Never Apologize to the Jews for Telling the Truth
As this 1979 article shows, it only emboldens them and gains you nothing.
COWARDLY REACTIONS, no matter what their excuse, leave a bad taste in the mouth. Recently Steven Rose (pictured), one of Britain’s leading intellectual terrorists, practically ordered Arthur Jensen and Hans J. Eysenck to renounce publicly any and all connection with “racists,” on the basis that Britain’s National Front has been using some of their research in its literature. Both men humbly obliged in long, painful and rather unheroic missives of apology.
Eysenck, deploring the very thought of the National Front, said all the things he was supposed to say:
I am absolutely opposed to any form of racism, and believe that the scientific evidence unequivocally points to the need to treat each person individually, not as a member of a racial group, or a particular sex, or class.
Jensen tried to wriggle out of Rose’s accusations by charging that both right and left wingers have injured science with their dogmatic assertions about race, thereby lumping his friends with his enemies. Like Eysenck, Jensen stressed that the “overlap” in mental ability between bright blacks and wacky whites negated much of the case for broad racial differences in intelligence. This, of course, is a weasel-worded attempt to avoid the essence of the scientific evidence — evidence that Jensen knows better than almost any man alive. Jensen also engaged in a little fence-straddling by lauding scientific “agnosticism” (keeping the options open) until all the facts are in — though the scientific method might be better served by trying to reduce the extent of such agnosticism instead of retreating to it.
It is understandable that Jensen, Eysenck and other hereditarians shiver and shake when character assassins like Rose take poison pen in hand. If they didn’t give in here and there, if they didn’t temporize, they might be irrevocably damned and ostracized as outright fascists and Nazis. Still, there have been scientists who have decided that their scientific findings are more important than life itself. Galileo compromised, but the Russian geneticist Vavilov preferred to die rather than deny what he knew to be true.
Jensen and Eysenck have gone through much for their pioneering and courageous research. But they haven’t been jailed, or starved to death in a Gulag, or guillotined. If they had been, they might have done more for science than has been accomplished by their present tactic of sporadic self-dosings of sackcloth and ashes.
Shortly after Jensen’s and Eysenck’s apology appeared in Nature, Rose and another Marxist authored an equalitarian tour de force that was widely distributed by Britain’s National Union of Teachers (NUT). It was such an outrageous perversion of biology that it might easily have been written by Lysenko in the darker and fuzzier days of Stalin. According to Rose (God, how they can lie with a straight face!), race does not exist, IQ tests do not measure intelligence, intelligence has no genetic basis, biology has no connection with civilization, etc., etc.
What good did Jensen and Eysenck’s apologies do? The net result was to embolden Rose in his crusade against Western science. Eysenck may have redeemed himself a little when he later reacted publicly against the falsehoods of the NUT broadside. But as yet neither he nor Jensen has called upon Rose to disavow his connections with the various Marxist gangs now trying to totalitarianize British thought.
As for Shockley, he obviously has more guts than Eysenck and Jensen combined. But even he has said that Jews are smarter than “Aryans,” apparently in an abortive attempt to win the sympathy of those who have done most to destroy him. Shockley’s statement, of course, is one of those big liberal-minority lies, which emit an extra stench when uttered by an otherwise intelligent, tough-minded scientist.
Another Nobel prize winner, Francis Crick, as noted in a previous issue of Instauration has never given in one inch. He actually hung up on a reporter trying to involve him with the National Front. Two other Englishmen of the highest repute, John Baker, author of Race, and Cyril Darlington, who wrote The Evolution of Man and Society, are not the types to make profuse apologies for their writings for any reason and pay no attention whatsoever to academic guttersnipes. Rose knows perfectly well that when he tries to order men like these around, he will get nowhere. He picks his victims carefully.
Note: A recent issue of Instauration (March, 1979) carried an article dealing with the false claim of Jewish intellectual superiority, which for some years has been greeted with approbation by the very same liberal-minority intellectuals who, out of the other side of their mouths, are the first to denounce the slightest intimation that races differ in intelligence by so much as a hair. If the historical evidence, though it has been accumulating for 2,500 years, is not enough to shatter this canard, Instauration readers should go to a good library and read the very important but universally ignored paper on the subject by the late Dr. Audrey Shuey in the Journal of Social Psychology, 1942, 15, 221-43
* * *
Source: Instauration magazine, May 1979