collapse inevitable. We in the United States and NorthnAmerican society in general have boasted far too much tonourselves and to others of what we can do with our ownncapacity. We are soon going to be faced with the experiencenof what happens to a society when it can no longerncommunicate by a common language and tradition. UnlikenBabel, we do not need an exasperated deity to do it to us; wenare in the process of doing it to ourselves.nThe story of European civilization since the Renaissance,nand of North America since its colonization, seemed untilnrecently that of an unbroken and rapidly rising curve ofnprogress. “Per ardua ad astra.” The idea that by our effortsnwe can reach the stars seemed to be becoming a fact.nHistorian Barbara Tuchman called Europe in its glory (onnthe eve of World War I) the “proud tower” in her book ofnthat name. But neither World War I nor World War IInchecked the soaring progress of European and NorthnAmerican science and industry—despite the loss of all ofnEurope’s colonies after 1945. To stick with the tower image,nsince 1914 the work has been interrupted by frequent,nbloody fights, but essentially the progress has continued.nNow that is changing — not necessarily because of divinenintervention, as in the case of the Tower of Babel, butnbecause we are on the point of creating our own Babyloniannconfusion—linguistic and cultural — with or without divinenassistance, thereby guaranteeing that our society and civilizationnwill join Babel in the dustbin of history.nIf there is one deadly sin that still survives in the jadednworld of American media, it is the racial generalization (ifnmade by a white Caucasian—blacks and other minorities, itnseems, cannot commit this sin no matter how hard they try).nIf there is one theological doctrine that is sacred—so sacrednthat our high and highest courts protect it against any rivalnview ever being placed alongside it—it is the general theoryn(or perhaps we should say general theology) of evolution.nFear of the sin prevents us from diagnosing our illness;nreverence for the doctrine commits us to suffering itsnconsequences.nIt is curious that the prohibition (of racial generalizations)nand the enforcement (of the evolutionary hypothesis) coexist,nside by side, in the thought-life of contemporary NorthnAmerica. If the evolutionary “hypothesis” is true (and innmost circles this writer will have made himself instantlynodious by the use of that “if or by speaking of then”hypothesis” rather than of the “fact” of evolution), thennthe human race, or the human races, are by definition anstatistical sample or samples. Nothing would be morenlogical, in fact more of a virtual necessity, than to makenstatistical generations about the groups and subgroupsnwithin the general category that we call Homo sapiens. Thenfact that we are prohibited, in America, from making racialngeneralizations, indeed from making virtually any remarksnthat can be perceived as racially oriented (at least if wenhappen to be white, and especially white “Anglo”), isnevidence of the continuing hold that old liberal principlesnhave on our society. (One reason why contemporarynAmerican blacks, Jesse Jackson, for example, can makenracial generalizations with impunity, and even be praised fornthem, is the tacit awareness of the media and the generalnpublic that he has never been circumcised into the oldernliberalism and thus cannot be expected to keep its com­nmandments.)nThe old liberalism had its spiritual fathers in thinkers suchnas John Locke and Adam Smith, who still operated within anframework established by the Bible, although they maynthemselves have related quite loosely to biblical Christianity.nA characteristic of biblical religion is the doctrine that allnhuman races and individual human beings have a commonnset of parents, Adam and Eve. Taught in Genesis, this ideanwas reinforced by Paul’s remark, to the most sophisticatednaudience of his time, the Athenians, that God “hath madenof one blood all nations of men” (Acts 17:26). Adam Smithnand John Locke, being pre-Darwinian, naturally thought innterms of one human race.nIf we hold that all human beings are made “of onenblood” by God, in his own image and likeness (Genesisn1:27), prejudice in general is not ruled out, but racialnprejudice is. Early Christian and medieval anti-Semitism,ndisreputable though it was, was religious, not racial. Undernnormal circumstances, anti-Jewish prejudice ceased theninstant the individual, born a Jew by race, was “reborn” anChristian by baptism. Admittedly this “way out” for racialnJews is no justification for Christian religious prejudice, butnit does show that it is not racial per se. Nazi racism, byncontrast, was not tempered by Jewish conversion to Christianity,nnor even by the ordination of a baptized Jew to thenministry or the priesthood. As Leon Poliakov has shown innThe Aryan Myth, real racism—as distinguished from thenethnic chauvinism that is widespread within humanity—nonly arose after Darwin seemed to demolish the idea thatnAdam and Eve were the father and mother of all peopleneverywhere. In addition, the rise of liberal biblical criticismnundermined popular faith in the divine inspiration of thenBible, so that even the Ten Commandments could come tonbe rejected as a “Jewish fabrication.” Nietzsche could attacknthe Christian principles of self-giving love as a “slavenmorality.”nContemporary American society is in a curious kind ofntwilight zone. In certain areas, we still honor the oldernmorality, derived from the biblical concept of the unity ofnthe whole human race, made in the image of God.nIntellectually, however, we have replaced the “myth” ofnAdam and Eve with the “scientific facts” of evolution.nSoon the older biblical ideal of human dignity, hencenequality, will go the way of other “myths.” In contemporarynAmerican society, the coexistence of the prohibition againstnracial “stereotypes” together with the establishment ofnevolution as the explanation of all things cannot longnendure. If we accept the evolutionary origin of man,nnothing is more logical than to suppose that some race ornraces evolved earlier, and are higher, while others evolvednlater and are lower. This could easily justify differentialntreatment of the various races — in other words, discrimination.nThe more gifted would have an excuse to suppress orneven eliminate “inferiors.” Those who perceived themselvesnas inferior, might, if numerous enough, deem itnprudent to eliminate their “superiors.”nIt is difficult to banish the suspicion that anti-Semitismnreflects the apprehension of large numbers of the goyim thatnJews not merely annoyingly claim to be the Chosen Race,nbut actually are superior in many ways, and will get ahead ofnthe rest of us “lesser breeds without the Law” if they are notnnnAUGUST 1988 / 23n