|
|
|
James Watson rocks the IQ banana skin On August 31st the Guardian ran an article full of fulsome praise about the Science Museum’s new director, Prof Chris Rapley, CBE:-
Well, this fine straight-talker’s first test wasn’t long in coming:-
In they piled. Steven Rose, who with his co-ethnic co-writers Richard Lewontin and Leon Kamin gave us the shallow and agenda-riven Not in Our Genes in 1984, was wheeled out by The Independent to articulate his ethnic interests:-
Ditto Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, who said:-
Smooth Trevor Phillips’ shiny new Tonka truck, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, let it be known that it was studying Dr Watson’s remarks “in full”. And the world waited to see what pressure would be brought to bear on the organisations hosting Dr Watson during his speaking tour. And guess what:-
That was at the weekend. Today, however, the security situation has evidently become much worse:-
So the race-blind, equality-crazed, witch-hunting left still wields its boorish power. Cognitive testing remains a scientific Cindarella, just as it was once upon Rushton and Brand’s time. Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of pounds have been thrown at the problem of “failing inner city schools” to absolutely no avail. And it will only go on because nobody who matters can face the truth about African intelligence. My political ally and flawless mind-reader John Standing, a veritable Dr Watson (but not James), decided to offer his thoughts to the execrable Rapley via e-mail, thus:-
I don’t expect the Professor to be so “very good at public debate” and “totally fearless” to want to reply. Comments:2
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:21 | # I think the odious Steven Rose is out of his depth where common morality, the most basic academic integrity, and respect for truth are concerned: totally, pathetically over his head and out of his depth. Go get a morality graft you hoplessly inept charlatan, you scientific liar and moral failure. 3
Posted by zusammen on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:33 | # Why limit your critique to an ad hominem as Rose has done? Instead, tell everyone how you really feel. 4
Posted by zusammen on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:58 | # Should our enemies dictate to us the frequency and volume of our displeasure, as this Rose may have attempted? Will we listen to the servants of our enemies when they encourage us to react on master’s cue? Let’s pick our own battles, responding where and when we will, denying our enemies the terms of battle at all times. Let’s also be vigiliant when they attempt to dictate the terms of battle for us. 5
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 07:50 | #
What ad hominem? I resorted to no ad hominem. Was he snide? Was he nausea-inducing? Was he a jumped-up little Hebrew twerp? Yes. Was my noticing any of that intended as a way of refuting arguments of his? No. Nowhere in that comment did I resort to argumentum ad hominem. 6
Posted by stari_momak on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:25 | # Click through to the ‘contact us’ page. The top banner picture shows the audience the London Science Museum is really aiming at. Of six or seven children pictured, one maybe, could even conceivably be considered ethnic English. This isn’t even an attempt at representation of the London, let alone British , public. It is annihliation. 8
Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:37 | # My South-African friends say that they don’t think that “lack of intelligence” is at the core of the problem. It is rather being unable to control emotions, being destructive, enslaved to sensual pleasure and stuff like that. I can add: the inability to plan ahead so that because of a lack of maintenance public infrastructure (electricity, water, sewer, roads…) falls apart. Directing a modern society is too difficult for them. Possibly this “lack of intelligence” has to do with separate development in the course of history, but for certain African tribes, things might be worse: Neanderthal theory I read: “The Bantu population of Africa quite likely represents hybrids between modern humans and archaic African Homo”. In plain English, that means that if you sleep with an anthropoid ape, your offspring may have got its brain. 9
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:20 | #
All the defects listed there have, like intelligence, a significant genetic component. As GW has mentioned numerous times, behavior in at least some of its dimensions (I would say most of them) has a significant genetic component. So it’s not just differences in “pure intelligence” we’re dealing with in the race-replacement issue, not by a long shot.
Yes, and that’s exactly what the E.U. intends happening as a result of the race-replacement policies it’s forcing on European populations: changing brains from white to ... something else. My position on the extent of difference between Euros and West-Central-African Sub-Saharans is known around MR.com, btw: I view them as sufficiently different to qualify as distinct species. The E.U. bureaucracy is going about forcing the replacement of Euros with, in part, populations of interspecies hybrids (my own view of matters, of course). The article linked there by Johan is an excellent one, for all the background information it contains on the subject of race and related topics (Were Neanderthals a species?, and so on). I’m no judge of the article’s claims about Asperger’s Syndrome/autism and I take no position on that, but it’s an article well worth reading, and keeping stored on your computer for future reference and re-reads. It contains a wealth of useful information.
Stari sums it up there in a nutshell, and he’s not being hyperbolic: that’s their conscious goal. What must our response be, in a nutshell? This: Resist, overthrow, and fully reverse it. 10
Posted by man with beard walks out on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:30 | # stari-momak, 11
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:57 | #
Oh? Things are proceeding exactly according to plan then, a plan incubated before World War II and implemented in earnest starting in the 1950s. It’s why we fought that war: to defeat the feared thwarting of precisely this plan. It’s all being done deliberately and carefully, folks. None of it is happening by accident. It’s being done as deliberately as if someone were following a blueprint — which someone is, in fact. 12
Posted by Man with beard walks out on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:16 | # ‘Following a blueprint’ ? A genetic blueprint no doubt 13
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:38 | #
Exactly. That, and an EGI blueprint. (Problem is, it’s not our EGI.) 14
Posted by stari_momak on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:58 | # I live in London, have seen groups of school children walking around, and in my experience there is always a non-trivial proportion of white , obviously British children, 15-25 percent. Moreover, I’ll bet if you went to the Science Museum or any museum, the actual proportion of white school children would be much much higher, with kids from the leafy suburbs visiting on school trips, English parents taking there kids for some edumacation and so on. This picture was posed with the conscious or unconscious thought of excluding British esp. English children. 15
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:20 | #
Yes, one of the well-known tactics of the other side, employed in the hope of speeding up the transition to a non-white majority, is the self-fulfilling prophesy. The now-Jewish-controlled Walt Disney Company has this as one of its central strategies: the more you depict U.S. as being made up of 99.999999999999% Negroes and 0.00000000000000000000001% whites the sooner that’ll actually come to pass. Michael Eisner, Disney’s head, knows perfectly well the U.S. population isn’t 99.9999999999999999999999999% Negro yet, far from it. But he depicts it as if it were, in order to get there faster. It’s a conscious strategy. 16
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:21 | # Kristen Philipkoski’s Wired magazine blog is running an article titled: “Vote: The Most Underappreciated Scientists of All Time”: an unbiased poll which features only one photograph of an “unappreciated scientist” that you will see prior to voting:
The photo is of Rosalind Franklin, a Jewish woman who fans claim was indispensable to Watson and Crick in their efforts to discover the structure of DNA, and was snubbed by that (antisemitic and sexist?) team as well as the (antisemitic and sexist?) Nobel Prize Committee. Perhaps it is time to burn Watson at the stake, after, of course, an appropriate inquisition into, and confession of, his possession by a legion of racist, antisemitic and sexist demons. 17
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:25 | # James, Rosalind Franklin’s role is explained in full detail in Watson’s short book, “The Double Helix.” 18
Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:29 | # There is a problem of terminology. Aphrike is Greek and means “a place without cold”. This confirms that “Africa” is a continent, and that “African” is not a race. It is better to speak about “negroids”. The white Afrikaners would appreciate making the distinction. 19
Posted by Moonglade on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:35 | # It might have been nice of Dr. Watson had decided to offer a bit more detail about the evidence but his stature is sure to open the eyes of some who might not have considered this possibility. His bravery is to be admired. 20
Posted by gongstar on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:07 | # Shades of the 1965 Immigration Bill here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2677098.ece Padraig will learn in time that helping Jews attack WASPs isn’t good for his group either. 21
Posted by englander on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:21 | # From the comments: “Well what about Nelson Mandela, Koffi Annan, Martin Luther King, Bob Marley, Colin Powell, Muhamad Ali, Spike Lee, Wole Soyinka, Toni Morrison ... to name just a few ? Michel Meyer, Paris, France 22
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:33 | # Isn’t it amazing how in his rabid attack on Prof. Watson’s modest expressions of race-realism Padraig cites books by two of the most notorious, most disgraceful, most debunked Jewish “academic” race-deniers while apparently perfectly content to sit back and look complacently on as E.U. bureaucrats fill his country literally to the brim with African Negroes, Chinamen, Subcons, Arabs, and what-have-you, race-replacing his own kith and kin? The Padraigs of this world are perfectly happy to see the last of their countrymen vanish — to see Irishmen disappear from Ireland — as long as they think they’re seeing the last of the WASPs at the same time. 23
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:38 | # Here you see it right in this thread: Padraig and Meyer, the Irish Catholic and the Jew, teaming up against the truth-telling WASP. 24
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:47 | # I’m sure Michel Meyer lives in the “banlieus” of Paris where all the North Africans are housed. I feel certain he didn’t flee those areas like a bat out of hell and take an apartment on the side of the city diametrically opposite, as far away from them as he could get. Yes I feel certain of it. I truly do. Exactly the way his co-religionists in South Africa stuck around to enjoy the fruits of their agitation for the end of apartheid in that country instead of hightailing it to London, Israel, Australia, Canada, or the U.S. You know, of the two, Padraig and Michel Meyer, at least the Irishman is consistent in wanting his own country annihilated along with England — he practices what he preaches. But try shipping a proportionate number of racial incompatibles to Israel and then come back and hear the howls go up from the hypocritical maw of Monsieur Meyer. 25
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:43 | # Well, the Anti-Science Museum did reply to the Standing e-mail. But they used the exact wording that has already appeared in the papers:
... and is clearly the official line circulated first as a press release and then used for complainants like this Standing fellow. He has mailed back, asking:
I don’t expect a substantive reply. But if I get one you’ll be the first to know. 26
Posted by danielj on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:09 | # Bob Marley
I don’t know about the others. 27
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:25 | # As befits a titled Old Etonian, GW, Standing is an ultra-conservative. 29
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:16 | # From the article linked by Scimitar:
No, it’s not Watson who’s “a disgrace,” it’s the Mike Botchans who are a disgrace — a disgrace to science, a disgrace to truth, a disgrace to morality, a disgrace to humanity. It would be one thing to squelch scientific truth about race if forced race-replacement weren’t official government policy and freedom of association reigned. It’s quite another to do it under the present circumstances. In fact, to do it under the present circumstances only amounts to further proof things are being deliberately steered in a certain direction, the direction of eliminating the Euro races as they have traditionally existed. Look at that article, by the way, and ask yourself if it could have been written in a fairer way, fairer to Watson, fairer to science, and fairer to the public. Of course it could: the writer and his editor could have assured a sampling of both sides of the question in terms of the individuals interviewed. But they didn’t. They presented only the radical leftist, radical Jewish, radical race-replacement side. Why? The answer can only be pressure from the top in some way or other — the highest élites who run things, the ones who sit on the Council on Foreign Relations, the ones who go to the Bilderburger meetings, the members of the Trilateral Commission, the individuals who run the E.U., the men who deal directly, face-to-face and telephone-to-telephone, with big-spending string-pullers like George Soros — want whites phased out and non-whites phased in. It’s been planned since the 1930s at least (among the Jews, since way before then) and is the reason the Allies went to war against the only power challenging it, 1939-45. The sole power challenging forced race-replacement had to be defeated. There’s no other way to look at that war. Since the 1930s the two opposing poles haven’t been communism and capitalism or whatever else is claimed. The two opposing poles have been race and race-replacement. We know at which pole 1930s Germany was and in retrospect, with hindsight, we now understand at which pole capitalism/communism was. This bipolarity is what explains WW II and the only thing that explains it — and the only thing that explains all that has come since. The men who fought and died in that war on the side of the Axis were fighting and dying for exactly what their governments said: race. Their governments were telling them the truth. Not so our governments. Those who fought and died on the side of the Allies were fighting and dying for a goal, it turns out, that was kept secret from them: race-replacement. The Allied goal began to be implemented as concrete policy literally the minute the war ended (in itself proof it must have been in the planning stages at least a few years before that, but the U.S. was only in that war for 3½ years, so likely was being planned, in my view certainly was, before the U.S.‘s entry, in fact explains the U.S.‘s entry in the teeth of years-long massive popular opposition to its entry). It’s why three-quarters of the lawyers on the U.S. legal team at the Nuremberg trials were Jews, why General Patton was assassinated, why the U.N. was set up the way it was, why men such as the race-denying Jewish race-replacement fanatic Ashley Montagu who wrote explicitly that he wanted white countries to become racially like Brazil were placed in positions of policy-determination, why the Jewish Kaufman-Morgenthau-Ehrenberg Plan for dealing with the defeated Germany was put into effect (though horrified Euros in the Truman administration managed to thwart is full implementation, so that it got implemented only about 50%), why de-nazification took the form it did and continues as an active official policy to this day, keeping Germany demoralized and emasculated and why denazification for the rest of the Eurosphere — official anti-racism — continues to be official policy, keeping the whole Eurosphere demoralized and emasculated, why half of Europe was handed over on a silver platter to the Bolsheviks, why Brown vs Board of Education was only nine years away, why today every Eurosphere country has a Holocaust museum every fifty yards from one end of the country to the other, why government forbids white children to worship Jesus Christ as it simultaneously forces them to worship Martin Luther King on pain of draconian “anti-hate-speech” punishments if they dare protest, and so on and so forth. What we see Prof. Watson going through was on the drawing boards and in the planning stages already by the early 1930s. We didn’t know it. But someone did. Someone knew it and sounded the alarm: a group of men in Berlin. And we saw what happened to them. 30
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:58 | #
The script for all this, all that’s going on with Watson, was written years before the U.S. entered World War II. All that script’s i’s were dotted and t’s crossed by the time the first bombs fell on Pearl Harbor. 31
Posted by 2R on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:01 | # “No, it’s not Watson who’s “a disgrace,” it’s the Mike Botchans who are a disgrace — a disgrace to science, a disgrace to truth, a disgrace to morality, a disgrace to humanity….................................”
But at the end of WWII, the propaganda not only continued, it intensified. What people call “anti-white media” or “anti-white Hollywood” is actually war propaganda. The problem is, one side is fighting the war and the other doesn’t even know its in a war. Yockery called the “fascist” movement in Europe a “European Revolution.” And indeed it was. Germany, Italy, Spain, much of Eastern Europe, and other assorted Europeans were making an attempt to take back the world order. They seen where the world was headed and realized that something had to be done. What people had seen in the USSR in the 20’s and 30’s was the writing on the wall. Germany is demonized today not because they were rude to Gods Chosen Pets. Germany is demonized today because they represent the moist dangerous idea to the NWO crowd. That idea is White In-Group Altruism. The idea that White people are allowed to survive is the most dangerous idea to the NWO. What I wonder is, if they are successful at exterminating the European people, will they move to China to start race mixing the Asians with Africans? 32
Posted by WRT on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:08 | # 1- With reference to the museum picture: 2- With reference to ‘beyond the point of acceptable debate’ : WRT 33
Posted by zusammen on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:46 | #
You almost pegged it with the first part, but lost it with the second. The NWO is at war against all self-determination everywhere. Witness the removal of Milosevic, of Saddam Hussein, the angry sabre-rattling against Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, the “undemocratic” strawman accusations against Russia and Belarus even perhaps the sanctions on Zimbabwe. All these states have been a problem for unchecked globalization. It isn’t just WWII Germany. 34
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:47 | # Federation of American Scientists condemns Watson:
http://fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=297&contentId=572 “The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) was formed in 1945 by Jews keep talking about how critical, if not dominant, their role was in “In recent years, the mission of FAS has expanded to include our Apparently they have expanded to include disinformation about genomics 35
Posted by Voice on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:51 | # This is going to come across as sychophantic because I just slobbered all over Bowery,but that was excellent Fred. Keep it up as it strengthens my own resolve and focus. 36
Posted by Svigor on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:20 | # I take it that anti-racist is short for anti-white racist. That’s an excellent turn of phrase. I’ll be swiping that. 37
Posted by Proofreader on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:24 | # Anti-racist= genophobe. To use Wintermute´s recommended term. 38
Posted by magnaestveritas on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:37 | # If HalOnsgard reads MR, I’d like to congratulate him. Steven Rose to the occasion: For a clever man, James Watson is remarkably loose-tongued. He always was, and age does not wither him, nor custom stale his less than infinite variety. In the UK to publicise his new book, he has been in characteristic form. In the Sunday Times, it was that long-exploded racist claim that “Africans” are inherently less intelligent than “us”. HalOnsgard replied: “Long-exploded” in your marxoid-Boasian dreams, Rose. You are a dinosaur from Stephen Jay Gould’s corner of Jurassic Park. The existence of average differences in IQ between mankind’s major races which are substantial and predictable; the fact that IQ measures something real and important; the robustness of the methods used to assay these scores; their persistence, their incorrigibility by human post-natal interventions and social engineering; and their tremendous impact on the collective outcomes for these groups… all are so well established that it is hardly a matter of serious dispute among consenting psychometricians in private any more. Now it’s just a matter of breaking gently to ordinary people the news that the real deal is what their common sense told them all along. The bromides the PC experts kept stuffing down their throats from c. 1950 were nothing more. Race is back, and it’s bigger than ever. Just rejoice at that news! Most will shrug their shoulders and say “we knew all along—like dog breeds, isn’t it?” A few gormless liberals will have nerve storms: the Nazis are coming, we must go on lying! But it’s too late. Now medical genetics are further confirming racial variation in the genotypes of sub-species, including their brains, and enormous policy implications are opening up—which researchers not hag-ridden by Rose’s egalitarian mysticism will certainly not ignore, even if his kind keep the lid on honest debate for a few years longer in the West, censoring and sacking. We will merely lag behind China, Japan, Russia and India: where science is unshackled by soppiness, and where the very idea of race as “only skin deep” or a “social construct”, of IQ as “culturally biased” and all the other squid ink squirted by Steven, Jacqueline and their dwindling tribe of lefty Luddites is laughed to scorn every day. Darwin wouldn’t be surprised at the change in the wind that at last has arrived. He might, however, be horrified at how those who profess to teach in his name have suppressed the most important aspect of his theory, in the service of a Platonic falsehood. http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/steven_rose/2007/10/the_wrong_diagnosis.html 39
Posted by magnaestveritas on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:57 | # I’d also like to congratulate TrinityX, but for entirely different reasons: Logically, people of African origin should be of greater intelligence than people of European origin, because they’re the oldest strand of the human race on the planet. Their brains have had longer than everyone else’s to evolve, therefore, their brains will be superior. I wholeheartedly support the decision to ban this racist from expounding his revolting and extremely unscientific views in public. Cancelling his invitation to speak is not politically correct - it’s a recognition that his view is unscientific, unsupported and inappropriate in multiple ways. Nor is it compromising his right to free speech - he still retains the right to say whatever he likes. It is the event organiser’s prerogative to choose who they have to speak at their event. http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sue_blackmore/2007/10/dont_silence_the_scientists.html Without the final two sentences that could have been construed as a piss-take. I’d bet HalOnsgard is male and white and TX female and possibly ethnic too. 40
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:05 | # Some good work on that thread by BertRustle, too. I’m banned at CiF but John Standing isn’t ... yet. Will this, just posted, get him the treatment:-
Darn the mistake in the opening line. 42
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 20 Oct 2007 01:33 | # A reply to John Standing’s concerns, but phrased in such a way as might not be deleted at The Guardian site:
43
Posted by Primary Colors on Sat, 20 Oct 2007 01:34 | # I was surfing the Web for information regarding the controversy surrounding Dr. Watson’s comments and simultaneously watching the History Channel’s program regarding the Lebensborn, which focused on the personal tragedies befalling the women and children resulting from an unwavering focus on recovering, preserving and expanding, to the exclusion of all others races, the purity of the “Ayran Race.” Right about that time, I ran into your website. I’ve been reading articles and blogs on your site, and I have a question. What is the purpose of this website? On the one hand, it would appear that the site promotes a rational discussion about racial genetic diversity and the social consequences of same. However, the blogs read like the neo-Ayran speech of the rural South (US) with which I am well familiar. Are you really interested in a legitimate discussion of human genetic variation and how such information can be used to improve our lot, or is this just Germany 1933 redux? Sounds like you guys are playing with matches. Be careful, y’all. 44
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 20 Oct 2007 02:39 | #
All of the above. 45
Posted by Scimitar on Sat, 20 Oct 2007 03:50 | #
The purpose of this website is to promote the EGI of people of European ancestry, in particular the Anglo-Saxons, to critique the dominant discourse of anti-racism and liberal capitalist democracy, and to promote a return to traditional moral values as an alternative to the anomie and race replacement caused by modern social conditions - or at least that is my understanding of what Majority Rights is about. 46
Posted by VLC on Sat, 20 Oct 2007 05:51 | #
You’re 80 years old Watson you fool, your punishment for telling the truth will be short lived anyway so you should have acted like a man. Whether you cave in or not you’re not going to be forgiven. and it’s funny that leftists give lip service to evolution when it’s time to fight christians of the intelligent design type but when race enters the stage they all become atheist creationists. All humans were created, er I mean became equal no uh… evolved equal, yes that’s it they all evolved equally exactly the same and we’re all equal now! Oh yes we are! Only RACISTS would disagree with that. 47
Posted by VLC on Sat, 20 Oct 2007 05:57 | # a little gem from the Guardian:
LOL! skin colour. that’s hilarious 48
Posted by din on Sat, 20 Oct 2007 09:52 | #
For those who don’t remember this previous controversy: 49
Posted by john on Sat, 20 Oct 2007 13:54 | # From Jensen: 50
Posted by Englander on Sat, 20 Oct 2007 21:32 | # Primary Colors wrote: “I was surfing the Web for information regarding the controversy surrounding Dr. Watson’s comments and simultaneously watching the History Channel’s program regarding the Lebensborn, which focused on the personal tragedies befalling the women and children resulting from an unwavering focus on recovering, preserving and expanding, to the exclusion of all others races, the purity of the “Ayran Race.” Right about that time, I ran into your website. I’ve been reading articles and blogs on your site, and I have a question.” You seem unable to separate White-on-minority genocide from our completely rational desire to preserve our people and our way of life. (this particular thread relating to why those two things - our people and our way of life - are themselves inseparable) It sounds like that History Channel programme had the desired effect on you. 51
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 20 Oct 2007 22:15 | # Watson’s ignonimous departure was not in vain:-
Early this morning I tried to add a bit of corrective detail with the following thread comment:-
Naturally, the guard-dog didn’t allow it through. 52
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 20 Oct 2007 22:40 | # Fred, your Guardian spoof is an absolute gem and you should sign up and post it. 53
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 21 Oct 2007 00:36 | #
OK, it’s up. (I don’t expect it to last ...) 54
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 21 Oct 2007 03:42 | #
Isn’t assuming all groups are equally intelligent just as much a prejudice as assuming the contrary? 55
Posted by VLC on Sun, 21 Oct 2007 16:29 | #
oh so he did suggest a link between skin colour and sex drive, I thought the Guardian reporteuse had covered up his use of the word ‘race’ by using ‘skin colour’. 56
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:19 | # Steve Sailer will be commenting on the Watson flap tonight from a new angle, an angle that occurred to him last night on reading Watson’s new book (the book Watson was in England promoting when all hell broke loose). I’m on tenterhooks, because Steve has taken the unusual step of posting a log entry just to advertise the upcoming piece, meaning he thinks it’ll make some pretty good points. So I’ll be on the lookout for it tonight — Steve’s regular Sailer on Sunday feature always gets posted at Vdare.com at 11PM or thereabouts, four-and-a-half hours from now (in London that’ll be four o’clock Monday morning, so our friends in the mother country will have to wait until tomorrow morning at breakfast to read it). I’ll definitely be logged on at eleven. 57
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 02:10 | # In a comment, Silver held government’s role in race-replacement to be implausible as long as it hadn’t forced any Euros “to mate with non-whites.” I replied to him, and this present thread’s photo of the children at the museum is a also mute reminder: if the boy at the end of the row is the only English child among four Pakis and two Sub-Saharans (unless that’s a turban that other boy is wearing, in which case three Pakis, two Sub-Saharans, and a Sikh), who but a non-white will he choose for a wife if the demographic proportions aren’t restored by the time he’s ready to be a father? None, because government will have seen to it there are no others — or, among him and his English schoolmates few will choose other than a non-white, if government makes it that there are few others. (And again, please, no one’s attacking kids of any group or race in a comment such as this. Period. Full stop. We’re attacking race-replacement and the criminal adults who are deliberately bringing it about.) 58
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:41 | # Steve’s column was good, as always, and worth the wait.
This statement of Steve’s in the piece surprised me although I’d seen him hint previously somewhere at having this view, to the effect he didn’t feel sure IQ had a hereditary component. (I tried to put that comment of his out of my mind that time, but I’ve had a slightly uneasy feeling about Steve ever since, especially coming as it did on the heels of his “Citizenism” thing.) “Five to one odds”? For my part, I’d definitely offer something in the neigborhood of one dodecazillion to ten to the minus ninetieth power odds that at the very least eight tenths of the slightly greater than one SD gap (it’s about 1.2 SD) is one thousand percent hereditarily fixed, determined, and immutable as in “Deal With It, Get Over It, Learn To Love It, Cry Me A River, Because It Ain’t Gonna Change,” yeah, that kind of heredity: that’s my view. Obliquely off topic a bit is the following stark final paragraph in a long thread I just re-read this morning, a paragraph which I’ll just throw in as a reminder (a reminder mainly to myself, since, I believe, I’m the reader-commenter around here who does the most (counter)attacking of the Jews specifically by group-name) that where forced race-replacement is concerned the Hebrews are far from the only targets richly deserving of a daily two minutes hate: let’s not leave out the Vatican.
Needless to point out, the Catholic Church hierarchy is a bigger criminal than the Jews because though far more powerful than they it has actively collaborated since the 1950s in the forced race-replacement of Euros. If the men running it hadn’t been ninety-billion-percent sodomites with the typical race-replacement-loving sodomite mentality things likely would be vastly different today for the West. (When the ultra-orthodox Jews in their quarter of Jerusalem spit on Christians they encounter in the street they may have a point after all ... Maybe they think they’re all Catholics ...) 59
Posted by Yuezhus on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:04 | #
It’s…not quite as simple as that. All testing so far has given the distribution of NE Asian IQ as similar to that of whites. If there is a hereditary ‘genius shortage’, to use a somewhat simplistic term, it may not be the result of IQ distribution. There are other possible hereditary factors, such as differing field independence, inherent religiosity, childhood mental conformity/malleability, dopamine levels and so on. But surprisingly, there doesn’t seem to be a hereditary NE Asian genius shortage at all, concerning scientific/visual/mathematic matters. This is if environment is strictly controlled for, especially regarding plentiful protein-rich diets with little soy, which is the norm in the West and to a lesser extent in South Korea. This isn’t really the thread for it. But for now I’ll give you a few pointers to go on. Who’s Terence Tao, how good is he at what he does and what does this say about people such as Song Yoo-Geun, Kim Ung-Yong and March Tian Boedihardjo? What are the Marquis Yi of Zeng bells, dating from 433 BC? Who is James Wong Howe, what did he do and what were his early years like? And who’s Sho Yano, the NE Asian kid in the picture below, and why’s he talking to our renown banana skin rocker?:
Really now, strict studying regimes on the behest of NE Asian parents doesn’t quite explain all this. ....Oh, and to return to the topic, Watson. hasn’t changed his mind at all. His ‘caving’ was a mere clarification of his original views. To quote:
This is what people need to understand. Difference in intelligence doesn’t mean general inferiority. Yes, racial theories of pre-World War II Europe (and Japan!) did mistakenly correlate the two. Things have changed. 60
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:28 | # The other point, Yuezhus, is we don’t want to be changed into them no matter whether they’re inferior, the same, or superior. We like the way we are and want to stay that way. That includes our looks and our particular inborn personality traits, nut just questions of IQ. We reject race-replacement and will punish, through legal juridic procedures, all those who are inflicting it on us, as soon as we manage to overthrow them, and halt and reverse — and reverse — the process. They thought when this is all over there’d be nothing left of us. What’s going to happen is there’ll be nothing left of them. 61
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 23 Oct 2007 05:39 | # Video of Prof. Watson at a conference the year before last, answering someone’s question as to how he and Sir Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA, then taking five minutes at the end to touch on his latest research at Cold Spring Harbor, involving the hunt for the genes that predispose to autism and schizophrenia. 62
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:28 | # Yuezhus, Outliers are not indicative of anything very much. There are always outliers. I have seen no evidence for an East Asian IQ distribution as wide as that of Europeans, nor really any societal outcomes for it. Do you have a study to point to? Also, and to be absolutely specific about this, there is no equality between Africans and Europeans because they evolved differently. “Biological equality” is just an abstract thought. Equality of political rights, where Africans and Europeans currently inhabit the same country, is about the only equality that can properly be argued for. Does this mean that biological superiority can be directly extrapolated from the life performance of Africans and Europeans? Yes, but only on narrow comparitive measures. One might then be able to agglomorate these, where they are related, into some more general conclusions. But an absolute race-wide statement of superiority will necessarily contain caveats. It seems to me that Africans score over Europeans in sexual interest, aggressivity, self-confidence, rythmicity, and certain sports. 63
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:53 | # Further to my counterattack on the Catholics yesterday, read this letter from a Catholic, and Brimelow’s reply. It’s clear now, from all it’s doing and all it’s refusing to do which it could do easily, that the Catholic Church is consciously positioning itself in favor of the forced replacement of the European races with non-whites. How do we know it’s conscious, not some mistake or oversight? Because what’s going on, namely forced race-replacement, is obvious, yet the Vatican persists in backing the other side, the side doing the forcing. On general grounds the Catholic Church is an ally in so many ways in the struggle to reject toxic modernism, one is reluctant to counterattack them. But if they persist they will leave us no choice, as I see things. What’s the difference between the Catholic and Jewish positions on the forced race-replacement of the Euro populations? Anybody see one? I don’t. Who knows but that with a little more counterattacking by the outraged, the smug self-satisfied homos in the Vatican Curia won’t wake up and start actually fulfilling a vow or two? Hey it’s worth a try ... 64
Posted by VLC on Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:26 | # Yuezhus:
65
Posted by VLC on Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:56 | # Geneticist denies reality for cash http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2007/10/geneticist-denies-reality-for-cash.html 67
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:24 | # LaGriffe’s focus regarding the N.E. Asian/European difference, “Why Asians Lag?” centered on the verbal/visio-spatial variances in the IQ of both groups. The NEA higher mean is predicated upon a much higher visio-spatial mean IQ. If memory serves, Lynn suggests that IQ distribution for women is much narrower; i.e less idiots, less geniuses. However, GW makes a good point. Examining Murray’s “On Human Accomplishment”, over the last five centuries, there appears a real absence of NEA genius, even in the scientific field. And artistically, it is very hard to understand why NEA or sub-Cons for that matter, never developed perspective in their art work. The work of the ancient Greeks, most of the paintings are lost to antiquity, or the great Italian Masters viewed in comparison to the art work of the East, brings only one word to mind, “superior”. There is just no comparison. Abe Lincoln on equality;
The problem is entitling the Negro to the rights of the white produces this;
68
Posted by VLC on Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:56 | # Michael Savage has some nice things to say about Watson and he has more “controversial” quotes 69
Posted by Yuezhus on Wed, 24 Oct 2007 04:10 | #
I’ve already said that it’s not a simple matter of high IQ. Have you seen any evidence against an NE Asian IQ distribution as wide as that of Europeans? I’m speaking of purely psychometric evidence. As far as I’m aware, no testing has revealed a smaller distribution. These people I’ve given as examples aren’t outliers. They are NE Asian people who lived their entire lives in a Western environment, and they seem to produce non-verbal genius at a rate greater than their host population. If I these people were outliers, there would’ve been more examples coming from China and Japan, where over a billion hail from, but this isn’t the case. Not a single child prodigy of equal calibre to the examples I’ve given has come from China or Japan. It would be very odd indeed if these people were outliers, because why would all the outliers come from places other than their ancestral homelands? Or places such as Korea, the people of whom number tinily compared to China and Japan combined? One of the people I’ve mentioned wasn’t even an academic genius, but a critically acclaimed cinematographer.
Societal outcome isn’t always indicative, and I don’t have one study, other than the field of Sinology itself. When I said “things have changed”, I meant that many now (now being since the 90s, and especially since the 00s) in science accept average differences in intelligence between races doesn’t imply some are ‘genetically superior’ to others, which is what thinkers from the early 20th century couldn’t get away from. I didn’t say I believed in equality; maybe I mistakenly gave that impression. My views on ‘racial preservation’ are comfortably within the range of most here. Desmond:
Yeh, of course. I don’t disagree with you on this. But Eastern Europe during the same period was considerably less productive, until a small window during the late 18th and 19th centuries. Let’s not forget how uncreative and stagnant the Roman Empire was in comparison to their Greek cultural forebears, who were essentially genetically identical to each other. If they are lacking in both scientific and artistic genius, then how do you explain what was found in Hubei province, dating to 433 BC? Or the failure of the Romans to come up with paper and saltpeter, among other inventions of the Han Dynasty? The Greeks didn’t develop proper perspective, merely a bastard version that hinted at it. This was a monumental leap over art from other cultures, of course, as was everything else that made Greek painting groundbreaking. But eventually the Chinese developed this too. In fact, many paintings from the Song Dynasty, from what I can tell, DID compare to earlier Greek work in the ability to replicate reality. This is just a study sketch, but it showcases the painters technical ability:
I could give more examples another day. Had the Mongols not halted and reversed progress there, like they did in Russia, there just might’ve been more of the ‘societal outcomes’ that GW talks of. Chinese civilization is a bit younger than that of the Greeks, if you count the Minoan period, and they had the luxury of being influenced directly by Egyptian painting straight off the boat, which had thousands of years to develop. China, on the other hand, wasn’t so lucky in this regard. Bronze was there from the start in both civilizations, but it wasn’t the Greeks who became the better bronzesmiths. 70
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 24 Oct 2007 05:08 | # Ok, for arguments sake, let’s accept your position. How then do you explain the last five or six centuries. Ma Lin
Masaccio
71
Posted by Yuezhus on Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:57 | # The same way I could explain Russian culture prior to Peter the Great’s travels to Western Europe. Or how stagnant, imitative and intellectually unadventurous Roman culture was compared to their genetically identical Greek cousins. I think Scimitar has much to say on that matter. Ma Lin was from the Song Dynasty, yes, but his was a different genre that the one I gave an example of. The style of Ma Lin and others was called emphasized expressionism, minimalism, spontaneity, and would be painted by some “scholar-officials” of the Chinese government during their free time.The realist study I gave an example of, which was painted by a fulltime professional, was called ‘Meticulous’ style, as the artists obviously had to train for years. Finished paintings were done on silk scrolls were meant to decorate the walls of rich people’s houses, performing a similar function to the classical Roman villa frescoes. They were usually the stereotypical monochrome Daoist landscapes, but by the Song, Meticulous art became popular. ‘Four Magpies’, Chao Ch’ang, Song Dynasty (scan quality not so good):
This’ll do for now. I could retrieve some more if anyone asks. This isn’t what most people expect from Chinese painting prior to contact with Europe. Artists by this point had began strenuously and systematically experimenting with sfumato, colour blending and spacing, and became more analytical and reductionist when honing their craft; they started studying plants, birds and small animals in great detail, in some cases being indistinguishable from the later paintings by Jesuits employed by the Qing Dynasty court. Light and shadow, which is what makes classical painting so enticing, hadn’t been fully explored by Song painters and unlike the earlier Greeks and Romans, figurative human expression wasn’t the original concern, nor was it worked upon that much, but I dare say their attention to detail was superior to that of the classical painters. The reason Ma Lin’s painting, while aesthetically pleasing yet amateur in comparison to the examples I’ve given, is fairly easy to find on Google, is because the wealthy of the Song Dynasty still craved after minimalist, black-ink-washed landscapes. They were the equivalent of modern art in a pre-modern age, having conceptually loaded value over pure realist aesthetic, and the wealthy often wished to vainly display their supposed depth and sophisticated knowledge of philosophy and ‘Daoist’ art theory. But the Meticulous style was becoming too appealing to resist for many. Had China (and the ethnic Khitan Jin Dynasty to the north) avoided Mongol devastation, things could’ve only gotten better, because the Song Dynasty really was hot stuff back in the day. The painting academies were burned down and neglected by nomadic delinquency. The holistic, mystified landscape style became the norm once again, and even decreased in quality. If you want to understand why China stagnated, it’s helpful to look at the past closer to home too, because the explanations may not be as hereditary as many assume. Now, back to that 433 BC find… 72
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 25 Oct 2007 03:55 | # Even if we accept the stagnant and unadventurous nature of Roman artistic intellect, there still is no basis for comparison between the Greco/Roman sculpture Laocoon and his Sons and say, the Terracotta Army.
Granted Laocoon is probably latter, the materials are different and earlier Greeks had provided a foundation, however, even to the layman the difference is astounding. Moreover, Europe had its dark age as well, yet recovered to dominate the last five centuries, not just in art. Can we we really blame the centuries long Chinese stagnation on the Mongols and the burning of a few libraries. How do you compare Qing Dynasty art to Russia’s Nikitin? http://www.russianartgallery.org/famous/nikitin_golovkin.htm 74
Posted by VLC on Sun, 28 Oct 2007 03:13 | # Kevin MacDonald comments: http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Blog.htm James Watson’s Ordeal James Watson’s embrace of racial differences in intelligence once again shows the undiminished power of the left to control public discourse on critical issues related to diversity and multiculturalism. When Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray published The Bell Curve in 1994, it was greeted with a great sense of anticipation in some circles that at last issues related to race and IQ could be discussed openly and honestly. Finally, a book had been published by a mainstream publisher that dared to argue that not only were there racial differences in intelligence, but also that it was reasonable to suppose that these differences were partly due to inheritance. But it never happened. One has to look long and hard to find mainstream media accounts of race differences in academic success that even propose genetic differences as a reasonable hypothesis. For example, recent state reports on school success have emphasized that economic differences do not explain the racial gap in school success. One would think that the failure of the favorite explanation of the cultural left would prompt reasonable people to at least suggest at least the possibility that genetic differences are involved. But that explanation is utterly taboo in the mainstream media. Below the surface, however, in the labyrinths of academia, The Bell Curve has had an impact. Many new researchers are now studying general intelligence. Even the US military and much work in industrial-organizational psychology is taking the importance of “g,” the general factor of mental ability, into account. Admittedly, the topic of race differences is still highly controversial. Nonetheless, even here there are real signs of progress. For example, an entire issue of the top-drawer American Psychological Association journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law was devoted to a review of Black-White IQ differences by J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen. Their paper (in 2005) entitled “Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability” concluded that Black-White differences were between 50 and 80 percent heritable. Most recently, Rushton and his colleagues published two studies in a paper in the July 2007 Proceedings of the Royal Society of London showing that the East Asian-European-South Asian-Colored-Black differences, mainly in South Africa, were substantially heritable. However, these positive indications have not yet percolated up into the mainstream media. Watson was in some ways an ideal person to express his views on the topic and bring this material into the light of day. At 79 years old, he has little tangible to lose. He is a world-renowned figure with the sort of stature that can only come from making one of the central discoveries of 20th-century science. He is also a biologist with a professional understanding of genetic influences on behavior. Gene/behavior linkages are a major research interest of the Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory that he led until being suspended because of his comments on African intelligence. Watson also has a deep personal interest in genetic influences on behavior because his son has schizophrenia. Of course, the egalitarians are free to have as much of their say as they like, no matter how nonsensical. A good example is Steven Rose, an old-time warrior in the IQ wars who is mentioned several times in Ch. 2 of The Culture of Critique. He not only condemns Watson for expressing his opinion, but is quite happy to see that Watson’s life has been upended, stating that “the repercussions are to be welcomed.” At least that far-left ideologue was honest enough to say he didn’t believe in free speech for scientists. Stalinism lives! Perhaps Watson deserves a long prison term in a psychiatric hospital. It’s noteworthy that Watson has not caved in on the general point that natural selection may result in differences between human groups. He has defended himself by rejecting any implication that the entire continent of Africa is “genetically inferior” while nevertheless writing
Watson believes that in 10–15 years we will get “an adequate understanding for the relative importance of nature versus nurture in the achievement of important human objectives.” So is the clock ticking for the cultural left? Are we about to enter an age in which it will impossible to deny genetic differences on intelligence and we will be able to rationally discuss race differences in intelligence in the mainstream media? I think not. The cultural left has a long and largely successful history of being able to combat scientific ideas that it doesn’t like. This was the main conclusion of The Culture of Critique: The long and sorry history of Boasian anthropology, psychoanalysis, the anti-hereditarian and anti-Darwinian movements in the social sciences, and the Frankfurt School all masqueraded as science but they also wore their politics on their sleeves. Like other political movements, dissenters were simply excluded — drummed out of professional societies, publically humiliated, and relegated to the fringes of intellectual life. It’s a tradition that is alive and well in the 21st century. Watson has seen his book tour cancelled, he has been suspended from his position at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, and has been subjected to outraged moralism from people who can’t hold a candle to his intellectual stature. And all for expressing his professional opinion on how the blind hand of natural selection may have operated to make people different. 75
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 28 Oct 2007 04:22 | # Watson’s punishment has gone beyond suspension: he’s now been fired. I heard on the car radio about three days ago that he’d been forced to “resign” his position as Chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories. That one of the greatest and most world-renowned scientists of the century has been treated in this sickening way at the close of his career is a testimony to the post-sixties reality of entrenched brutal totalitarian Jewish power in this country. 76
Posted by zusammen on Sun, 28 Oct 2007 05:19 | # There certainly has been a recent flurry of Jewish money and power grabbing. I wonder why their activity is so out in the open now or if the pace has accelerated. 77
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 28 Oct 2007 11:51 | # Their hegemony is complete enough that they’re not afraid who sees what they do. 78
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 30 Oct 2007 01:12 | # Professor Richard Lynn comments on the Watson flap, and replies to a panel’s questions. (No need to keep listening once Lynn’s done, as what come then are three extreme radical leftists, one after another, with nothing to say but plenty of your time to waste!) 79
Posted by VLC on Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:49 | # just read that on the GNXP thread about Watson Razib:
it’s funny, the racist xenophobic eugenicist that I am never heard of that extermination consensus. I thought most whites in the early 20th century simply showed normal ethnocentrism and kept their politicians in line with it. 80
Posted by voice on Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:50 | # I just listened to the Richard Lynn interview re James Watson Would British scientists please understand that Americans when they say black they mean Negroid and when British say it these mean Indians and Negroids etc.. This gets on my nerves!!! Richard Lynn got caught out on this !! So did Frank Ellis!! 81
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:22 | # That comment of Razib’s casts his whole credibility into question. He’d do well to retract or defend it (which means retract it, since it’s one-hundred-percent imaginary and indefensible, as goes without saying) or his reputation is henceforth finished. Jewish Eurochristian-hating genocide mongers the likes of Noël Ignatiev and others of that stripe won’t do as sources, neither will their toadies: something from a non-psychopathic brain is going to have to be cited. 82
Posted by Voice on Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:10 | # One more thing that bothered me that Richard Lynn was unable to counter that fits into the “why IQ matters” debate. They asked him “why this matters or what purpose does it serve” to understand white-black(see Negroid) differences and Lynn wobbled with a incoherent answer. Good god man! You can hit that out of the ballpark and say one example” because if we don’t understand that Black IQ is genetically lower than white IQ, when Blacks underachieve economically or educationally one cannot scream white racism thereby fueling anti-white hatred”..that is just one This is why we get hammered because whites are not ready for the simplest of rebuttals from anti-white racists/genocidalists! 83
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 06 Nov 2007 03:15 | # Here’s the Monday Riddle: What’s the glaring omission from Steve’s comparison of what happened to Galileo and what happened to Watson? Answer: he said who did it to Galileo (“Franciscan and Dominican licensers”) but not who did it to Watson, leaving the reader with the impression it was everybody, all of us. But it wasn’t, any more than the immigration crisis is the work or all of us. A certain segment of the élites are running the show in this regard (exactly as in regard to immigration), and for a hint as to which segment, look at this partial list of the most prominent ones and see if they have something in common: Franz Boaz, Ashley Montagu, Stephen Jay Gould, Leon Kamin, Richard Lewontin, Steven Rose, Jared Diamond. Need more hints? OK. Yes they’re licensers but no, they’re not Franciscans or Dominicans, and yes it’s an inquisition but no, it’s not a Catholic inquisition. All right, now put your thinking caps on ... 84
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 14 Jan 2008 05:51 | # Sir Francis Crick who with James Watson co-discovered DNA’s structure and mechanism of action and shared the Nobel Prize (and, like Watson, had one of the most distinguished careers in molecular biology) had the same predilection for thinking forbidden thoughts. 86
Posted by GT on Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:24 | #
Agreed. Part of our communication problem is related to fact-obsession. Facts are important, but the man on the street won’t listen or recite facts when arguing race. This is not because he’s a “lemming,” necessarily. MOTS simply haven’t time for vigorous explorations of troublesome topics which don’t pay well. Concise, coherent, and positive moral statements and questions are better. Here is one example: An activist in the city-data forum asks, “How Dangerous is Multiculturalism for White Children?” Read the first three or four pages of responses and note how easily the opposition hands him his ass on a moral basis. 87
Posted by Weston on Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:19 | #
This is a good point. Perhaps, if time allows it, you could author a post laying out some basic moral arguments white activists can use. 88
Posted by GT on Wed, 02 Jul 2008 06:22 | #
I’ll give it thought, but would rather discuss practical electricity and ballistics. The following should be understood as a prelude to all moral arguments: 1. The stigma and superficialities associated with the words “race,” “color,” and “pigmentation” must be undermined. Avoid using the word “White.” It’s a color, superficial in content, which allows our people to be linguistically – meaning, simplistically - reduced to merely another group or population within the greater human species. Here’s one example of linguistic reduction: There are red signs and blue signs. The penetration of the signs by either color is shallow – superficial. Following linguistic reduction by the enemy for the benefit of MOTS, both are “signs.” The colors red and blue are meaningless. Here’s another example: There is white crime and black crime. The result of a simple, linguistic, color reduction by the enemy is “crime.” Thus, in the minds of MOTS, concern should be limited to “crime” – not comparisons of “black crime” with “white crime.” 89
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 03 Apr 2009 00:10 | # View From the Right refers to Sir Francis Crick’s views on race which matched those of James Watson (in my comment above of Jan. 14, 2008, I referred to the same Sailer log entry): http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012869.html Crick shared the Nobel Prize with Watson for their work discovering DNA’s structure and being the first to propose the mechanism (later proven exactly correct) by which the DNA molecule coded for proteins, a discovery that opened the door to all subsequent advances in molecular biology and genetics. It was one of the greatest discoveries in the entire history of science since the beginning of the world. Like Watson, Crick went on to a distinguished career in molecular biology after their youthful discovery together at Cambridge University. Post a comment:
Next entry: As the GI Generation Goes Softly Into That Good Night, The Middle Class is Destroyed
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 01:05 | #
In a delightful book only around 90 pages long if memory serves, The Double Helix, Prof. Watson describes in non-technical language which is accessible to every reader exactly how he and Francis Crick (later, Sir Francis) discovered the structure of DNA at the beginning of the 1950s. Everyone with any interest in DNA should read it. You’ll never forget it. For those more technically oriented, Watson’s great textbook, The Molecular Biology of the Gene, is well worth a careful read. This textbook is one of the monuments of the academic disciplines of molecular biology and genomics. Watson also has a textbook on Recombinant DNA which I haven’t read but I’ve heard is excellent. Others of his books can be found at Amazon.com and elsewhere. For decades he’s been the director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island (I don’t know if he still is), one of the pre-eminent biology and genomic research facilities in the world.
Can anyone believe, by the way, the comments of snide nausea-inducing little Jewish race-replacer Steven Rose who said Watson was “out of his depth” where the subject of heritability of IQ was concerned? Out of his depth? Can the nerve of the jumped-up little Hebrew twerp who made that statement be believed? The nerve of some of these Jewish race-replacement advocates beggars belief sometimes, it really and truly does.