by Kerry Bolton
In a typically biased account by Pat Shipman in The New Scientist the hypothesis of Thorne and Wolpoff was nonetheless succinctly described among misleading comments about how genetic differences among races play no role in their relationship to society. Some of the relevant descriptions of the Thorne, Wolpoff hypothesis follow:
The main battle centers on the attempts of a small band of researchers to prove that human races are hundreds of thousands of years older than conventional theories would have us believe. Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan and his colleagues maintain that the principal human races—Negroids, Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Australian aboriginal peoples and southern African Bushmen—began to evolve well before the appearance of anatomically modern humans, Homo sapiens. Contrary to mainstream thinking, races did not evolve as a result of modern humans leaving Africa to colonize the rest of the world some 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. Or so Wolpoff argues.
. . . Wolpoff, Alan Thorne of the Australian National University and their colleagues would trace racial characteristics as far back as 2 million years ago, to the extinct human species Homo erectus. According to their so-called multiregional hypothesis (see ‘The case against Eve,’ New Scientist, 22 June 1991), anatomically modern humans evolved from this more ancient form simultaneously in different parts of the world, and it was during this period of simultaneous evolution that the racial characteristics of Homo sapiens first emerged . . .[5]
Parallel Evolution
Thorne and Wolpoff are not the first to state the antiquity of human divergence. Carlton S. Coon, head of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, one of the most eminent of physical anthropologists, was one of the more well-known proponents of what is today called ‘multiregional evolution,’ and what was then called ‘parallel evolution.’ Like Thorne, Wolpoff, and other sceptics of the ‘African Eve’ hypothesis, Coon stated that today’s races evolved separately, in different continents, over different time periods.
Writing in 1962, Coon stated of the origin and early divergence of humankind:
Wherever homo sapiens arose, and Africa is at present the likeliest continent, he soon dispersed, in a very primitive form, throughout the warm regions of the Old World. Three of the five human subspecies crossed the sapiens line elsewhere. If Africa was the cradle of mankind, it was only an indifferent kindergarten. Europe and Asia were our principal schools.
As far as we know, the Congoid line started on the same evolutionary level as the Eurasiatic ones in the Middle Pleistocene and then stood still for a half a million years, after which Negroes and Pygmies appeared as if out of nowhere . . .[6]
R. Ruggles Gates, at the time the most experienced geneticist, had earlier said: ‘Isolation has been the great factor, or at any rate, an essential factor, in the differentiation of races.’[7]
The multi-regional evolution of separate races almost two million years ago, was the commonly held theory among both geneticists and physical anthropologists until recent times. The fossil evidence accords with the very early divergence and separate evolution of the primary races.
All Chimps Now?
A major tactic of the ‘one world, one race’ scientists and their Left-wing street and media shock troops is to pompously declare that there is only ‘one race—the human race’ on the basis that all subspecies of man share 99.9 per cent of their genes.
This argument purports to establish moral and political equality on the basis of genetic similarity. But similarity is not identity or equality. If our rights and obligations to one another are based on genetic similarity, and genetic similarity is a matter of degree, then so too must be rights and obligations. We would have greater obligations to closer kin than to distant ones. But this is not the sort of egalitarianism desired by the ‘one world, one race’ crowd.
Furthermore, the ‘genetic similarity equals moral equality’ position begins to look absurd when applied to non-humans as well. After all, the genetic relationship between chimpanzees and humans is 98.5 per cent. Some scientists are now contending on that basis that chimps and humans should now be classified as belonging to the same genus. Writing in National Geographic News, John Pickrell states:
A new report argues that chimpanzees are so closely related to humans that they should be included in our branch of the tree of life. Chimpanzees and other apes have historically been separated from humans in classification schemes, with humans deemed the only living members of the hominid family of species.
Now, biologists at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit, Michigan, provide new genetic evidence that lineages of chimps (currently Pan troglodytes) and humans (Homo sapiens) diverged so recently that chimps should be reclassed as Homo troglodytes. The move would make chimps full members of our genus Homo, along with Neanderthals, and all other human-like fossil species. ‘We humans appear as only slightly remodelled chimpanzee-like apes,’ says the study . . .
Studies indicate that humans and chimps are between 95 and 98.5 percent genetically identical. . . .
Derek E. Wildman, Goodman, and other co-authors at Wayne State argue in their new study, published today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that given the evidence, it’s somewhat surprising that humans and chimps are still classified into different genera. Other mammalian genera often contain groups of species that diverged much earlier than chimps and humans did, said Goodman. ‘To be consistent, we need to revise our definition of the human branch of the tree of life,’ he said.[8]
But if chimps belong to the human genus, does it mean that it is racist not to give them the right to vote, the right to drive, the right to mate with one’s daughter? Is it racist if we do not allow chimps to go to school? Will White people be blamed when chimps cannot pass the first grade? Will the President of the United States demand that ‘no chimp be left behind’? I am all for the humane treatment of chimps, and every other living thing, but that does not require that we treat them as human beings. In fact, in such instances, equal treatment would be horribly unjust.
Behind the ‘One World, One Race’ Propaganda
What has brought about the widespread belief in the ‘African Eve’ hypothesis? Clearly it suits the political agenda of today, and has become a new article of faith among orthodox academe.
Just like the myth of the ‘Noble Savage,’ the notion of an Edenic idyll existing among the primitive races untouched by the corrupting influences of European civilization, became the vogue among the so-called educated and cultivated classes of the 18th century and provided the ideological impetus for the French Revolution, so the new myth of the ‘African Eve’ is now serving similar interests.
The ‘African Eve,’ ‘All Africans’ dogma provides pseudo-scholarly impetus for the levelling of humankind into a nebulous mass, without identity, easily malleable in the hands of those who seek to establish a ‘new world order.’ There is a convergence of interests among the Left and Big Business[9] that both aim for ‘one world, one race.’
The New Scientist article quoted above started with the obligatory references to ‘neo-Nazism’ and ‘racism,’ an implied conspiracy of a system that was militarily defeated and is politically suppressed, but which is convenient to silence any critic of multiculturalism, or any proponent of nationalism for that matter, with the spectre of Auschwitz.[10] Yet what we have arising from the dogma of ‘one world, one race’ is something vastly more totalitarian than even the spectre of Nazism. The egalitarian fallacy has wrought more evil—from the guillotine of Jacobin France to the ‘killing fields’ of Pol Pot, to the mass suicides of Jonestown—in the name of ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights,’[11] than any system of the Right, no matter how totalitarian.
In looking for distant, primitive origins, we might just as well go back beyond the ‘African Eve’ to the primal slime of undifferentiated existence from which all life ultimately emerge
d, for it is just such a characterless, indistinct blob of humankind that our new slave masters seek to impose through the dysgenic reversal of evolution, in repudiation of the differentiation that is the basis of evolution. This—what we might call ‘genetic discrimination’—to ensure the continuation of one’s genetic lineage, has long been recognised by geneticists and physical anthropologists,[12] and has been reaffirmed by the latest evidence in the new scientific synthesis of sociobiology.[13] This innate loyalty to one’s genetic kin manifests in social manners such as customs, laws, and taboos.[14] It is the broadening of family kinship to wider social kinships, forming the foundations of tribes and nations, which the Marxist globalists seek to replace with an economic kinship based on class, and the capitalist globalists seek to replace with a kinship with one’s job and shopping mall. Now we think that we have overridden nature with technology. It is the modern-day hubris.
The use of genetics and anthropology for globalist propaganda can be seen from the comments on migrations from ancient to present times. The focus is not only on all of ‘humanity’ supposedly being one ‘African’ race, but that the ‘human race’ through its multiplicity of subgroups (presumably what one might now call Afro-Caucasoids, Afro-Mongoloids, Afro-Australoids, et al.) has always migrated over the Earth. Hence humans, we are now told, are inherently globalisers. Present-day globalisation and immigration are merely the continuation of a primeval instinct that has always taken place and always will, according to the globalist advocates. A DNA mapping project focusing on the Pacific region, which is intended to promote the globalist line, states:
Waves of migration from China into and across the Pacific have taken place throughout China’s history. The most recent emigration of Chinese, known as the Chinese Diaspora, occurred between the 19th and mid twentieth centuries. It was caused by war, starvation, European interventions and political instability in China. Most of the migrants in this diaspora were illiterate and poorly educated peasants or manual laborers. They were often called ‘coolies’ (Chinese: translation: hard labor). They left China to work in the Americas, Australia, Southeast Asia and other part of the world.[15]
Human history has involved globalization for thousands of years. The peopling of this planet has been called the first great historical act of our species. We all have the same original ancestors. Our first homeland was Africa. Our species has ‘globalized’ the planet by migration and colonization.[16]
Note that the globalist propagandists using genetics as a scientific justification for multiracial migrations, emphasise that we are all one race, without biological variations that might account for differences in culture, temperament, and creativity, and that this single species of humanity has from its origins been ‘globalisers.’ Therefore, we are assured, there is nothing unique or troubling about present day globalisation and concomitant immigration. It should be embraced as the continuation of a globalising process that has existed since the dawn of the humanoid species. Weaved in with this is the attention given to Chinese migrations across the Pacific.
Globalisation, according to this narrative, becomes an essential and inherent part of what it is to be human, with genetics manipulated for propagandistic purposes. Hitler was accused of manipulating genetics to create a ‘Master Race’ supposedly to justify German world conquest. However, genetics is now being manipulated into promoting the concept of a ‘Global Race’ to justify a ‘new world order’ dominated by a corporate elite and involving family dynasties such as the Rothschilds and Rockefellers.
The Transpacific Migrations Project assures present-day White Americans that ‘the first Americans were migrants from Asia.’ ‘This process is still taking place.’[17] Hence, present-day Asian immigration is part of a continuum that has always existed, and therefore Asian immigration should be accepted without concern as to the changing demographics of the United States. It is all part of a natural human process.
The pitch for multiculturalism and indeed ‘hybridisation,’ since we are all part of the same African genus anyway, is related to ‘globalization’ which, the Project states, ‘belongs to a deep dynamic in which shifting civilizational centers are but the front stage of history,’ while an ongoing process of intercultural interchange forms the often unperceived backdrop.[18]
The evolutionary backdrop of our common origins in Africa confirms that humanity is a hybrid species. The species’ subsequent ‘clustering’ in different regions of the world has not precluded large-scale contact and population movements across and between continents.[19]
Since humanity is nothing but one nebulous mass differentiated only by transient customs and languages, the ongoing process of migrations cannot be objectionable from a scientific, historical or any other viewpoint, other than that of blind xenophobia, according to this line. One example of the evolutionary impact of ‘hybridisation’ on culture is that of music.
According to Portia Maultsby at Indiana University, the intercultural crossings and blendings of musical products produce both new interpretations of traditional forms and the creation of new musical styles. This process of cross-fertilization has been conceptualized in various disciplines as ‘diffusion,’ ‘creolization,’ ‘syncretism,’ ‘hybridization,’ ‘transculturalism,’ ‘transnationalism’ and ‘globalization’ and it has been applied in particular to music.[20]
Hence, new forms of hybridised culture are impelled by ‘transnationalism,’ ‘transculturalism,’ and ‘globalization.’ Again, this is presented as a natural development. While the apologists for this ‘cultural hybridisation’ declare it to be expressed in localised forms that somehow become ‘indigenous,’ the main impulsion towards hybridisation of culture today is for the purpose of global profit maximisation by manufacturing the arts as part of a mass production process with planned obsolescence: what in fashion and the arts are called ‘trends.’ During the 1950s and 1960s the music companies began introducing African rhythms into popular music in order to widen the appeal. While the globalist apologists for hybridisation might laud such processes as a natural part of human development, the motive is one of profit and the result is the dumbing down of the arts to appeal to the widest possible market. In a subsequent chapter we shall look at the way music and concomitant fashions are being used as part of a globalist strategy, promoted by the U.S. State Department.
The Transpacific Project states of itself: ‘This project focuses on the history and contemporary significance of the transpacific relations between the peoples of the Pacific Basin . . .’[21] It is directed by Dr. Richard L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Global Studies, California State University Monterey Bay and Managing Editor of the Journal of Developing Societies. It has a significant Chinese input in yet another example of how China and Western globalists work in tandem even while shadow-boxing on the world stage.[22]
The Pacific basin is of major importance to global capitalism, and the Transpacific Project makes its interests clear:
The Pacific Ocean is a major contributor to the world economy and particularly to those nations it directly touches. It provides low-cost sea transportation between the countries around it and within it as well as extensive fishing grounds, offshore oil and gas fields, minerals, and sand and gravel for construction. A majority of the world’s fish catch comes from the Pacific Ocean. And the exploitation of offshore oil and gas reserves is an ever-increasing source of energy for Australia, Indonesia, New Zealand, China, Peru and the USA.[23]
The prior sales pitch for hybridisation and transglobal migrations is presented as a prelude for the ultimate aim: economic globalisation. Finally one gets to the gist of the Project: the Pacific Basin as a very important trading region. Having introduced the reader to the mono-racial and hybrid character of humans and their tendency to having migrated over the Earth as a fluid entity since times immemorial, it is trade that is described as ‘the most important form of social relations’: ‘Trade has been t
he most important form of social relations that has connected the peoples of the Pacific Basin since humans first migrated into and settled this vast area of the earth.’[24]
The closing paragraphs of the introduction to the Transpacific Project describe what is the purpose behind the science-laden rhetoric about the ‘African Eve,’ ‘one race,’ ancient migrations, and hybrid cultures: The next stage in this pseudo-evolutionary history of mankind, starting in Africa 150,000 years ago, is none other than economic and trade globalisation, specially with trade and economic relations extended over the past few decades between the United States and Asia. Since we have already seen how China was the cradle of the ‘First Americans,’ this modern symbiosis between the United States and Asia in the Pacific Basin, as part of a regional economic bloc, is the supposed product of millennia of history:
Over the past two decades, there has been a significant increase in free trade agreements (FTAs) and international investments, which have expanded the economic relations and connections between the Americas and Asia. In addition to bilateral free trade agreements between individual Asian and American countries there is increasing regional and inter-regional economic integration within the Pacific Basin. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, for example, is an association of 21 Pacific Basin countries that seeks to promote inter-regional trade as well as economic and technical cooperation within the so-called Asia-Pacific region.[25]
After an allusion to the proportion of world trade accounted for within the Pacific Basin region, the reader is directed to the APEC website. The reader is advised that ‘APEC’s stated goal is the economic integration of the Asia-Pacific area.’[26] The reader, by going through the Transpacific Project’s history of human migrations over the course of 100,000 years should then come to the realisation that ‘Asia-Pacific’ ‘economic integration’ is part of an inexorable historical process. Advertising is then given to the primary globalist organisation promoting this Pacific Basin economic bloc, the Pacific Basin Economic Council (PBEC), which is quoted as being an ‘“apolitical and pro-business association that brings together business leaders across Asia Pacific.” PBEC is an influential voice for businessmen and organizations in the Asia Pacific area.’[27] The PBEC description of itself makes it clear that the organisation is one of a number of globalist organisations that meet as a cabal, sometimes secretively, to discuss globalist agendas among businessmen, politicians, academics and policy advisers. Others of the ilk include the Trilateral Commission and the Asia Society, both formed at the behest of the Rockefeller dynasty to focus on Asia-Pacific issues; the Bilderberg Group, which has an international focus; the Council on Foreign Relations, a U.S. foreign policy think tank founded by bankers in the aftermath of World War I to promote a World State via the abortive League of Nations; and in more recent years the Open Society Institute and its myriad front groups, founded by currency speculator George Soros. All of these organisations, and hundreds of others, many associated with the U.S. governmental agencies such as USAID, are working in every corner of the world to establish a ‘new world order.’[28]
