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.
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.