What Hath Man Wrought?
by Revilo P. Oliver
THE SUN is a sensation-mongering weekly, sold chiefly to sensation-hungry females in the dreary barns called ‘Supermarkets.’ Its issue for 13 August 1991 contains an article of considerable interest, based on an article in the British tabloid, Daily Star, which followed up a ‘documentary’ program of the British Broadcasting System. The article is supported by apparently genuine photographs.
British geneticists, we are told, successfully impregnated female chimpanzees with human sperm (race unstated) and have thus far produced two hybrid offspring, one now twelve years old, the other born three months ago.
The twelve-year-old creature is conspicuously bow-legged but habitually walks on two feet, although it has the very long arms, characteristic of apes and most niggers, that its mother used for walking on all fours, as apes normally do. It seems to have the coat of body hair that is common to all apes. It is partly bald, and its face resembles that of an enraged nigger of forty or fifty.
The infant has pale skin, abundant hair on the head but not, thus far, on the body, and the features of an ape modified with some human characteristics, especially about the eyes, ears, and forehead, while the shape of the upper part of the skull is almost completely human.
The twelve-year-old grunts but is incapable of articulate speech. Since he is the only creature of his hybrid species, he is necessarily solitary, but there is some silly speculation by Dr. Francis Wellington, the repentant geneticist who brought the secret project to public attention, who imagines that the hybrid was shocked when it looked into a mirror and is now melancholy because it is not human! If one judges by the rate of sexual maturity in apes and niggers, the creature is probably puberate, but the absence of a corresponding female will make it impossible to ascertain whether the hybrid creatures will be fertile or sterile.
There is nothing implausible about the article. It is common knowledge that commonly within a genus and sometimes within a whole family, a female of one species can be fecundated by a male of a greatly different species. Everyone is familiar with mules and hinnies and knows that the hybrids are sterile. We all know and regret that the various human species are capable of miscegenation and that the hybrids, disastrously for us, are not sterile.
In the early years of this century a group of enterprising Americans thought that they had hit a financial jackpot when they forced miscegenation between bison and domestic cattle that are raised for their beef. The resulting ‘cattalo,’ it was thought, would simultaneously provide esculent steaks and ‘buffalo’ robes, prized for their warmth and sometimes made into expensive and weather-proof overcoats. The combination of such diverse species did not fulfill expectations and the project was a costly failure. (1)
(1. If I remember correctly an account read when I was a youth, the ‘cattaloes’ were not always sterile, but the progeny tended to revert to the species of one ancestor, to the detriment or loss of the desired characteristics of the other.)
Recent techniques of artificial insemination have produced astonishing hybrids. Lions and tigers normally hate and attack each other, but it has been proved that the male of one species can fecundate the female of the other and produce healthy hybrids. Whether they are sterile, I do not know.
All that the British geneticists have proved, assuming that the article correctly reports their experiment, is that chimpanzees and a human species are biologically capable of interbreeding. That is not astonishing. Both are not only Primates but belong to the same family, Hominoidea, and are therefore closely related. This has been long believed, but is now made indisputable. That is a distinct advance of biological knowledge.
There have been precedents, though none that has not been questioned. While the travelers’ tales about the male orang-utan’s appetite for human women were wildly exaggerated, it is likely that the males did copulate with female natives that were then attractive to them and readily available, and the females may well have conceived. That no progeny were known to reliable Europeans is not remarkable. The orang-utans, unlike other apes, are a solitary species and the male would have had no more interest in the human female after copulation than in a female of his own species, while the family of the mother of the fatherless hybrid would see no advantage in raising it, although the natives of Borneo did not think of orang-utans as belonging to a species different from their own.
The female orang-utan is noted for her care of her offspring, and it would be interesting to know what such a female, if feral (i.e., in the wild, not a captive), (2) would do, if she were made pregnant by artificial insemination with human sperm. (The mothers of the hybrids produced in Britain presumable had no opportunity to decide whether they would raise their offspring.)
(2. This is most important. All mammals, including Hominoidea, undergo drastic psychic alterations when held captive in cages or prisons, or intolerably crowded together, as in large cities. These are often accompanied by physiological changes, e.g., female chimpanzees naturally become puberate when they are 12 or 13, but when they are raised in captivity, at 8 or 9.)
There have been exhibited from time to time creatures that were said to be the result of miscegenation between gorillas and human beings, but the genealogy was questioned in every case. (3) There is no valid reason, however, to suppose a priori that such hybrids are not biologically possible.
(3. See Liberty Bell, June 1990, pp. 34-37, and especially the article by Allan Callahan there cited.)
I have reported (4) an unverified story of a much more astonishing result of biological hybris. A female nigger in Kenya was said to be pregnant with a fetus sufficiently developed to prove that it was sired by a baboon, whom the female must have attracted in some way. So far as I know, there has been no report of the birth of the hybrid in January of this year. If the physician in Kenya was right in his diagnosis, the infant would have proved the possibility of fertilization of a Congoid by a male who was not even an ape, but a monkey. Baboons, although Primates, are not Hominoidea, but belong to a radically different family, the Ceropithecidae, and fertility between two such greatly different species would be a most remarkable phenomenon.
The pregnancy of the chimpanzees in Britain raises the question of the limits we set to the term ‘human.’ The Jews among themselves restrict the word to their own hybrid race, but Aryans naturally recognize as fellow humans the Semites and Mongoloids, who had civilizations of their own, and even the lower races, Congoids, Capoids, and Australoids, who were incapable of creating a civilization, but presumably are entitled to be called ‘human’ because they had articulate languages. (5) But what about extinct anthropoids? Biological taxonomy recognizes the species of Homo erectus as human, but should we? Were the Neanderthals human? There is some evidence that they were incapable of more than animal cries, but some remarkable skulls found in Palestine indicate that there they could interbreed with the Cro-Magnon people, who exterminated them elsewhere. (6) If we admit them, where shall we stop short of the Australophithecus?
(5. I note that Professor Daniel E. Vining, Jr., reviewing L.L. Betzig’s Despotism and Differential Reproduction in the Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, XIV (1989), pp. 375-380, has misgivings about undiscriminating use of the word ‘human.’ Miss/Mrs. Betzig contends that “the Darwinian model really works for human beings,” but her data are all drawn from the primitive societies of the lower races, and, granting that she is right about them, her model “does not explain much about human history,” which is “the evolution of high civilizations,” in which psychic, not physical, factors are dominant and luxury becomes an obvious determinant of differential reproduction, as Professor Vining ably explains.)
(6. It is sometimes said that there is no evidence that our Cro-Magnon ancestors wisely exterminated the more brutish species, but the evidence is that after the Cro-Magnons appear in any region, the Neanderthals promptly disappear. What other evidence could we expect to find? The Cro-Magnons certainly did not bury the corpses when the countryside was full of many species of carnivores, all eager for a good meal.)
Dr. Wellington, the geneticist who repented his part in the project and was starred on British television, does not explain clearly his repentance, except by talking the nonsense about the twelve-year old’s melancholy that I quoted above, and saying that he had hoped hybrids would have more of human characteristics — although it is hard to see how that would affect what seems to worry him, the morality of the experimentation.
The reaction of the shamans could have been predicted. An American clergyman who saw the article in the Sun was greatly perturbed; he thinks the experiment trespassed on his god’s prerogatives, and he fears that when copies of the Sun reach Heaven, old Yahweh may go berserk and smash up the universe, just as he promised to do in the Christians’ favorite horror story, the Apocalypse — or, if that seems excessive to you, not the whole universe but only a small segment of it, say a hundred light years in diameter, surrounding a tiny ball of dirt infested with ephemeral creatures, a few of whom are said to engage his whole attention.
In England, Bishop Martin O’Donnel was exercised because he was sure the impious experiment was an infringement of his god’s patent for creating anthropoids, and he wanted the hybrids “humanely exterminated.” That would be a reasonable opinion, if His Reverence, as you may be sure, did not bless marriages that are miscegenation and produce far more repulsive and dangerous hybrids, and did not approve the ‘humanitarian’ importation of biological trash to harass the Anglo-Saxons who mistakenly pay his salary. He could have learned something from the Fathers of the Church — or, if he prefers entertaining reading, from Anatole France’s L’Œle des pingouins (7) — an alternative procedure. He could have sprinkled the monsters with holy water and that would have forced Jesus to inject souls into them. Then they could have been made British citizens and pampered at the expense of the stupid tax-payers — and, who knows? — perhaps they could have been taught to be as vicious as the imports from Africa on which British do-gooders dote (until they are beaten or killed).
(7. There are English translations, probably entitled Penguin Island, but you should be warned that while the opening chapters are well-written and quite amusing, the book speedily degenerates into heavy-handed, grotesque, and tedious satire that attests the mental deterioration of one of the world’s most talented stylists, perhaps under the influence of his Jewish mistresses. His irrational and fatuously passionate championing of Dreyfus, who had become merely an instrument in the Jews’ eversion of French culture, presaged the sad days in the 1920s when the aged Anatole France, corseted and rouged, descended from his limousine and, leaning on the arm of his chauffeur, in a shrill and cracked voice harangued bored groups of unemployed workers about the evils of “private property.”)
The work of the British geneticists, if accurately reported, is, like some other forms of biological research, repulsive and displeasing to our racial sensibilities, but it seems to have been undertaken in a genuine search for knowledge of great importance, and that is its own justification.
We Aryans have a racial trait, perhaps even an instinct, that is incomprehensible to other races and which they regard as fatuous. We are tender-hearted, and we are distressed by the suffering of mammals with whom we have a natural sympathy and even of mammals we do not like or respect.
We acquiesce in the slaughter of pigs and cattle to satisfy our gourmandise — for what would be breakfast without bacon, or dinner without sirloin or, at least, ham? — but we insist that the victims of our appetites be killed as painlessly as possible, and we are nauseated when we witness the infliction of maximum suffering on cattle to appease the Sheenies’ sadistic lusts.(8)
(8. Mr. Richard Cotten informs me from Washington that there was recently a proposal to exhibit on television a film showing the Jewish methods of slaughtering cattle. The project was immediately forbidden by the race that now owns the country that once was ours, who feared that the gruesome spectacle might arouse the latent instincts of even torpid Americans.)
A baneful superstition long distorted our attitude toward our fellow mammals by making a generic distinction between talking mammals and the others, so that niggers, for example, were credited with certain “rights” that were not possessed by elephants and dolphins. If we are rational, we will recognize that our attitude toward other species must be governed only by our highest morality, i.e., by the welfare of our kindred, our race. We may legitimately act to protect and preserve elephants in Africa, for they are in many ways admirable mammals and engage our sympathies, but we are guilty of sabotaging our own interests and our children’s future, if we, with mawkish sentimentality, try to feed starving niggers (9) or try to save them from the African Plague (“AIDS”) now epidemic among them. (10) We naturally regret that such unlovely mammals must suffer so acutely before they die, but we can do nothing about that: it would not be feasible to supply them with free cyanide of potassium — and if we did, they would not curtail their misery.
(9. Friends of Manfred Roeder, who, in the past, sometimes lapsed into gross sentimentality, were greatly pleased by the circular letter reproduced in the December 1991 issue of Liberty Bell, in which he pointed out the obvious fact that the thing we should do about starving niggers in Africa is let them starve, the only way to prevent the number of hungry niggers from exceeding the world’s capacity to feed them.)
(10. The latest report from Uganda is that one-third of the population will die of the African Plague (“AIDS”) before the end of 1994. Instead of being pleased by the good news, some Aryan nitwits want to waste our race’s resources and talents by trying to reduce the mortality and thus make life more miserable for the survivors in an overpopulated country. The do-gooders also whimpered a little in 1972-1979 when the Boss Nigger in Uganda, whom they with their idiotic “anti-colonialism” had put in power, butchered an estimated half million of his nigger subjects for the fun of it. At least, he saved them from dying of the Plague!)
What I have said will seem hard-hearted, calloused, brutal, to many good people, but, if we are not willing to become extinct, we shall have to forego the comfort of hallucinatory fantasies and face, sooner or later, the grim realities of the world in which we live.
The grimmest fact has long been known to everyone who, not stunned by the din made by professional world-savers, has looked beyond their hypocrisy and noticed the terrible proliferation of some human species in recent years. In an article published in 1963, (11) I remarked on the statistical extrapolation which indicated that “the globe, sometime between A.D. 2000 and 2005…will be infested by 5,000,000,000 anatomically human creatures,” and that “then, to keep the globe inhabitable at that bare subsistence level, it will be necessary to kill every year more people than now live in the whole United States — kill them with atomic bombs or clubs, as may be the more convenient.”
(11. Reprinted in this html document and in America’s Decline; for the passage quoted here, see pp. 240 f.)
The terrible fecundity of the lower races outran the statistical projection, and has already reached about five billion, five hundred million, and the population can be stabilized at that level only by killing on the scale I indicated (the population of the United States is larger now; so is the need for killing).
In my article I predicted that the global population would be drastically reduced before 2000. I may have set the date a little too early, but’s let’s see what the next eight years bring forth. I indicated various ways in which the necessary massacres could be produced, including the one sure one, if all else fails:
“If the minority of the earth’s inhabitants that is capable of creating and continuing (as distinct from aping) a high civilization is exterminated (as it now seems resolved to be)…civilization will collapse from sheer lack of brains to keep it going, and the consequent reversion to global savagery will speedily take care of the excess in numbers.” (12)
(12. I discussed, ibidem, the “Liberal” solution of the problem, which its more candid apostles call “the spiritual and psychological dehumanization of man” through a “scientific program of genetic control” and massacre of the “socially maladjusted [i.e., intelligent]” objectors, thus reducing the human species (except, of course, the Master Race) to “the mute status of unconscious organisms,” which, although biped and mammalian, will live like termites, ants, and other models of socialistic felicity. When I wrote, I was sure that was impossible, but now, when I look at the average Aryan in the United States, I wonder.)
The facts, as I have said, have long been known. One could not expect the facts to be admitted by politicians, “educators,” “evangelicals,” and other crooks who live by deluding and swindling the boobs, but it is noteworthy that so few men with scientific credentials have the courage to call public attention to the dire consequence of our race’s mad sentimentality.
One man who dared tell the truth about the “environmental crisis” is Jonathon Stone, Professor of Anatomy in the University of Sydney, who told a conference in Australia:
“While we have realized the importance of environmental problems, we have not realized that their causes are not specific–pollution of air, soil, or water, or the destruction of forests or species–but general: human overpopulation.”The view common to religious and humanist (13) traditions, that human life is sacred and good, will soon be challenged by the biological reality that human life is destroying the ecology of the Earth, that we humans are a plague.” (14)
(13. He misuses the word, as is commonly done today. Strictly speaking, for reasons which I shall not take the space to set forth here, ‘humanism’ designates a very high degree of proficiency in litterae humaniores. The word was used as a kind of pun in the Eighteenth Century to designate a belief that the best-known Jesus was a man and not one-third of a composite god. Later, the high respect accorded humanistic learning led to adoption of the word ‘humanism,’ as a kind of verbal trickery, by the vendors of ersatz-education and various cults that claimed to be humanitarian in one way or another.)
(14. The New Scientist (London), 12 October 1991, p. 18.)
Professor Stone’s blunt statement regards the Earth as vu de Sirius. It is what an intelligent being from a distant planet, like Voltaire’s Micromégas, would conclude from an observation of the earth, when he saw biped mammals suddenly begin to proliferate and ravage the planet, multiplying so rapidly that they will eventually exterminate themselves, the only question being whether they will have left the planet capable of supporting other mammalian species or even organic life. The recently reported indications that Mars at one time had an atmosphere and large oceans will encourage some writer of “science fiction” to describe a race of Martians who became so civilized and sentimental that they made the planet what it now is, a sterile desert devoid of even the lowest forms of organic life.
We, however, cannot be content with the cold objectivity of a vu de Sirius. As mammals, we instinctively wish our species to survive.
This planet, which can comfortably accommodate a total population of about one billion without endangering the ecological balance of nature, is, as I have said, now infested by five and one-half billion anthropoids classified as human, and they are increasing almost geometrically.
Our race is becoming an ever dwindling minority as other races continue to breed like guinea pigs. The facts are obvious to everyone, but our racial mentality has been so rotted by a deadly superstition that hypocrisy is de rigeur, even for persons who know better.
A “World Conservation Strategy” drawn up by various packs of do-gooders, to be adopted in 1992 at an “Earth Summit” meeting in Rio de Janeiro, demands drastic control of emissions of carbon dioxide in “rich [i.e., Aryan] countries,” and lots of other things, including a 50% reduction of childhood mortality in the “lower-income [i.e., nigger and mud race] countries,” which, as the proponents must well know, will be like trying to extinguish a fire by spraying it with gasoline. And, finally, we must begin by extorting from the stupid Aryans some two trillion dollars ($2,000,000,000,000) to start an “assault on world poverty,” and accelerate the deadly overpopulation. (15)
(15. The New Scientist, 26 October 1991, p. 16. The article is entitled, “Last chance to save the world?” Two words in the text suggest that the reporter was well aware that the loud manifesto was tissue of fustian and buncombe.)
When you hear talk about a “war on poverty,” you know that you are listening to the Voice of Destruction, the Judaeo-Communist howling that is designed to afflict and eventually exterminate our race. But Christians and other sentimentalists, holding faiths that are really a denial of life and of reality, will be charmed by the oleaginous verbiage, devised to intoxicate do-gooders.
The facts, however, are that several billion human beings now living would have to be exterminated to prevent the Earth from becoming uninhabitable before the middle of the coming century — and that would only defer the end, unless the survivors were prevented from multiplying again.
So what are we as Aryans, the fools who created this mess by our idiotic efforts to subsidize and uplift enemy races, going to do about it, if we do not intend to become extinct?
You don’t like the prospect? Neither do I, but that changes nothing. We had best learn to accept the fact that we live in a universe that was not made for man and in which we and all organic life are merely inconsequential and ephemeral epiphenomena — a world in which species that do not have the strength and wit to survive are eliminated by the force that is inherent in the very nature of organic life, which requires that the weak must perish so that the strong may live.
* * *