1,222 words
Psychologist J. Philippe Rushton died on October 2, 2012, of Addison’s disease. He was 68. Rushton was born in Bournemouth, England to an English father and a French mother. He studied at Birkbeck College of the University of London (B.Sc. in psychology, 1970), the London School of Economics (Ph.D. in psychology, 1973), and Oxford University (postdoc, 1974).
He moved to Canada in 1974 and taught at York University, the University of Toronto, and the University of Western Ontario, where he was tenured and spent the rest of his career. His research focused on genetic similarity theory and biological race differences. He was the author of five books, including the classic study of biological race differences, Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective (1995, 1997, and 2000), and more than 200 scientific papers.
I hope to run more extensive tributes to Rushton from people who knew him better than I did and who are better able to pass judgment on his work. In the meantime, however, I want to share my personal thoughts and recollections, limited though they may be.
I first encountered Rushton’s work in 2000, the year of my awakening. I was given a copy of the abridged version of the third edition of Race, Evolution, and Behavior (available online here), which I read in one sitting. A few years before, I had read and assimilated the lessons of The Bell Curve, so Rushton’s overall thesis was not surprising, but many of his details were quite unexpected. The whole sweep of his presentation was crushingly convincing, an impression that was confirmed when I read the unabridged first edition. (My copy arrived on March 3, 2001, the day I met Wilmot Robertson.)
I was also impressed by the pedagogical brilliance of Rushton’s presentation of his argument in the abridged edition, as well as the lengths to which he was willing to go to disseminate the book through bulk purchase discounts.
Rushton was, first and foremost, a scientist. He believed that the pursuit of truth was a high moral calling. But he also believed the truths he had discovered imposed new obligations on him, namely to disseminate them as widely and compellingly as possible.
The truth that Rushton discovered is that racial differences are biologically based and systematic: from the most superficial to the most fundamental, all human traits are racially differentiated. But modern white societies operate on the opposite assumption: that racial differences are socially constructed and socially mutable, thus superior white performance in the societies we have created is a function of racial injustices to non-whites that must be redressed through white dispossession.
Not only did Rushton see that these policies based on false premises, he also saw that they were directed at his own people. Thus as a scientist and a white man, he felt obligated to speak out: to deliver scientific truth in a politically effective manner. It is a lesson we should all take to heart, and the abridged edition of Race, Evolution, and Behavior is an ideal model to follow.
(When we first met, Rushton rather graciously signed my copy of the abridged Race, Evolution, and Behavior. Unfortunately, it was one of those books I constantly loaned out, and I lost it. But in karmic compensation I was given the copy that Rushton sent, with a signed reviewer’s slip, to Sam Francis, complete with Francis’ underlining and annotations.)
I first met Rushton in February of 2002 at an American Renaissance Conference. I found him even more impressive in person than in print. He was a brilliant lecturer and conversationalist. I had a number of questions about Race, Evolution, and Behavior. Since he was eager to welcome another Ph.D. into “this thing of ours,” he was very generous with his time.
I remember a conversation about immigration quite vividly.
First, I asked him his opinion of Francis Parker Yockey’s somewhat apodictic claim in Imperium that a political system will find ways to generate the population that it needs, thus if a society does not encourage immigration from without it will find ways to encourage the existing population to reproduce itself. The population gains due to immigration may, moreover, be partially illusory, since the disruption and competition caused by immigrants suppresses the reproduction of the native population.
As I recall, Rushton thought this was interesting and could be formulated as a testable scientific hypothesis.
Second, I offered the argument that perhaps America would have been better off if it had not allowed in progressively more heterogeneous European and non-European immigrant groups to settle the continent, for immigration depressed wages and created social disruptions that made it more difficult for the original founding stock to reproduce itself. If immigration had not been allowed, the continent would have been peopled more slowly, surely, but the resulting society would have been more homogeneous and more egalitarian, since labor would have been scarcer and thus workers would have had greater bargaining power against capital.
Rushton thought this argument made sense, but he believed that my concerns were ultimately trumped by higher concerns of Darwinian Realpolitik: the United States was not the only contender for control of the North American continent. Mexico was also a contender, and he thought it was better for the white race as a whole that the United States rather than Mexico populated the West, regardless of the costs in ethnic homogeneity or social justice, which were real but less pressing issues that could be sorted out later.
Third, I asked Rushton if he thought the that the rising tide of non-white immigration into white countries could be explained as the result of businesspeople looking for cheap labor and welfare statists looking for needy constituencies, without any consideration of the common good or long-term demographic consequences. Thus white dispossession is merely a ghastly mistake, the unintended consequence of selfish and short-sighted policies.
Rushton thought this was an inadequate explanation and stated flatly that he believed that mass non-white immigration was also driven by a conscious purpose: the extermination of the white race.
Good old Phil. What I admired most about him was his manner of stating the most radical claims in a calm and unapologetic way. His manner conveyed both moral certitude and openness to reason.
He also suggested that if I wanted to know who was behind non-white immigration, and why, I needed to read chapter 7 of Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique. (I had already been there, of course, but I wanted to see if that’s where Rushton would go.)
Intellectual excellence is seldom combined with good character or social graces. Most academics are in large part wimps, dorks, and slobs. Phil Rushton was a brilliant and hard-working scientist, but he was also a well-rounded and virtuous man: cultured, socially polished, masculine, self-assured, and enormously courageous.
Because of his scientific and political convictions, Rushton endured decades of social ostracism, professional discrimination, grotesque smears, mentally unhinged stalkers, attempts to have him fired from his job, and even physical assaults at the hands of Canada’s egalitarian peace- and love-mongers.
I met Rushton four or five more times in subsequent years, and although to him I should have been a nobody, he always remembered my name and greeted me warmly. His professional trials and more recent health problems would have embittered most men, but not Phil. All I saw was magnanimity and good humor and undimmed intellectual curiosity.
A truly great man has died.
41 Comments
Thank you, I had no idea the man was that good. One gets so used to mediocrity and outright failure in Academics that it is amazing to see a man with such courage and loyalty to his people.
Madison Grant made similar arguments about immigrants. The early and large Irish migration was very hard on Anglo Saxon working men apparently. That and later ethnic invasions drove them out of the Eastern cities almost completely. And as a Nordicist, he said at best they added nothing but only useless cultural complexity. And of course, he thought worse about later invasions.
The time factor is one I don’t remember him addressing. Interesting. I doubt if Mexico would have been the winner if we had gone slowly though: England was very interested in the West. Andrew Jackson always bristled when someone said that the Battle of New Orleans was unnecessary since the Treaty had already been signed. He would say that England didn’t get to be a World Power by keeping treaties not in her interest. He felt that if the Battle had been lost, England would have controlled both ends of the Missisippi and would have established a series of forts all along – and that would have been the limit of the United States.
Wow. Fascinating article. The fact that I’m sure so many of us had absolutely no clue about his views that you touch upon really is a credit to how professional the man was when approaching his area of expertise. He didn’t mix his politics with his work even though his work undoubtedly motivated his politics. I don’t see this too often from people who speak “on behalf of science.”
Rushton was the man who, more than any other, got me into “race realism” which lead me to the rabbit hole (“New Right” ideas) I subsequently stumbled into not long after.
A terrible loss. Thanks for writing this.
I recall seeing Rushton on a Global TV programme called 16:9 (spoken 16 by 9). Watch the first couple of minutes. I don’t think hitting the interviewer was an accident. Maybe the hostility in this ever-polite gentleman was building up?
R.I.P., poor man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNshEI6kt80
Stronza
I enjoyed his excellent keynote presentation in my first AmRen conference in 2006. He presented it with some humor (in reference to Nick Griffin, who was one of many AmRen speakers).
At the 2008 AmRen, I had the opportunity to ask him questions in private. I asked him if creativity can be measured. Yes. “In fact you can measure everything.” Then I asked him about creativity and IQ – he says generally the higher the IQ, the more creative one becomes. Then I asked him about the higher average Asian IQ and why aren’t they as creative as whites? He responds that “social norms” prevent the freedom of being more creative. He says once they have more freedom, they’ll get more creative.
Later, in the evening, as we sat around a table at the hotel bar, Phil lectured us, saying brain size order: Asian male brain is the biggest, followed by white male brain, then black male brain, followed by Asian female brain, then white female brain. Black female brain is the smallest. I pointed out that both Asian & White females have higher IQ than the black male, despite having bigger brain size for black males. ( That tells me that the actual brain size isn’t good indication of determining IQ. It’s the frontal lobes and number neurons that determines IQ – as many blacks lack the frontal lobes. )
He went on to say that the Asian females have the widest pelvis, followed by white women. Black females have the narrowest pelvis. He says that explains why Asian brains are biggest, and black brains the smallest. He also said for that reason, Black females run the fastest (due to narrow pelvis), Asian females slowest (due to wide pelvis).
It was a pleasure to spend the Sunday afternoon and evening with him and others (several of us visited the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum near the Dulles airport).
Phil will be missed by many.
Thank you for this tribute. You were mentioned in the Toronto Star. ( I emailed it to you, if others have already done so.)
Professors earn tenure to allow them to do controversial research without repercussions. The data derived from the research will be the deciding factor to determine the validity of the hypothesis.
As for the “peace- and love-mongers” living in Canada. You make this sound like it is a bad thing. Are you implying that we all should hate other and promote war and violence?
Dr. Inglis,
No offense Dr Inglis but if I may but in and respond to your question As for the “peace- and love-mongers” living in Canada. You make this sound like it is a bad thing. i would like to say that yes, this is a bad thing. I say that because there is no peace and love in Canada. Out of control management wages war on the workers, the cities wage war on the countryside and the money lenders wage war on everyone.
Canada is being destroyed through overcrowding and congestion in the name of progress masquerading as love and tolerance. There is no need to promote war and violence. The overcrowding does that and then if you add in the drugs and conflicting rights to the mix we all go a little bit silly. Something to do with stress comes to mind.
In the long run you are absolutely right that The data derived from the research will be the deciding factor to determine the validity of the hypothesis.
He talks about “physical assaults at the hands of Canada’s egalitarian peace-and-love-mongers” sarcastically, meaning that those “peace lovers” are not so peaceful after all.
That doesn’t imply that we should promote hate, war and violence.
I think however these “peace loving” attackers deserve our deepest contempt.
People suffering from acute Naziphobia would do well to keep in mind that it is EGALITARIAN COMMUNISM that has murdered most people (estimated at 100 million), and not Nazism.
Prof. Rushton was a courageous man. As always, the messenger is attacked for the message of unwelcome facts. That’s the way Marxists always react when their ideology based on illusions is confronted with contrary facts.
Long live human inequality, especially that of races!
Speaking of “Naziphobia”, “Nazi”, “Nazism”, etc. I wish to point out that we in America are indeed controlled by the Nazis, that is, AshkenNazis!! Ashkenazi jews control much of America and the rest of the world.
“As for the “peace- and love-mongers” living in Canada. You make this sound like it is a bad thing. Are you implying that we all should hate other and promote war and violence?”
A bit simplistic, don’t you think? But then, only whites engaging in the natural act of self-assertion leads people to ask such questions. Not to mention such a simplistic lunging for “peace and love” as the magic elixir to everything (inadvertently) implies that the past wars in history amount to nothing more than a misunderstanding that could have been worked out if only those ancients all had a dose of our modern sitcom, “all you need is love,” morality– as if humans are not naturally territorial (to varying degrees depending on the circumstance)– as if all war is some mistake and to be viewed negatively unless it can be wrapped up in a moral narrative where one side represents “good” and the other “evil.” As if two sides cannot simply be engaged in an honorable struggle, “hate” aside.
The “diversity” crowd, despite their happy-clappy rhetoric, are the ones that are promoting the very war and violence I’m sure you decry and their policies have shifted a great deal of the battleground from inter-state to intra-state even they choose to ignore it in their gated communities and posh white suburbs. This friction between groups is not a bad thing; it’s who we are collectively. It’s inevitable in one way or another. The ones who forget this (and that is white people today, regretfully) are the ones who no future or a dubious one, at best. They’re busy being out bred as they give up the lands their ancestors secured and subsidizing alien baby booms to peoples who’d never give up their own homelands in such a fashion– they’re busy allowing this all to happen so that non-whites and white liberals don’t call them a dirty name like “racist.” Can’t go to the staff cocktail party if you’re a “racist.” I can only imagine what the future (hated) white minority who is forced to live in a pigsty will think of such cowards.
Doesn’t Canada have “hate-speech” laws? I notice South Korea and Japan seem to have no use for them or if they do have them, they don’t seem nearly as necessary. Does the fact that Canada has such laws “to prevent X” and keep the sterile system of smooth buying and selling going not give you pause? Do you not consider that such laws are an attempt to cover for bad social policy? Would it not be more prudent to refrain from creating the very conditions Canadians are forced to live under in the first place that would create such (in my opinion, understandable) resentment and “hate”? Do you not think Japanese or Koreans would “hate” a sea of Europeans moving to their country, assuming their identity, changing the country they know out of all recognition while demanding that they be respected and given special privileges all in the name of some half-baked notion of “peace and love” that is all too typical of the baby-boomer generation’s solution to everything despite the vast historical repository that gives a man who is truly willing to learn from it quite a different picture.?
All things considered, whites have shown an extraordinary amount of “tolerance.” But this tolerance is coming at a huge cost. Namely, Western civilization. I don’t hate other groups. But I hate what other groups are DOING to my group and many of us have a healthy sense of ferocity within our being about this even if all too many people in the world have different priorities (such as acquiring the newest Iphone).
“…even physical assaults at the hands of Canada’s egalitarian peace- and love-mongers.”
I guess we shouldn’t be surprised by a “Dr.” who apparently can’t read. Surely the kind of guy who would reflexively denounce Golden Dawn for violence but has already flushed down the memory hole the recent murders of three innocent bystanders by Molotov Cocktail-throwing Greek leftists. After all, they were burned to death in the name of “peace and love.”
Dr Inglis
Assuming that your comment that ‘Professors earn tenure to allow them to do controversial research without repercussions. The data derived from the research will be the deciding factor to determine the validity of the hypothesis’ , is not taking the proverbial p–s, you seem to have a skewered interpretation of what constitutes ‘contoversial research without repercussions.’
In New Zealand, recently reported by the OECD to have the most worthless degrees in the developed world, controversial research, including so much as producing an MA thesis of superior research methodology and presentation, is enough to get one hounded not only out the one’s post , but out of the country (e.g. Dr Joel Hayward, who was driven to a nervous breakdown and became unemployable).
On the other hand mediocrities who follow the system ideology are feted as scholars (e.g. Dr Jim Veitch of Victoria University, Wellington, an external examiner of the infamous W R van Leeuwen thesis fraud). If one conforms a Ph.D can be garnered with what seems to me to be minimal effort (e.g. Dr Matthew Dentith, lecturer at Auckland University, whose 2012 Ph.D. thesis of 56,000 words is based on around 60 secondary sources and 80 footnotes, who was recently pontificating to conservative plebs about his own itnellectual acumen). While a thesis that sets out some startling new theory in physics or mathematics for e.g., might need be only one page in length, in the social sciences crap can be churned out ad infinitum based on little or no more than rudimentary book reviews and it is regarded a meritous scholarship.
I think most readers of Counter Currents will be able to cite at least one exmaple of an academic who has been hounded for the most minimal of offenses to the dominant liberal paradgim (e.g. Dr Drew Fraser in Australia). In New Zealand a few years ago Dr Greg Clydesdale of Massey University was pilloried for intending to present a paper to an overseas academic forum, which stated that Pacific Island immigrants and their descedants are forming a class of unemployables due to the restructuring of the NZ economy. While he was simply stating the god-damned obvious with empirical evidence, which should not have even been ‘controversial’, his intended paper was met with frenetic outrage, not least from his own institution, because it was going to slighly lift the lid, to an overseas audience, on the much-vaunted myth of NZ as a multicultural paradise.
That real scholars such as Dr Rushton, MacDonald et al are able to maintian their positions in academia I suggest attests more to their strength of character than to any mythos about the supposed freedom of enquiry in tertiary insitutions. In NZ at least the places are corrupt, medicore, self-serving, self-auditing, and money-driven.
‘…Controversial research without repercussions…’? BAH, HUMBUG!
Dr Bolton
I recall seeing Rushton on a Global TV programme called 16:9 (spoken 16 by 9). Watch the first couple of minutes. I don’t think hitting the interviewer was an accident. Maybe the hostility in this ever-polite gentleman was building up?
R.I.P., poor man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNshEI6kt80
This is very sad news, our cause is poorer without him.
The email that I sent Dr Johnson this morning about counter-currents being mentioned in a tribute to Dr. Rushton and a lovely tribute from his daughter about him, has now been removed from the Toronto star and links up to a 1989 debate with Dr. David Suzuki is now there where the headline is ” Rushton refuted”. Is there censorship in Canada?
( I am listening to the debate despite the headline)
The psychic assault on Dr. Rushton by gumby was impossible to endure. I had to shut it down.
In a field that tends to focus mainly on differences in intelligence, the monumental research of J. Philippe Rushton pointed to a galaxy of differences, from morality to maturation rates, impulse control, fecundity, and others. This multitude of differences, when considered, brings the free-thinker today toward what was considered self-evident in the past – inherent, essential differences between human races.
With high populations of the racially indigestible in the United States, and the threat of competing, so-called race-realist ideological currents that would focus on intelligence and thus allow the distortion of the cause of white racial survival, anything that makes the study of race multidimensional will help the cause of white survival and advancement.
In the future, his work will be seen rightly as one of the first great studies that will inspire and bring about a sound racial doctrine for the 21st century. For this, he will perhaps be seen to be as notable as de Gobineau.
Just as Greg mentions in his tribute above I suppose that many of us attribute our awaking with the help of Rushton’s Race Evaluation and Behavior. Along with Murray’s Bell Curve, Jensen’s g-Factor, Lynn’s IQ of Nations and a good deal of Roger Pearson’s numerous works, the book helped confirm what I had always believed intuitively; that all races of man are not absolutely equal in every aspect. I remember the the book was wonderfully written, concise and easily understandable, much more so then the others which made it an easy sell to people I recommended it to. Like Greg’s autographed copy, my original copy of Rushton’s Race is long gone to someone I loaned it to. But like that long lost book I trust Professor Rushton’s spirit and memory will survive and continue to enlighten us to the truth.
May our Heavenly Father grant him the glory and repose he most certainly deserves.
Very sad. Rushton was the man who finally clarified the race problem in my mind. He connected the dots in ways I was, perhaps, afraid to. I still remember buying his book many years ago in a bookstore next to a famously Leftist university in a famously Leftist town and getting the silent treatment–along with very nasty looks–from the black checker and his hippie coworker. I knew then that I had found a treasure. I devoured the book, of course, and was never the same.
Thank you for the very nice tribute to this great, brave man.
RIP JPR
In regard again to the bizarre comments by Dr Inglis, re. his delusional reference to academics being free to pursue controversial research, Jared Taylor, who knew Dr Rushton well, commented in his tribute a few days ago on this matter:
“As Phil moved into forbidden territory, his funding disappeared, and he
asked the Pioneer Fund for help. Harry Weyher, who had been running the
fund since 1958, gave Phil the support that made his best work possible. ..”
There is no academic freedom at universities in Canada. eg Dr. Denis Rancourt was fired from the university of Ottawa for trying to make his physics classes more user friendly. The admin run by politicians took him out and he has a lawsuit.
activistteacher.blogspot.ca
academicfreedom.ca
My comments on Rushton will be relatively brief, since I’ve never been particularly interested in these “human biodiversity (HBD),” “social scientist,” “IQ-focused” types, preferring instead the academic work of Frank Salter and Kevin MacDonald (and with respect to “politics,” Francis Parker Yockey). However, Rushton did tend to be popular among some racialists, partly for his “Genetic Similarity Theory,” but more so for his hypothesis that racial variation in a large number of traits track along a continuum of “r-selected” vs. “k-selected” characteristics, with Blacks being the “most r” and East Asians being the “most k,” with Whites in between.
Actually, years before I had every heard of Rushton, I thought up a crude version of the same hypothesis after taking a college course in Ecology; the textbook contrasted the “r vs. k” strategies. It seems simple really. On the one hand, you have the “r-like” races that have many offspring, give little parental care, and are all about “quantity vs. quality.” On the other hand, other racial groups do seem more “k-like,” with fewer offspring, greater parental investment, and a more “quality vs. quantity” approach to group behavior. Rushton’s formulation of this idea into a formal hypothesis was an important contribution, regardless of whether all the data actually always fit into his paradigm.
Unfortunately, I must note that I observe some general problems in the overall approach of the HBDers. Similar to their counterparts on the Left, Rightist HBDers tend to become “political,” they become too infatuated with their own theories, they try and make the data fit into preconceived and rigid paradigms, and they never even consider the possibility of being wrong – about anything.
Rushton, for example, was seemingly fixated on the alleged inverse relationship between brain size and penis size; thus, the small-brained Negro must be equally, and conversely, well endowed in the organ of procreation. This led Rushton to cite questionable sources, such as “French Army Surgeon,” and to ignore contradictory data. Insofar as I am aware, the most consistent findings on this topic are that while the Black penis may be a bit larger than the White while flaccid, it is no larger when erect; this difference in flaccid vs. erect size is, I believe, briefly touched upon in Baker’s Race, which takes a more balanced view on this issue than did Rushton. In any case, Rushton’s intense focus on this issue, and the nature of the topic, made it an easy target for ridicule by leftist academics, which didn’t particularly advance the cause of racial science.
In addition, one sometimes got the impression that Rushton cherry-picked his data in order to more clearly fit into the Black-White-Asian r-k continuum, and also breezily “explained away” such problems as the relative lack of East Asian historical achievement, given their vaunted high-IQ. More to the point, I tend to side more with Salter, who asserts in On Genetic Interests that every group has an interest in its own survival and well-being, independent of where it ranks (or where others think it ranks) among some suite of traits (such as penis size). At some point, repeating that “Blacks are dumb, but with big dicks” becomes tiresome. We need to motivate Whites to defend their own group interests, and I’m not sure that a “who is more ‘hung’ racial contest” is going to do the trick.
In summary, Rushton’s strength was in generating occasionally interesting, and generally testable, ideas about race. His weakness, which he shared with many of his colleagues, was that he seemed more ideological than empirical when it came time to actually test his ideas, and evaluate whether the data – all the data – fit his predicted patterns. There’s a difference between genuine academic scholarship and an “I’m always right” political debating attitude, and this difference often seems lost on those academics looking at the issues that interested Rushton, whether these academics are his allies on the Right, or his opponents on the Left.
The hero-worshippers in the “movement” may deem it churlish for criticism to be written about an academic’s work so soon after his death. I disagree. I regret Rushton’s death, and I regret even more the apparently lengthy illness that preceded his passing. Regardless, it does the “movement” no good to disregard critical thinking in favor of establishing a Pantheon of established “movement” demigods who are beyond reasonable critique. There should be no Pantheons, no blindly-followed idols, and no rigid dogmas that are regurgitated without analysis. This is true in almost all areas of life, and it should be most true in the academic community in which Rushton spent most of his life. Although the “movement” is not an academic community, we too need to be more concerned with critical analysis, and not fall into a regimen of rigid conformity, leading to staleness and defeat.
Well, there are certainly a lot of valid criticisms to be made about the “HBD movement“ as a whole, such as their (relatively ineffective even from a propaganda point of view) focus on the superior intelligence of East-Asians.
But we should not spit in our soup either (French proverb); Halfsigma and Roissy, to quote only these two, have made a lot to transform a small segment of the young, urban, white male community into people who “get it“ about egalitarianism. Who knows what may trickle down from that?
As to the penis size of Blacks, refraining from any personal attack, I admit this subject never particularly angered or fascinated me. Size isn’t all, and if I must give that to the Blacks, so be it.
I asked Rushton if he regretted including the penis size data, given how it allowed people to parody his work, but he said that he included it because that’s what the evidence indicated.
I’m sorry but that “evidence” is not firm. Even if it seemed so when he first came out with it, there has been sufficient more recent data to question about it to at least raise flags in those interested in scholarship and not politics.
Maybe when all is said and done, Rushton will turn out to be right on the penis size issue. But the idea that you take a limited data set – that happens to fit right into your paradigm – declare “case closed” and never consider the possibility that things may be different – that’s not science. It is, however, mainstream HBD.
I so thank you.
It was by a Rushton PDF that I learnt the “thing” about human races for the first time.
A great loss.
I thought that Addison’s disease is not lethal except in case of non-treatment during a crisis.
I read online somewhere about a “battle with cancer,” so it’s not clear to me exactly what it is that Rushton died of.
If you read Greg’s article above, Phil died from Addison’s disease.
I read the article, obviously. I’m just questioning if the information is accurate. One online obituary said cancer. Sailer said Addison’s, and Greg quoted Sailer.
What a great loss. From time to time, I used to check out Prof. Rushton’s homepage (hosted by his university) and download the many interesting papers he was constantly producing and publishing. I’d recommend that all those who are interested in his work do the same (maybe Counter-Currents could host a virtual library of his works?) since I don’t imagine his university will be eager to keep his homepage online much longer.
One more clarification that’s worth sharing: Rushton’s findings on brain size and genitalia were nothing but a minor detail within his body of work and were normally listed by him among the hundreds of traits that differentiated ethnic groups when compared as a continuum. Anyone who has read the unabridged version of Race, Evolution and Behavior and kept up with his career will know that the media’s obsession with this insignificant detail was just that. Rolling Stone interviewed Rushton many years ago and saw an opening through which to defame him and exploited the situation. Everyone else who ever took Rushton to task for his “racism” simply used that tidbit of information as his main argument to “debunk” his work. The least one can do when refuting Rushton is to read his work and while I certainly don’t expect the media or the SPLC to do that, more responsible commentators should. The latest, vile example of this is the article on Rushton just published by Salon.com, a predictably one-sided piece from an SPLC hack that extensively quotes Barry Mehler (another hack who’s made a career of denouncing scientists like Rushton and Raymond B. Cattell, and who claims to have a PhD. in “institutional racism”).
The SPLC and similar groups are an example of “institutional anti-racism”, which is in fact institutional anti-White racism.
I have read Rushton’s book and am familiar with the broad body of his work. I cite the penis size issue as just one obvious example of how the HBD types disregard data when said data conflict with their dogma. Rushton’s handwaving explanation of “social norms” to explain the relative lack of Asian creativity is another example. Where did those “social norms” come from? They weren’t imposed from the outside. The Asians made those norms themselves, as they are comfortable with highly conformist, “make your heart small,” “the tall flower gets chopped down” societies. The Asian mindset is anti-“Faustian.” The HBDers like to tell us that a wide variety of mental/behavioral traits are heritable. Very well. Perhaps Asian conformity and lack of creativity is heritable as well.
And I note that the HBDers avoid all kinship based arguments (e.g., Salter’s EGI). Of course, several HBDers are married to East Asian women, and their colleagues who married White may not want to offend their intellectual collaborators.
I’ve just been reading material on genetic markers that can supposedly be used to make race-specific weapons.
I was hoping it might be possible to use a similar technology to screen male sperm to weed out non-white genetic traits by disabling individual sperm with certain non-white genetic markers. That would be a way to use artificial insemination weed out all the non-white genes that have got into our North American pool.
Apparently though the weapons techniques depend on there being and actual human body to target as the weapons depend on interfering with the biological processes of a fully formed body, not just a sperm sample.
I understand that about 3% of the genetic heritage of American whites is non-white.
That is probably mostly Amer-Indian and since WWII, Korea and Vietnam a little East Asian genetics.
Due to the low percentage of non-white genetics reported they are clearly classifying Jews as whites as usual.
I know it is possible to screen out X and Y-chromosomes by centrifuge techniques but that leaves the other 44 chromosomes to weed out. Anyway at least for now we can get rid of the Roosevelt males Jewish Y chromosome with the centrifuge process. That would mean we would never have another president named Roosevelt.
Anybody have any other ideas about ways to screen human sperm and egg samples?
Greg Johnson was thus quoted in Salon http://www.salon.com/topic/jean_philippe_rushton/ by an SPLC flack who otherwise writes his predictable race denialist nonsense. Yes, some of us on here read that webzine, too!
Those who read Salon (as far as I can tell by the comments) tend to be brain dead people who’ve never questioned the basis of their own reason and morality.
I remember even mainstreamers like Christopher Hitchens taking one of their female writers to the woodshed on a televised appearance. People who are not afraid to think for themselves at even the most basic level can’t possibly take most of what they write seriously.
Having a debate with such liberals about race is pointless because they themselves are not open to facts and different points of view. They know IQ tests are “culturally biased” because some liberal writer taught them that canned response to bolster their equality religion in light of data that people like Rushton have collected. They don’t know the literature they’re labeling “culturally biased” and they disingenuously ignore their own experiences with unpleasant non-whites, in all likelihood.
Rushton was probably right about post 1847 immigration. There was a huge wave beginning around 1880 which unfortuanatly included great gardn parents of most of the U.S. Jewish population.
Once we had won the Mexican War more population was clearly necessary. Even during our Civil War Mexico didn’t try to take back any of the Southwest.
He was also right about the white race destruction project.
My guess is that to this day 80% of the Jewish “community” sees immigration, forced integration and gradual blending away of the white race as good and moral, and their political activist understand it as being in the best of Jews. I think they’ll find out in the long run that attempted genocide wasn’t a smart move.
” In any case, Rushton’s intense focus on this issue, and the nature of the topic, made it an easy target for ridicule by leftist academics, which didn’t particularly advance the cause of racial science.”
This maybe points to a broader issue in the ongoing debate. Maybe it’s my conditioning, but I always cringe more when reading rightist/nationalist writings as opposed to the egalitarian counterparts. ie. The Guns, Germs and Steel philosophy vs March of the Titans. Is it possible to create racial pride without having to inflict inferiority on the outgroups? Do these scientific based studies ever help the cause considering the vast variations even in genetically pure sample?
I’m wary because history/universe/Newton’s third law/etc seems to put everyone in their place who actively promotes a supremacist viewpoint. Better to just accomplish great things than advertise to the world what our ancestors accomplished to prove superiority.
That’s another reason I prefer Salter. On Genetic Interests talks about kinship, not who is “bigger, better, or whatever.” Ethnic kinship is analogous to familial kinship, which is good starting point for talking points for fair-minded people.
The abridged version of Rushton’s book was what got me into this thing, too. Years ago, I met an old lawyer at a local coffeehouse and began playing a few games of chess with him once a week. Bitter and (as I would learn after the fact) close to death, he would corner anyone who would listen and rant about race, forcing old AmRen and R,E, B copies on them. Not the most civil strategy, his approach caused this young libertarian to view Rushton’s book as derrisable quakery. It took a couple of years, but eventually I moved on to the unabridged version. The rest is history.
For those who aren’t into the HBD stuff, to each his own. In talking about these things with my (younger) peer group, however, I’ve found that one has to take baby steps, and the first step is convincing them that talking about race is important and intellectually acceptable. Explaining how a scientific understanding of group differences can lead to gains in educational policy, medicine, etc. is a much more palatable approach than, say, ranting about affirmative action (as my lawyer friend would do) or imporing folks to read Spengler. But again, this is just my experience.