May His Memory be a Blessing

Frank Ellis, American Renaissance, October 15, 2012

A tribute to Philippe Rushton.

There is a certain type of scientist, writer, philosopher, and very rarely a politician, for whom the pursuit of truth really does matter and is not some slogan to be mouthed at a public forum and dishonored when expedient. These scientists and others like them—whom I shall call Newtonians—are primarily driven by an intense curiosity about the world. They are not much concerned about what others think of their research: They are concerned only about the highest possible standards in experimental design, collection and analysis of data, and exposition of results. Professor J. Philippe Rushton was an outstanding example of a Newtonian.

J. Philippe Rushton

J. Philippe Rushton

In the preface to one of his early books, Educability and Group Differences (1973), Arthur Jensen analysed the nature of scientific proof and research and in so doing provided a precise summary of both Rushton’s methodological approach and his conclusions:

It [empirical science] aims to find the best explanation of phenomena by ruling out other alternative explanations on a probabilistic basis. Progress consists of weakening the explanatory power of one or more competing hypotheses and strengthening that of another on the basis of objective evidence. It is a most complex process into which enter consideration of the basic assumptions underlying a given theory, the range of phenomena that can be comprehended by one theory as opposed to another, and the number of ad hoc hypotheses (and the extent of their mutual inconsistency) that must proliferate to take care of each new failure of a theory’s predictions as the evidence mounts. On all these grounds, in my opinion, a largely genetic explanation of the evidence on racial and social group differences in educational performance is in a stronger position scientifically than those explanations which postulate the absence of any genetic differences in mental traits and ascribe all behavioural variation between groups to cultural differences, social discrimination, and inequalities of opportunity–a view that has long been orthodox in the social sciences and education (p.4).

Rushton was bound to arouse the hatred of Marxist fanatics and other politically correct zealots. His crime was to collect and disseminate data showing that the role of genes and evolution imposed definite limits on the remedial social and educational programs being proposed and implemented by Western governments.  Furthermore, his application of r-K theory provided powerful evidence that the ability to create, sustain, and advance complex civilizations is not equally distributed among the three main human populations.

Rushton and others, most notably Arthur Jensen, were subject to appalling judicial, bureaucratic and psychological persecution, including threats of violence—all in a liberal democracy. As a Slavist, I am struck by how closely these methods resemble the tactics used against Soviet scientists whose research was deemed to be ideologically incorrect.

Obvious parallels are what befell Nikolai Vavilov, Zhores Medvedev, and the damage done to Soviet science during the post-1945 Zhdanov Terror. Moreover, while scientists of real ability were being persecuted and destroyed on ideological grounds, others, such as the infamous charlatan Trofim Lysenko, were being promoted and fêted by the communist party as the true face of something called proletarian science. In the 1960s, China made its own contribution to this ideological freak show with Mao-Tse-Tung Thought.

I would also like to place on record my deep gratitude to Professor Rushton for his support when I was under fire at Leeds University in March 2006 for having argued that multiculturalism was a gruesome failure. One of my main crimes was that I had cited an article co-written by Rushton and Arthur Jensen (J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur R. Jensen, “Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability,” Psychology, Public Policy and Law, Volume 11, Number 2, June 2005, pp.235-294). Eventually, I was suspended pending an internal hearing, but the Leeds University case against me collapsed. I know from sources inside the university that Professor Rushton’s willingness, along with other scientists, to appear as a witness for the defense terrified my accusers.

A few months later, I had the pleasure and honor of sharing a conference platform with Rushton. His presentation dealt with the biological basis of patriotism and xenophobia, and provided a powerful framework for understanding why trust and cohesion disappear when racial and cultural diversity becomes too thorough.

Not only was Rushton an outstanding scientist—his prolific publishing record in top-flight journals speaks for itself and he could have been a very serious contender for a Nobel Prize—he was also a man of high moral and physical courage. Were I in a trench about to be assaulted by the Taliban, I would find it very reassuring to know that Professor Rushton, rifle in hand, was standing by my side. In a perverse sort of way I suspect that those who sought his destruction understood all too well that Professor Rushton’s research was much closer to the truth than they cared to admit; and that his research undermined the propaganda of UN-sponsored Oneworldism and the cult of multiculturalism.

All the best liars know the truth, and they hate those who will not live and work by their lies. This is why the left and its stooges tried to destroy Professor Rushton’s high reputation and honor  What a wretched, ugly age ours is when such men of talent can be mocked and derided by envious devils.

But a new adventure begins. Professor Rushton’s devotion to truth and knowledge will ensure that he will be warmly welcomed by Plato, Thucydides, Socrates, Tacitus, Galileo, Spinoza, Newton, Einstein, Darwin, Sakharov, Solzhenitsyn, Grossman, and Leonidas. Professor Rushton embodied courage, honor and wisdom—qualities recognized by all man’s races, tribes, and nations. In every age and in every time these qualities are always intoxicating, always inspiring, and urge us on to explore and to seek, and when necessary to stand our ground. These are the timeless qualities that bind and separate the tribes of man, not the trickery and false teachings of UN-Marxism.

Topics: , , ,

Share This

Frank Ellis

Dr Frank Ellis used to teach Russian at the University of Leeds. His
main academic interests are counterinsurgency and the Eastern front in
World War Two.

Photo is Dr. Ellis in Iraq studying counterinsurgency © Frank Ellis 2007 All
Rights Reserved.

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • David Ashton

      Dr Ellis is an outspoken English patriot with excellent academic and military credentials, a rare phenomenon in Britain today but an example for others to follow.

  • Jupiter7

    Edward Abbey would be a much more worthy Patron Saint for the Native Born White American Patriot Movement instead of Rushton.

    • JohnEngelman
    • It seems readily evident that Jupiter7 is doing nothing more than trolling for stories on Rushton in an attempt to besmirch the man in any way he can. This is extremely odd behavior at the passing of a great scholar; unless Jupiter7’s motives are really with those who oppose us.

       “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” 
      ― George Orwell

  • Tim_in_Indiana

    The fact that there are those both in the “mainstream” and the “racialist” camps who dislike and disagree with Prof. Rushton shows just how committed to the truth he really was. 

  • Guest

    Delighted with the Solzhenytsin comparison…may truth ever prevail!

  • Anthnyg11

    I have read Rushton’s work  and agree with most of what he says. One thing that is related to it is have you ever looked at old photos from the early 1900s and noticed that the whites in those photos seemed better looking, were rarely overweight, and were well dressed. Furthermore, you could clearly tell you was German, British, Irish or Italian. Take a look at the photo below

    Look at the young, healthy white men on the left side of the pic. This was also a time when “race riots” for the most part meant whites attacking blacks instead of vica versa and as we know the rare black on white crime was punished with fury.

    Just a walk around Chicago today confirmed to me how low we have fallen. My question is what do you think caused the mental and physical decline of whites? Was it the media brainwashing and tv error? Is it the decline of manual labor jobs? Or all the processed foods and chemicals we have today?

    Also imagine if you could take today’s blacks and transport them back to 1903 to live with the whites of that era. I am almost certain there would be a civil war! Just think of the modern day black  ghetto thugs battling it out with the white good ol’ boys of that error.

    Who do you think would of won? Who was tougher? Crazier?

    • IKantunderstand

      I think that back  in the ” old days” , Whites were  ethnocentric. German Lutherans married other German Lutherans; Italian Catholics married Italian Catholics. To wander from your tribe was verboten. That all changed, and, frankly, so did the ability of White people to identify with each other. Just being White is too amphorous, practically meaningless in today’s America. I remember seeing signs at a protest rally by Mexicans telling Whites to “Go back to Europe”. Are they kidding me? Go back to exactly which country in Europe? My furthest back ancestors? My most recent ancestors? I suppose it’s not exactly politically correct(who cares!) to talk about the European Diaspora, but honey, nobody got Diaspora, like the Europeans got Diaspora!!

  • JohnEngelman

    As more is learned about the human genome it will become increasingly obvious that what Professor J. Philippe Rushton said is true. As black social pathology and inferior intellectual performance persist there will be less willingness to reject that truth. 

  • JohnEngelman

    This is the only sentence in the essay I did not like:  “Rushton was bound to arouse the hatred of Marxist fanatics and other politically correct zealots.” 
    Marxism is a dying faith. Few people on  the left claim to be Marxists any more. Calling race unrealists “Marxists” is an example of a guilt by association argument:
    and a straw man argument: 

    • Cultural Marxism long ago separated from the initial goals of a Marxist revolution through the cultural destruction of the West and simply became the latter. I believe the article is referring to cultural Marxists not those who live and breathe The Communist Manifesto. A lot of people today are cultural Marxists without necessarily having a firm grasp of what cultural Marxism is (or its roots).  

      • JohnEngelman

        I am unaware of anyone who calls himself a “cultural Marxist.” The term seems to be a way of derogating social liberals. 

  • JohnEngelman

    A political thinker should be read for insight, rather than doctrine. Karl Marx had two valid insights, and made one mistake that prevents his philosophy from being a usable guide to action.
    First, the natural tendency of capitalism is to build wealth while reducing the average standard of income: per capita gross domestic product increases; median income adjusted for inflation decreases.
    Second, capitalism passes through increasingly destructive economic downturns. When Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto in 1848 he accurately predicted the Great Depression.
    The Keynesian economic policies that were adopted in the United States mitigated these tendencies. As they have been repealed, these two natural tendencies are again becoming evident.
    Karl Marx was wrong in believing that among working people loyalties of class are stronger than loyalties of nation, or race. The opposite is usually the case. 
    Karl Marx believed that those who lost ground economically under a capitalist economy would become left wing activists. However, if they belong to the dominant race or ethnicity they are more likely to be drawn to some form of right wing populism. 
    Marxist political parties have been successful in countries where they have been able to exploit nationalism. In the United States nationalism has worked against Marxism, so Marxist political parties such as the American Communist Party and the Progressive Labor Party have never become much of anything but Marxist discussion groups. 

    • Hold
      it right there Mr. Statist.

      the natural tendency of capitalism is to build wealth while reducing
      the average standard of income: per capita gross domestic product
      increases; median income adjusted for inflation decreases.

      This is incredibly wrong. First of all what is “average standard of
      income”? I’m going to assume you mean average standard of living.
      You seem to suggest that wealth grows in a capitalist society but
      only a select few benefit from it. Wrong. Everyone in a society
      benefits from the growth of wealth in a given population, even the
      poorest of the poor. Consider the period from 1776-1900 (could
      possibly argue a few more years after 1900). During this time,
      America more or less had laissez faire capitalism. There was no
      welfare state, no federal reserve, and no extensive business
      regulations. Yet, somehow, the wealth of the nation expanded
      incredibly under evil capitalism (though stunted somewhat by the
      Civil War). It expanded to the point where the poor in 1900 probably
      had better standards of living that the upper middle class in 1776
      (or possibly even the rich). This does not mean standard of living
      can’t improve in collectivist societies. The standard of living
      certainly improved in Soviet Russia from its genesis to its fall in
      the late 20th century. However, this improvement pales in
      comparison to that of the U.S.A. which was much more capitalist in
      comparison during that period.

      capitalism passes through increasingly destructive economic
      downturns. When Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto in 1848 he
      accurately predicted the Great Depression.

      The Great Depression was not caused by capitalism. It was caused
      mostly by extensive protectionist tariffs and poor monetary policy by
      the Federal Reserve. Poor policies by fractional reserve banks played a key role in the Great Depression as well. 

      Capitalism is not only the most efficient economic system, but it is
      also the only moral choice. Anything else reduces individuals to

      • I’m not grokking the notion that a sales tax on imports (Smoot-Hawley) caused the Great Depression, especially since S-H wasn’t enacted since mid-1930, when the economy was already in freefall.

        • It wasn’t just Smoot-Hawley itself.  The  tariffs that other countries implemented in response were the most devastating. I believe global trade reduced by 30-35% as a result. Also, Smoot-Hawley didn’t come out of nowhere. A lot of the panic that exposed the poor fiscal policy of the federal reserve throughout the 20’s (roaring 20’s) was in anticipation of the act. 

      • JohnEngelman

        If one remains poor while others increase in wealth and income the poor person will be out bid in the marketplace for goods and services. Consequently, his standard of living will decline even more.
        The Great Depression followed a number of increasingly destructive economic downturns, just as Karl Marx predicted it would. When the stock market crash of 1929 happened the Republican Party had dominated the country for at least nine years, so the crash cannot be blamed on Democrats. 
        The Smoot Hawley Tariff Act was signed nearly a year after the stock market crash, which began the Great Depression. It was supported by most Republicans in Congress, and most business leaders, and signed by Herbert Hoover. It was opposed by Franklin Roosevelt, and largely repealed by him in 1934. 

        I am confident very few upper middle class people alive in 1776 would have traded their lives for those of factory workers in 1900. Those usually worked twelve hours a day six days a week under frequently dangerous environments, and lived in cramped tenements. 

        • Here’s a video that I think is very good at explaining the whole “poor” problem. 

          Ditch this notion of Republican as a proxy for capitalist and Democrat as a proxy for socialist/collectivist etc. It simply doesn’t apply universally today and even more so during the time of the Great Depression. The problems that led to the Great Depression were NOT a direct result of laissez faire capitalism but in fact quite the opposite. 

          I may be beating a dead horse here because you are clearly a statist and collectivist to the core. 

        • JohnEngelman


          Thank you for that interesting video.
          I am a statist, a collectivist, and a social democrat who thinks Karl Marx had valid insights. I also think Edmund Burke and Adam Smith had valid insights. 
          Although individuals go up and down the economic ladder what I think matters is that real after tax income for 80 percent of the American people has declined since 1980. At the same time the richest one percent is richer than ever before in history.

  • Tarczan

    An inspiring tribute to a brave man. In the old Soviet Union the big lie was that the citizens were in a workers paradise and that compared to the US they had a good life. The truth eventually came out that the reverse was true.

    Today in the West the big lie is that diversity is our strength, and that we are all equal. Eventually the truth will be revealed about this. Brave men like Prof. Rushton stood against the crowd at great personal sacrifice so that one day we would all know the truth.

    Thank you, Professor Rushton.

  • JohnEngelman

    Unlike those those who think card carrying members of the American Communist Party are tough, cunning, and mean I have known several as friends. They are infinitely charming, but rather silly and incapable of starting a meeting on time, much less overthrowing the U.S. government. 
    The American Communist Party has never been much more than a Marxist discussion group of several thousand members. Although the Ethel and Julius Rosenberg did pass atomic secrets to the Soviet Union, the vast majority of Americans who passed classified information to the Soviets were motivated by financial considerations, or by resentment for being passed over for promotion. 

    • David Ashton

        I shall resist temptation and moderator’s patience by providing extensive documentation and historical facts, such as communist involvement in racial agitation and violence past and present in the USA and elsewhere, but will simply quote one among innumerable studies in response to this reference to the Rosenbergs in an unduly naive and complacent context: Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes & Alexander Vassilev, “Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America” (Yale UP 2009).
         In my time I have known Communists, ex-Communists and anti-Communists personally with hard experience of “the struggle”, and in particular watched the present PC legislation on racism etc in the UK grow into a great forest from the small acorns originally planted by Marxist-Leninist immigrants from India and by white Marxists who infiltrated local government and the education system.
          Marxist-Leninist parties rely upon “underground” activists, fellow travellers without party cards, and sympathetic and propaganda-prone “liberals” especially in the media.  To this extent, Mr Engelman, you fit the historic description (whether or not Lenin coined it) of a “useful idiot”.

  • John Bonham

    Here is the way Wiki describes Philippe Rushton :  was a Canadian psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario who was most widely known for his work on racial group differences, such as research on race and intelligence, race and crime, and the application of r/K selection theory to humans in his book Race, Evolution and Behavior (1995). His work was heavily criticised by the scientific community,[2] and it has been widely described as racist,[3] as has the Pioneer Fund, the research foundation he has been head of since 2002.[4]
    Rushton was a Fellow of the American, British, and Canadian Psychological Associations[citation needed] and onetime Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation.[5]

    Anyone find anything wrong with this ?? A leftist wrote this for sure. ..

  • Denise

    Oy, vey! How embarrassing. I should have done my homework. I just watched the 1997 Rushton/Graves debate at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. It was a much more respectable debate than Suzuki, but unfortunately it was three to one; Rushton vs. Graves, Stafford, and Disotelle (sp?) Rushton was calm, clear and concise. Graves began with the warning that he would have an adversarial tone, and he kept his promise. Questions were written and read by the moderator, which is a much better format. However, the last question was a statement, a poke in the eye, and the moderator should never have let that happen.

  • Why is a traditionally Jewish expression being used (zikhron l’vrakha) for Rushton? Was Rushton Jewish?

  • To include Vassily Grossman in the list of notables is grotesque.  Grossman, to my knowledge, remained a Marxist until the end, and managed to remain so by dumping all of Marxism’s ills on Stalin (typical leftist subterfuge).