Psychology, Racism & Fascism: An On-line Edition

Andrew S. Winston

University of Guelph

Scholars examining the relationship between right-wing politics and racial research have drawn on a 1979 work by social psychologist Michael Billig, Psychology, Racism, and Fascism. This short pamphlet, along with Billig's (1978) monograph on the social psychology of the neo-fascist National Front, provided the first account of the contribution of psychologists and other academics to racist and neo-Nazi movements of the 1950s to 1970s.

This work is not widely available in university libraries. Given the intense interest in these issues, particularly with the 1990s revival of racial research in psychology, it is important that Psychology, Racism, and Fascism be available to students of the history of psychology, as well as scholars concerned with eugenics and neo-fascism. However, these are not simply problems of history; some of the individuals described by Billig remain very active. For example, the journal Mankind Quarterly, the major outlet for racial research, is still in publication under the editorship of Roger Pearson. Thus Billig's work is also important for students of contemporary scientific racism. With the permission of Michael Billig and Searchlight, I have prepared this on-line version, which reproduces the original as closely as possible.

A work of this length cannot possibly provide the full context of the history of racism in psychology (see Richards, 1997 and Tucker, 1994 for surveys) and academic racism in general. For background on scientific racism in Germany, see Burleigh & Wipperman (1991), Müller-Hill (1987), Proctor (1988), and Weindling (1989). For general sources on the history of eugenics, see, for example, Adams (1990), Allen (1997), Barkan (1992), Chase (1979), Kevles (1985), Haller (1984), Kühl (1994), and Mehler (1988). Useful discussions of scientific racism for the general audience are Kohn (1994) and Shipman (1994), and Marks (1995) provides a general, scholarly discussion of race, genetics, and anthropology.

Additional discussions of the individuals, groups and publications in Psychology, Racism, & Fascism can be found in Mehler (e.g., 1983, 1989, 1997) Mintz (1985), Newby (1969) Tucker (1994), and Winston (1996, 1998). Tucker (1994) provides the most thorough discussion of these issues. Detailed bibliographies and biographical information on many individuals discussed in Psychology, Racism, and Fascism are available at the web site of the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism ( at Ferris State University, directed by Prof. Barry Mehler. In all materials of this kind, due sensitivity to the issue of "guilt by association" must be observed.

I thank Mark Ferris and Ina Hutchings for their generous help.


Adams, M. B., Ed. (1990). The wellborn science: Eugenics in Germany, France, and Russia. New York: Oxford University Press.

Allen, G. E. (1986). The Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor, 1910-1940: An essay in institutional history. Osiris, II, 1986.

Billig, M. (1978). Fascists: A social psychological view of the National Front. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

Barkan, E. (1992). The retreat of scientific racism: Changing concepts of race in Britain and the United States between the world wars. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Burleigh, M. & Wipperman, W. (1991). The racial state: Germany 1933-1945. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Chase, A. (1979). The legacy of Malthus: The social costs of the new scientific racism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Haller, M. (1963). Eugenics: Hereditarian attitudes in American thought. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Kevles, D. J. (1985). In the name of eugenics: Genetics and the uses of human heredity. New York: Knopf.

Kohn, M. (1995). The race gallery: The return of racial science. London: Jonathan Cape.

Kühl, S. (1994). Eugenics, American racism, and German National Socialism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Marks, J. (1995). Human biodiversity: Genes, race, and history. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Mehler, B. (1983). The new eugenics: Academic racism in the U. S. today. Science for the People, 15, 18-23.

Mehler, B. (1988). A history of the American Eugenics Society, 1921-1940. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Mehler, B. (1989). Foundations for fascism: The New Eugenics Movement in the United States. Patterns of Prejudice, 23, 17-25.

Mehler, B. (1997). Beyondism: Raymond B. Cattell and the new eugenics. Genetica, 153-165.

Mintz, F. P. (1985). The Liberty Lobby and the American right: Race, conspiracy, and culture. Westport, CONN: Greenwood Press.

Newby, I. (1969). Challenge to the court: Social Scienctists and the defence of segregation, 1954-1996. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

Proctor, R. (1988). Racial hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Müller-Hill, B. (1988). Murderous science: Elimination by scientific selection of Jews, Gypsies, and others, Germany 1933-1945 (G. R. Fraser, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Richards, G. (1997). 'Race,' racism and psychology: Towards a reflexive history. London: Routledge.

Shipman, P. (1994). The evolution of racism: Human differences and the use and abuse of science. New York: Simon & Schuster.

. Tucker, W. H. (1994). The Science and politics of racial research. Urbana: University of Ill. Press.

Winston, A. S. (1996). The context of correctness: A comment on Rushton. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 5, 231-249.

Winston, A. S. (1998). Science in the service of the far right: Henry E. Garrett, the IAAEE and the Liberty Lobby. Journal of Social Issues, 53, 179-209.

Please send comments to:

Prof. Andrew S. Winston

Department of Psychology

University of Guelph

Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1


Racism &


by Michael Billig

A Searchlight Booklet

Copywrite 1979, Michael Billig. Reprinted with the permission of Michael Billig and Searchlight


RACISM has a long history on the darker side of British social science, finding an early institutional expression in the Anthropological Society of London in the mid 19th century. It was later associated with the names of Galton, Pearson, Keith and Burt. Burt was an important contributor to the thinking behind the Butler Education Act and a man obsessed by the idea of "breeding" in his later years. It is now suspected that parts of his research were simply invented to support his beliefs. The eugenics movement, out of which scientific racism grew, was especially concerned with national degeneration and regeneration; a concern embodied in the policies of the Third Reich.

Victory in the second world war and full exposure of the results of Nazi racial policies seemed to have laid "scientific racism" to rest and its epitaph was written by the scientific community in four UNESCO statements on race. Now only thirty four years after the war the racists are on the march again and a few members of the scientific community are marching with them.

Europe today is undergoing crises in circumstances that have seen a breakdown of the post-war political consensus. Europe is also multi-racial with 11 million immigrants from Mediterranean and Third World countries manning important (and often underpaid) positions in manufacturing and services. Has scientific racism sprung, newly armed, from nowhere, to capitalise upon these factors?

In this well-researched pamphlet Billig answers "No" and shows an unbroken connection between scientific racists in the English-speaking world and a Nazi tradition rooted largely in the work of Hans Günther. The academic community and the Nazis in Europe are connected through interlinked associations and journals to form an underworld largely unknown to British intellectuals and with values quite different from the traditional values of liberal scholarship.

Perhaps there can be no purely disinterested scientific research; all our work has political implications because if it is at all significant it bears on someone's interests. The values we bring to research may most clearly show themselves in the questions we ask. Why do some ask questions which put at risk the civil, political and social standing of others? Why do they feel compelled to promote these questions and their spurious answers long after the scientific basis of both questions and answers has been demolished?

Most social scientists regard scientific racism as dead. But it will not lie down and many believe that there is some sort of case to answer because the noise continues. It is not enough for us to effect boredom, and detachment from what in intellectual terms has become merely irritating, because the political consequences are real especially when they break through into "legitimate" politics. The implications are clear when we see either the company that scientific racists keep, or the company that claims them for its own. The scientific racists -- whether they wish to do so or not, and some clearly do -- aid the Nazi cause and work for it. Their work must be judged by this as well as its scientific merits. Their work in academe is part of the same enterprise that National Front thugs undertake on the streets.

Robert Moore

Department of Sociology, King's College,

University of Aberdeen.

Psychology, Racism & Fascism

by Michael Billig, Department of Psychology, University of Birmingham.

Originally Published as:

A Searchlight pamphlet.

Published in 1979 by A.F. & R. Publications, 21, Great Western Buildings, 6, Livery Street, Birmingham 3.

Tel: (021) 236 4147.

Designed by Sidelines (021) 551 2351.

Cover drawing by Steve Bell.

Printed by The Russell Press Ltd., 45, Gamble Street, Forest Road West, Nottingham, NG7 4ET.



Chapter One

Nazi Race-science

Chapter Two

Race-science returns

Chapter Three

Mankind Quarterly

1. The editors

2. The contents

Chapter Four

Neue Anthropologie

Chapter Five

Nouvelle Ecole

Chapter Six

Eysenck & Jensen

Chapter Seven

Racism in psychology

Chapter Eight




SCIENTISTS often like to think of themselves as dispassionate seekers of knowledge. Isolated in their laboratories they pursue their goals far removed from the clamour of common prejudices and bigotry. However, for scientists hoping to build a 'science of race' this claim of detachment is frequently either illusory or hypocritical.

The growth of scientific ideas is not normally haphazard within a society. The ideas of scientists usually do not arise in some vacuum, but can be connected with underlying political or economic trends. Thus historians have found it comparatively easy to connect the growth of scientific notions about white racial supremacy in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries with the development of imperialism and the slave-trade.(1)

Today the slave-trade may have disappeared, but scientific notions about racial differences still persist. In fact within recent years a growing number of influential psychologists have been canvassing the theory that there are racial differences in intelligence. The question which must be asked is whether the growth of this psychological theory can be connected with any underlying political trend.

This pamphlet examines the relations between psychological theories of race and another trend which has occurred in the past ten years: the small, but not insignificant, growth of fascism.

One might have thought that fascist and Nazi political groups should have declined consistently since 1945. After more than 30 years such groups should now be almost extinct. However, throughout Western Europe, North and South America fascist groups obstinately refuse to fade away, and in fact in certain places their activities are increasing.(2)

For instance, in Britain there has been a pronounced fascist revival during the last few years. A fascist group like the National Front has emerged from the obscure reaches of the lunatic fringe to thrust its way into the political consciousness of the nation. It has been argued that in Britain fascism is today politically stronger than it was in the 1930s.(3)

In Britain, fascism has been attempting to establish a presence in the streets of decaying city areas, fanning the prejudices of the ill-informed. Commonly it is assumed that fascism and race prejudice are attractive only to the un-intelligent and uneducated.(4) Thus it might seem absurd to look for connections between contemporary fascism and psychological theories formulated in calm and detached academic settings by highly educated professors.

However, a glance at recent history will show this not to be as absurd as it might seem. For this reason it is necessary to look closely at some of the intellectual ideas, which contributed to German Nazism in the 1930s, and also which continue to be held by today's fascists.

Chapter One

Nazi Race-science

Hans Günther; 1931 and 1967

ERNST JÜNGER, the German conservative writer, when discussing how the Nazi Party was able to command a mass following, commented that "the spiritual preparation" for Nazism was "carried out by countless scientific works".(5) Certainly it is true that many scientists and academics in Germany welcomed Hitler's rise to power. Declarations of support from professors and intellectuals were made even before Hitler assumed the Chancellorship.(6) In common with their colleagues from other academic disciplines, psychologists were vocal in their support for Nazism.(7)

However, the full force of Jünger's comments does not lie in the fact that large numbers of academics gave their blessing to the new regime, or at best failed to oppose it. Jünger's comment is stronger, implying that the very success of the Nazi movement could be attributed in some part to the activities of German science.

Above all, this can be seen in relation to the central concept of Nazi dogma -- the concept of 'race'. It has been pointed out that Hitler's ideas of race were derived from biological concepts of race which dominated German biology in the early part of the twentieth century.(8) Many of the ideas to be found in Mein Kampf were commonplace in academic circles. Norman Cohn, discussing the Nazi 'völkisch-racist' outlook in his book Warrant for Genocide, puts the issues clearly: "Irrational, unscientific and demonstrably nonsensical as this outlook was, it was nevertheless the speciality of the educated -- or rather those with a university degree".(9)

The German cultural climate of the 1930s favoured racist assumptions as 'respectable' scientists (principally geneticists, biologists, physical anthropologists and psychologists) contributed to the growth of Rassenkunde (literally 'Race-science'). A firm distinction between the 'respectable' scientists, investigating race often by up-to-date empirical means, and the politically racist theories of the Nazis cannot be drawn.(10) Both fed on the other: race-science became highly politicised both in itself and in the uses which Nazi propaganda made of it. Above all, race-science, as formulated by some of the most eminent scientists in Germany at that time, made it respectable for intelligent people to believe that the fundamental differences between humans were racial.

The unholy union between science and Nazism can be illustrated by the career of one of the most notorious and extreme of the race scientists, Hans F.K. Günther. A prolific writer on a number of subjects, Günther's work revolved around the central theme of the superiority of the Aryan, or Nordic, race. Like other race-scientists, Günther believed that an understanding of 'race' provided the key to understanding history, anthropology, psychology and all other academic disciplines, which take 'man' as their subject matter.(11)

A recent study has suggested that "if any one book could be said to be the Bible of the Nordic school it would be Günther's Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes, which was published in 1922 and rapidly gained an immense readership".(12) In this work, as in his other widely read books like The Racial Elements of European History, Günther outlined his theories about the worth of Nordic racial purity and the perils of Jewish contamination: "The influence of the Jewish spirit, and influence won through economic preponderance, brings with it the very greatest danger for the life of the European peoples and the North American peoples alike".(13)

As well as having a wide popular audience, Günther rose high in academic circles. He was elected to a full professorship at the University of Jena in 1930, and later moved to the University of Berlin. His works were praised by the Rector of Berlin University, Eugen Fischer, an eminent and 'respectable' race-scientist with a world wide reputation, who nevertheless expressed support for Hitler in the earliest days of the Nazi regime.(14)

Günther was the deputy editor of an academic journal published in Stuttgart between 1935, two years after Hitler came to power, and 1944. Zeitschrift für Rassenkunde, as its title suggests, specialised in scientific studies of race. Many distinguished German physical anthropologists contributed to the journal and so did a number of foreign academics. Most contributions to Zeitschrift für Rassenkunde were of a technical nature, looking at racial differences using scientific procedures. At the same time Zeitschrift für Rassenkunde regularly reviewed books of an explicitly pro-Nazi stance.(15)

Günther himself also used to contribute to Nazi magazines, (for example Neues Volk, published by the Nazi Party's 'Racial Politics Department' and edited by Walter Gross, who like Günther was a professor at Berlin University and a fanatical anti-semite). His work was much admired by leading Nazi politicians, like Alfred Rosenberg, head of Hitler's Foreign Political Office and later Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Regions.

Zeitschrift für Rassenkunde

In February 1941, Rosenberg formally honoured Günther presenting him with the 'Goethe Medal'. Rosenberg told Günther: "Your work has been of the utmost importance for the safeguarding and development of the National Socialist Weltanschauung" (reported in the Nazi newspaper Völkischer Beobachter, Feb. 16, 1941).

Günther, together with Eugen Fischer, was a guest of honour at the inaugural conference arranged for Rosenberg's creation, the Frankfurt Institute for Research into the Jewish Question, in March 1941. The proceedings of the conference were uniformly anti-semitic. Günther's colleague at the University of Berlin, Walter Gross, set the tone in his address entitled 'The Racial-Political Premises of Solving the Jewish Question'. His 'solution' was in keeping with the mood of the Führer:

We look upon Jewry as quite a realistic phenomenon which was exceptionally clever in matters of earthly life but which likewise is subject to historical death. And as far as the historical phenomenon of the Jew in Europe is concerned, we believe that this hour of death has come irrevocably.(16)

'Pre-war Nordicist publications of Günther'

Rosenberg invited Günther to the International Anti-Jewish Congress in 1944, which was due to be attended by Nazi top brass such as von Ribbentrop and Goebbels. Owing to the war situation, the Congress was cancelled at the last moment and Günther was unable to deliver his paper 'The invasion of the Jews into the cultural life of the nations'.

After the war Günther was stripped of his university posts, in common with a number of the most notorious of the racial theorists. However, he continued writing and expounding his racist views until his death in 1967.

Günther's post-war writings have never achieved anything remotely like the readership of his earlier works. Hoping to escape from his reputation as a Nazi, Günther even adopted the pseudonyms of Heinrich Ackerman and Ludwig Winter.(17)

Although Günther's works ceased to attract widespread attention after the war, his theories continued to be circulated amongst small groups of post-war Nazis. The intellectual traditions of Günther and his fellow Nordicists may have been displaced from major German universities, but they did not come to an abrupt end. Instead, they were celebrated by obscure Nazi organisations like The Northern League.

The Northern League was established in 1958 by a British anthropologist, Roger Pearson, in order to foster "the interests, friendship and solidarity of all Teutonic nations".(18) It was intended to be a rallying ground for Nazi intellectuals in the inhospitable post-war climate. Not surprisingly Günther was one of the founder members.

An American journalist, surveying the post-war extreme Right, commented that almost all European Nazi groups are connected in some way or another with the Northern League.(19) Some like the German neo-Nazi group Deutsches Kulterwerk Europäischen Geistes are very closely connected. The Northern League's magazine The Northlander confirms both its international and its Nazi complexion. For instance the magazine (published in English from Amsterdam) regularly recommends its readers American pro-Nazi publications, such as White Power and Christian Vanguard, as well as publications from the openly Nazi group British Movement, based in Cheshire, England. Articles from German neo-Nazi papers, such as Nordische Zeitung, are also frequently reproduced. As The Northlander, Oct/Dec. 1971 proclaimed, the Northern League stands for "the preservation of the identity and values of the North, so that our nations can have in the future also White, Blond and Blue-eyed children."(20)

It would be comforting to think that the process of denazification has been so successful that the once widespread race-science is now confined to the obscurities of the Northern League.(21). Unfortunately, however, this is not the case and Günther's heirs have been given an uplift by a new development with Rassenkunde.

Chapter Two

Race-science returns

Professor Hans Eysenck

THE NEW boost to race-science was to come from psychologists investigating racial differences in intelligence by means of IQ tests. This line of research is by no means recent. The first IQ tests were devised in the early years of this century. These were tests which were designed to measure the general intelligence of children and to express their intellectual capabilities in a single score (or Intelligence Quotient).

Since then, intelligence tests have been widely used by psychologists throughout the world. The IQ test became an easy and cheap method of labelling children as intelligent or unintelligent. Also, throughout its history, the IQ test has been used to justify racist and elitist political philosophies.

Early American IQ testers noted that immigrants to the USA and American blacks tended to score less highly than native born white Anglo-Saxon protestants. These findings were quickly interpreted by politicians, and by the psychologists themselves, to support anti-immigration legislation. Also the involvement of these psychologists with the American eugenicist movement (which aimed to introduce laws to prevent the 'feeble-minded', and very poor, from breeding) has been well documented.(22)

Most of the early IQ testers interpreted their results in terms of genetics. It was assumed that if the poor had lower IQs than the rich, this was because the lower classes were constitutionally less intelligent than the upper classes. Similarly, the testers reasoned that blacks and immigrants must be of 'inferior stock' if the objective IQ tests revealed lower intelligence levels than those of white Anglo-Saxon protestants.

After World War Two these racist and elitist explanations lost favour amongst psychologists. It became generally accepted that cultural and social factors affected IQ scores. Some of the implausibilities of the early IQ theorists became transparent. Thus one of the earliest American IQ testers, Henry Goddard, had asserted on the basis of his research that 83 per cent of Jewish immigrants to the USA were 'feeble-minded'.(23) Goddard had forgotten that unfamiliarity with the English language made it difficult for his immigrant subjects to perform adequately on the IQ tests.

In the same vein, later psychologists interpreted differences between black and white Americans' IQ scores in terms of social factors. The discrimination and deprivation suffered by American blacks for years seemed sufficient explanation for differences in IQ scores.

The new climate had obvious educational implications. No longer was it accepted that the poor and the black would inevitably perform badly at school. The post-war climate favoured raising IQ levels by improving the educational opportunities for the disadvantaged. In the United States 'compensatory educational' programmes were introduced to rectify years of educational deprivation.

It was against this background that Professor Arthur R. Jensen, Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of California unleashed his bomb-shell in 1969. An article published by Jensen in The Harvard Educational Review, entitled 'How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement?', attracted immediate and world-wide attention.

Jensen's article represented a reversal of post-war trends in psychological theory. He argued that intelligence was largely (about 80 per cent) determined by genetics and that IQ differences represented genetic differences. Moreover, he specifically addressed the problem of compensatory education: since intelligence was largely determined genetically, Jensen argued that efforts to raise the intelligence of low IQ scorers by intensive educational efforts were mostly wasted.

In particular, Jensen focused on racial differences in IQ scores and offered a genetic explanation: according to Jensen's argument, blacks on average do not possess the same innate intellectual qualifies as whites. And what is more, it is unproductive to lavish time and money on attempts to educate intellectual inferiors beyond their station.

It is easy to see why such arguments should have appealed to Right-wing politicians and to those who favour cutting educational budgets. As well as finding political allies, Jensen also quickly found himself with support from within the scientific establishment. For instance, Professor H.J. Eysenck, Professor of Psychology at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, and undoubtedly Britain's most influential psychologist,(24) soon published a book defending Jensen's viewpoint: Race, Intelligence and Education.(25)

Within a few years, Jensen's article had become one of the most widely cited studies in psychology.(26) Not all academics, however, were as impressed by Jensen's work as Eysenck was.

Opposition to the line of Jensen and Eysenck came from a variety of quarters. Criticisms were made of the data on which they based their arguments. In one well-publicised case, evidence was brought forward to suggest that some of the classic data of Sir Cyril Burt, on which Jensen and Eysenck relied heavily, had actually been fabricated.(27)

As well as psychologists stressing environmental factors as affecting intelligence, opposition also came from geneticists. Notable geneticists, like Richard Lewontin and Walter Bodmer, claimed there were serious flaws in the arguments of Eysenck and Jensen. For instance it has been argued that the interaction between genetics and environment is so complex that it cannot be assessed by such a crude measure as an IQ score.(28)

Sir Peter Medawar, a biologist and Nobel Laureate, has taken this position, suggesting that 'intelligence' cannot be summarised by a single IQ score: human capabilities and potentialities are far too diverse for this type of simplification. Thus, according to Medawar, IQ tests, and the scores derived from them, are too insensitive to support weighty conclusions about racial differences in intelligence:

"The really important question . . . is whether or not it is possible to attach exact percentage figures to the contributions of nature and nurture (Shakespeare's terminology) to differences in intellectual capacity. In my opinion it is not possible to do so for reasons that seem to be beyond the comprehension of IQ psychologists."(29)

However, the effect of Jensen's work on fascist groups throughout the world was immediate and electric. The fine details of the various arguments were irrelevant to their purposes: what mattered was the chance to make race-science respectable once again. According to Martin Webster, the National Activities Organiser of the National Front: "The most important factor in the build-up of self-confidence amongst 'racists', and the collapse of morale among multi-racialists was the publication in 1969 by Professor Arthur Jensen in the Harvard Educational Review" (Spearhead, April 1973).

Fascists saw Jensen and Eysenck as vindicating their basic racist assumptions. For instance, the National Party, a break-away group from the National Front, demonstrated the over-riding importance of race-science in its ideology and interpretation of politics:

"Nationalists believe that intelligence is mainly genetically determined, and so the differences in intelligence and other mental abilities between the races are inborn and hereditary. Therefore we believe that the World intellectual leadership shown by the White Race is due to our unique genetic heritage, whose dilution by mixing with alien stock would be an irreversible catastrophe for all mankind . . . If it can be proved that intelligence (and other aspects of human nature) is inherited, then Marxism loses its whole reason for existing while the ideology of Racial Nationalism receives firm scientific support" (Britain First, January 1977).

It is no wonder, then, that Eysenck's popular books, like Race, Intelligence and Education and The Inequality of Man, are on the booklists of fascist groups like the National Front. Nor is it any surprise that their propaganda makes constant reference to Jensen and Eysenck's work.

The reaction of Jensen and Eysenck is that they are merely scientists who are attempting in good faith to present scientific facts. For example, Eysenck at the start of Race, Intelligence and Education claims that there is a distinction between the scientific 'facts' about race and racist attitudes. On the one hand, he claims, the facts do not logically lead to race prejudice. On the other hand:

"A benevolent attitude towards non-whites, coupled with admiration for their many outstanding qualities, and deep sympathy for their suffering, should not blind one towards such evidence as may exist to indicate that with respect to certain qualities there may be genetic differences favouring one race (or ethnic subgroup) as against another" (p.11).(30)

Critics of Eysenck and Jensen have claimed that it is not so easy to separate their scientific research from political considerations. Whereas Eysenck and Jensen might like to claim that the scientific facts can be separated from political considerations, critics like Leon Kamin have suggested that research involving IQ testing is inherently political. His book, The Science and Politics of IQ, argues:

"with respect to IQ testing, psychology long ago surrendered its political virginity. The interpretation of IQ data has always taken place, as it must, in a social and political context, and the validity of the data cannot be fully assessed without reference to that context" (p. 16).

However, it is hoped to show that the issue goes somewhat deeper than this. It is not merely that the IQ research reflects in itself political assumptions, but that the research has been deliberately politicised. This politicisation is not just the work of fascist and racist groups who might have taken up Jensen and Eysenck's conclusions for their own ends. Academics are centrally involved in the process.

The attempt to revive race-science also aims to create an intellectual climate in which a racist culture can flourish, as it did in Germany before the last war. However, the distinction between scientific detachment and racism must inevitably be blurred if it can be shown that the 'detached' psychologists are themselves involved in the attempts to create cultural racism.

For example, Eysenck may claim that his critics are politically motivated and that he is the dispassionate seeker of truth. Writing about the "plethora of books" seeking to refute his and Jensen's position, Eysenck maintains: "Practically all of these books have been factually misleading, politically motivated, and useless from the point of view of the disinterested scientist eager to discover the facts" (The Mankind Quarterly, 1976, Vol. 17, p. 149).

Whatever the truth about Eysenck's claim that his opponents are 'politically motivated', it is hard to sustain the image that Eysenck's science is far removed from the political arena, when he writes in a magazine like The Mankind Quarterly: an explicitly racialist publication, whose tendencies take it towards the race-science of the Northern League.

Chapter Three

Mankind Quarterly

1. The editors

The Mankind Quarterly is a journal with an impressive scholarly appearance. On its cover it claims to be: "An international quarterly journal dealing with Race and Inheritance in the fields of Ethnology, Ethno- and Human Genetics, Ethno-Psychology, Racial History, Demography and Anthropo-Geography".

Each issue of The Mankind Quarterly boasts an extensive list of academics who act as Honorary Associate Editors, Assistant Editors and members of the Honorary Advisory Board. One of the members of the Honorary Advisory Board is Professor H.J. Eysenck. Nor is Eysenck the only 'respectable' British academic psychologist to be associated with The Mankind Quarterly; Richard Lynn, Professor of Psychology at the University of Coleraine, is at present one of the Honorary Associate Editors. American psychologists, with established reputations, include Professor Frank McGruk (Honorary Associate Editor) and Professors Shuey and Porteus (members of the Honorary Advisory Board).


Since it was established in 1960, The Mankind Quarterly has had the same overall editor -- Professor R. Gayre, M.A., D.Phil., Pol.D.Sc., D.Sc., a physical anthropologist trained at Edinburgh University. He was formerly Professor of Anthropology at the University of Saugor in India, but now is resident at Edinburgh, where The Mankind Quarterly is published. As well as editing the magazine Gayre has been one of its most prolific contributors of major articles and book reviews. Hardly an issue passes without some contribution from its editor.

Throughout his long academic career, Gayre had never wavered in his belief in the importance of race. An early book Teuton and Slav on the Polish Frontier(31) starts with the assumption that in human affairs "racial fundamentals are all-important" (p.12). Gayre's book is essentially a recommendation for re-drawing Germany's national boundaries in order to "improve the racial homogeneity" of Germany; in this way, according to Gayre, "Germany would become considerably more Nordic" (p. 12).

To this end, Gayre leans heavily on Günther's work. In Teuton and Slav Gayre reproduces page after page of photographs purporting to depict ideal 'racial types' from Günther's Rassenkunde Europas. Gayre constantly refers to "Professor Hans F.K. Günther's authoritative work on German racial science" (p. 30). He also mentions a visit he paid to Günther's laboratory in Berlin in 1939.

Gayre's contacts with British fascists came to light when five members of the Racial Preservation Society were prosecuted in 1968 at Lewes under the Race Relations Act for publishing racialist material. At the time of the offence the Racial Preservation Society was an independent body, but by the time of the trial it had officially merged into the National Front.(32) The defendants were themselves members of the newly formed National Front.

Illustrations above from Gayre's Teuton and Slav; right from Günther's Rassenkunde Europas.

Gayre was called as an expert witness for the defence. In his evidence to the court he described blacks as being "feckless" and he maintained that scientific evidence showed that blacks "prefer their leisure to the dynamism which the white and yellow races show". Largely on the basis of Gayre's 'expert' testimony the defendants were acquitted.

Besides Gayre there were two other 'expert' witnesses for the defence. One was Dr John Mitchell, a medical practitioner, who had been court-martialled during the Second World War for his pro-Mosley and pro-fascist sympathies. After the war, Mitchell was involved with the openly Nazi Greater Britain Movement. In 1978 he emerged as one of the financial backers for the National Front's purchase of its new headquarters. The other expert witness was Joy Page, whose main expertise appears to be her longstanding involvement with racist organisations like the Immigration Control Association.

Gayre not only testified on behalf of the defence, but he also donated �25 to the defence fund. He later justified this action by saying: "I think one should be able to discriminate on the grounds of race and colour". Moreover, he was of assistance to the then chairman of the National Front, A.K. Chesterton, in compiling a booklet about the trial: Not Guilty: an account of the historic race relations trial at Lewes Assizes in March 1968.(33) This booklet is still on National Front booklists. A recent publication of the Young National Front, How to combat Red teachers, states: "This little booklet . . .. should be in the pocket of every young patriot as a handy source of the facts which demolish sociological multi-racialist propaganda on race" (p. 2).

One of the defendants at the Lewes trial was Alan Hancock, a former member of Oswald Mosley's Union Movement. Hancock was also a member of the Northern League. In fact, he organised the Northern League's annual meetings in 1969, 1970 and 1971. These meetings are normally only open to members and specially selected guests. Those present included a motley collection of open Nazis, like Colin Jordan, members of the clandestine Nazi paramilitary organisation Column 88, ex-SS men, and Martin Webster of the National Front.(34) Also invited to these meetings was Professor Gayre.

The Northlander, the official publication of the Northern League, reported that Gayre declined the invitation in 1970 in "a kind letter", regretting that he had a previous commitment. Nevertheless, The Northlander reported that Gayre added in his letter "there are racial differences and they are genetic and I think we should say so."(35)

The following year The Northlander reported that the closed meeting received "best wishes and messages" from, among others, Professor Gayre. Certainly The North lander has on several occasions referred warmly to Gayre. For instance in August 1968 it described Gayre as "one of the oldest good friends of the Northern League" and the writer described a "nice and interesting day with him and his family". Again in the February/April issue of 1972 there is a reference to "our good friend . . . the Scottish laird Col. Prof. Dr Gayre". In the August/October issue of The Northlander it is stated that "we send our best wishes to Prof. Gayre" who is described as "our good connection and friend".

Gayre is not only a 'good connection' of European fascists. He also has good connections in Southern Africa. He is an enthusiastic supporter of apartheid and has paid regular visits to South Africa and Rhodesia. On several occasions he has attended the Congress of the South African Genetic Society. The President of the Society, Professor J.D.J. Hofmeyr, is also on the Honorary Advisory Board of The Mankind Quarterly.

Gayre has also contributed to a South African journal which is written predominantly in Africaan, although it does publish English contributions: Tydskrif vir Rasse-Aangeleenthede (Journal of Racial Affairs). This journal is published by the South African Bureau of Racial Affairs and consists entirely of pseudo-scientific propaganda supporting apartheid. Gayre's article in 1964 (Vol. 15, pages 141-154) is entitled 'The races and peoples of Southern Africa: Some notes on their ethnic movements and distributions'; it describes a trip to the Transkei. He was accompanied on this trip by Hofmeyr, A.J. Gregor (who was at that time an Assistant Editor of The Mankind Quarterly: see below) and Professor C.D. Darlington (who is on the editorial board of Neue Anthropologie, see below). Hofmeyr is also a regular contributor to the Journal of Racial Affairs.(36)

Hofmeyr's political views are extreme even by South African standards. He has contributed to the extreme right-wing magazine South African Observer. For instance he wrote in praise of race prejudice in February 1962: "Race prejudice is just as fundamental to the perpetuation of a race as feeding, propagation and other phenomena."

In common with many overtly fascist publications, South African Observer mixes its unabashed racism with anti-semitic notions of a 'Jewish world conspiracy'. It is well to the right of the ruling Nationalist Party. Frequently it criticised former South African Prime Minister, John Vorster, for accepting "the Zionist-communist equality doctrine".

Gayre has also mixed with this sort of company on his many visits to South Africa. In March 1971, for example, he addressed the National Forum in Durban, which provides a forum for some of South Africa's most dedicated racists.


Robert Kuttner is an American biochemist, who has worked at a number of universities in the United States, including Stanford University. He is currently Assistant Editor of The Mankind Quarterly and over the years has been a regular contributor on a number of different topics. A short biographical note in The Mankind Quarterly noted that Kuttner had "interests in psychology, race history and political science".(37) This anodyne statement conceals the full impact of Kuttner's interests.

In June 1966 the American far Right paper American Mercury announced a change of editorship. Previously it had been edited by the John Birch Society supporter General Edwin A. Walker. The paper's contents had been a mixture of anti-Communist propaganda, following the Birchite line that America and indeed the whole world was in the grips of a Communist conspiracy, and veiled racism and anti-Semitism. With the change of editorship American Mercury moved even further to the Right and became explicit in its racism and anti-Semitism.

Among the new editors were A.J. App, Ivor Benson and Robert Kuttner. Ivor Benson is a South African who was Ian Smith's speech-writer for a time after Rhodesian UDI: he resigned because of Smith's 'moderation' and has continued to publish racist and anti-semitic extremist articles and books.(38) A.J. App has a long history of publishing anti-semitic material. The titles of his pamphlets tell their own story: Can Christianity survive when the Jews control the media and money?; Kosher food racket exposed; The six million swindle: a straight look at the Third Reich; 'Holocaust': a sneak attack on Christianity etc. App's pamphlets are published and distributed by 'The Liberty Bell', an American fascist publishing company whose lists include works by Hitler, Goebbels and US Nazi George Rockwell.

In the first issue of American Mercury of which Kuttner was an editor, there is a typical piece by App entitled 'That elusive six million'. Here App denies that the Nazis murdered six million Jews: "The Nazis spared the over-whelming percentage of Jews", wrote App. Also in this issue is a piece by Revilo P. Oliver, who was expelled from the John Birch Society for his open anti-Semitism.(39) This issue also includes a tribute to Col. Earnest Sevier Cox, who is described as "the English-speaking world's foremost racial historian" (p.21). Cox was a leading Ku Klux Klan member. He was also in the Northern League.

In welcoming its new editors American Mercury announced that "we have therefore become the heir to Northern World and Folk and Right". These were anti-semitic and racist publications which glorified the 'Nordic race'.

Kuttner has continued publishing his material in openly racist magazines such as American Mercury. For instance he is a contributor to a similar magazine called Spotlight. A recent contribution of his to Spotlight ('The Celts' April, 1977) was reprinted in the Northern League's The Northlander (June/December 1977).


Until his death in 1973 Professor Henry E. Garrett was an Associate Editor of The Mankind Quarterly, Garrett was formerly Professor of Psychology at the University of Colombia and was a past president of the American Psychological Association. He was author of a number of standard textbooks in psychology: Statistics in psychology and education; Psychological tests, methods and results; General psychology; Great experiments in psychology.

Garrett became an editor of American Mercury at the same time as Kuttner. He had also contributed to the magazine whilst it was edited by General Walker and, of course, he continued his contributions afterwards. Like Kuttner too, he was a member of the National Coordinating Committee in America of an organisation called 'Friends of Rhodesian Independence'. Here Garrett and Kuttner co-operated with other extremists such as Revilo Oliver.

In the 1950s Garrett was a notorious campaigner against integration in the Southern States of America. He was active in the Citizens' Councils which sprang up in the South to defend white supremacy. Pamphlets written by Garrett attacking integration were widely disseminated by these Councils.(40)

Professor Corrado Gini, an Italian sociologist, was also a former Associate Editor of The Mankind Quarterly. He was a fascist sympathiser in Mussolini's Italy; he was a speaker at the Convegno per la Cultura Fascista, which Mussolini described as a "memorable event in the history of Italian fascism."(41) A.J. Gregor, in his book The Ideology of Fascism has suggested that Corrado Gini provided Italian fascism with its philosophy of race.(42) Gregor, himself a former Assistant Editor of The Mankind Quarterly, was also a regular contributor to Mosley's magazine European.(43)

Professor R. Ruggles Gates was a former Associate Editor of The Mankind Quarterly. Like a number of the older members of the journal's editorial board(44) he was a contributor to the pre-war German journal Zeitschrift für Rassenkunde (Deputy Editor: Hans Günther). A review of Gates's book Human Ancestry in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology referred to Gates's views as not just "racist" but "super-racist".(45)

Several of The Mankind Quarterly's contributors are members of The Northern League. For instance Dr. F.J. Los was a regular contributor of major articles and book reviews. His speciality was the pre-history of European and biblical peoples. Until his death in 1974 Dr. Los was one of the most frequent writers in The Northlander.(46)

The Northlander (February/April 1972) recommended to its readers the "interesting essay of our N.L. member, the Icelandic author K. Magnussen in the very good 100% scientific journal The Mankind Quarterly". This was not, in fact, the first contribution from Magnussen to The Mankind Quarterly.(47)

Another contributor to The Mankind Quarterly is perhaps not so extreme in his politics, but is certainly more well-known for his views on race. The Mankind Quarterly in 1970 published a lengthy article by Enoch Powell entitled 'Population figures in the United Kingdom'.

One last example shows the nature of some of The Mankind Quarterly's contributors. In 1961 The Mankind Quarterly published an article entitled, appropriately enough, 'Racial Psychology' (Volume 2, pp.10-14). The author was Ilse Schwidetzky, who had been one of the most frequent contributors to Zeitschrift für Rassenkunde, especially during the war years.

Moreover it was Schwidetzky who had written many of the reviews of the most extreme pro-Nazi and anti-semitic publications to appear in Zeitschrift für Rassenkunde. To give just one instance: in Zeitschrift für Rassenkunde 1942, Vol.13 p.342, Schwidetzky reviewed the journal Weltkampf: die Judenfrage in Geschichte und Gegenwart ('World Struggle: the Jewish Question Past and Present'). This was the official journal of Alfred Rosenberg's Frankfurt Institute for Research into the Jewish Question.

Thus, from its earliest issues The Mankind Quarterly has provided a platform for former colleagues and present heirs of Nazi racial theorist Hans Günther.

2. The contents

THE NORTHLANDER is not alone in recommending The Mankind Quarterly. A.K. Chesterton concluded his book The New Unhappy Lords with a list of journals which he recommended to readers.(48) The journals are standard fascist and anti-Semitic publications including the National Front's Spearhead, Ivor Benson's National Forum Bulletin, Chesterton's own magazine Candour and The Cross and the Flag, one of the most vitriolically anti-Semitic American publications. The only academic-style publication is The Mankind Quarterly. The New Unhappy Lords is a standard on National Front booklists, and is in fact on the booklists of almost all English-speaking Nazi groups.

The Mankind Quarterly is also listed in Censored, a far Right bibliography of publications which "are distasteful to the Left - Liberal - equalitarian - Welfare Statist establishment".(49) Censored's list also includes Ku Klux Klan and explicitly pro-Nazi publications. It describes The Mankind Quarterly as a "unique journal of anthropology, racial and cultural history; not slanted to suit 'liberal' propaganda or reverse racism".

Such recommendations are unlikely to be made were the content of The Mankind Quarterly not attractive to racists and fascists. Nor would fascist publications have reprinted articles. For instance Spearhead has twice reprinted articles from The Mankind Quarterly (Spearhead October 1970 and November 1976). The Northlander August/October 1969 reprinted a short piece by Garrett, which had originally appeared in The Mankind Quarterly. In this piece Garrett had insinuated that Martin Luther King was a Communist.(50)

More recently, too, The Northlander, August 1978, reprinted an article from The Mankind Quarterly: 'The threat of genetic decay' by Nathaniel Weyl. This article claimed that racial intermarriage and 'egalitarian ideology' would "bring into existence future generations so mediocre and spiritless that they will serve as pliant instruments of the gargantuan state".

The racial bias of The Mankind Quarterly has always been evident. The very first issue of the journal made this plain; its introductory editorial statement declared that "the journal has become the more necessary since during the last two decades there has been a decided tendency to neglect the racial aspects of man's inheritance for the social" (Vol. 1, p.4).

Throughout its career, The Mankind Quarterly has published articles favourable to apartheid. Some of the most blatant material comes from the editor himself. Gayre has written a series of articles with such titles as "Proposals for separate ethnic development in Rhodesia" (The Mankind Quarterly, 1967); "Practical considerations which are fundamental in Bantu affairs in Rhodesia and for an understanding of Negroid-Caucasian problems generally" (1969); "Negrophile falsification of racial history" (1969).

(Gayre's Zulu with a 'Jewish nose'

A few quotations from Gayre's The Mankind Quarterly articles will suffice to show their position. In April 1966 Gayre specifically wrote in favour of "the principle of separate development in Southern Africa"; in a chilling phrase. Gayre explained that "administratively everything is made much easier by separate development" ('Dilemma of inter-racial relations', 1966, p.194). He argued against integration in schools because it "unjustly confines the Negro children to scrambling along behind and trying to keep up with white children" (p.195). He also maintained that "The Negroes have never shown interest in invention and creative work" (1966, p.195).

It is small wonder that The Mankind Quarterly receives commendations from open racists and fascists, when it contains statements from its editor such as: "There is no example of a Negro nation that has in any way contributed to Western cultural civilization or to modern man" (1969, p.85).

The standard of Gayre's articles can be judged by a piece published in July 1962. Gayre describes a trip he took to the "Bantu homelands of Northern Transvaal", accompanied by the Public Relations Officer for Bantu Administration at Pretoria. The purpose was to look at the racial characteristics of the 'Bantus'. As a result of his inspections Gayre comes to the conclusion that the 'Bantus' are not a pure race: there is a small amount of non-black blood flowing in their veins. One of the proofs offered by Gayre is a photo of an elderly Zulu with a nose "which is distinctly Jewish" (The Mankind Quarterly, 1962, p.112). In an earlier article, Gayre had recommended readers interested in the "genetics of nasal inheritance" (1960, p.112) to consult Kultur und Rasse, published in Berlin, 1939.

The pro-apartheid bias of The Mankind Quarterly is even more apparent in its book reviews. South African and Rhodesian propaganda publications are frequently given warm reviews. For instance, in 1965 there is a review of The Rhodesian Ministry of Internal Affairs Annual (pp.59-60). In October 1966 Mr White Man, what now?, by G.M. Mes, with a foreword by the Hon. Mr. Justice J.F. Ludorf (published in Johannesburg) was reviewed.

The review of Rhodesia: the jewel of Africa by R.C. Haw (published in Salisbury, Rhodesia) states that the author "leaves little doubt that the Rhodesian cause is overwhelming" (1966, p.124). The same issue of The Mankind Quarterly contained a review of The battle for Rhodesia, by Douglas Reed, an anti-Semitic Strasserite; the reviewer commented that the "majority of articulate opinion among the Bantus is favourable to evolutionary development along the lines mapped out for them by the present Rhodesian government" (1966, p.125).

South African and Rhodesian propaganda is not the only type of propaganda to receive favourable reviews in the pages of The Mankind Quarterly. From time to time fascist publications are reviewed warmly.

For instance, Gayre's connections with the Racial Preservation Society are renewed in the pages of The Mankind Quarterly. The following Racial Preservation Society publications by H.B. Isherwood have been reviewed. Religion and the racial controversy: the false propaganda of the Church (reviewed 1971, p.20); Race and nationhood (reviewed July 1975), Racial kinship (reviewed October 1976).

In his review of Race and kinship, Gayre wrote: "Anything from the pen of Mr H.B. Isherwood must command scholarly respect". The August 1978 edition of the National Front magazine Spearhead published a letter from H.B. Isherwood which states, inter alia, "I think Spearhead for June is excellent". The June edition of Spearhead had been one of the most blatantly anti-Semitic issues for a good number of years; it had even included an attributed quotation from the notorious Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.(51)

A couple of months later H.B. Isherwood took up his pen again. Spearhead in October 1978 published another letter, in which Isherwood described the National Front as "a patriotic movement".

H.B. Isherwood is also a member of the Northern League. His works have also been published by the Britons Publishing Company(52) which, has been issuing for more than 50 years some of the most offensive, anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi material to be published in the English language. Its perennial standard is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion which it has republished over eighty times throughout the years.(53)

In January 1967, The Mankind Quarterly reviewed H.B. Isherwood's Racial integration, published by Britons Publishing Company. In the July/September 1967 issue of The Mankind Quarterly Gayre reviewed another Britons Publishing Company book. He concluded his review: "There is very much in this scholarly and illuminating book that is of great value for our times, and the reader must buy it and read it for himself (p.55).(54)

In the 1969 issue, Gayre recommended another Britons Publishing Company publication, The religious attitudes of the Indo-Europeans by Hans Günther. Gayre has obviously lost little of his admiration for the Nazi racial theorist. He started his review: "No one could be better fitted to discuss the ideas and religious concepts of the Indo-Europeans than the late Professor Günther" (p.143).(55)

Gayre is not the only admirer of Günther on The Mankind Quarterly. Bertil Lundman of Uppsala University in Sweden is on the Honorary Advisory Board and like Ruggles Gates published his early research in Zeitschrift für Rassenkunde. An article in The Mankind Quarterly by Lundman, 'Race, language and the history of peoples' (1962), follows the spirit of Günther with its praise of the Teutons for being of "excellent racial stock" (p.272).

The following year Lundman went further in The Mankind Quarterly. At the end of an article entitled 'The racial history of the Near East' he included a list of recommended reading: "About the Jews there are older works by H.F.K. Günther . . . with interesting illustrations" (p.187, The Mankind Quarterly, 1963).

Given this sort of content, it should not be surprising that political racists and fascists should find The Mankind Quarterly so attractive. Because of the explicitness of many of the contributions in the journal, the 'respectable' scientists would find it hard to explain their involvement on the grounds that they were unaware of what The Mankind Quarterly was about. In fact any such excuse must be seen as even less credible since concern about The Mankind Quarterly has been publicly voiced in academic circles.

Its initial publication in 1960 provoked considerable controversy. Several academic journals expressed grave misgivings about The Mankind Quarterly. For instance Current Anthropology published an article by Juan Comas, '"Scientific" racism again' (1961, Vol. 2, pp.303-314) attacking the racism in the first issue of The Mankind Quarterly. Comas's article was distributed by Current Anthropology to 50 leading scholars for comment. Many of the resulting comments were published in Current Anthropology. Discussion of Comas's article and of The Mankind Quarterly ran to more than 20 pages; the reactions of most of the scholars not directly associated with The Mankind Quarterly was almost uniformly hostile.

Another anthropology journal, Man, also reviewed the initial publication of The Mankind Quarterly. Its verdict was unequivocal: "It is earnestly hoped that The Mankind Quarterly will succumb before it can further discredit anthropology and do more damage to mankind".(56)

Perhaps the most revealing comments to emerge from this controversy came from two academics who were initially involved with The Mankind Quarterly. Professor Ehrenfels had an article in the very first issue. However he wrote to Current Anthropology in 1962 complaining that his article had been censored by the editor. Gayre had deleted two paragraphs which were critical of apartheid in South Africa and Rhodesia.(57)

The reactions of Professor Skerlj of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Ljubljana have also been publicly recorded. The first edition of The Mankind Quarterly listed Skerlj as a member of the Advisory Board. However one issue of the magazine was sufficient to convince him of its nature and he immediately wrote a letter of resignation to Gayre. He asked that this letter be published in The Mankind Quarterly. When this request was refused, Skerlj wrote to Man, who published an account of his experiences with The Mankind Quarterly (November 1960, pp.172-173).

Skerlj's comments are worth reproducing:

Some of those views appearing in the first issue, which has just reached me, seem to show such little concern for facts and to be so distorted by racial prejudice that I cannot allow them to stand without the most vigorous protest. They are quite incompatible with my conscience as a scientist and an affront to the bitter memories I have of the anguish suffered during World War II by the peoples of Europe and of my own country in particular - not to mention what I personally saw and experienced while a prisoner in Dachau.

Skerlj also mentioned the letter he received from the Associate Editor Ruggles Gates. In this letter Gates suggested that Skerlj would never have been asked to be a member of the Advisory Board of The Mankind Quarterly had Gates known that Skerlj had been a prisoner in Dachau.

Chapter Four

Neue Anthropologie

THE MANKIND QUARTERLY is not a unique representative of European academic racism. It has a close German counterpart: Neue Anthropologie, published in Hamburg by The Society for Biological Anthropology, Eugenics and the Study of Behaviour (Gesellschaft für Biologische Anthropologie, Eugenik und Verhaltensforschung).

The two journals are connected. Neue Anthropologie regularly abstracts the major contents of The Mankind Quarterly. They have similar contributors and even on occasions the same articles.

For instance, the April/June 1977 edition of Neue Anthropologie contained an article by Professor Donald A. Swan entitled 'Sir Grafton Elliot Smith über die "Negerrasse".' Coincidentally, the April/June 1977 edition of The Mankind Quarterly contained an article by Swan: 'Sir Grafton Elliot Smith on "the Negro Race".'

Swan is a regular contributor to The Mankind Quarterly; for instance he published three major articles in Vol. 17 (1977-8). He is also on the editorial board of Neue Anthropologie. His other qualifications include being a contributor to the South African Bureau of Racial Affairs' journal and being general secretary of the International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics (IAAEE).(58) This imposing-sounding society operates from a postal box on Grand Central Station New York. It publishes reprints which "provide scholars, students and others with easy access to important articles on the race question". These reprints are offered by openly Nazi groups in the United States (for instance they are on the Sons of Liberty Booklist).(59)

Neue Anthropologie resembles The Mankind Quarterly in a number of respects. It will be shown that its chief editor has clear connections with fascist politics; so also do other members of its editorial board. The content of the journal is racist and it is preserving the racial philosophy of Nazi theorist Hans Günther. Like The Mankind Quarterly, Neue Anthropologie is recommended by the Northern League (see for instance The Northlander, February/April, 1974).

Again in common with The Mankind Quarterly, Neue Anthropologie combines older racial theories with modern psychology. Whereas The Mankind Quarterly has Eysenck as an Honorary Adviser, Neue Anthropologie has Jensen on its editorial Advisory Board.


The editor of Neue Anthropologie is Jürgen Rieger, who belongs to the post-war generation of European fascists. One of Rieger's preoccupations is establishing unity within the 'Nordic race'. To this end, he is a member of the Northern League.

Rieger addressed the Northern League's annual meeting in Brighton, 1969. Quoting the work of Günther and Kuttner he declared: "Our goal is the consolidation of the European countries of the Germanic language and culture group. This 'Nordic Federation' will be the cultural and political centre, the support and refuge for those of the Nordic race outside Europe" (The Northlander, August/October, l969).

Rieger also attended the Northern League's meeting the following year, where he praised, amongst others, the views of Oswald Mosley and Hans Günther. His conclusions were much the same as they had been the previous year: "The Teutonic nations of Europe share a common heritage and are of the same racial extraction. It would be natural for them to strive for political union and unity of power. Our peoples have common enemies. Let us fight for a Teutonic confederation that must come!" (The Northlander, December, 1970, italics in original).

Rieger's views on the 'Teutonic race' are further elucidated in his book Rasse: ein

Problem auch für uns! (Race: also a problem for us). Rieger stresses the importance of racial purity and fulminates against "the disastrous effects of bastardising" races. His clarion call is that "We must awaken the powers of our race: 'The white giants are coming!'."

It should hardly come as a surprise that in West Germany Rasse: ein Problem auch für uns has been placed on the index of books dangerous for young people. Nor should it come as too much of a surprise that The Mankind Quarterly devoted an article in 1971 to praising the book (H. Kiesel: 'Race, the 'Nation of Europe' and ideology', pp.111-115). Even less surprising considering that The Mankind Quarterly features as one of the major sources which Rieger uses in his book.(60)

Rieger himself is also involved with contemporary German Nazi politics. For instance he was involved in organising a meeting in Munich 1977 entitled "Eternal penitence for Hitler?" (Ewig büssen für Hitler?). In addition to Rieger, the other main speakers were Dr. Gerhard Frey and Professor Arnold Butz.(61)

Frey is chairman of the extreme neo-Nazi Deutschen Volksunion. He is also the editor of the paper Deutschen Nationzeitung, an extremist paper which mixes far-Right nationalism with scarcely veiled anti-Semitism. The titles of articles in Deutschen Nationzeitung tell their own story: 'Gassing of Jews: refutation of the great Auschwitz lie'; 'How Hitler really was: exposing anti-German lies'; 'How Hitler really died: His last words, 'I have never wanted war'.'

Butz is a Professor of Engineering at Northwestern University, Illinois. He is the author of The hoax of the Twentieth Century, which is fast becoming a modern anti-Semitic classic, to be found on the booklists of all openly Nazi groups in Europe and the States.(62) Butz's thesis is simple; the Nazi extermination of the Jews never took place. According to Butz it is a "most pernicious hoax...a monstrous lie . . . The Jews of Europe were not exterminated and there was no German attempt to exterminate them". The 'lie', in Butz's view, was invented by Zionist propagandists.


Rieger is not the only figure associated with Neue Anthropologie who is involved in Nazi and fascist politics. In fact a number of the Board of Scientific Advisors (Wissenschaftlicher Beriat) are similarly involved.

Dr Rolf Kosiek, Professor of Nürtingen University, is on the Board and also contributes articles on race and genetics. Kosiek is also a leading member of the neo-Nazi party NPD (Nationaldemokratische Partie Deutschlands) in the Baden-Würtemburg area. His booklet Das Volk in seiner Wirklichkeit is highly recommended by the NPD, providing as it does a biological basis for the NPD's volkish-ideology. This same booklet was formerly given free to new subscribers of Neue Anthropologie.

Kosiek's booklet was favourably reviewed by Rieger in Neue Anthropologie (January/March, 1976, pp.24-5). Rieger seemed to be particularly impressed by Kosiek's final chapter which emphasises "the great German talents" of the "German Folk", which are being curbed by traitors to the nation.

Another of the Neue Anthropologie Board active in neo-Nazi politics is Dr H.G. Amsel. He is a member of a small, anti-Semitic organisation called Gesamtdeutsche Arbeitsgemeinschaft, which carries on the traditions of Hitler's old hero, Erich Ludendorff. Amsel contributes to the paper Mensch und Mass which perpetuates Lundendorff's anti-Semitic theories of a world Jewish conspiracy.

Amsel's conspiracy theories are elaborated in his book Kehrseite des Geldes ('The hidden side of money'). Neue Anthropologie reviewed this work in April/June 1977 (p.45). Kosiek, the reviewer, concluded his very favourable notice by asserting that "it is very much to be hoped that this book will be noticed by leading businessmen and financiers".

Dr H.-W. Hammerbucher is likewise on Neue Anthropologie's editorial Board. He is a publisher who frequently writes for the weekly Nazi paper Deutsche Wochen-Zeitung. This paper is strongly linked to the NPD. In fact, in 1973 it merged with Deutsche Nachrichten which was the official NPD paper. Its publisher is Waldemar Schutz, who is ex-Waffen SS and is a member of NPD's national committee.

Dr F.J. Irsigler, a German brain specialist now resident in South Africa, is, as well as being on Neue Anthropologie's Board, a regular contributor to the neo Nazi Deutsche Hochschullehrer Zeitung. His contributions combine quasi-biological racism with anti-Semitism. He also contributes to The Mankind Quarterly. One of his articles for The Mankind Quarterly, ostensibly on the subject of the evolution of the human brain, details Irsigler's beliefs in a world conspiracy which has "the aim of establishing a world superstate represented by a handful of dictators ruling over a mass of mongrelised brains" (1976, p.105). Irsigler recommends in this article that those interested in "disguised world dictatorship" should read certain publications of the John Birch Society.(63)

In elaborating their racial theories, Rieger, Kosiek et al all make use of the modern psychological research into IQ differences between races. In particular, they cite the works of Eysenck and Jensen to support their basic assumption of fundamental genetic differences between races.

However, it is not just a matter of citing the 'respectable' psychologists, or of twisting their words to fit an extremist position. The words of Jensen and Eysenck stand unmodified in the pages of Neue Anthropologie.

Jensen, as well as being a member of the journal's Board, is also one of its most frequent contributors. In 1973, in the first year of Neue Anthropologie's publication Jensen published Bildungsfähigkeit, Erblichkeit und Bevolkerungsunterschiede (Educability, heredity and population differences). The following year Neue Anthropologie published Zur stammesgeschtlichen und individuellen Entwicklung der Intelligenz (On the phylogenetic and individual development of intelligence); in 1976 Jensen again appears in Neue Anthropologie with an article entitled Eine Zweifaktorentheore des familiären Schwachsinns (A two-factor theory of familial feeble-mindedness). In 1977 he was leaping to the defence of Sir Cyril Burt in his article Die falschen Anschuldigungen gegen Sir Cyril Burt (The false accusations against Sir Cyril Burt).

To date Eysenck has not contributed an actual article to Neue Anthropologie; however the journal in January/March 1976 published an exclusive interview with him.(64) In this Eysenck spells out his belief that 75 per cent of intelligence is a product of heredity and only 25 per cent due to environmental factors. Eysenck goes on to complain about the threats to his work from Left-wing students. Ironically, given his audience in Neue Anthropologie, he complains that these "militant Left-fascists" are in no way different from Hitler's "Right-fascists".(65)

If anything the preservation of pre-war German racial theories is even more overt in Neue Anthropologie. It is not difficult to find evidence that the works of Günther are still being championed.

For example, Rieger in a long article entitled Der Rassenbegriff (The concept of race) in January/March 1976, shows that it is not only at closed meetings of the Northern League that he praises Günther. At the end of his piece, which argues for the importance of studying racial differences, Rieger includes a section on 'Ideology and the definition of race'. Regretting that the study of race has become enmeshed in ideological questions relating to National Socialism, Rieger gives an example of a satisfactory approach towards, and definition of, 'race'. His example is significant: it is not just that he quotes Günther, but he specifically quotes Günther's characterisation of the Jews (p.9). Thus, although Rieger is claiming to be outlining a "new direction" for research into race, he is quite consciously looking backwards to well-trodden paths.

As if to make the point more explicit, following the end of Rieger's article, there are two advertisements (p.11). One is advertising copies of Bauernglaube by Hans Günther ('Hurry while stocks last!'). The other advertisement is for the pro-Nazi magazine Nation Europa (see below).

But even more blatant and more official is the notice in Neue Anthropologie (October/December 1977, p.96) on behalf of its publishers, the Society for Biological Anthropology, Eugenics and the Study of Behaviour: "Within the framework of the existing Society it ought to be possible to establish a Günther-Circle in order to assemble a complete collection of his books and articles". The notice goes on to state that the Society's archives lack certain articles and asks if members could fill the gaps. It specifically calls for Günther's contributions to Neues Volk, which was an official publication of the German Nazi party, and Odal (the monthly magazine edited by the Nazi leader Walter Darré, specialising in Blut und Boden).

This notice concludes with the hope that there would be sufficient interest within the Society to republish some of Günther's works.

Chapter Five

Nouvelle Ecole

So far a common pattern has been shown to exist in journals like The Mankind Quarterly and Neue Anthropologie. Behind the scholarly appearances lurk the traditions of Nazi race-science. There are those involved with both magazines who are attempting to relate those traditions once again to fascist political activity. What is more, both journals have clear links with the modern psychological research of Eysenck and Jensen. This common pattern is not just to be found in Britain and Germany today.

One constant feature of contemporary fascism is that practically all fascist and Nazi parties, whilst claiming to be fervently nationalistic, have international connections. Groups like the National Front might portray themselves publicly as rigid 'nationalists', yet nevertheless their leaders maintain contacts with European and American fascist organisations. In the same way the racist culture of The Mankind Quarterly and Neue Anthropologie is an international enterprise.

The proof of this lies in the fact a French journal, Nouvelle Ecole, is closely related to the academic circles of The Mankind Quarterly and Neue Anthropologie. In fact, all three journals carry advertisements for each other. Likewise Nouvelle Ecole is recommended by the Northern League's The Northlander (see for instance August/October 1972, p.10).

What might make this surprising at first sight is the Northern League's apparent pro-German (or Teuton) and anti-Gallic stance. This was well illustrated by Jürgen Rieger's speech to the Northern League's annual meeting in Brighton in 1969. Rieger criticised the Belgian fascist Jean Thiriart and his magazine Jeune Europe for suggesting mixing the 'Nordic' and 'Latin' races. Instead, declared Rieger, Germany must be secured "against Southern and Latin Europe, against Italy which has been mongrelised since the time of the Roman Empire (like all other South-European countries) and against France" (The Northlander, August/October, 1969).

However, Aryan and Gallic racists are prepared to bury their differences in order to promote racism as such. Here Nouvelle Ecole, a far glossier and more expensive production than either The Mankind Quarterly or Neue Anthropologie, has had an important function to bring racialist assumptions and theories into French intellectual life. In this task Nouvelle Ecole is aided by many of the same people involved with its British and German counterparts.


The editor of Nouvelle Ecole is Alain de Benoist, who also publishes under the pseudonym of Fabrice Laroche. Perhaps Benoist is more predisposed to the Nordic nonsense of Riger et al than many of his French colleagues on Nouvelle Ecole. He is in fact on the Advisory Board of Neue Anthropologie and in 1976 contributed a lengthy article on 'The misfortunes of the highly-gifted'. Moreover the French edition of Who's Who lists de Benoist as a member of the Society of Friends of Bayreuth.

De Benoist is one of the leading members of the French intellectual movement 'Groupement de Reserche et d'Etudes pour la Civilisation Européenne' (GRECE), whose meetings are advertised in Nouvelle Ecole. GRECE represents an amalgam of French Right-wing intellectuals. Foremost among the ideas propagated by GRECE is the notion that different races have different sorts of intelligence; it also promotes an interest in eugenics.

GRECE has some extremely influential supporters in France. For instance the director and editor of the national newspaper, Figaro Dimanche - Louis Pauwels and Patrice de Plunkett - are supporters; they are also on the editorial committee of Nouvelle Ecole. GRECE actively disseminates the ideas of Jensen and Eysenck; its publishing company, Copernicus, has recently brought out French editions of Eysenck's books The Inequality of Man and Race, Intelligence and Education.

De Benoist's books include Le Courage est leur Patrie (Courage is their fatherland), Rhodesia: terre de lions fidèles (Rhodesia: land of faithful lions); Vu de droite (Right view).


Each edition of Nouvelle Ecole boasts an impressive list of members of the comité de patronage (board of patrons). Most of the members are French academics; however there are a number of foreign academics, most of whom have already been mentioned in connection with The Mankind Quarterly and Neue Anthropologie.

Gayre is one of the patrons. So is Garrett. In the Autumn 1973 issue of Nouvelle Ecole, the magazine published a letter from Garrett talking of the importance of bringing to the attention of "the European public samples of the immense number of scientific studies and works of racology or racial psychology which the egalitarians never mention".

Kuttner is also on the comité de patronage. Nouvelle Ecole, July/August 1972 published a letter of praise from Kuttner: "I have known of Nouvelle Ecole for more than a year and I wish to tell you all the good things I think of it. Nouvelle Ecole is definitely on the right lines. It is a remarkable publication, always well informed from the scientific point of view and it shows the true value of things. I hope that its influence will be of the same order as its value".

Similar praise came in the same issue from Northern League member F.J. Los, who like Kuttner and Gayre is on Nouvelle Ecole's comité de patronage: "I have read with a great deal of pleasure and sympathy most of the articles that you have published in Nouvelle Ecole to date, and I see that our views are practically the same on a very great number of subjects".

Bertil Lundman, another member of the comité de patronage, as well as being an Honorary Adviser of The Mankind Quarterly and former contributor of Zeitschrift für Rassenkunde, called Nouvelle Ecole "an event in the world of international periodicals". This racial theorist went on to describe the international aims of cultural racism. It was, according to him, necessary to form "a cultural school embracing the entire human world, being rigorously apolitical and truly humane, in the middle of a chaotic universe menaced by subversive forces of all sorts". He went on to praise the magazine as being "a true pleasure for cultured eyes" (Autumn 1973).

Roger Pearson founder of the Northern League
and patron of Nouvelle Ecole
Nouvelle Ecole's American representative is Donald Swan of Neue Anthropologie and the IAAEE. From the earliest editions of Nouvelle Ecole Swan has contributed articles on race (e.g. 'Le processus biologique de formation raciale' in Volume 3). In Volume 18, 1972, Swan wrote an article introducing Nouvelle Ecole to the work of Lundman.(66)

Another of The Mankind Quarterly's advisers is also with Nouvelle Ecole's comité de patronage: J.D.J. Hofmeyr, the South African geneticist. In July 1972 de Benoist interviewed Hofmeyr for Nouvelle Ecole on the subject of race. Hofmeyr argued for the importance of racial differences, alleging that "cultures and civilizations, far from being a product of the environment, are intimately linked to the innate capacities of the races which have created them". In Hofmeyr's opinion, differences between races are unchangeable: "Races were formed thousands and thousands of years ago, and they remain just how they were formed". This means, according to the South Africa geneticist, that blacks will remain mentally inferior to whites.

Hofmeyr, in this interview, went on to expound a theory that the climate of the Northern Hemisphere led the white race to evolve superior mental powers. According to Hofmeyr's theory this explains "the leadership of the Northern Hemisphere of the planet in the field of science and technology".

Nouvelle Ecole claims to be the first French publication to publicise Jensen's work. De Benoist originally reported Jensen's research in Nouvelle Ecole, September/October 1969 in an article entitled 'Intégration scolaire et psychologie raciale'. This article was translated into German and appeared the following year in Junges Forum, under the title of Schulintegration und Rassenpsychologie. Jensenismus: Tabu, Rasse und IQ. The term 'Rassenpsychologie' has distinct echoes of earlier research into race.

More than just publicising Jensen's work, Nouvelle Ecole also claims to be in France "the first to give directly the words of Dr Jensen". This it first did in 1972, Volume 18, when it published an exclusive interview Jensen gave to De Benoist.(67)

In the course of this interview Jensen explained why he thought that intelligence was determined primarily by heredity rather than by environment. He also regretted that the research necessary for establishing that there are racial differences in intelligence is no longer undertaken. However, Jensen rejoiced in the fact that "a large number of American and foreign thinkers have recognised the importance and truth in the questions which I have raised".

Jensen went on to publicise three of his books which were due to be published in London. He commented, "I am convinced that these works will have an influence on educational research for the next ten years".

Nouvelle Ecole continued bringing the words of Jensen to the attention of the French public by reprinting Jensen's article 'Educability, Heritability and Population Differences', in Volume 24, 1974.

In his interview with Nouvelle Ecole Jensen also recommended Eysenck's "little work" Race Intelligence and Education: "It is an essay which presents some of my research and views in a way which is clear and accessible to a non-specialised public. It deserves to be read by many people".

Jensen may have initially introduced Eysenck to the readers of Nouvelle Ecole, but firmer ties were soon to follow. Thus in 1974 Eysenck himself joined the comité de patronage.

Nouvelle Ecole in Autumn 1973 gave page-space to Eysenck's words. It reprinted an article by Eysenck, not on race, but on Freudian psycho-analysis.(68) To accompany the piece Nouvelle Ecole included several cartoons, photographs, and selected quotations from psycho-analysts, which taken together had more than a faint whiff of anti-Semitism.

This in itself illustrates the direction in which race-science has travelled in the past and the direction it seems to be going today. Thus, even in the French Nouvelle Ecole it is possible to detect signs that Günther's work is not totally forgotten. Just as The Mankind Quarterly and Neue Anthropologie combine the traditions of Nazi race-science with modern IQ psychology, so Nouvelle Ecole promotes Eysenck and Jensen as well as rehabilitating the memory of Günther.

For instance, Armin Mohler of the University of Innsbruck is on the comité. Mohler is the author of Die Konservative Revolution in Deutschland, 1918-1932, which classes genuine conservatives like Thomas Mann under the same heading of 'radical conservatives' as Nazi racial theorists like Günther, Wirth and Kummer. In this way Mohler plays down the contribution which such racial theorists made to Nazism.

In a short article in Nouvelle Ecole, Autumn 1973, Mohler continues his whitewashing of Günther. In fact, he alleges that there were fundamental differences between the theories of Günther and Hitler, such that the Führer would "have been incapable of using the racial studies" because "the distinction 'Jew/non-Jew' satisfied him fully". Not only does Mohler here gloss over Günther's own extreme anti-Semitism, but also he neglects Günther's contributions to Rosenberg's anti-Jewish congresses. These heavily politicised congresses coincided with Hitler's fateful attempt to carry anti-Semitic theory to its logical conclusion, as well as with Mohler's own studies at the University of Berlin, where Günther was professor.

Nouvelle Ecole's racist perspective is hardly surprising considering that a former member of the comité was Roger Pearson, founder of the Northern League. Although Pearson is no longer officially listed on the comité, it is clear that connections are still maintained. Pearson is currently the chairman of the World Anti-Communist League (WACL), an organisation which links the activities of racist and anti-Semitic groups throughout the world.

The Washington Post, May 28 1978, described the 11th annual conference of WACL, chaired by Pearson and held in Washington. Amongst those present were representatives of the Italian fascist party MSI, Liberty Lobby, the American extreme racist and anti-Semitic group, and representatives from Nouvelle Ecole. The Washington Post report mentioned that the Nouvelle Ecole group met informally during the conference with William Pierce, former leading member of the American Nazi Party. According to Pierce, the Nouvelle Ecole members "are working along lines very close to ours".

Chapter Six

Eysenck & Jensen

THE involvement of Eysenck and Jensen, not to mention other academics of high repute, in the attempts to create a racist culture shows the difficulty of distinguishing between 'respectable' and non-respectable racism. This is reinforced by the fact that Eysenck's and Jensen's involvement goes further than connections with the semi-academic publications of The Mankind Quarterly, Nouvelle Ecole and Neue Anthropologie. It is possible to point to two occasions when Eysenck and Jensen have figured in actual fascist publications.


In 1975, a faction of the National Front split away to form their own party the National Party. In most respects this party resembled the National Front: it was outwardly racist, expressing its anti-black sentiments in crude and violent language. Moreover it adhered to the same basic anti-Semitic view of politics as the National Front.(69) The main difference between the National Party and the National Front was that the leaders of the National Party espoused the Strasserite version of Nazism rather than the Hitlerite.

The National Party also attracted a few intellectually inclined young members, who decided that the party needed a more 'serious' publication than the party's vitriolic newssheet Britain First. The result was that the National Party, February 1977, launched their magazine Beacon which, according to its first editorial, "intends to fill a gap in the cultural world" by "promoting pride in Britain's heritage and a concern about its present and future well-being".

That first issue of Beacon featured an exclusive interview with Eysenck. In the interview Eysenck explains in simple language why he believes that "racial IQ differences" are not due to environmental factors. He goes on to suggest that the history of civilisations might be influenced by such racial differences: "there is a very close correlation between the different achievements of races and their present day IQ level".(70)

These sorts of sentiments are clearly pleasing to the ears of contemporary fascists. The interview has been reprinted in the American fascist magazine Steppingstones, Spring 1978.(71) The booklist offered by Steppingstones contains Mein Kampf, works by Goebbels and Günther and Adolf Hitler - Photos (which, according to Steppingstones, is "an astounding book with 160 full-page photos of Hitler with excerpts from Mein Kampf . . .The thoughts and life of the greatest man in history"). Steppingstones also offers a wide selection of works by contemporary cultural racists: e.g. Swan, Los, Lundman, Darlington, etc.

There is a slight mystery about this Beacon interview with Eysenck. When Professor Steven Rose, Professor of Biochemistry at the Open University, wrote an open letter to Eysenck in the science magazine Nature mentioning the interview, Eysenck responded firmly:

"Professor Rose suggests that I have given personal interviews to The Beacon; this is untrue, although I am sure he made the allegation in good faith" (Nature, August 24, 1978, p.738).(72)

An Interview with
Prof. Hans Eysenck

Beacon: Well it seems to have turned a full circle now...
H.E.: Yes, the other way.
Beacon: Have you found any social ostracism from academic colleagues?
   Prof. Hans Eysenck, a lecturer in Psychology at the Institute of Psychiatry in Denmark Hill, South London, was recently back in the news when he leaped to the defense of the late Sir Cyril Burt, a pioneer in the study of intelligence. Prof. Eysenck has himself come under attack from the Establishment Press, and physical assault from Communist students, since the publication of his book Race, Intelligence and Education. Some time ago we interviewed Prof. Eysenck about reaction to his work.
Beacon: When you actually wrote the book, did you anticipate stirring up so much controversy?
H.E.: No, I didn't; I must say I was rather....
was largely inherited. I put this point in my 1950 book Uses and Abuses. But then results began to come in, I stopped lecturing on the subject because I couldn't be certain that this was true, but then on the other hand I couldn't be certain that the opposite was true either, so I just stopped talking about it altogether. Then came first of all that book by Shuey (Ed.: The Testing of Negro Intelligence) and that I really found convincing. And then came Jensen's book and between them I found this was absolutely convincing, so I re-read all the literature and found I couldn't maintain the view I had held before.
Beacon: Will the controversy and the results on you make any difference to the views you put forward in the future?
H.E.: No, it doesn't make any difference to what I say or write, I left Germany and went into exile because I cherish free speech and I think it's absolutely vital for me, and.....
H.E.: No, none at all. It's entirely this small group of militant students and one or two left-wingers on the press who obviously know nothing about the topic and couldn't care less about the facts.
Beacon: So would you say that most of these people are politically motivated rather than academically or scientifically...
H.E.: Well, I think they must be because they obviously know nothing about the topic. They haven't even read the literature.
Beacon: Turning to your work itself, how is it that you can correlate the heritability of intelligence within a race, with the heritability of intelligence between races?
H.E.: Well, as I say in the book, you can't. There is no definitive, explicit way in which this has been done. That's why I say that the argument is not conclusive. It is merely suggestive.
Beacon: So it just provices evidence...
H.E.: There is a lot of evidence which is derived largely by taking the arguments pro
The Beacon interview with Eysenck

Editor's note: the original reproduces only a portion of the interview, and each column of the original ends where indicated - A. W.


Once again parallels can be found between Eysenck and Jensen. If Beacon reports an exclusive interview with Eysenck, then it is possible to find a fascist political magazine to announce its scoop of an exclusive interview with Jensen.

In September 1975 the German monthly magazine Nation Europa featured an exclusive interview with Jensen (pp.19-28), under the heading of Rasse und Begabung ('Race and Achievement'). There is, however, one difference between this interview and Eysenck's with Beacon. Whereas Beacon was a publication of an insignificant fascist group (the National Party never attracted the support of the National Front and is now defunct), Nation Europa has been one of the most substantial fascist publications for a number of years.

Two Italian journalists, Del Boca and Giovana, surveying fascism throughout the world wrote in their book Fascism Today: "Nation Europa has for many years been considered to be the most authoritative organ of European neo-Fascism" (p.457).

Nation Europa was established shortly after the Second World War by a former Waffen-SS officer, Arthur Ehrhard. Associated with Nation Europa were many old Nazis attempting to reorganise Nazi activities throughout Europe. In 1951 a Fascist International conference was held in Malmo Sweden, attended by more than 30 fascist leaders. The purpose of the conference was to lay the basis for future fascist activities. The conference was organised by the Swiss fascist Per Engdahl. An observer of the fascist scene wrote at the time: "Dr Engdahl, the organiser of this movement, is conspicuously associated with a German journal which may be described as the brains trust of the Fascist International. Nation Europa, a well-produced monthly (published at Coburg) claims to be labouring in the service of European nationalism" (Wiener Library Bulletin, 1952 May/August, p.21).

Early contributors included many of the remains of the old Nazi 'elite': i.e. Hans Grimm, Karl Heinz Priester, Oswald Mosley, Julius Evola (the Italian racist, whose works are highly recommended in Nouvelle Ecole: see p.76, Autumn 1973) and Maurice Bardèche, the French fascist who started a book with the statement je suis un écrivain fasciste.(73) Adolf von Thadden, the ex-leader of the NPD, is a regular contributor and Richard Verrall of the National Front's directorate,(74) and editor of the National Front's paper Spearhead, is also a contributor (see his article Was will Englands 'National Front'? in September 1977).

Not too surprisingly some of the cultural fascists and racists, involved with The Mankind Quarterly and Neue Anthropologie, also write for Nation Europa: for example, Kosiek, Rieger, Swan and Irsigler.(75)

Moreover, advertisements for Nation Europa have appeared in Neue Anthropologie; similarly Nation Europa has carried advertisements for both Neue Anthropologie and Nouvelle Ecole. As is to be expected, Nation Europa also advertises overtly political publications like Deutsche Wochen Zeitung and Northern League magazines, as well as advertising fascist political meetings.

A few examples of the contents of Nation Europa for 1975 will be sufficient to show its fascist complexion. The May issue published a poem entitled 'For the soldiers of the Waffen-SS'. This tribute to the SS starts with the lines "They have stolen our selves and our honours" but concludes encouragingly "They have not broken our pride". The June issue advertised an NPD meeting with Gerhard Frey and Austin App. The August issue had an article by Fritz Brunner (Nordlandsehnsucht und nordischer Gedanke) praising the work of Günther.

As well as the Jensen interview, the September issue also contains a very favourable review of the pamphlet Did six million really die? by Richard Harwood; this pamphlet, originally published in English, but translated into several European languages, is on most Nazi booklists and denies that the Nazi murder of Jews ever took place. The Nation Europa review ends: "We emphatically recommend this book, and that our youth should get hold of it...Harwood destroys the web of lies".(76)

The Jensen interview focused on the American psychologists's views that blacks are inherently less intelligent than whites. Jensen expounds at length his thesis that heredity is much more important than environment in determining intelligence. In the course of this, he gives opinions that could not fail to please the fascist readership of Nation Europa. For instance, he comments that when all-white schools in America become integrated standards of performance decline in proportion to the drop in number of white children attending. Jensen also mentions an increase in problems of discipline with integration. He also discusses the hypothesis of a great 'genetic distance' between whites and blacks.

However, not all of Jensen's thoughts in this interview match the line of Nation Europa. In fact in a short introduction to the interview, Nation Europa mentions Jensen's "politically rather liberal views".

On a number of occasions, Jensen firmly rejects the interviewer's suggestions in favour of separating races. He declares racial segregation to be immoral and states that it runs counter to the "essential values of freedom and liberty". Moreover Jensen declared that "people should be treated as individuals, not according to their racial, ethnic or social origin".

One might wonder why Nation Europa should publish such 'rather liberal views' (and indeed why Jensen should have granted them an interview in the first place). One reason could be the belief that in the context Jensen's liberal views do not follow from his statements on the genetic inequalities between races.

At one point in the interview Jensen utters the injunction: "Disregard groups and concentrate on the individual" (p.22). However, this classic liberal position is somewhat undermined by Jensen's own insistence on discussing data from groups (namely blacks and whites). In fact Jensen's basic conduct as a psychologist disregards this injunction: his work as a psychologist has been devoted to establishing differences between groups, rather than between individuals.

This basic point is not lost on fascists, even if hereditarian psychologists might like to think that their work does not accord with fascist racism. For instance Eysenck in a letter to The Times, March 16 1978, attempted to argue that his scientific conclusions in fact disproved racism. According to Eysenck:

"To the racist all members of a given group are inferior to all members of another. The empirical work that Jensen and I have surveyed makes it quite impossible to maintain any such position; there is a great deal of overlap between any racial or national groups that have ever been studied....Looked at from the rational point of view, therefore, the empirical studies of different races and national groups conclusively disprove the allegations of racists and destroy their fundamental belief."

This attempt to distance the results of empirical psychology from racism is founded on a specious premise, of which Eysenck should have been aware. Racialists do not necessarily claim that there is no overlap between racial groups and in fact they frequently use the overlap findings to bolster their racialism.

For instance, the National Front is overtly racialist. Its paper declares "we are proud racialists and we say so" (Spearhead, September 1976) and its banners proclaim unequivocably "The National Front is a Racialist Front". And when discussing the psychological research on race and IQ differences, the National Front does not deny any overlap between black and white intelligence. For instance Spearhead April 1976 clearly states:

"The findings of Prof. Audrey Shuey, in her monumental compendium of 50 years of I.Q. tests entitled The Testing of Negro Intelligence, are that the Negro, on average, scores 15 to 20 points lower than the European in such tests. The average overlap, i.e. where exceptional Negroes score the same as Whites, is 11 per cent. According to Prof. Garrett, for every one gifted Negro there are 7-8 gifted whites."

When he wrote The Times letter, Eysenck should have been aware of Spearhead's position. The present author sent Eysenck a copy of the Spearhead April 1976 article ('The reality of race' by Richard Verrall). Eysenck's response is worth recording. His reply was that "the devil can quote scripture, and malevolent people can always misquote factual evidence . . . These things are sent to try us and there is very little that can be done about it".

The inconsistencies in Eysenck's position were not lost on the National Front. Richard Verrall and Anthony Reed-Herbert (both leading members of the National Front) replied to Eysenck in a letter to The Times, March 20 1978.

They dismissed Eysenck's argument about overlap between races and racialism:

"Of course there is a statistical overlap whereby a minority of individuals of one race fall outside the norm, but in no way does overlap, as Professor Eysenck must know full well, invalidate the proven fact of inherited genetic differences between the races."

In similar spirit Verrall and Reed-Herbert pointed to the contradiction in the position of a scientist "who has himself studied the question of race and intelligence in terms of group comparisons" arguing that "races cannot be considered in terms of their group aspects, but only in terms of their 'characteristics as distinct individuals'."

The conclusion of Verrall and Reed-Herbert illustrates the harmony which the National Front believes to exist between its racialism and the science of Eysenck and Jensen: "It is regrettable that, in choosing to enter the political arena, Professor Eysenck found himself unable to correlate his political conclusions with the logic of his scientific findings".

In fact, Eysenck in his interview with Beacon went even further. Instead of using the overlap argument to separate his work from racism, Eysenck maintained "there is no connection at all between the facts, whatever they are, and a racist type of attitude" (our emphasis). Here Eysenck seems to be implying that even if science maintained there were no overlap between races, this would still not support racism. More than this, Eysenck is implying that no scientific 'facts', whatever they are, can ever be connected with racism.

Not only is this historically untrue, but it is quite absurd: the context of the statement refutes its content, appearing as it does in a racist magazine published by a racist political party.

Chapter Seven

Racism in psychology

SO FAR connections have been demonstrated between respectable scientists and those semi-academic, semi-political magazines, like The Mankind Quarterly, Nouvelle Ecole and Neue Anthropologie, which are actively promoting a racist culture; there have even been contacts with more overtly fascist and racist publications. Given such contacts, it is possible that ideas, originating from undeniably racist sources, are percolating into the academic arena.

Audrey M. Shuey's book The Testing of Negro Intelligence(77) offers a good example of the interconnections between political and academic racism. This mammoth book, which runs to nearly 600 pages, is a compendium of the research conducted into black IQ. Shuey's conclusion is that there are "native differences between negroes and whites as determined by intelligence tests": in other words blacks are less intelligent than whites.

Shuey's book contains an introduction by Henry Garrett, whose extremist views and connections have already been described. Garrett's contribution to Shuey's work goes further than writing a laudatory introduction. Shuey in her preface goes out of her way to thank Garrett: "Special thanks are due to Dr. Henry E. Garrett, for encouraging the writing of this book". Not altogether too surprisingly Shuey leans quite heavily in parts on Garrett's work.

If the motivation behind Shuey's work came from Garrett, whose political views were hardly inimical to the conclusions of The Testing of Negro Intelligence, nevertheless the work has had a deep impact on respectable psychologists.

For instance, Eysenck in Race, Intelligence and Education praises Shuey's work in most generous terms. His chapter on 'The intelligence of American negroes' is based on Shuey's work, as Eysenck is the first to admit:

"In surveying the results of work in this field, I have done little but paraphrase the scholarly, extensive and very reliable summary published by Audrey M. Shuey, entitled 'The Testing of Negro Intelligence'. . .It would clearly be impossible to go into similar detail here, as well as being supererogatory - such a job needed to be done, but having been well done, requires no repetition. Readers who wish to consult the references on which my own summaries and conclusions are based can do no better than read Shuey" (pp.87-88).

It is perhaps worthwhile to mention that Shuey, like Eysenck, is an Honorary Editorial Advisor to The Mankind Quarterly.

Shuey's conclusions are returned to racist circles, when Eysenck recommends her book during his Beacon interview. He mentioned that he used to believe that racial IQ differences were the product of environmental causes, but he changed his mind: "Then came first of all that book by Shuey and that I found really convincing".

Shuey in the preface of her book refers to 'Racial Psychology'. The growth of such 'Racial Psychology' (and Shuey includes her own work and those of other psychologists researching into racial differences in IQ) has led to a climate where racialist assumptions can be found in so-called objective psychological science. Eysenck's own department at the Institute of Psychiatry, Maudsley Hospital, London, is one where Racial Psychology can be said to be flourishing.

Jensen himself has contacts with the Institute of Psychiatry. Between 1956 and 1958 he worked as a Research Fellow at the Institute. His contacts with Eysenck have continued since then.

It was at a conference in the Institute of Psychiatry that Jensen delivered a highly publicised talk in August 1970, discussing the IQ of American blacks and Mexican-Americans. This talk was later to form the basis of Jensen's book Educability and Group Differences. In his book Race, Intelligence and Education (p.16), Eysenck went out of his way to thank the organiser of the conference: none other than A.J. Gregor (formerly of The Mankind Quarterly, the IAAEE and Oswald Mosley's European).

A good example of the way racialist presuppositions intrude into research at the Institute of Psychiatry is provided by Dr Glenn Wilson, who is a lecturer there. Wilson has collaborated with Eysenck on a number of books, including a recent work on the psychology of politics.(78)

Wilson's own research has nothing to do with Eysenck's theories of racial differences in IQ; Wilson is in fact a social psychologist concerned with the study of attitudes. His book The Psychology of Conservatism(79) is ostensibly a scientific study of Right-wing political attitudes. It includes a commendatory preface by Eysenck, as well as some revealing assumptions.

Wilson starts The Psychology of Conservatism by saying that he prefers to use the term 'conservative' to 'fascist'. His reasons are that "most people would quite reasonably take exception to being described as 'fascist'" (p.4). Moreover, argues Wilson, the term 'conservative,' unlike 'fascist', "is relatively free of derogatory value-tone" (i.e., is not insulting).

Therefore Wilson, in order not to offend anyone, uses the term 'conservative' throughout his book, rather than fascist. The absurdity of this is that he uses 'conservative' even when talking about obvious fascists; for instance on page 7 he specifically refers to the National Front as a conservative organisation.

Wilson's concern not to offend does not, it seems, extend to all equally. On page 88 Wilson describes a questionnaire scale which he designed to measure 'realism'. Labelling a set of beliefs as 'realistic' and describing the believers as 'realists' indicates, at least implicitly, something about the scientist's own assumptions.

According to Wilson's scale, realists support 'white supremacy' and 'apartheid'; realists also reject 'coloured immigration'.(80) Wilson does not discuss any "derogatory value-tone" associated with this labelling.

In contrast to some of the academics already mentioned, it is highly unlikely that Wilson is consciously promoting racial theories or deliberately exonerating fascism. In fact, it is Wilson's lack of any conscious motivation which makes his remarks so disturbing. The proponents of racial theories hope to create an intellectual climate in which racialist assumptions are accepted as second-nature, even by those with no particular axe to grind. When large numbers of well-intentioned people fail to question racist assumptions, then racism can truly flourish.

It should be mentioned that Wilson's Psychology of Conservatism has been much quoted since its publication. Reviewers of the book, and psychologists studying Wilson's work, do not appear to have noticed anything untoward in Wilson's assumptions.

If Wilson represents an example of how racist presuppositions can be unthinkingly accepted, then the Institute of Psychiatry can also offer a more extreme example of racial psychology: that of a psychologist who uses psychology to justify his prejudices.


One of the contributors to Wilson's Psychology of Conservatism is Dr John J. Ray, lecturer at the University of New South Wales in Australia. During 1977 and 1978 Ray however was on sabbatical leave at the Institute of Psychiatry, where no doubt he found the intellectual atmosphere congenial to his research. Probably Ray was attracted by the fame of Eysenck, whom Ray had described as "the world's most eminent living psychologist".

Ray himself holds some forthright views on racism. His book Conservatism as heresy(81) includes chapters with such appetising titles as 'Rhodesia: in defence of Mr Smith' and 'In defence of the White Australia policy'. Ray also argues that it is "moralistic nonsense" to denounce racism.

Well might Ray defend racism. He does not mince his words when he writes about Australian Aborigines. Ray says that "aborigines are characterised by behaviour that in a white we would find despicable . . . White backlash is then reasonable. Unless we expect whites to forget overnight the cultural values that they have learned and practised all their lives, they will find the proximity of aboriginals unpleasant" (p.58).

Ray has conducted a number of academic surveys in order to bolster his prejudices. For instance Ray assumes that it is natural that whites should develop an antipathy towards Aborigines:

"If, for instance, people suddenly find themselves living in close contact with Aborigines and Aborigines happen to be in fact rather unhygienic in their habits, some people previously without prejudice will start to say that they don't like Aborigines." (p.261.)

Therefore Ray designed a survey to measure white Australians' attitudes towards Aborigines, comparing those who lived near Aborigines with those who lived further away.

The results of his survey failed to confirm his prediction; Ray did not find that whites living near Aborigines were in fact more prejudiced. Ray described his results as "disappointing" (p.267). Instead of discarding his hypothesis, Ray still strove to maintain his own prejudices; he searched around for reasons why his questionnaire might not have obtained the correct results. Thus, even in the face of negative results, Ray clings to what he calls his 'rational prejudice model'.

Ray's prejudices do not just relate to Aborigines. Dr. Ray enjoins us to "face the fact that large numbers of even educated Australians do not like Jews or 'Wogs'." (p.70.) Ray writes approvingly of people who will

"among friends, exchange mocking misnomers for suburbs in which Jews have settled: Bellevue Hill becomes 'Bellejew Hill' and Rose Bay becomes 'Nose Bay'; Dover Heights becomes 'Jehova Heights'." (p.71.)

Ray obviously has sympathy with the racists and anti-Semites. Many of the people who make the comments Ray cites, are according to our Australian psychologist "superbly functioning and well-adjusted Australians". In Ray's opinion such people will "justly deny being racists" (p.70): n.b. the give-away word 'justly'.

The main reason why Ray does not find such attitudes racist is that he considers them perfectly logical. Thus he asserts that people "who don't like sloth . . . may object to Aborigines. People who do not like grasping materialism, will certainly find no fault with Aborigines but they may find fault with Jews" (p.265).

It seems that Dr Ray, in an academic paper about psychology, is repeating the racist and anti-Semitic assumptions that Aborigines are lazy and Jews are 'grasping materialists'. It is hard to find any other explanation for Ray's continual defence of prejudice.

In his academic papers Ray has a tendency to use some curious turns of phrase. Thus when he criticises, as he often does, the classic work in the psychology of fascism, The Authoritarian Personality by Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson and Sanford, he refers to "the work of these Jewish authors" (see, for instance, the start of Ray's article in the distinguished social science journal Human Relations).(82) This is not the standard way of describing opponents' research, at least not since the days of Nazi Germany.

But there again Ray is not exactly ignorant of the ways of Nazism. During the 1960s Ray was a member of various Australian Nazi parties. In fact Ray has openly described his seven-year association with Nazism (see, for instance, his article 'What are Australian Nazis really like?' in The Bridge, August 1972).

Chapter Eight


The history and continuation of race-science shows the complexity with which scientific and political ideas can become interwoven. However, in the midst of this complexity a number of patterns are distinctly visible.

When discussing the attempts to create a racialist culture the same names kept re-occurring, whether in relation to Britain, the United States, France or Germany. As well as sharing many of the same personnel, The Mankind Quarterly, Neue Anthropologie and Nouvelle Ecole have similar purposes and pedigrees.

All three journals have been active in promoting the theories of Eysenck and Jensen about racial differences in intelligence. Moreover, they have all been aided in this respect by the distinguished psychologists themselves. Eysenck is formally associated with The Mankind Quarterly and Nouvelle Ecole, and Jensen with Neue Anthropologie.

The connections between old and new race-science do not end there. The interviews granted by Eysenck to Beacon and Jensen to Nation Europa illustrate the continuing connections between race-science and the fascist political tradition.

However, race-science extends beyond the debate over IQ scores. It has not been too difficult to demonstrate that journals like The Mankind Quarterly, Nouvelle Ecole and Neue Anthropologie are perpetuating, to a greater or lesser extent, the traditions of Günther and Nazi race-science. What is more, this tradition, rejuvenated by the boost of modern research into race and IQ, is now attempting to return to academic circles from the obscurities of fascist organisations like the Northern League.

The patterns, especially those relating to the involvement of 'respectable' psychologists, are too consistent to be dismissed as isolated, individual aberrations. The involvements of Eysenck and Jensen have seemed to parallel each other at all points.

A few years ago, the American linguist Noam Chomsky, when discussing the psychological research into IQ differences between races, pointed out that the work of psychologists like Jensen has a very limited intrinsic scientific value:

"A possible correlation between mean IQ and skin colour is of no greater scientific interest than a correlation between any two other arbitrarily selected traits, say mean height and colour of eyes. The empirical results, whatever they might be, appear to have little bearing on any issue of scientific significance. In the present state of scientific understanding, there would appear to be little scientific interest in the discovery that one partly heritable trait correlates (or not) with another partly heritable trait" (For Reasons of State, 1973, p.146).

Chomsky went on to assert that if the research has little scientific merit per se, then "the zeal and intensity with which some pursue or welcome it cannot be reasonably attributed to a dispassionate desire to advance science".

Some of the facts outlined in this pamphlet may go part of the way to explain "the zeal and intensity" of some academics engaged in conducting the research and disseminating its findings. Perhaps it is not too surprising that there still exist individual academics who still venerate racial theorists like Günther. An intellectual tradition does not suddenly cease without all trace. What is perhaps more surprising, and certainly more worrying, is that this tradition is being invigorated by contemporary psychologists. Moreover, when The Mankind Quarterly and Neue Anthropologie are examined in detail, some very big academic fish can be found in the murkiest of waters.


The author is grateful to Maurice Ludmer and Pavlos Anastasiades for their help and would also like to thank Pressedienst Demokratische Initiative, Munich, and the Wiener Library, London.

1. See, for instance, C. Bolt, Victorian Attitudes to Race (Routledge, Kegan and Paul, London, 1971), W.D. Jordan, The White Man's Burden: historical origins of racism in the United States (Oxford University Press, New York, 1974); V.G. Kiernan Lords of Human Kind: European attitudes toward the outside world in the Imperial Age (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1972); L. Poliakov The Aryan Myth (Chatto and Heinemann, London, 1974).

2. A. del Boca and M. Giovanna Fascism Today: a world survey (Heinemann, London, 1970).

3. See M. Billig Chapter 1 of Fascists: a social psychological view of the National Front (Academic Press, London, 1978) for a comparison of the electoral performances of Oswald Mosley's pre-war British Union of Fascists and the National Front.

4. Psychological theories of race prejudice and fascism have commonly identified prejudice with lack of education. See, for example, surveys of research about 'the authoritarian personality' in R. Brown Social Psychology (Collier-Macmillan, London, 1965) and J.P. Kirscht and R.C. Dillehay Dimensions of Authoritarianism (University of Kentucky Press, Kentucky, 1967); see also G.J. Selznick and S. Steinberg The Tenacity of Prejudice (Harper and Row, New York, 1969). Some observers have suggested that the National Front recruits largely from the ill-educated sections of the working class (C.T. Husbands 'The National Front: a response to crisis', New Society, 1975, 32, 403-405; M. Walker The National Front, Fontana, Glasgow, 1977). However such observations may be oversimplifications (M. Billig, 1978 op.cit.).

5. Quoted in J.C. Fest The Face of the Third Reich (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1972), p.378.

6. See J.C. Fest (1972, op.cit.). E.Y. Hartshorne The German Universities and National Socialism (George Allen and Unwin, London, 1937) contains a detailed account of German academic life under the Nazis. A.D. Beyerchen Scientists under Hitler: Politics and the physics community in the Third Reich (Yale University of Press, New Haven, 1977) concentrates on pro-Nazi professors of physics. The most comprehensive record of German academic complicity with Nazism is still M. Weinreich Hitler's Professors: the part of scholarship in Germany's crimes against the Jewish people (Yiddish Scientific Institute, New York, 1946). According to Weinreich: "The ideas underlying the ultimate 'action' were developed in advance with the necessary philosophical and literary trimmings, with historical reasoning, with maps and charts providing for the details with well-known German thoroughness. Many fields of learning, different ones at different times according to the shrewdly appraised needs of Nazi politics, were drawn into the work for more than a decade: physical anthropology and biology, all branches of the social sciences and the humanities -- until the engineers moved in to build the gas chambers and crematories" (p. 7).

7. F. Baumgarten-Tramer 'German psychologists and recent events' Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1948, 43, 452-465, documents the wide support the Nazi regime received from German psychologists. See also M. Billig (1978, op.cit.) Chapter Two; D.P. Boder 'Nazi science' Chicago Jewish Forum, 1942, 1, 23-29.

8. H.-G. Zmarzlik 'Social Darwinism in Germany seen as a historical problem' in Republic to Reich, edited by H. Holborn, (Vintage Books, New York, 1973) examines the contribution of Darwinian ideas to Nazi philosophy. See also D. Gasman The Scientific Origin of National Socialism (MacDonald, London, 1971) which discusses the biological origins of Nazi thought in detail.

9. N. Cohn, Warrant for Genocide (Chatto Heinemann, London, 1967), p.174.

10. G.L. Mosse Nazi Culture: intellectual and social life in the Third Reich (W.H. Allen, London, 1969). See also L. Poliakov (1974, op.cit.).

11. The most detailed account of Günther and the Nordicist School is contained in H.-J. Lutzhöft Der Nordische Gedanke in Deutschland 1920-1940 (Ernst Klett, Stuttgart, 1971).

12. G.G. Field 'Nordic racism', Journal of the History of Ideas, 1977, 38, 523-540.

13. H.F.K Günther The Racial Elements of European History (Methuen, London, 1927) p.78.

14. See Weinreich (1946 op.cit.) on Fischer. E. Fischer went out of his way in Human Heredity (written in conjunction with E. Baur and F. Lenz) to praise Günther's book Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes: "a brilliant account of German ethnology . . . his book gives a vigorous and substantially accurate picture of the various races out of which our people is composed" (Human Heredity, English trans., George Allen and Unwin, London, 1931, p. 703).

15. For instance, the works of Johann von Leers were regularly reviewed. Von Leers was one of the most notorious of the Nazi anti-Semites. His booklet Juden Sehen Dich An was dedicated to "the gallant Julius Streicher". To take just one example, his Blut und Rasse in der Gesetzgebung, an anti-semitic book justifying the Nazis' legislation against Jews, was reviewed in Zeitschrift für Rassenkunde, 1937, 6, 346.

16. Quoted in Weinreich (1946, op.cit.), p.112. Weinreich, pp. 106-119, contains details of the Frankfurt Institute for Research into the Jewish Question and its inaugural conference.

17. See Lutzhöft (1971, op.cit.) for details.

18. Pearson has combined his involvement with extremist racist politics with a more conventional academic career in anthropology. He is the author of a number of standard anthropological texts, including An Introduction to Anthropology (Holt, Rinehart and Winston). In the 1960s Pearson held a number of academic posts in the United States. He taught at Queens College in Charlotte, North Carolina, then moved to the University of Southern Mississippi in Hattiesburg, before becoming the dean of academic affairs at Montana College in Butte.

19. G. Thayer The British Political Fringe (A. Blond, London, 1965).

20. Fascist groups which seek a modicum of political 'respectability', like the National Front, do not like to publicise connections with the Northern League. Walker in his book National Front (Fontana, 1977) has detailed the recriminations within the party on the only occasion that Spearhead, the National Front magazine, advertised The Northlander (pp. 103f). This episode illustrates that the Northern League is considered to be extremist even by fascist groups.

21. In most other fields, too, the process of denazification in post-war Germany was only partial, often only attacking the superficial signs of Nazism (see, for instance, del Boca and Giovana, 1970 op.cit.,Chapter Five).

22. L.J. Kamin The Science and Politics of I.Q. (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1977); Racism, IQ and The Class Society (published in Britain by the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science). H. Rose and S. Rose 'The IQ myth', Race and Class, 1978, 20, 63-74 describe the economic and political background to IQ research, both contemporary and historical. For a history of the eugenicist movement in the United States, see K.M. Ludmerer Genetics and American Society (Johns Hopkins, University Press, Baltimore, 1972).

23. Quoted in Kamin (1977 op.cit.) p.31.

24. J.P. Rushton and N.S. Endler 'The scholarly impact and research productivity of departments of psychology in the United Kingdom' Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 1977, Nov., 369-372, list Eysenck as by far the most influential single psychologist in Britain. Similarly Rushton and Endler show that Eysenck's Department at the Institute of Psychiatry is the most prolific Department of Psychology in Britain today.

25. H.J. Eysenck Race, Intelligence and Education (Temple Smith, London, 1971), published in America under the more innocuous title of The IQ Argument (Library Press, New York).

26. For a discussion of the scientific impact of Jensen's original article, see E. Garfield 'High impact science and the case of Arthur Jensen', Current Contents Oct. 9 1978, 5-15. Garfield concludes that Jensen's work must be classified "as important but questionable science".

27. L.J. Kamin (1977, op.cit.); O. Gillie Who Do You Think You Are? Man or Superman: the genetic controversy (London, 1976).

28. See, for instance, the contributions by Bodmer, Lewontin, Lerner and Thoday in The IQ Controversy, edited by N.J. Block and G. Dworkin, (Pantheon, New York, 1977), for examples of geneticists criticising the work of Jensen. Also W. Bodmer and L. Cavalli-Sforza 'Intelligence and race', Scientific American, October 1970. Race, Culture and Intelligence, edited by K. Richardson and D. Spears (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1972) contains criticism of Eysenck and Jensen from a variety of perspectives: genetic, psychological and sociological.

29. P. Medawar 'Unnatural science' New York Review of Books, 1977, 24, No.1, 13-18.

30. One might note Eysenck's choice of words: 'benevolent', with its overtones of kindly superiority, seems to run counter to Eysenck's argument that genetic differences between races do not imply per se racial attitudes.

31. R. Gayre Teuton and Slav on the Polish Frontier (Eyre and Spottiswoode, London, 1944).

32. In fact the Racial Preservation Society has also continued to function independently of the National Front as a publishing company. In this way extreme explicitly anti-semitic material has been published without directly implicating the National Front.

33. A.K. Chesterton was of the opinion that Gayre's evidence was crucial in securing the acquittal. According to the then chairman of the National Front, Gayre's "cool-headed and scientific assessment of the racial issues proved invaluable to the defence" (Not Guilty, 1968).

34. For details of these meetings see the anti-fascist magazine Searchlight, 1977, 24, pp.3-4.

35. Emphasis in original. The Northlander, August/October, 1970.

36. Examples of Hofmeyr's contributions to Journal of Racial Affairs include: 'Biologiese en ander aspekte van Rassever-houdings', Oct. 1972, 185-187; 'Fundamental aspects of racial differences', April 1971, 50-52; 'Genetic aspects of race formation and racial differences', July 1975, 106-108.

37. The Mankind Quarterly, 1960, 1, p.134.

38. Benson publishes a monthly newsletter Behind the News. Articles from this by Benson are frequently reprinted in fascist publications throughout the world. For instance, the National Front, in addition to recommending Benson's booklets, has also reprinted articles by Benson in its magazine Spearhead (e.g. pieces in Spearhead June and July 1972 which are explicit in their anti-Semitism).

39. In 1966 Revilo Oliver, who was then a member of the National Council of the John Birch Society, declared in a public speech that the world's troubles would be ended if "all Jews were vapourised at dawn tomorrow" (for details see B.R. Epstein and A. Foster The Radical Right: report on the John Birch Society and its allies (Random House, New York, 1966, pp.110f).

40. See Racism, IQ and The Class Society, pp.58-60 for details.

41. E.R. Papa Fascismo e cultura (Marsilio, Venice, 1974) pp.165f. Gini was the author of a plan which Mussolini used to 'reorganise' (or curtail the powers of) the Italian senate. Gini publically praised Mussolini, writing that Italian fascism had "at its head an individual of exceptional qualities". According to Gini in 1927 "the Fascist experiment has had highly satisfactory results . . . The concentration of power in the hands of few men has permitted the revaluation of national ideals, the reestablishment abroad of the prestige of Italy and the restoration of domestic order" (C. Gini 'The scientific basis of Fascism', Political Science Quarterly, 1927, 42, 99-115).

42. According to Gregor: "By 1930, Fascism had developed a synoptic theory of race . . . By that year, Fascist race theory had found academic expression in the work of Corrado Gini, particularly in his Nascita, evoluzione e morte delle nazioni. After 1930, Fascist theory matured in a relatively coherent manner" (The Ideology of Fascism, Free Press, New York, 1969). In his preface to The Ideology of Fascism, Gregor specifically thanks Corrado Gini for his help (p.xiv).

43. See, for instance, A.J. Gregor 'National Socialism and race', European, July 1958, 273-291. Gregor writes that in the last stages of Nazism are to be found "the elements of a far more profound theory". According to Gregor, these were "the germs of a world view which makes of man a creator, a builder of future races; a philosophy which unites history, politics, and race, eugenics and humanism, pride in self and respect for others, a philosophy scientifically sound and emotionally satisfying".

44. For example, Professors B. Lundman, B. Males and H.V. Vallois.

45. W.C. Boyd 'Review of Human Ancestry by R. Ruggles Gates', American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1948, 6, 385-387.

46. The Northlander obituary for Los (June/August 1974) noted that he published in such magazines as Nouvelle Ecole (see below), American Mercury and Deutsche Hochschullehrer-Zeitung (a German neo-Nazi paper), as well as The Mankind Quarterly.

47. For example, K. Magnussen 'The world's oldest parliament and Icelandic ethnology', The Mankind Quarterly, 1964, 4, 138-141.

48. A.K. Chesterton The New Unhappy Lords (Candour Publishing Company, Hampshire). Such is the success of this anti-semitic book amongst fascist groups that by 1975 it was in the second printing of the fourth revised edition; it had been first published in 1965. Spearhead, the National Front magazine, recently praised Chesterton for having provided a "concrete and scientific doctrine" in The New Unhappy Lords, which "is widely read in the NF and beyond" (Spearhead, 103, p.2).

49. Censored is published in Florida by B. Corbett.

50. According to Garrett, "It is not entirely clear whether or not King was a Communist but he sympathized with and tacitly supported Communist causes . . . A complex intelligent mulatto, it is hard to know just what King actually believed" (H. Garrett 'Review of House Divided: the life and legacy of Martin Luther King by L. Lokos'. The Mankind Quarterly, 1968, 8, 190-191).

51. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is a classic anti-Semitic text based on a Tsarist Russian forgery. The definitive account of the origins and disastrous effects of the Protocols is Warrant for Genocide by N. Cohn (Chatto Heinemann, London, 1967).

52. Isherwood has also contributed to The Mankind Quarterly. In 1970, Volume 11 he warmly reviewed G. Young's Two Worlds, Not One: race and civilization. Isherwood wrote that "this book is recommended reading for all in authority who are concerned with the social and political aspects of racial relationships" (p.61). Young's book is both excessively racist and anti-Semitic; for instance, it describes the Western Jew as "the germ plasma which for its sustenance feeds on a basically alien soma". This metaphor was, of course, one of Hitler's favourites. For more on Young, see C.C. Aronsfeld 'Recent writings on race: the theory of prejudice' Patterns of Prejudice, 1971, Nov./Dec., 23-27. Aronsfeld's article documents recent British and European fascist theories of race.

53. Accounts of the history of the Britons Publishing Company are contained in G. Thayer (1965, op.cit.); C.C. Aronsfeld 'The Britons Publishing Society', Wiener Library Bulletin, 1966, 2, 31-35.

54. The book in question was Specious Origins of Liberalism by A.M. Ludovici. It is recommended National Front reading; The Britons Publishing Company catalogue describes it as "a courteous but absolutely crushing deflation of the false philosophy underlying all modern political parties".

55. The Mankind Quarterly does not only review British extremist political material. The fascist culture is international. For instance, The Mankind Quarterly October 1967 reviewed I. Benson's The Opinion Makers; in January 1969 it reviewed Lincoln's Negro Policy by E.S. Cox, who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan and the Northern League. Shortly after Cox's death, The Mankind Quarterly (October 1966) reviewed his book White America. The reviewer commented that "it is fitting to memorialize Cox's death by a timely review of White America, a classic book by this truly great man". The review ended by quoting with warm approval Cox's conclusion: "If North America becomes mongrel, the entire Western World is to be surrendered to the forces of decay". In January 1975 The Mankind Quarterly praised Revilo Oliver's Christianity and the Survival of the West, claiming that "this book hits the heart of the matter . . . I feel it should be read" (p.227). For details of Benson, Cox and Oliver see the section on 'The Mankind Quarterly' and its editors.

56. G. Ainsworth 'The Mankind Quarterly' Man, 1961, 61, 163-4.

57. U.R. Ehrenfels 'Critical paragraphs deleted' Current Anthropology, 1962, 3, 154-155.

58. The International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics (IAAEE) was established in 1959 in the wake of the court battles in the South of the United States over integration. Members of the executive committee have included a number of academics connected with The Mankind Quarterly: Garrett, McGurk, Kuttner and Gregor, as well as the British geneticist C.D. Darlington, an associate of Gayre and an editorial advisor to Neue Anthropologie.

59. The Sons of Liberty publish Christian Vanguard, arguably the nastiest and most extreme of American extremist publication. It is hard to find an English-language pro-Nazi publication which is not on the Sons of Liberty booklist; Ku Klux Klan publications rub shoulders with the works of Hitler and much older mystical anti-Semitic works.

60. In defending Rieger, Kiesel quotes from no less an authority than Roger Pearson, founder of the Northern League. Kiesel himself has also contributed to Neue Anthropologie; see his article in 1974 entitled 'Augenfarbe, Rasse und Persönlichkeitsstruktur'. The same volume of Neue Anthropologie contains another article illustrating the similarity with The Mankind Quarterly: 'Zur Psychologie des amerikanischen Negers' by J.C. Carothers, who is also an Honorary Editorial Advisor to The Mankind Quarterly. Certainly some of Carother's views are attractive to contemporary fascists. For instance, the National Front magazine Spearhead quoted Carothers with approval: "The African, with his lack of total synthesis, must, therefore use his frontal lobes (of the brain) but little, and all the peculiarities of African psychiatry can be envisaged in terms of frontal idleness" (Carothers, quoted in Spearhead, April 1977, p.4).

61. For details of the meeting, see the report issued by the anti-fascist Pressedienst Demokratische Initiative: Chronik der Berhinderung einer neonazistischen Veranstaltung (PID, Munich, November 1977).

62. Butz's book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century is published by Historical Review Press. It appears that one of the leading men involved in Historical Review Press is Robin Beauclaire, who together with Alan Hancock established the Racial Preservation Society. Hancock was one of the defendants at the Lewes Race Relations Trial, helped by Gayre's expert evidence (for details of Beauclaire and Historical Review Press, see Searchlight, Sept. 1976).

63. F.J. Irisgler 'Rhodesian man and the evolution of the hominid brain' The Mankind Quarterly, 1976, 17, 83-114.

64. 'Interview mit Hans-Jürgen Eysenck' Neue Anthropologie, January/March, 1976, 16-17.

65. Comments such as these are not necessarily offensive to fascists. A number of observers have remarked on the fact that contemporary fascist groups often seem to identify themselves, at least in a restricted way, with communist groups (for an extended discussion of this, see M. Billig, Fascists, Chapter Nine).

66. D.A. Swan 'La "Geographische Anthropologie" de Bertil Lundman' Nouvelle Ecol., 1972, 18. .

67. 'A.R. Jensen répond aux questions de "Nouvelle Ecole".' Nouvelle Ecole, 1972, 18, 75-81.

68. H.J. Eysenck 'Le déclin et la chute de l'Empire freudien' Nouvelle Ecole, 1973, 23, 57-73. The article was originally published in English in the American girlie magazine Penthouse.

69. For discussions of the National Party's ideology see: M. Billig (1978, op.cit.), Chapter Six; D. Edgar 'Racism, fascism and the politics of the National Front' Race and Class, 1977, 19, 111-131.

70. At one point in the interview, the interviewer interrupts Eysenck to check that he is not "of Jewish origin". It is almost as if the interviewer wanted to establish this in order not to destroy the professor's credibility in the eyes of Beacon's anti-Semitic readership.

71. Steppingstones in fact abbreviated the Beacon interview. Included are Eysenck's statements on race, etc.; however Steppingstones omitted a passage in which Eysenck expressed his opposition to Hitler's Nazi regime. Although such sentiments might have distressed the Hitlerian Nazis of Steppingstones, they would not have upset the Strasserite Nazis of Beacon.

72. The present pamphlet assumes that the words attributed to Eysenck in Beacon are in fact Eysenck's own words. Searchlight 1977, No. 23, printed details of the interview and a copy of the article was sent to Eysenck, who it appears took no action against either Beacon or Searchlight.

73. M. Bardèche Qu'est-ce que le Fascisme? (Les Sept Couleurs, Paris, 1961).

74. For example, A.v. Thadden 'Die Einleitung der Wiederbewaffnung', Nation Europa, December 1975, 29-35.

75. For instance: R. Kosiek published an article in Nation Europa June 1975; J. Rieger, December 1975; Irsigler, August 1971; D.A. Swan, January 1975. A colleague of Swan's on the executive board of the International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics also published an article in Nation Europa 1975: Dr R.J. Die 'Die hellen Negerbabies' July 1975, 35-40.

76. Nation Europa September 1975, p. 62. Harwood's Did six million really die? was published by Historical Review Press (see Note 62). There is strong evidence to suggest that 'Harwood' (a pseudonym) is in fact Richard Verrall of the National Front Directorate (see Searchlight 31 and 40).

77. A.M. Shuey The Testing of Negro Intelligence (J.P. Bell, Lynchburg, 1958).

78. H.J. Eysenck and G.D. Wilson ThePsychological Basis of Ideology (MTP Press, 1978).

79. G.D. Wilson The Psychology of Conservatism (Academic Press, London, 1973).

80. According to Wilson: "Individuals scoring towards the 'realistic' end of this dimension would tend to be racialistic, punitive, hedonistic and conforming, and to be generally predisposed to express attitudes and act in a 'selfish', expedient manner" (The Psychology of Conservatism, pp.87-88).

81. J.J. Ray Conservatism as Heresy (Australian and New Zealand Book Co., Sydney, 1974).

82. J.J. Ray 'Do authoritarians hold authoritarian attitudes?' Human Relations, 1976, 29, 307-325. Like Wilson, Ray on occasions fights shy of the term 'fascism'. For instance in a recent article, Ray claims that Adorno et al. in their book The Authoritarian Personality investigated the psychology of 'nationalism'; whereas in fact their book was explicitly about the psychology of fascism. In the same article, Ray consistently prefers to call Nazism 'German Nationalism', thus using a turn of phrase adopted by many contemporary fascists (J.J. Ray 'Are Scottish nationalists authoritarian and conservative?' European Journal of Political Research, 1978, 6, 411-418).

STOP PRESS: The Mankind Quarterly has just announced a new editor to succeed Gayre. It has chosen Roger Pearson, founder of the Northern League, and so strengthens its links with Nazi race science.

Return to ISAR