James Watson, the High Water Mark for Marxism.
Few Americans are aware of how far Marxist thought pervades both our society and Europe, but nearly all 'PC' thinking, which has had a chilling effect on discourse in our society, is a result of marxist idealogy. The high water mark, in my opinion, came with the turning out of James Watson for publically stating what many people privately believe:
James D. Watson—A Modern Galileo
By Steve Sailer
It's often said that academic politics is so nasty because the stakes are so low.
Yet, as demonstrated once again by the vast uproar aimed at silencing legendary Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA James D. Watson for daring to mention racial differences in average IQ:
When it comes to genetics and intelligence, academic politics is so vicious because the stakes are so extraordinarily high.
Last year, then-Harvard President Larry Summers was fired from his job presiding over an endowment now worth $34.9 billion largely for pointing out that evil patriarchal discrimination isn't the only reason women don't achieve as much as men do at the very highest levels of math, science, and engineering. Instead, the greater male variance in IQ simply means there are more male geniuses. (And morons, but there aren’t many morons at Harvard, except morally).
Now, Watson, perhaps the second-most famous living scientist after Stephen Hawking, has been suspended by Long Island’s Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory for what can only be called, to adopt the prescient totalitarian terminology of Orwell’s 1984, crimethink.
Watson was in Britain to promote his frank new memoir, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science. It is something of a sequel to his 1968 bestseller The Double Helix, which was named the 7th best nonfiction book of the 20th Century in 1999. The Double Helix wasn’t quite that good, but it was still a revealing portrait of just how political and competitive science can be.
Last week, Watson told the Sunday Times of London that he was:
"'inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa' because 'all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really.'" [The elementary DNA of Dr Watson, By Charlotte Hunt-Grubbe, October 14, 2007]
He instantly had his sold-out lecture at the Science Museum in London canceled. A spokesdroid for the museum explained:
"We feel Dr. Watson has gone beyond the point of acceptable debate and we are, as a result, cancelling his talk."
apparently at least some Africans agree:
I Agree With Dr Watson
Daily Trust (Abuja)
OPINION
25 October 2007
Posted to the web 25 October 2007
By Idang Alibi
A few days ago, the Nobel Laureate, Dr James Watson, made a remark that is now generating worldwide uproar, especially among the blacks.
He said what to me looks like a self-evident truth. He told The Sunday Times of London in an interview that in his humble opinion, black people are less intelligent than the White people.
Since then, some of us cannot hear anything else but the outrage of black people who feel demeaned by what Watson has said. So many people have called the man names. To be expected, some have said he is a racist. Some even wonder how a "foolish" man like Watson could have won the Nobel Prize. Even white people who, deep in their heart, agree with Watson want to be politically, correct so they condemn the man.
Why are we blacks becoming so reactive, so sensitive to any remarks, no matter how well-meaning, about our failure as a race? Why are we becoming like the Jews who see every accusation as a manifestation of anti-Semitism? I do not know what constitutes intelligence. I leave that to our so-called scholars. But I do know that in terms of organising society for the benefit of the people living in it, we blacks have not shown any intelligence in that direction at all. I am so ashamed of this and sometimes feel that I ought to have belonged to another race.
Nigeria my dear country is a prime example of the inferiority of the black race when compared to other races. Let somebody please tell me whether it is a manifestation of intelligence if a people cannot organise a free, fair and credible election to choose who will lead them. Is it intelligence that we cannot provide simple pipe-borne water for the people? Our public school system has virtually collapsed. Is that a sign of intelligence? Our roads are impassable. In spite of the numerous sources that nature has made available to us to tap for energy to run our industries and homes, we have no steady supply of electricity. Yet electricity is the bedrock of industrialisation. When you agree with the school of Watson, some say you are incorrect because all these failures are a result of poor leadership. Why must it be us blacks who must always suffer poor leadership? Is that not a manifestation of unintelligence?
In the name of international trade, bilateral co-operation, globalisation and other subterfuges, the norm in the world today is for smart people to appropriate the wealth of other people for themselves and their countries. But more among the blacks than any other race, the practice is to steal from their own country and salt away to other people's country. Is it intelligence that our leaders steal billions of naira and hide in other people's country?
Anywhere in the world today where you have a concentration of black people among other races, the poorest, the least educated, the least achieving, and the most violent group among those races will be the blacks. When indices of underdevelopment are given, black people and countries are sure to occupy the bottom of the ladder. If we are intelligent, why do we not carry first when statistics of development are given?
Look at the African continent. South Africa is the most developed country because of the presence of whites there. This may be an uncomfortable truth for many of us but it exists nevertheless. If the whites had been driven away after independence, we would have seen a steady decline of that country.
In terms of natural endowment, Africa ought to be the richest of the continents but see the mess we have made of the potential for greatness which God in his infinite wisdom has bestowed upon us. We have proved totally incapable of harnessing the abundant natural resources to become great. Today, there is a renewed scramble for the wealth of Africa. China, our new "friend", does not bother about the genocide against fellow blacks in the Sudan by the Arabs who control the affairs of that country. They say they do not want to interfere in the internal affairs of any country. All they want is the oil in Sudan to run their industries. Yet, we blacks have not seen the Chinese action as an affront to our sensitivities. Every race takes us for granted because we are so weak and so foolish, if you permit me to say it.
I am really pained by our gross underachievement as a race. Instead of regarding bitter truths expressed by the likes of Watson as a wake-up call for us to engage in sober reflection, we take to the expression of woolly sentiment. For me, this type of reaction is a further evidence of our unintelligence. A man of intelligence recognises genuine criticism against him and takes steps to improve himself in order to prove his critics wrong. But for us blacks, our reaction is to abuse the man who expresses worries about our backwardness.
However my point is not whether or not you agree with it the point is that Watson is a nobel prize winning scientist, the co-discoverer of DNA - he was basing is statement on scientific evidence. He was met with name calling and pressure to resign. No one, scientifically challenged him, it was pure power and intimidation. When the establishment reacts to scientific truths and scientific evidence with displays of raw power, it is apparent they are threatened by scientific reality, and that their power or authority rests on ideas in defiance of reality. How long after Galileo's stance to the Catholic church lose and enormous amount of power? Is the same going to happen for the Northern europe /American based 'religion' of cultural marxism? I hope so.
No comments:
Post a Comment