Facts of Racial Science Blatantly Suppressed
by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)
ONE OF THE MOST memorable features of George Orwell’s fascinating politico-fiction novel, 1984, is the “memory hole.” Memory holes were the small wall orifices scattered throughout the offices and corridors of the Ministry of Truth (propaganda ministry) and giving access to huge incinerators in the basement of that building. Any document, photograph, book, or whatever, containing evidence of any facts displeasing to Big Brother or not in accord with the Party’s line of the moment, went into a memory hole.
Then, using the process of “doublethink,” the government clerk or researcher who had just dropped something into a memory hole would immediately forget that that evidence had ever existed. Thus, facts became “unfacts,” and any scrap of printed matter which might have contradicted Big Brother conveniently disappeared.
All Featherless Bipeds
Unfortunately for all of us, the memory hole has become more than a figment of Orwell’s imagination. It has been in wide use in the Western world for some time now, not only as an aid in rewriting history and politics but also for bringing science into accord with liberal dogma.
The field of science most blatantly abused in this way is physical anthropology — more specifically, racial science.
To the liberal it is axiomatic that all featherless bipeds are “equal” — not just equal before the law or in the sight of God, but endowed with equal creative potential, equal intellect, etc. In particular it is unthinkable that there might be inherent intellectual or psychic differences among the races of man.
The quite manifest racial differences in behavior, temperament — and, especially, achievement — are explained away as being due solely to exploitation or repression of the “disadvantaged” race. For liberal doctrine holds that race is only skin-deep — strictly a matter of color and nothing else.
But there are also profound and highly significant physical and anatomical differences — beside color — among the races.
Negroes, for example, have brains which are substantially smaller, on the average, than those of Caucasians. Negro skulls are thicker, their cranial structure is more primitive, and their cranial sutures fuse at an earlier age than is the case with Whites.
This is not racist theory but scientific fact, which has been carefully observed in thousands of autopsies and comparative anatomical studies. It was, until a few years ago, readily accessible to the inquiring reader in any encyclopedia worthy of the name.
Today, however, it has become “unfact.” The sections on race in the latest editions of all the major encyclopedias have been rewritten, not for the sake of scientific updating but for the sake of deleting all material which might suggest the possibility of inequality among races, particularly between Negro and White. All the carefully compiled measurements on cranial structure, brain size, etc. have gone down the memory hole.
The 1967 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, offers exactly two sentences on the physical characteristics of Negroes:
“The general characteristics of Negro populations are: a dark skin, woolly hair, thick lips and a high frequency of the cDe (Ro) blood group (see BLOOD GROUPS). Most of these populations are characterized by a short and broad nose, a protruding lower part of the jaw (prognathism) and legs that are long compared with the trunk.” (Volume 16, p. 187)
After approximately one page of exposition on other matters pertaining to the Negro, there follows a 17-page panegyric on the American Negro. Obscure Blacks with no material or historical achievements are written up as though they were important and great people, giving the impression that the development of the United States has been a matter of more-or-less equal partnership between Black and White Americans.
Nowhere is there mention of the bio-metric facts given in earlier editions of the encyclopedia.
There can be no doubt whatever as to the reason for this omission. It has certainly not been to save space, for the number of pages devoted to the Negro is larger in the current edition than in any previous edition. No, the intentions of Britannica’s editors are quite evident. They want us to understand that Negroes are simply human beings who happen to have dark skins, and any troublesome facts which might distract us from this fundamental theme have simply been fed to the incinerator.
And to take the place of those troublesome facts an entire pseudo-history has been hoked up. In this pseudo-history a hapless mulatto who wandered into the British line of fire at Boston is elevated into an inspired leader of the American Revolution; Admiral Peary’s Black manservant, whom he carted along with him on his arctic expeditions, becomes an intrepid explorer and co-discoverer of the North Pole; Black cowboys help tame the West; and Black military leaders play a crucial role in the evolution of the U.S. Army.
Perhaps the motives of Britannica’s editors are as pure as the driven snow. It may be that they feel that in an era of increasing racial tension and conflict they can help bring about harmonious relations between the races by artificially providing the Negro with a sense of self-esteem he has previously lacked.
Almost certainly some of those writers and editors who have stretched the truth out of shape in order to write the new Black histories which are coming off the presses these days feel that their altruistic end justifies their rather shady means.
But what of the scientists, the anthropologists? Can they possibly excuse the suppression of the truth and the perversion of their profession simply because it might hurt someone’s feeling to teach that Negroes have more bone and less grey matter above their collars than Whites do?
No one asks that the anthropologist label the Negro as “inferior.” That requires making a value judgement, which is quite a different thing from simply expounding the facts of racial differences.
If it is embarrassing to the professor to have to acknowledge that the Negro skull is more “apelike” than the Caucasian skull, he can always point out Caucasian hair is more akin to that of the apes than is Negro hair — or, more properly, Negro wool. So what?
Are we so frightened of the possibility that the facts of race, if widely disseminated, might lead to some social and political re-evaluations that we must pretend that what is so is not so?
Must we make “unfact” of fact in order to keep our civilization from coming apart at the seams?
Have we not yet learned, at this late date, that the truth will always out, sooner or later, and that to persist in ignoring it must inevitably make the day of reckoning more painful?
Have our scholars, our scientists, our learned men in this enlightened era so little sense of duty and propriety that they will continue to aid rather than oppose those whose doctrinaire obsessions make them enemies of truth?
The Lie of Lysenkoism
The sad actuality is that for practically all anthropologists there has been no real moral struggle at all over this issue. It has been very easy for them to “go along in order to get along.”
In the Soviet Union those who for decades accepted and taught Lysenkoism to their students, knowing all the while they were teaching a lie, at least had the excuse that the NKVD was watching them.
Which all goes to prove two things: First, that the threat of being burned at the stake or liquidated by the secret police is by no means necessary to assure doctrinal orthodoxy.
Moral terror and the herd instinct are quite sufficient. It is safe to say that the average American university professor is more afraid of being labeled a “racist” and ostracized by the liberal university Establishment than his Soviet counterpart feared that midnight knock on the door.
And, second, that the stereotype of the typical professor-scientist as a clear-eyed seeker of the truth is as phony as a three-dollar bill. The true pioneers, rebels, and iconoclasts, who were able to recognize truth amid the prejudices and dogmas of their day and then were willing to make real sacrifices for the sake of that truth — the Brunos and the Galileos — have always been as different from their more pedestrian colleagues as is the day from the night.
* * *
Source: (Issue No. 3, 1971) From the Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom