(This article was originally written in January, 2022.)

1) The Jewish historian Sheila Faith Weiss, in her article “Race and Class in Fritz Lenz’s Eugenics” (Medizinhistorisches Journal, vol. 27, 1992) makes the false claim that in the view of the German geneticist Fritz Lenz, the Negroes occupied a position in advancement and racial tendencies mostly near the opposite of the Nordics: “For Lenz, it was the blacks rather than the Jews who represented the real antithesis to the Nordic.” According to Weiss, Lenz believed that “the Negroid race stood practically at the bottom of the scale” of culture. This is incorrect. 

Lenz viewed the Negroes to be intellectually more developed than the Australian Aborigines, which to him occupied the lowest evolutionary scale among human racial groups. (Richard Proctor, Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis, 1988, p. 52; also, cf.: “The Negro, according to Lenz, is considerably advanced above the Australian aborigine.”)

Sheila Weiss

There are other examples of the scurrilous manner in which the Jew Weiss describes Lenz’s views. One not familiar with an actual study of Lenz’s work would, after reading the article, leave with the false notion that Lenz’s work was complete chaff. Some of his views, no doubt, are worthy of criticism, the section on racial psychology especially; but how can any criticism rest on a healthy foundation when the views on which the criticism lies have not even been described in a sincere way? If someone will censure someone else for an opinion, let us first be sure that the opinion really was held! 

The Jew-aware reader expects to see such “catchwords” as “horror”, “amazing”, “angry”, “disgust”, “notorious”, and “Aryan” (a term which Lenz could not have been so ignorant as to confound with “Nordic”) used in these writings to deceive and mislead an ignorant or careless audience and Weiss’s article is no exception to that tendency. One suspects that the Jew Weiss merely wished Lenz to hold such views to diminish the value of his work. Why choose to engage in such undeniable dishonesty? Does the writer perhaps fear that when viewed according to its real value, the weight of truth it holds, she would have too little worthy of vituperation?

Augusta Fox Bronner

2) The Jewish psychologist Augusta Fox Bronner. I had first seen Bronner’s name from a review she had written (American Journal of Sociology, vol. 41, July, 1935), in positive terms, of a book called The Mental Defective (1931) by Richard Berry and Ronald Gordon. Judging by the commendation of the work by this reviewer, I had little reason to suspect a Jewish ancestry; but upon a biography search, it would seem that she was. 

Now, it was a minute or two of hope, on my part, that perhaps there were some good Jews, such as Bronner, whose search for the truth and their esteem of it, went beyond their personal or racial prejudices. Upon reading of her life a little more, I now perceive that Bronner did not constitute an exception to her racial history. Wikipedia: “her research shaped psychological theories about the causes behind child delinquency, emphasizing the need to focus on social and environmental factors over inherited traits.” Bronner’s dissertation, A Comparative Study of the Intelligence of Delinquent Girls, completed in 1914, attempted to show that “there was no correlation between delinquency and mental disability, undermining the common notion of the time that criminal behaviour was passed down through biological factors”. 

It has been demonstrated, as a matter of fact that a very considerable relation exists between crime and intellectual disability (Henry H. Goddard, Feeble-Mindedness: Its Causes and Consequences, 1914; Samuel Jackson Holmes, Human Genetics and Its Social Import, 1936). It is acknowledged, however, that 1) the average intelligence of criminals differs according to the sort of crime committed, and 2) the intelligence of all criminals, non-convicted included, is quite likely to be disparate from the intelligence of convicted offenders. When the former class are included, the effect is likely to raise the average intelligence of offenders because intelligent criminals, it must be remembered, often are never caught, and when they are, are much less likely to become repeat offenders. Whether the latter phenomenon is caused mainly by a real improvement in conduct or merely to more wily methods of circumvention of the law is not certain. The German geneticist Fritz Lenz (Menschliche Erblehre, fourth ed., vol. 1, 1936) views it as a general principle that higher intelligence prevents a person from transgressions to some extent, but that it prevents him from getting caught to a still greater degree. 

As early as 1892 the American zoologist Edward Sylvester Morse makes the following astute observation (“Natural Selection and Crime”, Popular Science Monthly, vol. 41, August, 1892): “poverty presupposes a low intellect, and this implies an inability to acquire an education, which in a hundred ways in civilized life leads to degeneracy and crime”. As intelligence has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be to a large extent genetic, and intelligence being among the strongest predictors of academic and vocational achievement, it is clear that the opposite, or its absence, will be a substantial hinderance to educational attainment; and the connection between low intelligence and its corollary, ignorance and lack of education, which itself leads to a multitude of disadvantages within society, are too often related to delinquency.

It also must be stressed that feeble-mindedness does not involve impaired reasoning only. Its too common associations – shiftlessness, improvidence, and a dearth of moral sense – are likewise powerful impediments which tend to lead its victim to the outskirts of society and to a delinquent mode of life.

3) The Jews are attempting to defame the Canadian-born geneticist Reginald Ruggles Gates in their recently revised biography of him on Wikipedia:

“In 1911, Gates married Marie Stopes, but the marriage was annulled in 1914, with Stopes claiming the marriage had not been consummated. Gates did not contest the divorce, although he disputed Stopes’s claims, describing her as ‘super-sexed to a degree that was almost pathological’ and adding to this ‘I could have satisfied the desires of any normal woman’.” 

It is rueful that such salacious statements concerning Gates’ sexual potency would be included in any biography which scarcely describes Gates’ accomplishments as a botanist, anthropologist, geneticist, and eugenicist, and a respectable and reasonable man who devoted his life to science and truth.

Furthermore, the brief description of Gates under the search suggestion describes him as a “Canadian eugenicist (1882-1962)”. It is unfortunate that these words tend to give the effect of a man whose primary interest was in eugenics, when his life’s work was devoted to a much larger extent to the scientific and descriptive aspects of the genetics of plants, animals, and, especially in the latter part of his life, man, as opposed to propositions and broad theories of social reform of which the field of eugenics is in a large way concerned.