FictionHumor

Science Book Proves Racism Is Wrong: Primates and Prejudice

by Cholly Bilderberger (1980)

DR. THOMAS BRADFORD SALTONSTALL, head of the Greater Pri­mates Training Center, at Stanford University, has finally an­nounced the imminent publication of Primates and Prejudice, and it is evidently the blockbuster which the scientific world has been awaiting for so many years. Dr. Saltonstall’s startling thesis, backed up by so many years of immensely detailed, immaculately executed research, much of it contributed by Dr. Jonas Glazer, his assistant, is that apes are inherently conscious and disapproving of racial prejudice among human beings.

“Prejudice among the great apes themselves is unknown,” he says in the extensive introduction, “and we began to won­der — after being led to the question by the most fortuitous happenstance, as is so often the case in science if they could detect this failing in us humans, either by observation, deduc­tion or straightforward intuition. We now know, after lengthy studies, that they have picked it up in all three disciplines. And that the disciplines themselves have a synergistic, intra-sup­portive effect.”

Published in this country in an initial press run of 250,000 copies, Primates and Prejudice will be coming out later this month in foreign editions in nearly every country in the world. The importance of the event can hardly be exaggerated. “You have to go back to The Origin of Species for a comparison,” says Dr. Leopold Goldman, whose own studies of non-Jewish primitive man in the Negev Desert have turned up evidence of prejudice there prior to the arrival of the Jews with their palliative and humanizing effect. “He’s gone back a lot farther than I would have imagined possible. More important, he’s made it stick. The Nobel is a certainty. For Glazer, as well, of course. Incidentally, the existence of pre-Jewish primitive man in the Negev in no way vitiates the Jewish claims to unbroken hegemony in the area. The primitives moved out voluntar­ily.”

Other noted scientists who have hailed the work include: Dr. Marcus Garvey Jeroboam, head of the Antidiscrimination Section of the Anthropology Department of the University of Nairobi (“Tremendous, just tremendous.”); Dr. Lawrence Granville, Oxford, the world’s acknowledged authority on intolerance in the Middle Ages (“By finding the link between human and non-human ethical values — with, I must say, more than an edge to the non-humans — Dr. Saltonstall has widened the scientific horizon to a degree which we — I, at any rate — would have thought impossible only a few years ago.”); Harvard’s Dr. Irving (“Buster”) Judah (“This master­piece may not signal the end of prejudice, but it certainly means the beginning of the end.”)

In addition to the overwhelming scientific approval, na­tional and world figures, from America’s Henry Kissinger to Israel’s Menahem Begin, have saluted the opus. “It shows what we all hate and will fight to the end to eradicate, by whatever means,” said Begin. Kissinger, in a lighter-hearted mood, said, “Maybe we should all become apes and make this world a better place. But isn’t there an easier way?”

Although 839 pages in length, Primates and Prejudice is unusually readable. Dr. Saltonstall has managed to avoid the weightiness of most scientific exposition, and has presented his findings and conclusions with such clarity that the layman should have no difficulty in following them. There are sections and appendixes which require special knowledge, of course, but the average reader can skip them without losing the main thread. Incidentally, this clarity has brought bouquets from the literary world. At a Tribute to Groucho Dinner in New York City, John Updike, William Styron, John Cheever, Norman Mailer, Andy Warhol and countless other modern masters were lavish in their praise. A partial selection of their com­ments, all of which appeared in an open letter to the New York Times, gives some indication of the excitement among these prepotent artists usually so cautious about bestowing laurels: “Written with authority, but not opaque …. Masterful use of both the colon and semicolon, a talent not often found in the scientific world …. I find more than a whiff of literary as well as scientific awards …. A surprising amount of pure narra­tive skill …. With just a tad more in the testicle line, he would have made a good novelist. In any case, he’s going to have some problems trying to figure out how to spend it. By the way, why isn’t Glazer receiving more credit? …. The style reminds one of what they used to call the King James version …. Kinky but powerful.” The New Yorker serialized sections prior to publication, and the response was “overwhelming, we’ve never seen anything like it!” according to Sherry Birn­baum Trevelyan, of the magazine’s publicity department. “I guess it was the brotherhood theme, at least when it’s carried to such inspiring heights.”

The structure of the book is simplicity itself. “We wanted to let the research steps dictate the organizational process rather than the other way around,” Dr. Saltonstall says in the intro­duction, in a sentence already famous for its succinct exposi­tion of the scientist’s creed. “As a point of departure we used the controversy as to whether apes can communicate or not. We did not enter into that controversy, and I should make it plain that we consider it a question in another field. We only used it as a point of departure; in our research, we only accepted communication where it was indisputable. We did not attempt, however, like the Gardners, Francine Patterson, and the others in that field to ‘teach’ communication. An understanding of this differentiation is crucial to an under­standing of our whole endeavor.”

Saltonstall and his staff started with hard evidence. “It all began,” he says, “when my assistant, Dr. Jonas Glazer, first called my attention to the extraordinary behavior, under con­trolled provocation, of some elderly chimpanzees in ‘Z’ Build­ing. They were on the third floor, out of sight and mind, relics from some testing for a long past space program; fed but forgotten. It seems that Jonas had wandered back there with Cheryl Porter, one of the technicians, to discuss some of the observations and evaluations they had both been making in connection with some virus-carcinogen work, and in the course of the conversation, which had gotten somewhat off the subject, because even the most dedicated scientists have to take breathers from time to time, Jonas said, as nearly as he could recollect, in view of her apparent reluctance, feigned or otherwise, ‘Cheryl, you’re the sort of girl who could very easily become anti-Semitic.’ It was said in jest, to tease her a bit, to ‘see if she was just leading me on, and, if so, to soften her up a bit,’ as Jonas put it, a light little exchange which in the normal give-and-take of scientific-academic life would have been forgotten immediately, had there not been that amazing reac­tion from the caged apes. They had been quiet — almost dormant, as we in the field say — but suddenly they were wild with excitement. Why? Jonas, a dedicated scientist if ever there was one, decided to find out why. It didn’t take him long. Re-enacting with Cheryl everything they had said and done, he noted that the apes were quiet until he used the adjective, ‘anti-Semitic.’ In Jonas’ own words, ‘I thought at first that little business between Cheryl and me might have steamed them up. After all, they’ve been pretty well cut off for a long time, and chimps are notoriously horny. But it wasn’t sex, folks, that triggered the excitement, it was prejudice.'”

Jonas called Dr. Saltonstall, who immediately sensed some­thing tremendous in the news. They went to work the next day, improvising a test program for the apes. On the one hand, they played recordings of speeches from Hitler, Goebbels, Father Coughlin and many other noted racists; ran films of the Holo­caust, lynchings in the American South and other atrocities; spat racial epithets at each other, and acted out racist sce­narios. All of this drove the apes into wild tantrums in which they displayed their unhappiness, their grief at such madness. On the other hand, the scientists showed them views of moodern Israel, Harlem and Detroit; played recordings of speeches by prominent Jews and Blacks; ran brotherhood films like ‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?’; and even danced the Hora together. To all of which the apes gave their unqualified approval. “They positively beamed,” says Dr. Saltonstall, “practically clapped.”

But that was only the beginning. “We knew we had some­thing, of course, but what? Were these apes typical or muta­tory? Did their dislike of prejudice extend to all forms? There was an enormous amount of work to be done before we could be sure of anything. Endless experiments, with controls. A costly and mind-consuming business. Dr. Glazer has received full credit for his part in this tremendous effort.” The book traces the story of these experiments from inception to tri­umphant conclusion. A total of 431 chimpanzees, 167 goril­las, 41 orangutans, and hundreds of monkeys, marmosets and lemurs were used in the massive program. The Saltonstall­Glazer combination put together a team of over three thou­sand scientists and technicians, operating on every continent. “We even took warm-weather apes to cold places like Antarc­tica, to find out if adverse climate could diminish their fierce hatred of prejudice. It could not. We lost six of the thirteen, but not one wavered. You might say they’d rather be dead than intolerant.” Total grants for the program from all sources — ­private, government and academic — grew to $238 million. But figures as diverse as Henry Ford II and Jane Fonda say it was well worth every penny.

A profoundly significant spinoff of the Antarctica trip was the discovery that prejudice against prejudice exists in almost all animals, and can be awakened in a less advanced species when exposed to a higher species. As Dr. Saltonstall says, “The local penguins were quite unaffected, at first, by hearing and seeing our prejudicial material, both pro and con. They’d loiter about and listen to Hitler, for example, without any reaction one way or the other. But when they saw the apes react, they slowly began to take a greater interest and to have their own reactions. Not as deep and powerful as those of the apes, granted, but pretty good.”

This led to further experimentation on other animals at test sites worldwide. “You should have seen us in places like the Galapagos Islands,” chortles Dr. Glazer. “Trying to get a reaction out of lizards and giant tortoises. In some cases it was weak, I’ll admit. But there was always a flicker if you knew how to look. Our staff worked with one old tortoise down there for weeks with no result. No response to anything, not even the most gruesome scenes from Belsen. In desperation, they pulled everything out, and finally got to some old footage of George Wallace and Selma, ancient history. And that tor­toise’s wise old eye opened and blinked in a way that made you know he disapproved. However, and I stress this point, there is not enough unassailable evidence at this time on the lower forms of life. In Primates and Prejudice we are confining ourselves to primates, with the other material offered only as a hint of research to come. As far as I’m concerned, this aversion to intolerance on the part of the animal kingdom extends all the way to amoeba. But there’s so much resistance to any new idea in the scientific community that we must have the case proved to the hilt. Incidentally, I should say at this time, in view of all the talk about my not receiving enough credit for my work on this project, that Dr. Saltonstall and I remain the best of friends and colleagues. He will be leaving the Center at the end of the year and I shall be taking over all future research. I have no complaints.”

There has been some isolated criticism of Primates and Prejudice. Dr. George Jenkins, of the University of Idaho, an anthropologist of some standing, has asked if the apes are showing learned responses rather than spontaneous moral fervor. “All this hissing at Charles Lindbergh and Franco, and prolonged clapping at Golda Meir and Eleanor Roosevelt … can we believe that this is done without some sort of coach­ing?” However, after being shown the test procedures in de­tail, Dr. Jenkins withdrew his questions, and is now an ardent supporter of the conclusions. “They convinced me,” he says simply. Nearly all other doubters in the scientific community have changed their minds, too. A few laymen — William F. Buckley, Jr., for one were initial scoffers, but also agreed with the facts once they understood them. What will Primates and Prejudice mean to the world? Dr. Irving (“Buster”) Judah, of Harvard, quoted earlier as saying it means the beginning of the end of prejudice, is quite explicit on details: “To me, one of the most thrilling parts of Primates and Prejudice is that section in which the oldest and most awesome of the gorillas — Samson, as he was called — led the way in grading the peoples of the earth on a prejudice scale. Thumbing through photographs of racial types, he tossed aside, in sequence, the Arabs, Russians and Germans. Then all European and North American and Australian types. The last two, which he retained in his hairy but sensitive hand, were of Blacks and Jews. Long did he meditate on these two before finally raising his fine old eyes to us, practically saying, like Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi, ‘These are my jewels.’ Ape after ape repeated this sequence, and I would hope that this scientific breakthrough will serve as the cornerstone for an immutable scale of humans on the basis of their weakness for prejudice. Let us admit, with the utmost good fellowship, that the evidence is now in, and the Blacks and Jews have gained their rightful place as leaders in man’s endless struggle for understanding and tolerance.”

Dr. Lionel Forsyte, head of the Social Studies Department at the University of Michigan, agrees with this assessment and goes further: “I think all thoughtful WASPs, myself included, have long been aware of Jewish superiority instinctively. Now, for the first time, we have scientific evidence of that superiority and its root cause. The Jews are quite simply the least pre­judiced people. Followed very closely, of course, by the Blacks. But the difference is considerable enough so that the Jews are ahead by much more than a nose, or anything like it. The rest of us are going to have to face the fact of Jewish superiority and cut our cloth accordingly. A colleague of mine has proposed that we make our realizations concrete by rec­ognizing the State of Israel as our spiritual capital simply because it is the center of these least prejudiced people. From there, if we were brave enough to do that, freedom from prejudice might encircle the globe. Incidentally, it has been suggested that the great apes, because they have shown the way, are the least prejudiced primates, and that we should look to them as our leaders. I disagree. They are just great spiritually, but I don’t think they can implement. At least not at this time. I’m not ruling out the future, but for now let’s just look to them as pathfinders rather than builders. Lastly, we in the scientific community are delighted that Jonas Glazer is receiving his due reward. Tom Saltonstall is a fine man and a dedicated scientist, but it was really Jonas who started this and who kept it going.”

This brief review can’t give any real idea of the depth, the magnificence, the inspiration, the overwhelming irrefutability of this monumental book. In closing, here are the conclusions of Terry Horowitz (now Mrs. Henry C. Lodge IX), who worked on the project as a Radcliffe doctoral candidate: “It was, like, another world. Here were all these great apes, and I mean great, they were super, you know, living together in real harmony and getting along so well, and we’re working with them, and it’s like those ancient schools in Greece, or something, where we’re the students and they’re like teaching us what we once knew, when Atlantis and those places were running every­thing and sending out their messages, and all that was lost and now we’re finding it again. All those lost continents and then years of prejudice building up after Socrates, like D.H. Lawr­ence says, and the Dionysian message lost forever, it seemed like, with everything buried under centuries of prejudice, especially among the less dark people, and no trace of real tolerance left except among those great, great apes. Well, they guarded it, like, for centuries, similar to those monks in the Dark Ages with culture and everything, only this was more important, and now we’re maybe ready for the message, and there they are ready to give it to us. I have always been interested in some kind of idealism, but I wanted it to be based on reality, and now I see that the two are not incontestably incompatible. I want something in my life that makes a differ­ence, and I’ve always been interested in tolerance, so this was a real perfect opportunity for me, especially getting to know Dr. Jonas Glazer, who should be everyone’s hero. Like Dr. Einstein said, ‘God may be malicious, but he’s not too sophis­ticated.’ I know now that’s true, and I’m going to base my life on it.”

* * *

Source: Instauration magazine, August 1980

Previous post

Epstein and Silverstein Cases Uncover Jewish Power Structure

Next post

Even by Appalling Standards of US Politics, Biden Stands Out in Shameless Pursuit of Jewish and Israeli Funds

3
Leave a Reply

avatar
3 Comment authors
Aodh MacraynallNoraRommel 41 Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Rommel 41
Rommel 41

Another brilliant and stunning “academic” revelation. Wow – thank goodness for college.
My only retort: Any of these ‘primates’ jewish ?!! :) Let’s throw some jews in the habitat !
Y’know, for a ‘control’ factor to the experiment :) :)

Nora
Nora

All that money on junk science. Henry Ford is spinning in his grave.

Aodh Macraynall
Aodh Macraynall

okay, I was trolled!