the founder of the science of "Eu-
genics" or "Race Betterment."  Darwin had centred his
attention on animals.  Galton applied Darwin's teach-
ing to man, and went on to break new ground by point-
ing out not merely the inborn differences between men,
but the fact that these differences could be controlled;
that the human stock could be surely and lastingly im-
proved by increasing the number of individuals endowed
with superior qualities and decreasing the number of in-
feriors.  In other words, Galton grapsed fully the mo-
mentous implications of heredity (which Darwin had not
done), and announced clearly that heredity rather than
environment was the basic factor in life and the prime
lever of human progress.
(1) Popenoe and Johnson, Applied Eugenics, p.33 (New York, 1920).

  Like most intellectual pioneers, Galton had to wait
long for adequate recognition.  Although his first eugenic
writings appeared as early as 1865, they did not attract
a tithe of the attention excited by Darwin's work, and
it was not until the very close of the nineteenth century
that his theory gained wide acceptance even in scientific
circles, while the educated public did not become really
aware of it until the opening years of the present century.
Once fairly started, however, the idea made rapid prog-
ress.  In every part of the civilized world scientists took
up the work, and soon a series of remarkable discoveries
by biologists like Weismann, DeVries, and others put the
new science on a sure and authoritative foundation. (1)
  We have already indicated how momentous has been
the change in outlook wrought by the new biological
revelation, not merely in the field of abstract science, but
also in every phase of practical human existence.  The
discovery of the true nature of the life process, the cer-
tainty that the vast inequalities among men are due
primarily to heredity rather than environment, and the
discovery of a scientific method of race improvement,
are matters of transcendant importance.  Let us examine
some of their practical aspects.
  One of the most striking features of the life process is
(1) The mass of modern biological literature is very great, and in a
general work like mine elaborate reference footnotes would be out of
place. I will, therefore, merely refer the reader to two excellent
manuals on this field, with special reference to its eugenics side:
Popenoe and Johnson, Applied Eugenics (New York, 1920), and S.J.
Holmes, The Trend of the Race (New York, 1921). The latter work
contains good and fairly full bibliograhies at the end of each chapter.
From these two manuals the reader who desires to go deeper into the
field can find the necessary clews.


the tremendous power of heredity.  The marvellous po-
tency of the germ-plasm is increasingly revealed by each
freash biological discovery.  Carefully isolated and pro-
tected against external influences, the germ-plasm per-
sistently follows its predetermined course, and even
when actually interfered with it tends to overcome the
difficulty and resume its normal evolution.
  This persistency of the germ-plasm is seen at every
stage of its development, from the isolated germ-cell to
the mature individual.  Consider it first at its earliest
stage.  Ten years ago biologists generally believed that
the germ-plasm was permanently injured -- and perma-
nently modified -- by certain chemical substances and
disease toxins like lead, alcohol, syphilis, etc.  These
noxious influences were termed "racial poisons," and
were believed to be prime causes of racial degeneracy.
In other words, here was a field where biologists used to
aoddit that environment directly (1)  modified heredity in
profound and lasting fashion.  To-day the weight of evi-
dence is clearly the other way.  While it is still generally
admitted that injury to the germ-plasm does occur, most
biologists now think that such injury is a temporary "in-
duction," that is, a change in the germ-cells which does
not permanently alter the nature of the inherited traits
and which will disappear in a few generations if the in-
jury be not repeated.
 (1) The distinction between direct and indirect effects should be
kept clearly in mind.  Of course it is perfectly evident that
environment does indirectly affect all forms of life -- notably by
favoring certain types and handicapping others and so resulting in
the increase of the former and the decrease of the latter.


  To quote from an authoritative source: "We are thus
in a position to state that, from the engenist's point of
view, the origination of degeneracy, by some direct action
on the germ-plasm, is a contingency that hardly needs
to be reckoned with. . . .  The germ-plasm is so care-
fully isolated and guarded that it is almost impossible
to injure it, except by treatment so severe as to kill it
altogether; and the degeneracy with which the eugenists
are called on to deal is a degeneracy which is running
along from generation to generation and which, when
once stopped by the cessation of reproduction, is in little
danger of being originated anew through some racial
poison." (1)
  Consider now the life process at its next stage -- the
stage between conception and birth.  It used to be
thought that the germ-plasm of the growing embryo
could be injured and permanently altered, not merely
by the "racial poisons" above mentioned but also by
certain "prenatal" influences, such as the mother's
undernourishment, chronic exhaustion, fright, worry, or
shock.  Today such ideas are utterly discredited. There
is not a shred of evidence that the mother's circumstances
or feelings can affect in any way the germ-plasm of her
unborn child.  Of course, the mother's condition may
profoundly affect the embryo's body-plasm, so that the
child may be bern stunted or diseased.  But the child
will not pass on those handicaps by heredity to its off-
spring. Conversely, it is equally certain that nothing
the mother can do to improve her unborn child will better
(1) Popenoe and Johnson, op. cit. pp.63-64.


its germ-plasm. She may give her child a sounder body,
but its heredity was fixed irrevocably the instant it was
conceived.  Here, then, is another field where the theory
of direct action of environment on heredity has been
definitely disproved.
  Let us pass to the next stage. Birth has taken place.
The individual is out in the world and is exposed to en-
vironmental influences vastly greater than those which
acted upon him during his embryonic stage. But these
environmental influences fall upon his body-plasm; his
germ-plasm is as carefully isolated and protected as was
his parents', so that the same laws which we have already
discussed will apply to him as well as to them.
  Furthermore, the effect of the environment even upon
the body-plasm will depend largely upon what sort of
a creature the particular individual may be.  Biology
has recently discovered that the effect of environment
decreases as we ascend the life scale; in other words,
the simpler types are most affected, while man, the high-
est biological type, seems to be affected least of all. This
is a point of great importance.  Certain environmentalist
writers have maintained that, even though the germ-
plasm were unaltered, man is so moulded by his environ-
went that with each generation the hereditary tendencies
are overcome by circumstances and are thus rendered
practically of secondary importance.  Such writers base
their arguements largely upon scientific experiments made
upon primitive forms of animal life, where striking bodily
changes have been brought about.  As applied to man,
however, these arguments are misleading, because the


same influences which profoundly affect lower forms have
relatively little effect upon the higher animals and still
less upon man himself.  Man is, therefore, least affected
by, and most independent of, environmental influences.
 This matter has been ably summed up by the American
biologist Woods, who has formulated it as "The Law of
Diminshing Environmental Influences." (1)  Woods shows
not only that environmental influence diminishes accord-
ing to the individual's rank in the biological scale, but
also that, even within the body of the particular indi-
vidual, environmental influence diminishes with the evo-
lutionary rank of the tissue affected and in proportion to
its age.  This is important in connection with possible
environmental influence upon the human brain.  Says
Woods:  "It must be remembered that the brain-cells,
even of a child, are, of all tissues, farthest removed from
any of these primordial states.  The cells of the brain
ceased subdivision long before birth.  Therefore, a priori,
we must expect relatively little modification of brain
function.  Finally, Woods shows that environmental
influence diminishes with the organism's power of choice.
This is, of course, of the utmost importance regarding
man.  For, as Woods says: "This may be the chief reason
why human beings, who of all creatures have the greatest
power to choose the surroundings congenial to their spe-
cial needs and natures, are so little affected by outward
conditions.  The occasional able, ambitious, and deter-
inined member of an obscure or degenerate family can
(1) Frederick Adams Woods, "Laws of Dimishing Environmental In-
fluences," Popular Science Monthly, April, 1910.


get free from his uncongenial associates.  So can the weak
or lazy or vicious (even if a black sheep from the finest
fold) easily find his natural haunts."
  From all this Woods concludes: "Experimentally and
statistically, there is not a grain of proof that ordinary
environment can alter the salient mental and moral traits
in any measurable degree from what they were prede-
termined to be through innate influences."
  We thus see that man is moulded more by heredity
and less by environment than any other living creature,
and that the vast differences observable between human
beings are mainly predeterminad at the instant of con-
ception, with relatively little regard to what happens
  Let us now observe some of the actual workings of
heredity in man, both in the good and bad sense. In
the present chapter we wIl devote our attention mainly
to the superior types, leaving our consideration of the
inferior for the next chapter.
  Now what do we know about superior individuals?
We know that they exist and that they are due to he-
ridity. That is a good beginedng, but it would not get
us very far unless we knew more along the same lines.
Fortunately, we not only know that superiors tend to
produce superior offspring, but that they produce such
offspring according to natural laws which can be deter-
mined statistically with a high degree of accuracy. (And,
of course, the same is true of the production of inferiors.)
  The production of superior persons has been studied
by modern biologists from Galton down to the present


day, and a mass of authoritative data has been accumu-
lated.  Let us examine a few of these instructive investi-
gations. To cite the earliest of them, Galton's study
on "Hereditary Genius" (1869), Galton discovered that
in English history success in life was a strikingly "family
affair." From careful statistical investigation of a great
number of notable Englishmen Galton found that a dis-
tinguished father was infinitely more likely to have a
distinguished son than was an undistinguished father.
To cite one case out of many, Galton found that the son
of a distinguished judge had about one chance in four
of becoming himself distinguished, while the son of a
man picked out at random from the general population
had only about one chance in 4,000 of becoming similarly
  Of course, the objection at once suggested itself that
environmental influences like social opportunity might
be predominant; that the son of a distinguished man is
pushed forward regardless of his innate abilities, while
the son of an obscure man never gets a chance.  To test
this, Galton turned to the history of the Papacy. For
centuries it was the custom for a Pope to adopt one of
his nephews as a son, and advance him in every way.
Now if opportunity is all that is necessary to advance a
man, these adopted sons ought to have reached eminence
in the same proportion as the real sons of eminent men.
As a matter of fact, however, they reached eminence
only as often as the statistical expectation for nephews
of great men -- whose chance of eminence has been dis-
covered to be much less than that of the sons of great


men.  Nevertheless, despite different ratios of heritabil-
ity, superiority still remains a family affair; Galton found
that nearly half of the great men of England had dis-
tinguished close relatives.
  Galton's studies of English greatness have been criti-
cised as applying to a country where caste lines are sharply
drawn. To test these objections the American biologist
Woods transferred the inquiry to the United States -- a
land where opportunities have been much more equal
and rigid caste lines virtually absent.  How was it with
the great men of America?  If they were found to have
fewer distinguished relatives than the great men of Eng-
land, it would be a great feather in the environmentalists'
cap, since it would tend to show that, given equal oppor-
tunity, success does not depend on family stock.  On the
other hand, if what was true of England should hold
good also of America, the theory of hereditary superiority
would be much more firmly established.
 The result of Woods's study (1) was a striking confirma-
tion of Galton's researches.  Woods took two groups of
distinguished Americans; a large group of 3,500 listed as
eminent in the standard dictionaries of biography; and
a small group of the 46 very eminent Americans admitted
to the "Hall of Fame."  Now how were these eminent
persons related to each other? If superiority did not
"run in families," it is evident that their chances of re-
lationship would be no greater than that of the rest of
the population -- which ratio Woods found to be statis-
(1) Frederick Adams Woods, "Heredity and the Hall of Fame,"
Popular Science Monthly, May, 1913.


tically 1 in 500. However, as a matter of fact, the 3,500
eminent Americans were found to be related to each
other, not as 1 to 500 but as 1 to 5.  Furthermore, by
picking out the more eminent among the 3,500 and form-
ing a new group, this group was found to be related to
each other as 1 to 3. Most striking of all were the re-
sults obtained by considering the very superior group
listed in the Hall of Fame.  Here the ratio of relationship
rose to 1 in 2, while if all their eminent relations were
counted in, they averaged more than one apieoe.  Thus,
distinguished Americans are discovered to be from 500 to
1,000 times as much related to other distinguished per-
sons as is the ordinary American.  Or, to put it in an-
other way, something like 1 per cent of the population
of the United States is as likely to produce a genius as
is all the rest of the country put together -- the other
99 cent.
  It might, to be sure, be objected that even in America
the early environment of eminent men might be on the
average more favorable than that of the mass of the pop-
ulation.  This objection is met by another of Woods's
investigation -- a very able and elaborate study of the
royal families of Europe.(1)  Here is a class of persons where
no one can doubt that the environment is uniformly
favorable.  If opportunity rather than inherited capacity
be the cause of success, then most of the members of this
(1) Frederick Adams Woods, Mental and Moral Heredity in Royalty,
New York, 1906. See also his book, The Influence of Monarchs, New
York, 1913, and his article, "Sovereigns and the Supposed Influence
of Opportunity," Science, 19 June, 1914, where Doctor Woods answers
some criticisms of his work.


class ought to have succeeded, and succeeded in about
the same degree, because to every one of royal blood
the door of opportunity stands open. Yet the result of
Woods's study was just the reverse of this.  Despite the
good environment almost uniformly present, superiority
in royalty, as in other classes, is found to be a distinctly
"family matter."  Royal geniuses are not scattered hap-
hazard over the genealogical chart; they are concentrated
in isolated chains of closely related individuals.  One
chain centres in Frederick the Great, another in Queen
Isabella of Spain, a third in William the Silent, and a
fourth in Gustavus Adolphus.  And, be it also noted,
inferiority in royalty is equally segregated, royal dullards
and degenerates also running by families.
  But how about superior individuals who rise from ap-
parently mediocre stocks?  Environmentalist writers are
forever compiling lists of great men who "came from
nothing."  These cases have, however, been carefully
investigated, and the more they are studied the more
convincing grows the evidence that greatnese never arises
out of "nothing."  Take Abraham Lincoln.  He was
long a shining example for the environmentalist thesis.
Lincoln is popularly supposed to have come from "poor
white trash" of a very inferior order.  But careful in-
vestigation proves that this is emphatically not so.  As
one of the investigators remarks: "So far from his later
career being unaccounted for in his origin and early his-
tory, it is as fully accounted for as is the case of any
man." (1)  And a recent authority goes on to state: "The
(1) Ida M. Tarbell, The Early Life of Abraham Lincoln,
New York, 1896.


Lincoln family was one of the best in America, and while
Abraham's own father was an eccentric person, he was
yet a man of considerable force of chamcter, by no means
the 'poor white trash,' which he is often represented to
have been.  The Hanks family, to which the Emanci-
pator's mother belonged, had also maintained a high
level of ability in every generation. (1)  Furthermore,
Thomas Lincoln and Nancy Hanks, the parents of Abra-
ham lincoln, were first cousins." (2)
  Of course, there are a considerable number of distin-
gushed individuals whose greatness genealogy cannot
as yet explain.  But in most cases this is because very
little is discoverable about their ancestors.  Furthermore,
as Holmes justly remarks: "It should be borne in mind
that greatness involves a pecular complex of qualities
the lack of any one of which may prevent an individual
from achieving an eminent position.  A great man has
to do more than simply exist; he must accomplish labors
of a particularly noteworthy kind before he is crowned
with fame, and many a man of splendid natural endow-
ments has fallen short of achieving greatness through
some inherent weakness of character or the lack of suf-
ficient inspiration or driving force.  Great men not only
have to be born great; they also have to achieve great-
ness, and if they receive their proper recognition in the
eyes of the world, greatness has to be thrust upon them
besides. Great men, it is true, seem to rise higher than
(1) For a study of Lincoln's maternal line, see C.H. Hitchcock,
Nancy Hanks, New York, 1899.
(2) Popenoe and Johnson, op. cit., p. 333.


their source.  Generally they come from an ancestry
considerably above mediocrity.  And I venture to ex-
press the opinion that a great man has never been pro-
duced from parents of subnormal mentality.  A great
man is more apt to arise if both parents are of very sup-
perior ability than if only one parent is above mediocrity.
Where the great man appears to stand far above the level
of his immediate ancestors it is due in large part, I believe,
to the fact that each parent supplied peculiar qualities
lacking in the other, assisted also by qualities from more
remote ancestors which may have conspired to furnish
the necessary complement of hereditary factors .....
One thing is certain, and that is that you cannot make
greatness out of mediocrity or good ability out of inborn
dulness by all the aids which environment and education
or anything else can possibly offer." (1)
  Indeed, even if we admit that great men may occa-
sionally arise from stocks which had never shown any
signs of superiority, this ought to strengthen rather than
weaken our belief in the force of heredity.  As Woods
well says, when it is considered how rarely such an an-
cestry produces a great man, it must be evident that his
greatness is due to an accidental conjunction of favorable
traits converging through his parents and meeting in
  Finally, how except by heredity can we explain the
enormous differences in achievement between great num-
bers of persons exposed to the same environment and
enjoying similar opportunities?  "In terms of environ-
(1) S.J. Holmes, The Trend of the Race, pp. 115-116 (New York, 1921).


ment, the opportunity to become a great physicist was
open to every one of the thousands of university students
who were the contemporaries of Lord Kelvin;  the op-
portunity to become a great musician has been open to
all the pupils in all the conservatories of music which
have flourished since Johann Sebastian Bach was a choir-
boy at Luneburg;  the opportunity to become a multi-
millionaire has been open to every clerk who has wielded
a pen since John D. Rockefeller was a bookkeeper in a
Cleveland store;  the opportunity to become a great mer-
chant has been open to every boy who has attended an
American public school since the time when John Wana-
maker, at fourteen years of age, was an errand boy in a
Philadelphia book store." (1)
  Such are the investigations of biology concerning hu-
man inequalities. They are certainly striking, and they
all point to the same conclusions, namely: that such
inequalities are inborn; that they are predetermined by
heredity; and that they are not inherently modified by
either environment or opportunity.
  But this is only half the story.  Within the past twenty
years the problem of human inequality has been ap-
proached along a wholly new line, by a different branch
of science -- psychology. And the findings of these psy-
chological investigations have not only tallied with those
of biology in further revealing the inherited nature of
human capacities, but have also proved it in even more
striking fashion and with far greater possibilities of prac-
tical application.
(1) Alleyne Ireland, Democracy and the Human Equation, p. 153
(New York, 1921)

 The novelty of the psychological approach to the prob-
lem is evident when we realize that, whereas biology has
been investigating mainly the individual's ancestry or
actions, psychology examines the mind itself.  The best-
known instruments of psychological investigation are
the so-called "Intelligence Tests," first invented by the
French psychologist Binet in the year 1905.  From Binet's
relatively modest beginning the mental tests have in-
creased enormously in both complexity and scope, cul-
minating in three gigantic investigations conducted by
the American army authorities during the late war, when
more than 1,700,000 men were mentally tested in a va-
riety of ways. (1)  Furthermore, despite the notable progress
which it has already made, the psychological method ap-
pears to be still in its infancy, and seems likely to yield
far more extraordinary results in the near future.
 Yet the results already attained are of profound signif-
icance. It has been conclusively proved that intelligence
is predetermined by heredity; that individuals come into
the world differing vastly in mental capacities; that such
differences remain virtually constant throughout life and
cannot be lessened by environment or education; that the
present mental level of any individual can be definitely
ascertained, and even a child's future adult mental level
(1) The data gathered by the United States army intelligence tests
have been published in detail in: Memoirs of the National Academy
of Sciences, vol. XV, edited by Major R.M. Yerkes. A useful
abridgement, containing many of the chief conclusions, etc., is the
smaller volume by Majors Yerkes and Yoakum: Army Mental Tests, New
York, 1920. See also valuable discussions of this matter in:
Publications of the American Sociological Society, vol. XV, pp.102-124.
For further discussions, see books by Conklin, Ireland, and McDougall,
already cited.


confidently predicted. These are surely discoveries whose
practical importance can hardly be overestimated. They
enable us to grade not merely individuals but whole na-
tions and races according to their inborn capacities, to
take stock of our mental assets and liabilities, and to get
a definite idea as to whether humanity is headed toward
greater achievement or toward decline.
  Let us now see precisely what the intelligence tests
have revealed.  In the first place, we must remember the
true meaning of the word "intelligence."  "Intelligence"
must not be confused with "knowledge."  Knowledge is
the result of intelligence, to which it stands in the rela-
tion of effect to cause.  Intelligence is the capacity of
the mind; knowledge is the raw material which is put
into the mind.  Whether the knowledge is assimilated or
lost, or just what use is made of it, depends primarily
upon the degree of intelligence.  This intellectual capacity
as revealed by mental testing is termed by psychologists
the "I. Q." or "intelligence quotient."
   Psychology has invented a series of mental yardsticks
for the measurement of human intelligence, beginning
with the mind of the child.  For example, the mental
capacity of a child at a certain age can be ascertained by
comparing it (as revealed by mental tests) with the in
telligence which careful examination of a vast number
of cases has shown to be the statistical average for chil-
dren of that age.  This is possible because it has been
found that mental capacity increases regularly as a child
grows older.  This increase is rapid during the first years
of life, then slows down until, about the age of sixteen,


there is usually no further growth of mental capacity --
albeit exceptionally superior intellects continue to grow
in capacity for several years thereafter.
   A large number of careful investigations made among
school children have revealed literally amazing dis-
crepancies between their chronological and their mental
ages.  In classes of first grade grammar-school children,
where the chronological age is about six years, some pupils
are found with mental ages as low as three while other
pupils are found with mental ages as high as nine or ten.
Similarly, in first year high-school classes, where the
chronological age is about fourteen years, the mental
age of some pupils may rank as low as ten or eleven, while
the mental age of others may rise as high as nineteen or
   And, be it remembered, the "I. Q." of any individual
child, once discovered, can be counted on as a constant
factor, which does not change with the lapse of time.
For example:  Take two children rated by their birth
certificates as being both four years old, but with mental
ages of three and five respectively.  When they are chron-
ologically eight years old, the mental age of the duller
child will be about six, while the mental age of The
brighter child will be about ten.  And when they an
chronologically twelve years old, their respective mental
ages will be approximately nine and fifteen.  Assuming
that growth of mental capacity stops in both children at
the chronological age of sixteen, the ratio of their mental
ages as then attained will remain constant between them
all the rest of their lives.  That is why the mental ages


of persons over sixteen, once ascertained, can be regarded
as fixed quantities.  The only exceptions are those com-
paratively rare individuals of very superior mentality
whose intelligence continues to grow a few years longer,
and who are consequently very far in advance of their
fellows.  Two methods of mental grading are employed:
children are graded according to "years"; adults are
graded according to qualitative ratings ranging from
"very superior," through "average," to "very inferior."
   Space forbids any detailed discussion of the actual
make-up of mental tests.  Their number is legion and
their specialization is minute.  Yet they all yield the
same general results.  "No matter what trait of the
individual be chosen, results are analogous.  If one takes
the simplest traits, to eliminate the most chances for
confusion, one finds the same conditions every time.
Whether it be speed in marking off all the A's in a printed
sheet of capitals, or in putting together the pieces of a
puzzle, or in giving a reaction to some certain stimulus
or in making associations between ideas, or drawing fig-
ures, or memory for various things, or giving the oppo-
sites of words, or discrimination of lifted weights, or suc-
cess in any one of hundreds of other mental tests, the
conclusion is the same.  There are wide differences in
the abilities of individuals, no two being alike, either
mentally or physically, at birth or any time thereafter." (1)
   We thus see that human beings are spaced on widely
different mental levels; that they have a variety of men-
tal statures, just as they have a variety of physical
	   (1) Popenoe and Johnson, pp.77-78


statures, and that both are basically due to inheritance.
Furthermore, it is extremely significant to observe how
closely intelligence is correlated with industrial or pro-
fessional occupation, social and economic status, and
racial origin.  Nowhere does the power of heredity show
forth more clearly than in the way innate superiority
tends to be related to actual achievement.  Despite the
fact that our social system contains many defects which
handicap superior individuals and foster inferiors; de-
spite the fact that our ideas, laws, and institutions are
largely based on the fallacies of environmentalism and
"natural equality"; nevertheless, the imperious urge of
superior germ-plasm beats against these man-made bar-
riers and tends to raise the superior individuals who bear
it -- albeit only too often at the cost of their racial ste-
rility through their failure to leave children.
   Another noteworthy point is the way psychology has
confirmed biological and sociological theories.  Both
biologists and sociologists have long been coming more
and more to regard social and racial status as valid in-
dications of innate quality.  Now comes psychology,
approaching the problem from a new angle and with
different methods, and its findings coincide closely with
those which the other sciences have already made.  How
close is this coincidence a few examples will show.
   Taking first a couple of English researches: a com-
parison was made of the intellectual capacity of the boys
at a certain private school who were mostly the sons of
Oxford "dons" (i.e., members of the university faculty)
and the capacity of the boys at a municipal school at-

tended by boys from the town population.  I will quote
the results in the words of Professor McDougall, who
supervised the experiment, and of Mr. H. B. English,
who conducted it.  Says Professor McDougall:  "The
municipal school was an exceptionally good school of its
kind, the teaching being in many respects better than in
the other -- the private school; the boys were from good
homes, sons of good plain citizens -- shopkeepers and
skilled artisans, and so forth.  Without going into detail
I may say, summarily, that the result was to show a very
marked superiority of the boys of the school frequented
by the intellectual class."(1) And Mr. English states:
"Although the groups are small, they are exceedingly
homogeneous and thoroughly representative of the chil-
dren in two social or economic strata.  The writer does
not hesitate, therefore, to predicate these results for the
children of the entire classes represented or to conclude
that the children of the professional class exhibit between
twelve and fourteen years of age a very marked superi-
ority in intelligence." (2)  And Professor McDougall adds
the following interesting comment:  "The result is all
the more striking, if you reflect on the following facts:
First, every boy has two parents and inherits his quali-
ties from both.  Secondly, it has not been shown that
university dons prefer clever wives, or that they are par-
ticularly clever in choosing clever wives.  It remains,
then, highly probable that, if the wives of these men were
(1) McDougall, p.61
(2) H.B. English, Yale Psychological Studies (1917), quoted
by McDougall.


all as superior in respect of intellect as their husbands,
the superiority of their sons to the boys of the other group
would have been still more marked." (*)
   In this connection, let me quote the conclusions of
another British psychologist who made a similar experi-
ment with like results:  "For all these reasons we may
conclude that the superior proficiency at intelligence
tests on the part of boys of superior parentage was in-
born.  And thus we seem to have proved marked in-
heritability in the case of a mental character of the high-
est 'civic worth.'" (**)
   Let us now pass to America.  The United States offers
a more instructive field, because, with its more fluid social
structure and its heterogeneous racial makeup, the cor-
relations between intelligence, social or economic status,
and racial origin can be studied simultaneously.
   Before discussing these American experiments, let us
recall certain facts. For a long time past American biolo-
gists and sociologists have been coming more and more
to the following conclusions:  (1) That the old "Native
American" stock, favorably selected as it was from the
races of northern Europe, is the most superior element
in the American population;  (2) that subsequent im-
migrants from northern Europe, though coming from
substantially the same racial stocks, were less favorably
selected and average somewhat less superior; (3) that
the more recent immigrants from southern and eastern
(*) McDougall, pp.61-62
(**) Cyril Burt, "Experimental Tests of General Intelligence,"
British Journal of Psychology, vol. III (1909), quoted by McDougall.


Europe average decidedly inferior to the north European
elements;  (4) that the negroes are inferior to all other
elements.  Now let us see how psychological tests have
confirmed these biological and sociological conclusions.
   One of the most recent of these experiments (*) was that
conducted upon several hundred school children in the
primary grades.  The children were classified in two
ways: according to racial origin, and according to eco-
nomical status of parents.  The racial classifications
were: (a) children of American-born white parents; (b)
children of Italian immigrants (mostly south Italians);
(c) colored (negroes and mulattoes).  The economic-
social classifications of parents were: (1) professional;
(2) semi-professional and higher business; (3) skilled
labor; (4) semiskilled and unskilled labor.  The "I. Q."
(intelligence quotient) of each category was then ob-
tained, the object being to discover what correlations
(if any) existed between racial origin, economic-social
status, and intelligence.  Here are the results:

   Americans of social status (1)........I.Q. = 125
       "      "   "       "   (2)........I.Q. = 118
       "      "   "       "   (3)........I.Q. = 107
       "      "   "       "   (4)........I.Q. =  92
   All Americans grouped together........I.Q. = 106
   Italian ..............................I.Q. =  84
   Colored ..............................I.Q. =  83

  (*) This experiment, conducted by Miss A.H. Arlitt, of Bryn
Mawr College, is quoted by McDougall (pp.63-64), he having
obtained the data directly from Miss Arlitt in advance of her
own publication.  The experiment seems to have been conducted
in the year 1920.


   A similar experiment made on children in New York
City public schools by the well-known authority, Pro-
fessor S. M. Terman, (*) yields strikingly similar results.
In this case the children were graded simply according
to racial origin of parents, the classifications being: (1)
Parents native-born white Americans; (2) parents north
European immigrants; (3) parents Italian immigrants;
(4) parents Portuguese immigrants.  Here are the re-

   American..............................I.Q = 100
   North European........................I.Q = 105
   Italian...............................I.Q =  84
   Portuguese............................I.Q =  84

   Note how the respective I. Q.'s of both the American
and the Italian groups are identical in both experiments,
although the children examined were, of course, not the
   Here are the conclusions of Professor Terman regard-
ing the correlation between economic-social status of
parents and intelligence in children, as a result of his
many researches upon school children from New York
to California: "Intelligence of 110 to 120 I. Q. (this range
is defined as 'Superior intelligence') is approximately five
times as common among children of superior social status
as among children of inferior social status, the proportion
among the former being about 24 per cent of all and
among the latter only 5 per cent of all.  The group of
'superior intelligence,' is made up largely of children of

(1) S. M. Terman, Intelligence of School Children, p. 56
(New York, 1919)


the fairly successful mercantile or professional classes."
Professor Terman defined as of "very superior intelli-
gence" those children who scored in the tests more than
120 marks.  "Children of this group are," he says, "un-
usually superior.  Not more than 3 out of 100 go as high
as 125 I.Q., and only about 1 out of 100 as high as 130
I. Q.  In the schools of a city of average population only
about 1 child in 250 or 300 tests as high as 140 I.Q.  In
a series of 476 unselected children there was not a single
one reaching 120 I. Q. whose social class was described as
'below average.'  Of the children of superior social status,
about 10 per cent reached 120 I.Q. or better.  The 120-
140 group (i.e., of very superior intelligence) is made
up almost entirely of children whose parents belong to
the professional or very successful business classes.  The
child of a skilled laborer belongs here occasionally; the
child of a common laborer very rarely indeed." (1)
 Finally, let us note, in passing, some of the numerous
researches which have been made on the intelligence of
colored school children. (2)  Space forbids our going into
this point. Suffice it to say that the results accord with
what has been previously stated, namely: that the in-
telligence of the colored population averages distinctly
lower than the intelligence of native American whites,
and somewhat lower than the intelligence of our least
promising east and south European elements.
  So much for experiments upon children.  Now let us
consider similar psychological investigations of the in-
(1) S. M. Terman, The Measurement of Intelligence, p. 95,
    New York, 1916.
(2) Several of these are noted and discussed by McDougall,

telligence of adults.  Fortunately, we possess a great
mass of valuable data from the mammoth investigations
conducted by the United States army authorities upon
more than 1,700,000 officers and men during the late
war. (1)  These investigations were planned and directed
by a board of eminent psychologists. It is interesting to
note that they were inspired, not by abstract scientific
motives, but by motives of practical efficiency.  In the
words of two leading members of the investigating board,
Majors Yoakum and Yerkes:
  "The human factors in most practical situations have
been neglected largely because of our consciousness of
ignorance and our inability to control them.  Whereas
engineers deal constantly with physical problems of qual-
ity, capacity, stress and strain, they have tended to think
of problems of human conduct and experience either as
unsolved or as insoluble.  At the same time there has
existed a growing consciousness of the practical signif-
icance of these human factors and of the importance of
such systematic research as shall extend our knowledge
of them and increase our directive power.
  "The great war from which we are now emerging into
a civilization in many respects now has already worked
marvellous changes in our points of view, our expecta-
tions, and practical demands.  Relatively early in this
supreme struggle, it became clear to certain individuals
that the proper utilization of man-power, and more par-
ticularly of mind or brain-power, would assure ultimate
victory. . .  All this had to be done in the least possible
(1) See publications already quoted on this point.


time.  Never before in the history of civilization was
brain, as contrasted with brawn, so important; never
before, the proper placement and utilization of brain-
power so essential to success.
  "Our War Department, nerved to exceptional risks by
the stern necessity for early victory, saw and immediately
seized its opportunity to develop various new lines of
personnel  work.   Among  these is  numbered the psy-
chological service.  Great will be our good fortune if the
lesson in human engineering which the war has taught
is carried over directly and effectively into our civil in-
stitutions and activities." (1)
  The purposes of these psychological tests were, as
stated in the army orders; "(a) to aid in segregating the
mentally incompetent, (b) to classify men according to
their mental capacity, (c) to assist in selecting competent
men for responsible positions."  And to quote a sub-
sequent official pronouncement after the administration
of the tests;  "In the opinion of this office three reports
indicate very definitely that the desired results have
been achieved."
  So much for the aims behind the tests.  Now for the
tests themselves.  As already stated, they were adminis-
trated to more than 1,700,000 officers and men.  Great
care was taken to eliminate the disturbing influence
of environmental factors like lack of education and ig-
norance of the English language.  Separate tests were
devised, and the close correlations obtained showed
that inborn intelligence had been successfully segregated.
(1) Yoakum and Yerkes, Army Mental Tests, pp. vii-viii (Introduction)


Besides general intelligence gradings, special studies ac-
cording to army rank, civilian occupation, racial origin,
etc., were made on large groups consisting of "samples"
taken at many points from the general mass.
  The following is the system of general grading em-
ployed to indicate the degree of individual intelligence:

A  =very superior intelligence
B  =superior intelligence
C+ =high average intelligence
C  =average intelligence
C- =low average intelligence
D  =inferior intelligence
D- =very inferior intelligence
E  ="unteachable men," rejected at once or after a short

  Let us now see how the 1,700,000 men examined graded
according to intelligence, and what mental age these
classifications implied:

|    Grade     |  Percentage   |  Mental Age   |
|  A ..........|      4 1/2    |  18-19 (+)    |
|  B ..........|      9        |  16-17        |
|  C+ .........|     16 1/2    |  15           |
|  C ..........|     25        |  13-14        |
|  C- .........|     20        |  12           |
|  D ..........|     15        |  11           |
|  D- .........|     10        |  10           |

  This table is assuredly depressing.  Probably never
before has the relative scarcity of high intelligence been
so vividly demonstrated.  It strikingly reinforces what
biologists and sociologists have long been telling us: that


the number of really superior persons is small, and that
the great majority of even the most civilized popula-
tions are of mediocre or low intelligence -- which, be it
remembered, neither education nor any other environ-
mental agency can ever raise.  Think of this table's social
significance!  Assuming that these 1,700,000 men are
a fair sample of the entire population of approximately
100,000,000 (and there is every reason to believe that it
is a fair sample), this means that the average mental age
of Americans is only about fourteen; that forty-five mil-
lions, or nearly one-half of the whole population, will
never develop mental capacity beyond the stage repre-
sented by a normal twelve year old child; that only
thirteen and one-half millions will ever show superior
intelligence, and that only four and one-half millions can
be considered "talented."
  Still more alarming is the prospect for the future.  The
overwhelming weight of evidence (as we shall later show)
indicates that the A and B elements in America are barely
reproducing themselves, while the other elements are in-
creasing at rates proportionate to their decreasing intel-
lectual capacity: in other words, that intelligence is
day being steadily bred out of the American population.
  So much for the general results of the American army
tests.  Now let us consider some of the special classifica-
tions, notably those relating to the correlation of intel-
ligence with army rank, civilian occupation, and racial
  In all these special classifications the correlations were
precisely what our study might lead us to expect.  First,


as to army rank: the great majority of officers, whether
actually commissioned or in officers' training-camps, were
found to be of A and B intelligence.  Furthermore, in
those branches of the service where a high degree of tech-
nical knowledge is required, the highest degree of intel-
ligence was found.  In the engineers and the artillery
nearly all the officers graded A; whereas, in the veter-
inary corps less than one-sixth of the officers graded A,
and nearly two-fifths graded C.  Among the non-coms
(sergeants and corporals) one-half or more graded C.
The rank and file were mostly C men, with a small mi-
nority of A's and B's, and a somewhat larger minority
of D's (E men, of course, being excluded from the ser-
  Next, as to the correlation between intelligence and
civilian occupations: the professions were found to con-
tain a great majority of A and B men;  the percentage
of superior intelligence sank steadily through the skilled
and semi-skilled occupations, until it was least of all
among  the  common laborers,  very few  of whom were
found to possess intelligence grading higher than C, while
most of them graded C - or D.  Space forbids the tex-
tual reproduction of the statistical tables, which are very
elaborate; but any one who cares to examine them in
the works already quoted will see at a glance how sym-
metrical and logical are the gradings.
 Finally, as to the correlation between intelligence and
racial origin; two separate researches were made.  The
first of these was a comparison between white and colored
drafted men;  the other was a double grading of drafted

men of foreign birth.  Let us visualize the results of the
intelligence ratings of white and colored -- by the follow-
ing table -- adding one other category (that of the officers)
to visualize the difference between the intelligence level
of the officers' corps and the levels of both white and
colored drafted men:

|                    |  A  |  B  |  C+ | C  | C- | D  | D- | E |
|  White--Draft......| 2.0 | 4.8 | 9.7 | 20 | 22 | 30 |  8 | 2 |
|  Colored--Draft....|  .8 | 1.0 | 1.9 |  6 | 15 | 37 | 30 | 7 |
|  Officers..........|55.0 | 29.0| 12.0|  4 |  0 |  0 |  0 | 0 |

  The above table needs no comment: It speaks for it-
  Now as to the second study concerning the correlation
between intelligence and racial origin: the grading of
foreign-born drafted men. This investigation, as already
stated, was dual: the men were graded both up and down
the scale; i.e., both according to superiority and in-
feriority of intelligence.  In the following tables "su-
periority" means A and B grades combined,  while "in-
feriority" means D and E grades combined.


| Country of Birth       |      | Country of Birth       |      |
| England ...............|  8.7 | Norway ................| 25.6 |
| Holland ...............|  9.2 | Austria ...............| 37.5 |
| Denmark ...............| 13.4 | Ireland ...............| 39.4 |
| Scotland ..............| 13.6 | Turkey ................| 42.0 |
| Germany ...............| 15.0 | Greece ................| 43.6 |
| Sweden ................| 19.4 | Russia ................| 60.4 |
| Canada ................| 19.5 | Italy .................| 63.4 |
| Belgium ...............| 24.0 | Poland ................| 69.9 |



| Country of Birth       |      | Country of Birth       |      |
| England ...............| 19.7 | Ireland................|  4.1 |
| Scotland...............| 13.0 | Turkey ................|  3.4 |
| Holland ...............| 10.7 | Austria ...............|  3.4 |
| Canada ................| 10.5 | Russia ................|  2.7 |
| Germany ...............|  8.3 | Greece ................|  2.1 |
| Denmark................|  5.4 | Italy .................|   .8 |
| Sweden ................|  4.3 | Belgium ...............|   .8 |
| Norway ................|  4.1 | Poland ................|   .5 |

  These tables are very interesting.  Note how constant
are the positions of the national groups in both tables.
Also, note how surely a high percentage of superiority
connotes a low percentage of inferiority -- and vice versa.
Of course, these tables refer merely to the intelligence
of foreign-born groups  in America;  they may not be
particularly good criteria for the entire home populations
of the countries mentioned.  But they do give us a good
indication of the sort of people America is getting by
immigration from those countries, and they indicate
clearly the intelligence levels of the various foreign-born
groups in America.  And, once more we see a confirma-
tion of those biological, sociological, and psychological
researches which we have previously mentioned; viz.,
that the intelligence level of the racial elements which
America has received from northern Europe is far above
that of the south and east European elements.
  We have already indicated how great are the possibili-
ties for the practical employment of mental tests, not
merely of the army but also in education, industry, and


the evaluation of whole populations and races. (1)  "Be-
fore the war mental engineering was a dream; to-day it
exists, and its effective development is amply assured." (2)
  As  yet  psychology  has not succeeded in  measuring
emotional and psychic qualities as it has done with in-
tellectual faculties.  But progress is being made in this
direction, and the data accumulated already indicate not
only that these qualities are inherited but also that they
tend to be correlated with intelligence.  Speaking of su-
perior military qualities like loyalty, bravery, power to
command, and ability to "carry on,"  Majors Yoakum
and Yerkes state: "In the long run, these qualities are
far more likely to be found in men of superior intelligence
than in men who are intellectually inferior." (3)
  Furthermore, whatever the direct correlation between
intellectual and moral qualities, there is an undoubted
practical connection, owing to the rational control exerted
by the intellect over the spirit and the emotions. As Pro-
fessor Lichtenberger remarks concerning the statement
just quoted:  "It would seem almost superfluous to add
that loyalty, bravery, and even power to command, with-
out sufficiently high intelligence may result in foolhardi-
flees.  They are forces of character, and we should devise
methods of evaluating them, but, like all forces, organic
and inorganic, they are valuable to the extent to which
(1) For these wider applications, see Yoakum & Yerkes, op. cit., 184-
204; J.P. Lichtenburger, "The Social Significance of Mental Levels,"
Publications of the American Sociological Society, vol. XV, pp. 102-115
R. H. Platt, Jr., "the Scope and Significance of Mental Tests," World's
Work, September, 1920.
(2) Yoakum and Yerkes, p. 197.
(3)Ibid., p. 24.


they are disciplined and controlled.  The case is somewhat
similar with respect to the emotions. . . .  Probably it
will not be long until we shall have some method of mea-
suring the quality of emotional disturbances, and this
will increase the accuracy of our judgments; but to what-
ever  degree of  independence the emotions may be as-
signed, their utility is determined by the discipline of
intelligence.  Emotional control is weak in those of low
mental level.  The higher the level, the greater the pos-
sibility of rational control." (1)
  We have thus far considered the nature of intelligence,
and we have found it to be an inborn quality whose ca-
pacity is predetermined by heredity.  Biologically, this
is important, because a man may not make much actual
use of his talents and yet pass them on to children who
will make use of them.  In every-day life, however, ca-
pacity is important chiefly as it expresses itself in prac-
tical performance as evidenced by knowledge and action.
We here enter a field where environment plays an im-
portant part, since what a man actually learns or does
depends obviously upon environmental factors like edu-
cation, training, and opportunity.  Let us once more re-
call the distinction between  "intelligence" and  "knowl-
edge". Intelligence being the capacity of the mind, knowl-
edge the filling of the mind.  Let us also remember the
true meaning of the word "education" -- a "bringing
forth" of that which potentially exists.
  Now precisely how does environment affect perform-
ance?  In extreme cases environment may be of major
(1) Lichtenberger, op. cit. p. 104.


importance.  A genius, condemned for life to the fate of
Robinson Crusoe, would obviously accomplish very little;
while, on the other hand, a man of mediocre capacity, if
given every possible advantage, might make the utmost
of his slender talents.  But how is it under ordinary cir-
cumstances -- especially under those substantially equal
circumstances  which  it is the  avowed aim of modern
democratic ideals to produce?
  Before discussing this point in detail, however, let us
stop and find out just what we mean by "equal circum-
stances."  Do we mean equality of opportunity?  Or do
we mean equality of performance and recompense?  The
two ideas are poles asunder; yet they are often confused
in thought, and frequently intentionally confused in
argument.  Equality of opportunity means freedom
different individuals to make the most of similar con-
ditions, and, by logical implication, freedom to reap re-
wards proportionate to respective achievements.  Equal-
ity of performance and recompense, on the contrary,
means the fixing of certain standards according to which
action will be stimulated and rewards apportioned.  This
last is what most of the hot-gospellers of levelling "social
equality" have in the back of their heads.  They may
camouflage their doctrines with fine phrases, but what
they really intend is to handicap and defraud superior
intelligence in order to "give everybody a fair show."
Even in our present social system we see many instances
of the waste and injustice caused by "levelling" prac-
tices: bright pupils held back to keep step with dullards
and bright workmen discouraged from doing their best


by grasping employers or ordered to "go slow" by union
rules setting the pace by their less competent fellows.
  This distinction being understood, let us now see how
environment affects performance with individuals under
conditions of equal opportunity.  How, for example, does
equality of training or education affect individual achieve-
ment?  The answer is another striking proof of the power
of heredity.  Not only is such equality of conditions un-
able to level the inborn differences between individuals;
on the contrary, it increases the differences in results
achieved.  "Equalizing practice seems to increase differ-
ences.  The superior man seems to have got his present
superiority by his own nature rather than by superior
advantages of the past, since, during a period of equal
advantage for all, he increases his lead." (1) As McDougall
justly remarks: "The higher the level of innate capacity,
the more is it improved by education." (2)
  We thus see that even where superior individuals have
no better opportunities than inferiors, environment tends
to accentuate rather than equalize the differences between
men, and that the only way to prevent increasing in
equality is by deliberately holding the superiors down.
  Certainly, the whole trend of civilization is toward
increasing inequality.  In the first place, the demands
made upon the individual are more and more complex
and differentiated.  The differences in training and edu-
cation between savages are relatively insignificant; the
(1) Popenoe and Johnson, p. 92. The authors cite several careful
psychological tests by which this principle is clearly established.
(2) McDougall, p. 48.


differences between the feudal baron and his serf were
comparatively slight; the differences to-day between
casual laborers and captains of industry are enormous.
Never before has the function of capacity been so impor-
tant and so evident.
  The truth is that, as civilization progresses, social
status tends to coincide more and more closely with
racial value; in other words, a given population tends
to become more and more differentiated biologically, the
upper social classes containing an ever larger proportion
of persons of superior natural endowments while the
lower social classes contain a growing proportion of in-
ferior.  The intelligence tests which we have previously
considered show us how marked  this tendency  has be-
come in advanced modern societies like England and the
United States, and there is every reason to believe that
unless the civilizing process be interrupted this strati-
fication will become even sharper in the future.
  Now precisely how does this increasing stratification
come about?  We have already discussed this point in
a general way.  We have seen how the dynamic urge of
superior germ-plasm surmounts environmental barriers
and raises the individual socially; while, conversely, in-
ferior individuals tend to sink in the social scale.
  Let us now look at the matter more closely.  This
process, by which individuals migrate socially upward
or downward from class to class, is termed "The Social
Ladder."  The ease with which people can go up or down
this ladder depends on the flexibility of the social order,
and social flexibility in turn characterizes progressive


civilizations.  In the less advanced types of civilization,
social flexibility is rare. Society crystallizes into closed
castes, sons are compelled to follow the callings of their
fathers, superior individuals cannot rise, and high-born
inferiors are kept from sinking to their proper levels.
This means waste, inefficiency and imperfect utilization
of human resources.
  However, as civilization progresses, its very complexity
and needs compel greater efficiency; society becomes
more flexible; and the "social ladder" works better and
better.  Latent talent rises more easily from the ranks,
while the upper class cuts out more of its dead-wood, and
thus tends to free itself from degenerate taints which
have ruined so many aristocratic castes.  The abounding
vigor of American life, for example, is largely due to the
way in which ability tends to be recognized wherever it
appears and is given a chance to "make good."  Thus,
in course of time, the superior strains in a population rise
to the top, while the inferior elements sink to the bottom.
The upper classes are continually enriched by good new
blood, while the lower classes, drained of their best ele-
ments, are increasingly impoverished and become in-
creasingly inferior.
   This segregation of populations according to racial
value is produced, not merely by the social ladder, but
by another process known as "assortative mating."  Con-
trary to certain romantic but erroneous notions, careful
scientific investigation has proved conclusively that "like
tends to mate with like."  Giants am not prone to marry
dwarfs, nor do extreme blonds usually prefer dark bru-


nettes.  And what is true of physical characteristics is
equally true of mental and emotional qualities.  People
tend to marry those not too unlike themselves.  And, in
addition to the action of personal preference, there is
superadded the effect of propinquity.  Individuals are
usually attracted to those with whom they associate.
These am usually of their own clan, with common stand-
ards, similar tastes, and like educational attainments.
But those are the very persons who are apt to be of the
same general type.  Thus, as populations get more dif-
ferentiated, assortative mating widens the class gaps.
Superiors tend more and mom to marry superiors, medi-
ocrity tends to mate with mediocrity, while the inferior
and the degenerate become segregated by themselves.
  At first sight it might seem as though the action of the
social ladder would nullify the action of assortative mat-
ing.  But when we look at the matter more closely we
see that this is not the case.  Where social flexibility per-
mits individuals to migrate easily, like tends oftener to
associate and hence to mate with like.  The "self-made
man" is more apt to find a wife of his own caliber, and
is not compelled to choose exclusively from among the
women of the lower social class in which he was born.
On the other hand, high-born incompetents or "black
sheep," sinking rapidly, are less likely to drag down with
them high-type mates.  Thus the social ladder and as-
sortative mating, far from conflicting, reinforce each
other and sift the population according to true racial
values with cumulative effect.
  The sustained intermarriage of a well-selected upper


class raises society's apex into a sharply defined peak or
core.  Woods has termed this process "Social Conifica-
tion." (1)  The members of such "conified" groups display
clearly marked traits and possess high average racial
value.  On the other hand, the lowest social classes, seg-
regated and drained of their best elements, similarly
"conify" into well-marked racial inferiority.
  The extent to which these selective processes, working
for generations in a highly civilized society, may drain
the lower social classes of their best racial elements, is
strikingly shown by the case of England.  That marked
differences of inborn capacity exist between the British
upper and lower social strata has, of course, long been
realized, but the rapidity with which the gap has been
widening has been recently shown by two historical mea-
surements of the social distribution of genius and talent
in the United Kingdom conducted respectively by Have-
lock Ellis and Doctor Woods.  The results of these studies
have been ably summarized by Alleyne Ireland, whom I
will quote.
  Says Ireland: "What these investigations disclose is
that over a period of several centuries there has occurred
(1) Doctor Frederick Adams Woods has made a number of careful re-
searches on this question, his latest being a genealogical study of
leading Massachusetts families, with special reference to their
intermarriages, traced over a period of approximately three hundred
years from the founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony (1630) to
the present day.  His data have not been published, but Doctor Wood
has shown them to me in MSS.  Furthermore, at the Second
International Congress of Eugenics, held at New York City in
September, 1921, Doctor Woods read a paper summarizing the results
of this study which will be published in the Congress's Proceedings.


a striking and progressive decline in the cultural con-
tribution from the 'lower' classes in the United Kingdom,
and, of course, a corresponding relative increase in the
contribution from the 'upper' and 'middle' classes.
  "It appears that, from the earliest times to the end of
the nineteenth century, the contribution to eminent
achievement made by the sons of craftsmen, artisans,
and unskilled laborers yielded 11.7 per cent of the total
number of names utilized in the inquiry; that the repre-
sentatives of that class who were born in the first quarter
of the nineteenth century yielded 7.2 per cent of the
names; and that those born during the second quarter
of the nineteenth century yielded only 4.2 per cent.
These figures are of great interest and importance when
considered in relation to the social and political history
of England during the nineteenth century.
  "Everybody knows that in England the nineteenth
century witnessed a rapid and all-pervading democratiza-
tion of social and political conditions.  It was during that
century  that the  English parliamentary system became,
for the first time in the six hundred years of its existence,
an institution representative of the great mass of the
people; that schooling was made available for all; that
in industry, in politics, in society, the gates of oppor-
tunity were opened wide for any person,  of  whatever
parentage, who could make any contribution in any field
of achievement;  that peers became business men and
business men peers; that any one whose talents  had
made him prominent in his calling could entertain a
reasonable hope of finding wealth in the favor of the


public, and a title of nobility in the appreciation of the
political leaders.
   "With every circumstance of life growing constantly
more favorable to the self-assertion of genius and talent
in the 'lower' classes in England, how was it that the
contributions to eminent achievement from that group
fell from an average of 11.7 per cent of the total to a pro-
portion of 4.2 per cent?
  "It seems to me that as the vast improvement in en-
vironmental conditions had not only failed to produce
an increase in high achievement by those whom this im-
provement had done most to serve, but had, on the con-
trary, taken place pari passu with a very serious decline
in achievement, the cause must be sought in an influence
powerful enough to offset whatever beneficent effects
improved environment might actually exert upon a sta-
tionary class during a single generation.
 "This influence I deem to have been that of assor-
tative mating.  Its operation appears to have been of
a dual character.  On the one hand, the effect in heredity
of intelligence mating with intelligence, of stupidity with
stupidity, of success with success -- to put the matter
roughly -- has been to perpetuate and to increase these
traits in the respective groups.  On the other hand, the
practical social consequences of these effects being pro-
duced under conditions of an ever-broadening democ-
ratization of social life has been that the more intelligent
and successful elements in the 'lower' classes have been
constantly rising out of their class into one socially above
it.  This movement must have the consequence of drain-


ing the `lower' classes of talent and genius, and, through
a process of social migration, of increasing the genius
and talent of each succeeding upper layer in the social
series." (1)
  We thus see that, as civilization progresses, inborn
superiority tends to drain out of the lower social levels
up into the higher social classes.  And probably never
before in human history has this selective process gone
on so rapidly and so thoroughly as to-day.
  But it may be asked: Is this not a matter for rejoic-
ing?  Does this not imply the eventual formation of an
aristocracy of "supermen," blessing all classes with the
flowerings of its creative genius?
  Unfortunately, no; not as society is now constituted.
On the contrary, if these tendencies continue under pres-
ent social conditions, the concentration of superiority in
the upper social levels will spell general racial impoverish-
ment and hence a general decline of civilization.  Let us
remember that fatal tendency (discussed in the preced-
ing chapter) to use up and exterminate racial values;
to impoverish human stocks by the dual process of so-
cially sterilizing superior strains and multiplying in-
feriors.  The history of civilization is a series of racial
tragedies.  Race after race has entered civilization's por-
tals; entered in the pink of condition, full of superior
strains slowly selected and accumulated by the drastic
methods of primitive life.  Then, one by one, these races
have been insidiously drained of their best, until, unable
(1) Alleyne Ireland, Democracy and the Human Equation,  pp. 139-142
(New York, 1921).

to carry on, they have sunk back into impotent medi-
ocrity.  The only reason why the torch of civilization
has continued to flame high is because it has been passed
on from hand to hand; because there have always been
good stocks still racially protected by primitive condi-
tions who could take up the task.
   To-day, however, this is no longer so.  The local civili-
zations of the past have merged into a world-civilization,
which draws insistently on every high-type stock in exist-
ence.  That is why our modern civilization has made
such marvellous progress -- because it has had behind it
the pooled intelligence of the planet.  But let us not
deceive ourselves!  Behind this brave show the same
fatal tendencies that have wrought such havoc in the
past are still working -- working as never before!  In the
next chapter we shall consider closely these factors of
racial decline.  Suffice it here to state that in every civi-
lized country to-day the superior elements of the popu-
lation are virtually stationary or actually declining in
numbers, while the mediocre and inferior elements are
rapidly increasing.
   Such is our racial balance-sheet.  And, be it remem-
bered: our civilization, unlike its predecessors, cannot
shift the burden to other shoulders, because there are no
more untapped "racial reserves."  No "noble barbari-
ans" wait to step forward as in the past; the barbarians
and savages who still remain in the world are demon-
strably of inferior caliber and can contribute little or
nothing to the progress of civilization.
  If, then, our civilization is to survive, it must conserve

and foster its own race values.  Happily our civilization
possesses two great advantages over past times: scientific
knowledge and the scientific spirit.  To us have been
revealed secrets of life our forebears never knew.  And
to us has been vouchsafed a passion for the truth such as the
world has never seen.  Other ages have sought truth
from the lips of seers and prophets; our age seeks it from
scientific proof.  Other ages have had their saints and
martyrs -- dauntless souls who clung to the faith with
unshakeable constancy.  Yet our age has also had its saints
and martyrs -- heroes who can not only face death for
their faith, but who can also scrap their faith when facts
have proved it wrong.  There, indeed, is courage!  And
therein lies our hope.
  This matchless love of truth, this spirit of science which
combines knowledge and faith in the synthesis of a higher
wisdom, as yet inspires only the elite of our time.  Most
of us are still more or less under the spell of the past --
the spell of passion, prejudice, and unreason.  It is thus
that ideas and ideals clearly disproved by science yet
claim the allegiance of multitudes of worthy men.
  The dead hand of false doctrines and fallacious hopes
lies, indeed, heavy upon us.  Laws, institutions, customs,
ideas, and ideals are all stamped deep with its imprint.
Our very minds and souls are imbued with delusions like
environmentalism and "natural equality" from whose
emotional grip it is hard to escape.  Mighty as is the
new truth, our eyes are yet blinded to its full meaning,
our hearts shrink instinctively from its wider implications,
and our feet falter on the path to higher destinies.


  These reactionary forces stubbornly impede the prog-
ress of those deep-going eugenic reforms which must
speedily be undertaken if our civilization is to be saved
from decline and our race from decay.
  This is serious enough.  But there is something more
serious still.  The reactionary forces which we have just
described, though, powerful, are, after all, essentially
negative in character.  With the spread of enlightenment
they would soon wither -- if they stood alone.  But they
do not stand alone.  Behind them, sheltered by them,
lurks a positive, aggressive force: The Under-Man!
  The Under-Man is unconvertible.  He will not bow to
the new truth, because he knows that the new truth is not
for him.  Why should he work for a higher civilization,
when even the present civilization is beyond his powers?
What the Under-Man wants is, not progress, but regress
-- regress to more primitive conditions in which he would
be at home.  In fact, the more he grasps the significance
of the new eugenic truth, the uglier grows his mood.  So
long as all men believed all men potentially equal, the
Under-Man could delude himself into thinking that
changed circumstances might rise him to the top.  Now
that nature herself proclaims him irremediably inferior,
his hatred of superiority knows no bounds.
  This hatred he has always instinctively felt.  Envy
and resentment of superiority have ever been the badges
of base minds.  Yet never have these badges been so
fiercely flaunted, so defiantly worn, as to-day.  This ex-
plains the seeming paradox that, just when the character
of superiority becomes supremely manifest, the cry for


levelling "equality" rises supremely shrill.  The Under-
Man revolts against progress!  Nature herself having
decreed him uncivilizable, the Under-Man declares war
on civilization.
  These are not pretty facts.  But we had better face
them, lest they face us, and catch us unawares.  Let us,
then, understand once and for all that we have among
us a rebel army -- the vast host of the unadaptable, the
incapable, the envious, the discontented, filled with in-
stinctive hatred of civilization and progress, and ready
on the instant to rise in revolt.
  Here are foes that need watching.  Let us watch them.


Back to Book Index
or to Patrick Henry On-Line?

Over to New World Disorder?