more intensive head starts, the ideologuesrnof sociahsm have locked us intornconsidering only the one (failed and failing)rnapproach to the alleviation of ourrnproblems.rnThe science that is so abused shouldrnbe explicitly stated. It is abundantlyrnclear, both for wheat plants and forrnhumans, that inherited genetic factorsrnand environmental experiences are bothrnimportant in determining outcomes,rnwhether wheat crop yields or human intellectualrnperformance. Experimentsrnwith laboratory- plots or animal surrogatesrnshow that extreme environmental deprivationsrn(such as severe nutrient deficiecies,rnor severe sensory deprivation)rncan adversely affect developing plantsrnand developing brains. From suchrnexperiments, it does not follow that thernindividual and group differences encounteredrnin the real world result fromrnenvironmental deprivations. No HeadrnStart program, no application of fertilizer,rncan convert winter wheat into springrnwheat. The differences in outcome arernlargely genetic. Hillary should be remindedrnthat the difficult)- of America’srnm-iderclass is not deficient nutrients.rnThe strapping youths that terrorizernAmerican schools are not undernourished;rnindeed obesity is a major healthrnproblem of the poor in America. Similarly,rnthe intellectually underperformingrnproducts of urban squalor are certainlyrnnot suffering from sensory deprivation.rnHowever, poliHcal ideologues have successfullyrnpreempted any honest discussionrnof the causes and cures of socialrnproblems.rnPeter Brimelow has suggested that thernterm “racist” is now so debased that itsrnnew definition is “anyone who is winnir-rnig an argument with a liberal.” Butrnthings have progressed well beyond thatrnpoint. Today in America, neoconservativesrnand liberals (am I repeating myself?)rnboth agree that only environmentalrncauses are appropriate for public discourse.rnNot one leader of either dominantrnparty has had the courage to discussrnopenly what is obvious to any thinkingrnperson. Attempts at honest discussion ofrncurrent scientific knowledge are metrnwith outraged cries of “racism,” “sexism,”rn”Nazism,” or politically incorrectrn”insensidvity.” Even to consider the certaintyrnof inherited differences amongrnpeoples is denounced as “unethical,”rn”immoral,” or “inhumane.” In thernmeandme, the affected classes continuernto deteriorate under the abuse and neglectrnof their socialist egalitarian defenders.rnSadly, the ideologically driven nonsenserncontinues when hundreds of yearsrnof experience have shown that humanernsolutions to societal problems often followrnfrom unfettered consideration ofrnhonest science.rnMany of my scientific colleagues, especiallyrnthe untenured, now live in abjectrnterror that their private discussionsrnand true scholarly opinions might bernrevealed in public. The egalitarian ideologuesrnhave a near stranglehold on publicrndiscussion of important issues. Perhapsrnthe fears of my colleagues arernoverblown, perhaps not. Psychologicalrnresearcher Christopher Brand of EdinburghrnUniversity in Scotland is a case inrnpoint. In a 1996 book, he wrote:rnThe no-human-nature egalitarianismrnof many of their practitionersrnhas thus been deeply embarrassedrnby the collapse of Marxist Utopiasrnin Eastern Europe—providing arndecisive result in “one of history’srnlargest social experiments.” . . . It isrnthe one-time heroes of historicalrnmaterialism and nature-denyingrnexistentialism, not those of differentialrnpsychology, who, as nationalrnleaders, have killed millions ofrntheir own people (Mao, Pol Pot)rnand, as psychologists, attractedrncriminal convictions and prisonrnsentences for fraud (the MilwaukeernHead Start practitioners).. . .rnBy a “collective fraud” .. . theyrnhave condemned scientists and students,rnas Havel put it, to “live withinrna lie.” Between them, psychology’srninheritors of empiricism andrnidealism deny that much is knownrnabout the causes of unemployment,rncrime, welfare-dependencyrnand the neglect and abuse of children:rnthey betray people and psychologyrnfor the sake of another researchrngrant.rnBranded a “racist,” Christopher Brandrnwas suspended from teaching and administrativernduties at Edinburgh Universih’.rnMeanwhile, swirling in an ideologicalrnpseudoreality, Hillary proceeds withrnthe vernalization of America.rnGlayde Whitney, a professor ofrnpsychology and neuroscience atrnFlorida State University, is a pastrnpresident of the Behavior GeneticsrnAssociation.rnRELIGIONrnA Traditionalists’rnAlliancernhy Srdja TrifkovicrnSeldom has a piece of foreign legislationrnelicited such an outcry amongrnAmerica’s bien pensants as did a recentrnRussian bill designed to regulate the activitiesrnof the many religious sects thatrnhave been setting up shop in Russia sincernthe fall of communism. While the mediarnchorus from New York and Washingtonrnwas predictable in its mixture of “concern”rnand condemnation, it is noteworthyrnthat some think-tanks were quick tornjoin the bandwagon. Typical of the croprnwas a monograph —”Russia’s Assault onrnReligious Freedom”—by Ariel Cohen ofrnthe Heritage Foundation.rnCohen wants us to believe that “thisrnlegislation will turn back the clock on religiousrnfreedom in Russia . . . as the RussianrnOrthodox Church, seeking a religiousrnmonopoly, has joined forces withrnxenophobic communist and nationalistrnpoliticians in the Duma. Under the bill,rnthe government would be able to reinstituternaspects of the persecution andrnoppression that prevailed under JosephrnStalin and Leonid Brezhnev.”rnThe facts are different from thernrhetoric. Admittedly, if you are a Scientologistrnplanning to set up a radio stationrnin Omsk, or a Mormon or a Jehovah’srnWitness out to convert Russia to your versionrnof the true faith, your job will includernovercoming certain bureaucraticrnobstacles that had not been there before.rnBut persecution a la Stalin or Brezhnev?rnImages of the Gulag and KGB interrogationrncells readily come to mind. /las, nornquick martyrdom awaits you in today’srnRussia.rnIf you are a committed Christian determinedrnto suffer for your faith, yournshould go to Kuwait. In the land forrnwhich hundreds of thousands of youngrnAmericans risked their lives, your lifernwould be in mortal danger if you daredrnto preach the Good News. Even worsernoff would be those who receive your messagernand convert: they would be sen-rnFEBRUARY 1998/47rnrnrn