All Men Are Equal-But Are They Really?

Introduction

Science assumes a factual reality to exist, and with the proper use of scientific methods one can learn about it.

However, in every society there are social groups whose special task it is to provide an interpretation of the world. These social groups, the culture-bearing strata, sometimes enjoy a monopolistic control over molding a society's world-view. When the values and interests of these cultural elites act as distorting influences upon the acquisition of scientific knowledge, progress becomes impeded. America is no exception to this sociological process. It too has its culture-bearing strata, intellectual and cultural establishments, and media elite that effectively mold the worldview of the masses. One of the most powerful and influential of these mind-shaping groups is the Jewish political and cultural establishment.[1] In the words of the social scientists, Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter:[2]

As noted film critic Neal Gabler pointed out in his study of the Jewish movie moguls who came to dominate Hollywood:

A similar statement could be made for the Jewish intellectuals that had, and continue to have, a considerable influence upon the social sciences. They created an ensemble of images, ideas, and 'moral' evaluations-in short, an entire group of different ideologies that reflects and serves Jewish interests and profoundly influences the thinking of American and Western intellectuals. Ernest van den Haag, professor of social philosophy, stated it in these terms:

Paul Grubach holds an Associate Arts degree in liberal arts, and a Bachelor of Science degree in physics, with a concentration in chemistry and minor in history, from John Carroll University (Ohio). He received a scholarship for his work in chemistry, and is a member of the Phi Alpha Theta history honor society.

Definite forms of social consciousness derive from the fact that this Jewish elite controls the substances of power in the United States to a significant extent and has the authority to impose its viewpoints upon the American people. Some never think to question these preformed patterns of thought, and thus, remain locked in a dogmatic slumber.

Prominent Jewish intellectual, Harvard biologist, political leftist, and a leading intellectual of the Jewish establishment, Stephen Jay Gould was one of the most acclaimed and widely read scientists of our time. He received innumerable honors and awards and had written many books. In 2001, the Library of Congress named Gould one of America's eighty-three “Living Legends”-people who exemplify the American ideal of creativity, conviction, dedication, and exuberance. In May of 2002, he passed away at the relatively young age of 60.

In a series of books and essays he had proven himself to be one of the most able and dedicated proponents of racial egalitarianism, the theory that all human races are equal or relatively the same with respect to genetic endowment. His famous tome, The Mismeasure of Man, first appearing in 1981 with a revised edition in 1996, was widely praised in academia and the mainstream media as a definitive refutation of past and present scientific work on race, brain-size, and intelligence. He spent a good part of his career attacking the alleged biases, ulterior agendas, and foibles of scientists, past and present, who claim there are biologically based mental and behavioral differences between the races.

There is no question that Gould was a gifted writer and able scientist who made contributions to science. His theories on race, however, are another matter all together.

Steven S. Gould

The psychologists Arthur Jensen and J. Philippe Rushton have already exposed many of the distortions, omissions, and fallacies in Gould's work on racial differences. In a review of the relevant literature, evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald concluded that some of Gould's work is characterized by plain old intellectual dishonesty.

Rushton's exposé is the most devastating, as it opens up the possibility that Gould's errors were not “honest mistakes,” but rather the end result of a pattern of intended deception. In spite of all this, Gould's racial ideology is alive and well.

Gould never responded to Rushton's devastating critique and exposé, nor to this writer's knowledge did he ever address Jensen's critique. MacDonald noted that Gould “took no steps to deal with the objections of his critics.” According to Gould's own way of thinking, this is unscholarly behavior on his part, for he wrote that ignoring or suppressing counter-arguments is a “conspiracy of silence” and a sign of unscholarly behavior. Thus, a similar judgment would apply to Gould's conspiracy of silence in regard to critiques of his racial theories.

Most likely there was an ulterior reason for his refusal to rebut his critics. If he had publicly responded to Rushton and Jensen, this would have called attention to the errors, omissions, distortions, and shortcomings in his work on racial differences. Ultimately, he would have been drawn into a debate with these maverick psychologists, and he could have ended up on the losing side-and I think he realized this. In addition to his racial theories, a public debate with Rushton and Jensen may have destroyed his credibility and carefully cultivated public image.

Therefore, the best strategy (from Gould's perspective) would have been to simply ignore Rushton's and Jensen's critiques. Gould's work would then still enjoy wide acceptance in the academic community and the mainstream media, because most people would remain unaware that Rushton's and Jensen's work discredited Gould's fallacious views on race. After all, their essays would remain buried in obscure intellectual journals that have a very limited readership, and his credibility and carefully cultivated public image would remain unsullied. By not responding to his critics, Gould ensured that his racial theories would enjoy wide acceptance.

This paper will cover new ground. I will provide a rebuttal to those aspects of his racial theories to which no one else (to my knowledge) has; namely, his theory on the evolution of alleged genetic equality between human races, and his views on the genetics of the Jewish people. Finally, I will focus upon some of the sociopolitical interests that Gould's racial theories reflect and serve.

Gould's Scientific Arguments Scrutinized

In a chapter from his popular book, “The Flamingo's Smile,” Gould summarized his anthropological ideas as to how the alleged biological equality of mankind came about. It suffices to say that his viewpoints are presently accepted by a large segment of the mass media and scientific community.

It is generally agreed that Australopithecus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus-all members of the human family Hominidae-made their first appearances on the African continent. Then, between 1 million and 2 million years ago, Homo erectus emerged out of Africa to populate Eurasia. As a consequence, Homo erectus and archaic Homo sapiens were broadly distributed throughout Africa and Asia about a million years ago.

How are these ancient populations related to the different human races of today? Were the descendants of the Homo erectus groups that walked out of Africa into the Eurasian world-the Neanderthal of Europe, the Bejing Man of China, the Java man of Indonesia and others-really the ancestors of the modern Africans, Europeans, and Asians? Or were these descendants of the erectus populations evolutionary dead ends supplanted by a wave of anatomically modern people arising in Africa less than 200,000 years ago?

Gould subscribed to the “Eve theory” or “replacement hypothesis” in regard to human racial origins. This theory proposes that the descendants of the Homo erectus groups that emerged from Africa about a million years ago-the Neanderthals, Bejing Man, and Java Man-were evolutionary dead ends supplanted by a wave of anatomically modern people arising in Africa less than 200,000 years ago. In short, the replacement hypothesis proposes that fully modern humans emerged recently (around 200,000 years ago) from H. erectus groups on the African continent, and then migrated into Europe and Asia, replacing the existing H. erectus populations (Neanderthals, Bejing Man, and Java Man) in these areas. An African/non-African split is envisaged as occurring 110,000 years ago following a dispersal event in the Middle East, the pathway out of Africa, with a Caucasoid/Mongoloid split occurring 41,000 years ago.

Human equality is a contingent fact of history, Gould claimed. That is to say, evolutionary forces determined that there are only minor and insignificant biological differences between the races. A myriad of different and plausible scenarios for human evolution would have yielded other results. They didn't happen.

The Harvard academic further asserted that human races “are recent, poorly differentiated subpopulations of our modern species, Homo sapiens, separated at most by tens or hundreds of thousands of years, and marked by remarkably small genetic differences.” Later on he added: “Homo sapiens is a young species, its division into races even more recent. This historical context has not provided enough time for the evolution of substantial differences.”

S. J. Gould's definite failure.

In other words, mankind evolved all of its major characteristics (including intelligence) in Africa, and then spread elsewhere through Asia and Europe. Because the division of humanity into separate races had occurred so recently in human evolution, there was not enough time for significant biological differences between the races to evolve. Consequently, the races must be “biologically equal,” or relatively the same.

It must be emphasized that Gould's theory of the evolution of racial equality is based upon three arguments.

1. The evolutionary history of man did not provide enough time for significant genetic differences between the races to evolve.
2. As a result, there are only minimal and insignificant genetic differences between the races.
3. Finally, it is not possible to adequately classify humans into racial categories.

If there are no racial categories, it is not possible to make racial comparisons and there are no significant, biologically based racial differences. It is important to note that these are currently some of the most important arguments in the arsenal of those who believe that there are no significant genetic differences between the races of man.

Even if, as Gould maintained, human races are of recent separation (i.e., the division of humans into modern racial groups happened only twenty five or a hundred thousand years ago), significant genetic differences could have evolved in this relatively small amount of geological time. Biologist Richard Goldsby noted that in nature, evolution at the racial level can be extremely rapid. Citing a study of racial formation in the house sparrow, he pointed out that from a founding population of sparrows into America in 1852, more than a dozen racial varieties have evolved. All of these races of house sparrows evolved within one hundred generations. In a human population, one hundred generations cover a time span of about 2,000 years. Goldsby concludes:

Indeed, consider the case of the Bushmen of southern Africa. As the late biologist John R. Baker pointed out in his monumental study of human races, the Bushmen

Let us assume that Gould's claim is correct: namely that human races are separated at most by tens of thousands of years. Then, in this very short span of geological time, evolutionary forces were able to create Bushmen who are very different from the other races of men, thus refuting Gould's claim that there was not enough time for the races to evolve significant differences between them.

The irony of it all is that Gould's own theory concerning evolutionary change-“Punctuated Equilibrium”-may very well account for the evolution of significant genetic differences between the human races in a relatively small amount of evolutionary time. He postulated that a species changes rapidly as it comes into existence (i.e., diverges from the parent species), but quite slowly thereafter. In his own words: “species form rapidly in geological perspective (thousands of years) and tend to remain highly stable for millions of years thereafter.” Why then couldn't the human races, as they came into existence, have evolved substantial genetic differences between themselves in a small amount of evolutionary time?

Gould himself describes “Punctuated Equilibrium” in these terms:

He continues:

In short, “Punctuated Equilibrium” theory proposes that species change little over extended periods of geological time (the equilibrium or stasis), but when they do evolve, they change quickly from one state to another; that is, the stasis is punctuated by rapid genetic change.

Two different species that evolved from a parent species are genetically more different from each other than two races of the same species. If, according to Gould, it takes only a thousand years to form a new species that is biologically very different from its parent species, why couldn't human races have formed very rapidly in just a few thousand years that are significantly different from each other in a genetic sense?

In a book Gould edited, it is written the groups that left Africa and spread to other continents were “changing [in a biological sense] along the way according to climate and conditions.” Gould's own theory of evolutionary change provides more than enough time for said groups to have evolved significant physical and mental differences between them.

All of this highlights Gould's tendency to adopt arguments that support his biases and to ignore just as plausible arguments that contradict them. He totally ignored the implications of his own view of evolutionary change in regard to the evolution of racial differences, and just accepted the argument that “there was not enough time for significant racial differences to evolve.” According to Gould's view of evolutionary change, there would have been more than enough time to form human racial groups that are significantly different from each other.

Let us assume Gould's next claim-modern races are characterized by remarkably small genetic differences-is indeed correct. Very small genetic differences between two racial groups can lead to dramatic, observable, phenotypic results. He would have to admit this, for Gould himself has written:

In regard to the differences between humans and chimps, he has written:

Consider the example of sickle-cell anemia, a severe hereditary disease that afflicts a large percentage of Black Africans, and a significant percentage of Black Americans, but is virtually absent among American whites. The sickle-cell condition is under the control of a single gene.[25] If a person is homozygous (i.e., has two identical versions of a gene) for this characteristic, he dies in childhood or suffers from chronic anemia. If heterozygous (i.e., has two different versions of the same gene), the person shows signs of anemia only under conditions of stress, but also displays significantly greater resistance to malaria than those lacking the gene. Thus, a small genetic difference, brought about by only one gene between two racial groups leads to significant differences between them in resistance to malaria and susceptibility to anemia.

There are other examples of “one-gene-differences” between ethnic groups that have a dramatic effect. Tay Sachs disease (TSD) is a fatal genetic disorder in children that causes the progressive destruction of the central nervous system. If a child inherits a recessive TSD allele from each parent, he will have TSD. Approximately 85% of the children affected with TSD are Jewish.[1]

Krabbe disease, another genetic disorder in children, occurs in all ethnic groups, but it is most common among the Scandinavian countries. If both parents pass the abnormal, recessive gene for the disease to the child, the latter will develop the disease.[2] Indeed, Gould seems to be aware of the fact that small genetic differences between racial groups can give rise to an array of differences between them. In a book he edited, it is written:[3]

Why then couldn't certain behavioral differences between the races also be under the influence of a similar, small number of genes?

There is an egregious example of how a genetic difference between two different ethnic groups will have dramatic military consequences. The respected London Times reported:[4]

The article continues:

A scientist involved with the Israeli facility that is sponsoring the project was quoted as saying the researchers “have succeeded in pinpointing a particular characteristic in the genetic profile of certain Arab communities, particularly the Iraqi people.”

One wonders if Gould would have dared tell the Arab people who are targeted by such a weapon that “genetic differences between you and the Jews are of little consequence.”

Two groups, A and B, can share 99.9% of the same human genes and characteristics. They can be virtually identical. Nevertheless, if the 0.1% variation occurs in a characteristic that helps determine success in a certain endeavor, say sprinting, then group A might produce the majority of great sprinters, group B only a small minority.

In an attempt to bolster his argument that the genetic differences between the races are minor and inconsequential, Gould posed this rhetorical question:[5]

These claims ignored important evidence, and are now known to be outdated. In an attempt to determine how the Jewish people differ from the non-Jewish world, Israeli scientists conducted studies that show that Jews as a group differ significantly from non-Jews in a genetic sense.[6] More recently, another major study found that Jewish communities have, to a considerable extent, retained their biological identity separate from the surrounding Gentile populations, evidence of relatively little intermarriage or conversion into Judaism over the centuries.[7]

The Sunday Times of London recently revealed that British police can predict the odds, based upon DNA samples, that a suspect belongs to such ethnic groups as Oriental, Afro-Caribbean, Caucasian, Indo Pakistani or Middle Eastern.[8]

J. Philippe Rushton in a cable car on his way up to the “Niederwalddenkmal,”
Rüdesheim, Germany.[9]

Ergo, the fact of the matter still remaining is that science can distinguish between groups on the basis of their genetic characteristics. This was true even at the time Gould proclaimed, “human races are much of muchness.”

In order to 'prove' that genetic differences between the races are of no significance, Gould then fell back on the key egalitarian argument:[10]

But the 20% variation not present in these Africans may be one of the major reasons as to why they never reached the level of civilization of the Japanese.

The distinguished psychologist J. Philippe Rushton, who has studied human racial differences for over 20 years, nailed down with perfect accuracy the fallacies in these Gouldian arguments. He wrote:[11]

Finally, Gould relied upon a series of questionable arguments in an attempt to discredit the practice of classifying humans into races. They are as follows.[12]

Here, he seems to be arguing that since there are no real racial divisions, there can be no real racial differences.

Gould defined “race” as a “population inhabiting a definite geographic subsection of a species range and sufficiently distinct in any set of traits for taxonomic recognition.”[13] Even if modern races are not presently confined to definite areas, East Asians/Mongoloids, Europeans/Caucasoids, Africans/Negroids, and Australian aborigines/Australoids did originate and evolve in definite geographic subsections of the range of Homo sapiens,[14] and they are in fact distinct in certain sets of traits for taxonomic recognition.[15] For example, the different racial types have developed specializations in parts of their skeletal anatomy that can be used to identify them with relative certainty.[16] Consequently, a trained scientist is able to classify skulls by race.[17] Contrary to Gould, a valid criterion has been established by researchers for an unambiguous definition of different races.

Continuing with his line of argument, Gould adds:[18]

A recent study published in Science shows that humankind falls into five continental groups-broadly equivalent to the common conception of races-when a computer is asked to sort DNA data from people from around the world into clusters.[19] This suggests that the races are well enough divided into distinct geographic groups, and they are distinct enough in their genetic constitution for taxonomic recognition.

Once these broad categories are established, the “discordant patterns of variation” among the races which Gould refers to begin to make biological sense. It is the total ensemble of gene frequencies, morphological traits, and geographic and behavioral characteristics that differentiate the races, not just one or two characters which display discordant patterns of variation among the races.[20] Years before Gould put his views in writing, Goldsby made this perfectly clear when he wrote:[21]

And of course, there has been interbreeding between the races. But this in no way undermines the validity of racial classifications. The biologist Baker nailed down the fallacy in Gould's argument some time before the latter put his views on race in print. He wrote:[22]

He added:

As the biologist Goldsby noted:[23]

Thus, from a scientific standpoint, the Cape Colored which Gould refers too is simply an intermediate between a Caucasoid and Negroid. Whether or not this type is to be designated as a new subspecies or as “living disproof that white and black are very distinct” is something for future scientific research to determine.

And even if “convergent characters” are sometimes problematic to the racial taxonomist, ongoing scientific research can help alleviate this problem.

There is one more Gouldian proclamation that is worth dealing with. He asserted:[24]

A recent study published in Science noted:[25]

In other words, there are genes specific to particular regions-regions that are broadly equivalent to the common conception of races. Thus, in a sense, these “region-specific” genes are “race genes.”

Like much of Gould's work on the subject of racial differences, his theory as to why racial equality allegedly evolved is very questionable at best. Some have suggested that his 'scientific' theories of race are simply a reflection of his deeply held, leftist political beliefs, or they are simply fashioned to serve a Jewish agenda.[26]

It is important to note that just because Gould's racial theories reflect and serve a sociopolitical agenda (as we shall soon see), this in no way falsifies those theories. His theories are to be examined for their truth and falsity independent of the motives, agenda, and psychological makeup of Stephen Jay Gould.

The same is true for theories of racial inequality. Even if the scientist who formulates a theory of racial inequality has strong “racialist-nationalist feelings,” his political sympathies in no way falsifies his theories.

As the philosopher of science Karl Popper noted, it doesn't matter where hypotheses come from, only whether they explain the evidence they are based on, whether they are subject to disproof, and whether they can hold up to attempts to disprove them.[27] The truth or falsity of a scientific theory is independent of the political sympathies of its proponents. On this matter, Gould himself approvingly quoted the socialist Karl Kautsky:[28]

Gould's Attitude Toward His Jewish Heritage

Gould attempted to debunk the claim that Jews are a distinct hereditary group. He writes:[29]

In short, the Jews are strongly commingled, and therefore do not represent a distinct genealogical group.

This viewpoint ignores data that suggests something quite different. As far back as 1970, the geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky discussed the evidence that suggested that Jewish groups differ in a genetic sense from non-Jews:[30]

The book that rocked the boat in 1994

In an attempt to determine how the Jewish people differ from the non-Jewish world, Israeli scientists conducted studies (published during Gould's lifetime) that show that Jews as a group differ significantly from non-Jews in genetic sense.[31] Gould was undoubtedly aware of these studies, as his colleague Jared Diamond discussed them in an article for Natural History, a prestigious scientific monthly that both wrote for.[32]

Once again, there may have been a political motive for Gould's omission of significant data. A prominent Israeli journalist, Aaron Meged, may have revealed Gould's possible motive. On November 8, 1981, in the Israeli newspaper Davar, he noted:[33]

In other words, like many Jewish intellectuals, Gould may not have wanted Jews to be perceived by non-Jews to be genetically different, as this supposedly brings trouble for the Jewish community.

Gould's Ideological Bias

Gould espoused a Marxist interpretation of science. In this view, social science is inclined to promote ideologies that reflect and serve a society's dominant elements and ruling elites, reinforcing their position of political, social, and economic power.

Science is embedded in culture, as cultural beliefs and practices influence the fashioning of scientific theories. In this vein Gould has written:[34]

There is certainly some truth to his views, and ironically, Gould's biased views on racial-ethnic matters are demonstration of his thesis. As we shall see, Gould approached the subject of race with a biased ideological orientation, one that ultimately reflects and serves the interests of the group that he was a part of-the liberal Jewish-Zionist power elite.

Since Gould hypothesized that the personal psychology and social circumstances of the scientist are important determinants of the latter's thinking, let us begin with a look at his own psychosocial background.

The Harvard intellectual was raised in a Jewish environment.[35] In a three volume study of the Jewish Question, California Psychology Professor Kevin MacDonald concluded that the Jewish community, in general, has been an alien, non-assimilative, and at times, even hostile element within European and non-Jewish societies. Judaism has been characterized by genetic and cultural separation from others, and an explicit double standard of morality-altruism and cooperation among Jews, but competition with non-Jews.[36]

There is ample evidence from independent sources to corroborate MacDonald's viewpoint. For example, political scientists Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter found that one of the outstanding psychological characteristics of the Jewish leftist is his feeling of alienation from and his hostility towards Western culture.[37] Since Western civilization is the product of Europeans, it follows that leftist Jews would attack the culture's biological foundations. By blurring the genetic distinction between races, alienated Jews are able to chip away at the genetic heritage of Westerners.

Gould's parents retained pride in Jewish history and heritage, although they rejected all theology and religious belief.[38] Commenting upon his childhood, Gould pointed out that he “learned his Marxism from this daddy's knee,” although he added his political beliefs were “very different from [his] father's.”[39]

When he visited the Caribbean island of Cracao, he spoke warmly of his visit to the Jewish synagogue, and hinted that Jewish ethnic survival was important to him:[40]

Some more legitimate light may be cast on Gould's motivation by an examination of those groups with whom he associated. That Jewish-Zionist interests were indeed important to Gould is suggested by the fact that he was, for a time, on the Editorial Advisory Board of Patterns of Prejudice, a publication sponsored by the ardently pro-Zionist and pro-Israel Institute for Jewish Affairs (London) and World Jewish Congress.[41] Although these Zionist groups oppose all forms of alleged non-Jewish “racism,” they remain ardent supporters of the apartheid, ethnically segregated Israel.

Towards the end of his life he became a huge supporter of Michael Shermer's Skeptic magazine and “Skeptics Society,” and he wrote the introduction to Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things.[42] The magazine, organization, and book attempt to debunk Creationism (Christian fundamentalism), Holocaust revisionism, alleged white racism, and even so-called “extreme Afrocentrism” (the latter is often associated with Black American opposition to Zionism). These are four movements the Jewish-Zionist power elite views as dire threats to their interests and power.

Gould presented himself as a humanist who is interested in social justice and racial equality for all mankind, as he was an ardent activist in the Black American civil rights movement, taking part in activities to end segregation between Blacks and Whites:[43]

One should not automatically assume that Gould was motivated mainly by a desire to aid Black Americans. Historically, Jews have long been in the forefront of the movement for Black-White racial integration in the U.S. and South Africa. These same Jews, however, are most usually ardent supporters of the racially segregated, apartheid Israel, where Jews lord over and dominate non-Jews. Gould failed to reveal how Jewish involvement in the Black American civil rights movement served Jewish-Zionist interests.

As the late Israeli scholar Dr. Israel Shahak pointed out:[44]

Black intellectual Harold Cruse and California psychology professor Kevin MacDonald discussed the self-serving sociopolitical Jewish agenda behind Jewish involvement in Black-Jewish Civil Rights coalition. As stated before, the Jewish community has been an alien and inassimilable element within European and non-Jewish societies. Judaism has been characterized by genetic and cultural separation from others, and an explicit double standard of morality-altruism and cooperation among Jews, but competition with non-Jews. Thus, the Jewish Community needs a society that tolerates their long-term policy of non-assimilation and group solidarity.[45]

Cruse and MacDonald observe that Jewish organizations view White nationalism as their greatest potential threat and they have tended to support Black-white integration policies presumably because such policies dilute Euro-American power and lessen the possibility of a cohesive, nationalist Euro-American majority that stands in opposition to the Jewish Community. It is very difficult to develop a cohesive Gentile movement opposed to Jewish interests in a racially integrated society composed of a variety of different and competing ethnic groups, all with divergent interests. In other words, because of their small numbers, Jews best succeed in politics by making coalitions with non-white groups that stand in opposition to gentiles of European descent.

As anthropologist Roselle Tekiner noted:[46]

It is important to note that Gould made persistent efforts to breakdown racial categories, arguing that racial distinctions are “meaningless” and “misleading.” He attempted to 'prove' that all ethnic groups are, in a biological sense, the same and equal.

It just so happens that Jews outside of Israel flourish in racially integrated societies in which the surrounding non-Jews have only a weak and feeble sense of their own racial identity. The reasoning goes something like this: 'If there are no racial differences or racial categories among the Gentiles, then there are no racial interests for the white gentile to defend. And if there is no 'white race,' then organized Jewry can never be identified as a threat to the white race, because such an entity does not exist.' One can readily see how thinking like this can reap benefits for the Jewish community, if inculcated into the minds of the Europeans that the Jews view with fear and hostility.

'Tolerant' Gentile populations that have only a weak and feeble sense of their own racial identity are less likely to identify the Jewish Community as an alien element against which they must defend themselves. Gentile populations that have a strong sense of their own racial-cultural-religious identity are more likely to identify certain Jews as 'alien outsiders,' against which they must compete.

One can now see how Gould's racial thought satisfied two goals. It tended to deprive European peoples that are viewed by the Jewish community as a potential dangerous enemy of a powerful ideological weapon-a belief in a racial brotherhood. Yet, simultaneously, Gould's racial thought fostered group solidarity among Jews and other non-white groups, for Gould applauded the social and political unity of “demeaned groups” (read: Jews and their allies).” He wrote:[47]

After years of controversy over “The Bell Curve,” this 1997 book was a powerful confirmation of genetically caused differences of mental abilities.

Further evidence supporting the view that Gould's main concern was with opposition to White Gentiles and bolstering Jewish political power is suggested by his totally different reaction to Israeli and South African apartheid. If Gould was truly interested in ending all forms of apartheid, racial segregation, and inequality, we should expect that he would have spoken out against Israeli racism and apartheid just as vociferously as he did against South African apartheid and racial segregation in the US. But this was not the case. As noted previously, Gould was on the Editorial Board of Patterns of Prejudice, a publication sponsored by the pro-Zionist Institute of Jewish Affairs and World Jewish Congress. Although the latter groups rabidly oppose all forms of gentile 'racism,' they remain ardent supporters of the racially segregated, apartheid Israel. For the moment, we must digress and discuss the racist nature of Israel and Zionism.

The Racist Nature of Israel and Zionism

In Israel, Zionism created an Athenian democracy for Jews but second-class citizenship, even feudal servitude for non-Jews. Modern Israel is a racially segregated, apartheid state where Jews lord over non-Jews, especially Palestinian Arabs.[48]

Dr. Oren Yiftachel, an Israeli professor at Ben-Gurion University, pointed out that Israel is not a democracy in the sense in which it is currently understood in the West. Rather, it is an “ethnocracy”-a land controlled and allocated by ethnicity. In his own words:

Factors that make Israel an “ethnocracy” include the facts that 1) immigration to the Jewish state is restricted to Jews only. Some 2.5 million displaced Palestinians who would like to return are not allowed to migrate to Israel; 2) military service is according to ethnicity; 3) economic control is based on race, religion, and ethnicity; 4) The country's land regime entails transfer of land ownership in one direction, from Arab to Jewish control, but never back again.[49]

As the Jewish scholars Ian Lustick and Uri Davis have shown, far from working for an integrated society in which Jews and Arabs functioned as social and political equals, the Jews who founded Israel created a society in which Israeli Jews dominate 'Israeli' Arabs, a separate and unequal society in which discrimination is part of the established social order.[50] For example, 93% of Israel's territory had been (until the Supreme Court decision of March 2000) legally defined as land which can be leased and cultivated only by Jews. Key institutions such as the kibbutz (collectivist Jewish settlements, mainly agricultural) are reserved exclusively for Jews, as Israeli scholar Uri Davis has reminded us in his thorough study, Israel: an apartheid state.[51]

Dr Lustick has pointed out that the Israeli military is by and large a segregated institution. Most Muslim Arabs, who constitute the overwhelming majority of Israeli Arab citizens, do not serve in the armed forces-they are not conscripted nor are they permitted to volunteer for service. This has important social consequences. In Israel, participation in the armed services is a prerequisite to social advancement and mobility. Cut off from the military, they are cut off from access to one of the main avenues of social advancement.[52]

Christians and Muslims cannot marry Jews in Israel, and if they are married elsewhere the marriage is not recognized by the rabbinical court in Israel.[53]

Consider the following facts about Israel, which by contemporary definitions of 'racism' make Israel a racist state. The Law of the Right of Return grants any Jew, but no-one else, automatic Israeli citizenship. The Nationality Law discriminates against non-Jews so stringently that many Palestinian residents of Israel (stuck there when Israel captured their land in 1948) were denied citizenship even though their families had lived in Palestine for many generations.[54]

During the 1980s, Gould was active in the anti-apartheid campaign in South Africa. As Franklin Hugh Adler of the Department of Political Science at Macalester College (Minnesota, USA) points out, Jews were overwhelmingly represented among whites in the anti-apartheid campaign in South Africa, and anti-apartheid activism was (so he argued) deeply rooted in Jewish culture and values.[55] This is only partly correct. It cannot be emphasized enough that Jews have a long history of promoting racial integration, open immigration, multiculturalism and anti-apartheid activism in societies outside Israel where they are a minority.[56] Yet, in Israel most of these same Jewish groups ardently promote and support an apartheid society where there is Jewish ethnic dominance and racial segregation between Jews and non-Jews.

Prominent Jewish writer I.F. Stone acknowledged the hypocritical double standard that plagues contemporary Jewish values:[57]

Gould bemoaned the fact that he was a visitor to South Africa, a “nation most committed to the myths of inequality.” He gave a series of anti-racist lectures in South Africa-but this writer can find no anti-racist lectures he has ever given to Jews for racism in Israel.[58] Here his Jewish-Zionist prejudices shine through loud and clear. An objective observer would have named Israel along with the former South Africa as a nation devoted to apartheid, the strict separation of ethnic groups. In fact, in spite of Gould's obvious hatred of South African apartheid, nowhere to this writer's knowledge did he ever condemn Israeli apartheid. If he was so vociferous in his criticism of apartheid in South Africa and racial segregation in the United States, why was he silent about apartheid and racism in Israel? This double standard says something important about Gould's real political agenda.

Gould mentioned white Gentile South Africa as “the authors of apartheid and antimiscegnation laws.”[59] From time immemorial, long before there even was an apartheid South Africa, the Jewish religion and Jewish societies promoted strong prohibitions against intermarriage and assimilating/integrating with non-Jews.[60] Jews in Israel are forbidden by religious law, approved by the state, from marrying non-Jews.[61]

This raises another bias of Gould. In numerous essays he had condemned theories of “biological determinism” (the belief that there are genetic differences between groups, and these differences are significantly responsible for group differences in behavior), in part because they were used to justify the restriction of Jewish immigration into various nations.[62]

Yet, when his Jewish colleague Jared Diamond revealed in the magazine that both of them wrote for, Natural History, the proposed Israeli policy of restricting immigration into Israel only to those who carry “Jewish genes,” Gould was silent.

In an article that appeared in the prestigious Natural History, Diamond discussed the genetic studies on how Jews differ from non-Jews. He made this astounding statement:[63]

The implication here is obvious. The Zionist elite is planning to refuse a person the right to settle in Israel if they do not have “Jewish genes.” With this in mind, consider point #4 of the German National Socialist Party program of May 25, 1920. It reads:[64]

In contemporary terms, only those with “German genes” could be citizens of National Socialist Germany. I can't emphasize enough that this is similar to the type of Israeli policy that Diamond describes-and Gould failed to publicly condemn it, in spite of the fact that he was almost certainly aware of Diamond's statement.

Diamond and Gould apparently both oppose dividing up human populations into racial categories-except of course populations of Jews and non-Jews. Both apparently gave their silent assent to the proposed Israeli-Zionist policy of defining and classifying Jews and non-Jews on the basis of whether or not they possess “Jewish genes.”

How does one know that Gould's pronouncements on racial issues ultimately reflect and serve the liberal Jewish-Zionist power elite? His double standard on the issue of racial-ethnic problems certainly suggests this. He was a prominent critic of all of forms of alleged racism, except for one-he was silent about Jewish-Zionist and Israeli racism. He was very vocal about all of those forms of alleged racism that have historically threatened Jewish interests, but he was silent about Jewish-Zionist racism. His “anti-racist” campaign was very selective and discriminatory indeed. It seemed to have been so designed so as to promote racial integration in societies outside of Israel (where Jews are a minority and alien element, and thus, stand to benefit by creating a racially integrated and multicultural society), yet it gave its silent assent to an ethnically segregated society in Israel where Jews lord over and dominate non-Jews.

Jews gain power in societies in which the surrounding gentile populations have a weak and feeble sense of their own racial/cultural identity. They are not perceived as an alien, different, and hostile element. Furthermore, in a racially integrated, multicultural society with numerous different competing ethnic groups with divergent interests, it is very unlikely the surrounding gentiles can ever develop a united and cohesive majority to oppose the very cohesive Jewish community. In societies in which the gentiles have a strong sense of their own racial/cultural identity, Jews are identified as 'outsiders,' an alien, unassimilable element. Societies such as these make it very difficult for Jews to gain power and influence.

Hence, a Jewish strategy of breaking down cultural, ethnic, and racial distinctions among non-Jews while encouraging unity among Jews has an understandable goal. Indeed, as Professor MacDonald has so persuasively argued, Gould's racial thought was a part of a well-established and remarkably successful Jewish intellectual offensive that seeks to advance sectarian Jewish interests by attacking traditional cultural, racial, and religious values of other nations. Jewish power and influence has grown enormously under the auspices of this “intellectual offensive.”[65]

In summary, what lines of evidence suggest that Gould's biased views on racial matters served liberal Jewish-Zionist interests? First, he condemned racial segregation in the U.S. and the former South Africa, yet he was silent about the racially segregated, apartheid Israel. Second, he was for a time on the Editorial Advisory Committee for Patterns of Prejudice, a publication of groups that support the ethnically segregated, apartheid Israel. Third, his racial thought is a part of an overall historic Jewish pattern of attacking traditional racial, cultural, and ethnic categories of other nations in order to promote the welfare of the Jewish community. Fourth, he vehemently condemned all forms of discrimination based upon race, yet he was notoriously silent when his colleague Jared Diamond pointed out that Israel is planning to use studies of Jewish genetics to discriminate against non-Jews on the basis of race. Finally, he omitted evidence that would have identified Jews as genetically distinct from non-Jews.

So Stephen Jay Gould had proclaimed: science is embedded in culture, as cultural beliefs and practices influence the fashioning of scientific theories. In this vein he wrote:[66]

Ironically, Gould's biased views on racial-ethnic matters is a demonstration of his thesis. Gould approached the subject of race with a biased ideological orientation, one which ultimately reflects and serves the interests of the liberal Jewish-Zionist power elite.

Gould has written:[67]

A similar statement applies to Stephen Jay Gould. Jewish-Zionist interests were buttressed by his public façade of “objectivity” and “a humanitarian concern for the evils of racism.” It certainly appears as though he used calls for “racial equality” as a mask under which he advanced sectarian Jewish-Zionist interests.

A word of caution here. It cannot be said that every Jew is a leftist who subscribes to Gould's theories. Some prominent Jewish intellectuals, such as Dr. Michael Levin, the author of Why Race Matters, and the late Dr. Richard Herrnstein, co-author of The Bell Curve, would reject Gould's racial theories. And they are not the only ones. But the fact of the matter remains that Gould's racial thought reflects and serves the interests of a predominate element within the Jewish community-the liberal Jewish-Zionist establishment.

Gould is correct on at least one point. He claims that theories of “racial differences” have been used to justify and excuse such evils as slavery and racial domination.[68] But this in no way falsifies these theories. Modern physics, for example, has created nuclear weapons, which in turn have led to the evils of mass destruction. This in no way falsifies Quantum Physics. Of course, it must be remembered that Stalinism embraced an ideology of racial equality very similar to Gould's-and under its auspices, millions suffered and died. Likewise, this in itself in no way falsifies Gould's racial ideology.

The views expressed here are not to be confused with 'white supremacy,' which implies that whites should dominate non-whites. The belief that Europeans have the right to preserve their distinct biological-cultural identity is not synonymous with the belief that they should lord over and oppress non-Europeans.

International law says that a race or culture has the collective right to self-preservation and self-determination. Self-preservation literally means the right to preserve for posterity those factors that make a people unique, exclusive, and separate from other peoples. How is Western Civilization to endure if its members are inculcated with a distorted ideology of racial egalitarianism that discourages Westerners from preserving their unique heritage? Let us be wary of distorted ideologies and the power elites that promote them.

And of course, all of this applies equally well to all races, ethnic groups and cultures, including the Jewish community. All of them have the right to collective self-determination and self-preservation. If they value the preservation of their racial/cultural identity, they too should be wary of ideologues like Gould and the distorted racial thought that he promoted.

Notes