Comments
“”Eppur si muove,” Galileo supposedly said of the earth. “And yet it does move.”
Watson has been forced to recant his opinions in a totally disgraceful fashion. This will be remembered as a low point in the West by future historians - if there are any around in the future.
Posted by at 8:01 PM on October 19
At Dr. Watson’s age, you would think he wouldn’t care much what people said. The older I get and the less I need employment, the less I care what anyone thinks about me.
Was he afraid of assassination, jail, or does he just have a need for acceptance? Not being in his shoes, maybe I can’t understand the pressures on him.
I don’t know, but it is disappointing.
Posted by at 8:02 PM on October 19
“I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope”. - Galileo.
Posted by at 8:04 PM on October 19
Sad, sad, sad, that’s all I can say.
“Reality is that which doesn’t go away just because you stop believing in it.”
And, I might add, it doesn’t go away just because you are pressured to deny it.
Posted by Tim in Indiana at 8:09 PM on October 19
Most societies are — unfortunatley — dominated by bigots.
Authoritarian personalities always flock to a society’s power center.
Whether it’s Communism, Nazism, Religious Fundamentalism, or Multi-Cultural Neoliberalism they’ll be there defending it to the death.
This is a fact that we must take into consideration when criticizing our present state of affairs.
Posted by Richard Noll at 8:11 PM on October 19
Whew! Right on!
The truth will benefit everyone.
White people will know what they are dealing with (finally), black people will come up with strategies based on truth (success starts with a truthful appraisal), and Orientals will wonder what in the heck was the problem!
Posted by the writer surreptitiously and inscrutably known as Jim E. at 8:13 PM on October 19
This is disgusting. Everyday now someone in a position of importance makes a true statement and then recants, apologizing profusely and attempting to appear politically correct. I’m sick of it. I did admire Watson but not now. So much for his fortitude.
Posted by Venom at 8:23 PM on October 19
It is hard for the rest of us to defend a man who will not even defend himself.
C’mon, Mr. Taylor, he’s old. Do you expect him to get into a (verbal) fight at his age?
Old age has its (rare) privileges, too.
Posted by A Reader at 9:21 PM on October 19
Yes, Watson did recant to the media. Or did he? We know that he spoke truthfully about Africa and genetics, but I would suspect that he had his fingers crossed when he “recanted”. He knows what the truth is, but he also knows that it is hopeless to try to persuade ignorant people about what should be apparent to all. This problem is analgous to trying to show religionists that they got it all wrong.
Posted by at 9:33 PM on October 19
This is a case of the elitist deciding once again what information the public gets on racial issuses, instead of letting the public decide. This, to me, is a clear violation of free speech and has been going on for at least several decades. With the help of the MSM, they have done a great job so far. They do this for money and power, it’s really not that hard to figure out.
I don’t think this type of psychological warfare can last much longer. Once their power weakens and their support bails out, maybe we can finally see who they really are?
This was fine coverage by Jared Taylor and with people like him on the front line, we have a good chance.
Posted by bouttyme at 9:52 PM on October 19
He should have “pulled a Clinton” and apologized . . . for the “confusion” his remarks caused.
That is, apologize for producing the negative effect, not for making the statement in the first place. That’s one way to retain some of your dignity while being attacked from all sides.
Posted by Reader-1 at 10:01 PM on October 19
Dear Dr. Watson,
At age 79, you had no career to sacrifice, no children who might have to “do without.” But there is, I will grant,a seemingly endless list of ready-to-hand rationalizations to “cover” moral collapse. After all, since the day of Adam, creative imagination has spent much time in the service of sin nature.
And still, in this late furor, you stood not in Galilei’s shoes. No Inquisitor’s fire was being kindled for your flesh and bone.
And yet, had you stood by the truth in the face of vilification, even as “the stars fell” about you, you would have crowned your hitherto glorious career in science with a moral glory all the more resplendent in the eyes of Almighty God and of good and reasonable men everywhere and henceforth.
But your recanting, methinks, is like another Fall of Man.
In both the long and the short run, sir, cowardice is always more costly than steadfastness.
Dr. Winston L. McCuen
Occupied South Carolina
Imperial Amerika
Posted by at 11:25 PM on October 19
This incident serves as yet another example that spinelessly pleading for forgiveness to the multicult establishment frequently causes one more harm than good. Has Dr. Watson’s sudden change of heart kept him from getting suspended at his laboratory? Did Imus’s profuse apologies help him keep his radio program? The answer to both of these is no.
The whole point of the multicult’s orchistrated attacks and denunciations is to make the heretic recant and come back groveling for forgiveness. When one goes back to them and admits their guilt, they are just giving the establishment a justification for further action, which the multicult will gladly take to serve as a warning to other would-be heretics in the future.
Think of what has been lost here because of Dr. Watson’s cowardice. One of the venues that Dr. Watson was scheduled to speak at canceled his appearance, but all the other venues, such as Cambridge and Oxford, said that they would let him speak and would use the occasion as an opportunity for open debate on these issues. This would probably be the first time that the issue of race and intelligence would be openly and honestly debated at such important institutions. If Dr. Watson had stuck to his guns, he might still have lost his job, but he would have done it with his dignity intact while pushing these important issues into the spotlight.
I’m not saying that this approach will work for everyone. The “average joe” might need to sacrifice his personal dignity and ethics to keep a job that is needed to feed his family. It is a difficult and personal decision that each person must decide for themself based on their unique situation. However, in the case of Imus, Dr. Watson, and anyone else who is materially secure there is no excuse for cowardice.
Posted by Diversity Kills at 11:36 PM on October 19
If I was his age (how much do you have to lose when your almost eighty?) I would say the hell with them. Let POSTERITY not some crowd of high-pressure loudmouth PC twits be my judge. I mean it’s not like he’s 27 years old and just starting out in the field of academia. It show that facts and reasoned argument do not matter. All that matters is having the biggest mouth.
Posted by at 11:57 PM on October 19
Dr. Watson’s ” diverse ” attackers have vindicated his theorical fact on race. Disappointed in his retraction, yes but can understand his catalyst for it.
Posted by Michigan patriot at 1:16 AM on October 20
The “critical mass” of apologies from prominent people will soon be reached. By this I mean that each time the truth is told, even if followed by an apology, more people have heard. And one can’t unhear. So I predict very soon there will be more and more incidents until finally the apologies will cease as too many people will know the emperor is naked!
Posted by at 1:26 AM on October 20
Whatever happened to challenging people to a DEBATE? Make the most of it. Get Jensen, Rushton, etc, to join a panel and debate the topic.
Posted by Rob Hansen at 1:54 AM on October 20
Before rushing to judgment, please read Watson’s new book “Avoid Boring People.” This is a wonderful and brilliant autobiography. It provides a nuanced look at a truly great man. Watson is outspoken and at times inflammatory. He doesn’t suffer fools. And yes, he admits to being delighted at the sight of a pretty woman. But he is fundamentally fair and compassionate. When you read his book, you will be inclined to cut him a break.
Posted by at 2:56 AM on October 20
“It is hard for the rest of us to defend a man who will not even defend himself.”
I could understand it better if he were a young man, concerned with advancement in his career. Dr. Watson’s career is behind him. His reputstion has been made, and presumably his money too. What has he to lose at the age of eighty? I wouldn’t be surprised, though, if the research center named for him will soon be re-named.
“Once again we are treated to the tiresome spectacle of people who know nothing about the research on race and IQ saying that Dr. Watson’s views are mere “racism. He predicts that the genes that code for intelligence will be found in 10 or 15 years, and the controversy will be over”
I suspect the next step might be a ban on all such research. Denial of funding, a media blackout, destruction of careers (or the threat of it), university leeryness about any such interest, professional disappoval, would be very effective in persuading scientists that it’s wiser to go do something else with their time.
“Shockley had integrity and backbone. Based on his behavior so far, Dr. Watson does not. [He] fled the field at the first sound of guns. “
Watson didn’t even stand up to them for a week … or even a day!
As the saying goes, “If you can’t stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen.”
Posted by ghw at 3:46 AM on October 20
“It is hard for the rest of us to defend a man who will not even defend himself.”
C’mon, Mr. Taylor, he’s old. Do you expect him to get into a (verbal) fight at his age?
Old age has its (rare) privileges, too.
Posted by A Reader
—————————————
I’m old too, and I disagree with you.
If you’re not prepared to handle a fight, then don’t get into one. He started this one, but he didn’t finish it.
Posted by at 4:01 AM on October 20
“This problem is analgous to trying to show religionists that they got it all wrong.”
Posted by at 9:33 PM
Exactly! There is NO difference whatsoever when you’re arguing against a belief system. Their position [whatever their belief system is] is based solely on faith. Reason doesn’t apply.
Posted by at 4:09 AM on October 20
“Most societies are — unfortunatley — dominated by bigots.
Authoritarian personalities always flock to a society’s power center.”
R. Noll
How true! We (or rather, our leaders) point to fundamentalist Iran and laugh at their narrow-mindedness and rigidity.
But really, are we all that different? Our different societies are just enslaved to different “truths”, that’s all. And no inquiring minds are allowed to inspect those holy “truths”. They do so at their peril. Iran has its mullahs and fatwas; Britain has its “race laws” and Equality Commissions.
Truly pathetic!
Posted by at 4:16 AM on October 20
I don’t think he actually recanted. He said something like “sorry for offending people”. I don’t think he ever said “what I said was wrong”. Big difference.
(In my humble opinion) He knew exactly what he was doing. He knew he would get fired (shoot, why didn’t he own that Cold Springs place?).
He said they were genetically not inferior. True, darn true, we’re all built of the same genetic stuff. But, he didn’t deny the lack of “intelligence” in Africa.
I’m just gonna order his book from amazon.
Posted by ed at 4:20 AM on October 20
He didn’t really recant. He did NOT change his mind about the racial differences as far as IQ is concerned. While he is being timid and trying to appease the opposition about “inferiority”, he never changed his main thesis about IQ and genetics.
Posted by at 4:31 AM on October 20
But of course William Shockley had massive personal wealth through patent royalties and was completely financially independent and as such could speak out as and when he wanted.
Posted by Peter Williams at 6:52 AM on October 20
What is it with prominent people who apologize of making a non-PC statement, apparently out of conviction, and then still pay the price? Trent Lott, Michael Richards, Larry Summers, Pope Benedict, and now Watson.
Don’t they learn from earlier examples that apologies don’t save you?
The only mainstream person I know who refuses to apologize for controversial remarks is Ann Coulter.
Posted by EE at 7:19 AM on October 20
While some may be disappointed, Mr.Watson is human and I’m sure was placed under a lot of pressure. Maybe he figured at his age, it just wasn’t worth it or he figured apology or not, he still expressed his beliefs.
Posted by at 7:21 AM on October 20
Blacks don’t apologize for all the crimes they commit against whites. I haven’t heard a word of apology from O.J., the Jena 6, or the killers of Emily Haddock.
Posted by Cindy at 8:02 AM on October 20
Jared writes:
“And so we will continue to live in a world of contemptible name-calling, in which everyone knows the truth but no one dares speak it.”
This is it in a pinky thimble, a nut shell, the whole template of logical reasoning. The sum of the sum. The Std. Dev. of an average of the average. When you boil the pot dry, we deny the truth over and over again as we float around in the ‘pretend mode’.
We know where the problem lies and how to correct it yet, we dance around the issue like it does not exist (in a real and tangible state). Wonder why this is??? Have SOME been programmed by some force yet identified? If so, this toxic force has not reached me (yet) or, I have a really good immune system.
Posted by Thumper at 8:25 AM on October 20
“It reminds me of the waning days of the Soviet Union, when every Russian knew Marxism was a fantastic hoax—and therefore had to defend it all the more stupidly and slavishly.”
More than just a reminder, it IS the waning days of America.
People need time to think and grow intelligently, and I believe it was Jeese Jackson who once said of Clarence Thomas that maybe God wasn’t’t through with him yet. In another vein, maybe God isn’t through with Frick’s race realist position, and he’ll see his life is just a lie to continue parroting politically correct falsehoods.
Posted by factualist at 9:14 AM on October 20
Recanting doesn’t change anything. What hee said is a matter of record. More and more, people are speaking out in many ways. The time of these race hustlers is coming to an end.
However, we must understand that when black people can no longer get what they want with words, they’ll go completely stark raving mad. At that time, they will attack the White population and try to exterminate us completely. That is when we will finally have to stand up and defend ourselves or we and our children won’t exist anymore. What is going on our society has never been a debate. It’s always been about life and death.
Tom Iron…
Posted by Tom Iron... at 9:14 AM on October 20
This is disgusting. Everyday now someone in a position of importance makes a true statement and then recants, apologizing profusely and attempting to appear politically correct. I’m sick of it. I did admire Watson but not now. So much for his fortitude.
Posted by Venom at 8:23 PM on October 19
A real man says proudly and confidently what they believe and, if people have a problem with it, too bad. I’d say, “yes that’s what I said and I have a right to say it and I will not apologize for it”. It’s ashamed there’s few real, confident, racially-awake white men who have the balls to be un-PC without apology. The only ones I’ve seen mention a slight vocal un-PC opinion about blacks or hispanics or feminists are white women….and that’s sad, too!
Posted by awakened western man at 9:15 AM on October 20
But is it a setback? Don’t most reasonably intelligent people see this oppression for what it is, the desperate act of a desperate establishment fearful that the fantasy of racial equality is being exposed as nonsense?
Posted by stephen at 9:18 AM on October 20
As far as I can tell, he did precisely what Reader-1 describes at 10:01 PM on October 19. Maybe I need to review his statements again, but I never heard him recant anything.
Posted by Svigor at 9:22 AM on October 20
He should have apologized for “offending anyone”, not for the deed or act. This is the standard procedure of the PC people of today.
MR. Taylor, are you able to contact Dr. Watson and perhaps interview him or let him know he is certainly NOT alone? I hope you have connections with others who may be able to speak to him on our/your behalf.
Thank you for all you do.
Posted by LOGIC at 9:34 AM on October 20
Watson’s statement was likely an opinion he let slip out during a causual interview rather than coming out of the closet and advocating race realism. In the context of all the other topics discussed in interview, it would seem so. Thus Watson’s retraction neither harms nor advances race realism. It only reinformces what we know already.
We know that criticism of multiculturalism and public remarks that are deemed to be even the slightest offensive to non-white ethnic groups particularly blacks (actually, only blacks) will result in a commotion inflated to catastrophic proportion by frenzied media.
Consider for example, the recent Don Inmus case of which is pretty much deja vu.
- Public figure makes a remark in passing about blacks.
- Outrage from blacks and liberal whites follows.
- Apologizes.
- Loses his job anyways and shunned everywhere.
One wonders what it is so special about blacks that the slightest offence, the tiniest, would lead a titan in science to cower. Remember, Watson has made some quite controversial statements in the past, including homosexual fetuses and the relationship of climate to sex drive. It is only his views on race, IQ and affirmative action that was a small part of his interview that got so much attention which if anything shows the topic is very special, is the volcano of truth that is on the verge of eruption but to which everyone must still deny or repress.
In summary, I do not think Watson should be criticized by realists for “chickening out”. He is, like any commoner or a celebrity, a by-product of the Orwellian world in which we live.
Posted by Reality Check at 9:41 AM on October 20
The psychological pressure was huge. It seems very few people are able to handle that kind of pressure.
It is like a tsunami. Such people should get sound advice, by our side, on how to deal with it.
But, nothing exists.
Posted by Flanders / Belgium at 10:06 AM on October 20
Why is desecrating our flag legal and Dr. Watson’s comments hate speech?
Posted by Rock Solid at 10:17 AM on October 20
Posted by A Reader at 9:21 PM on October 19:
“C’mon, Mr. Taylor, he’s old. Do you expect him to get into a (verbal) fight at his age? Old age has its (rare) privileges, too.”
Well, I’m not (that) old, so I’m not really in a position to judge. But it seems to me A Reader’s argument could be made just as persuasively in the opposite direction — that is, when you’re as old as Dr Watson is, you should have nothing to fear because you have nothing to lose. The good doctor’s life’s work is done, his status in history is sealed — so even if he were now forever banished from Academe, he’d no longer have to worry about his children starving, losing his house, or other domestic disasters.
Another pioneering scientist, William Shockley (look him up if you’re unfamiliar, he’s fascinating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley) only got into his controversial racial research AFTER he’d succeeded in other areas. In fact, Shockley once said that it was BECAUSE he was retired and no longer had to worry about tenure etc that he was ABLE to go public with his controversial beliefs about genetics. I believe it was in his August 1980 Playboy Magazine interview where Shockley stated that it was ONLY because he was “retired” — and therefore freed from the pressures earning a living — that he felt secure enough to raise his racial issues in the first place.
In the case of Dr. Watson, I’m certainly willing to cut an elderly gentleman some slack for his advanced age — yet I’m also disappointed in his recanting and back-pedaling. It seems to me entirely unnecessary. As a wealthy man pushing 80, few people are as perfectly placed to publicize unpopular positions on hot-button topics.
Our own Mr. Jared Taylor began American Renaissance while in his prime earning years, with a young family to support — and has therefore risked MUCH MORE by going out on a limb with unorthodox ideas. A man of Mr. Taylor’s intellect and abilities might well have become as rich as a sultan had he simply kept his mouth shut and gone along with the prevailing multicultist dogma like everybody else does.
But then, of course, he wouldn’t be Mr. Jared Taylor. And I wouldn’t be sitting here typing about him, because I would probably never have heard of him.
And Mr. Taylor, to my knowledge, has never recanted ANYTHING — no matter WHO has tried to shut him up, shout him down, back him into a corner, or (as in Halifax) literally strong-arm him out of a room.
Posted by The Incredible Shrinking White Man at 10:45 AM on October 20
Kind of like Alain Finkelkraut speaking the truth about blacks and the French riots of 2005, then recanting when faced with the loss of his job and friends.
Face it, any academic or public figure who speaks truth on race is consigning himself to being an outcast and a rebel. There are not many who are willing to risk this save those intellectuals in the American Renaissance circle.
Though I did think that Watson being 79 — and a Noble prize winner — would give him some protection. After all, he’s not exactly worried about losing a job at that age. But I was wrong.
Posted by Bernie at 10:48 AM on October 20
Did Watson recant?
At first reading, it appears that he did. But did he?
He is mortified. Understandable. He probably expected a more academic response.
He said that the “continent” of Africa is not genetically inferior. He did not say “persons of African descent.”
He is shocked that he is quoted as saying what he is quoted as saying. Even so.
Granted, this is not a bold, masculine standing-up to the left-wing authoritarians. But is it really a recantation?
Or is it weasel-words?
Posted by the writer surreptitiously and inscrutably known as Jim E. at 11:51 AM on October 20
“He never backed down, he never apologized for telling the truth. Shockley won the Nobel Prize for inventing the transistor, but went to his grave believing the work he was doing in the genetics of intelligence was more important.
Shockley had integrity and backbone. Based on his behavior so far, Dr. Watson does not.”
Hopefully, Dr. Watson’s groveling will only embolden (now having caught the scent of blood) his critics will only continue to abuse and pillory him? This would be advantageous for two reasons. The first being that, he deserves no better for his cowardice; the second being that, once he realizes that he now has permanent unperson status, he has nothing to lose by going back to telling the truth. These “tolerant” types are not ones to forgive and forget such transgressions, so Dr. Watson’s life will likely be a living hell from now on, no matter what he does. This in of itself can be seen as a positive, as will server as an example of what not to do in such situations.
The insane intensity of our enemies’ multicultural tunnel vision and their lust for retribution, is our greatest strength in that it blinds and hobbles them. Their battle plan never changes, as it rarely has to now; however, as time goes on, it will become obvious to those who are in the public eye and do not share “the dream,” that once the first reality salvo is fired, they will have to hunker down and be ready for a long and bitter fight.
That is simply the reality of the situation!
Posted by John PM at 12:00 PM on October 20
It doesn’t take a genius to see the accomplishment of different groups of people. And grouping people by race seems quite resonable, unless you’re included in one of the races that score below average most of the time. By blending these people with those of greater accomplishment it gives the impression that those lacking when looked upon within their own specific group are more accomplished because of the way the greatness of others added to theirs increases their value. This is a joke and only a fool would not see this very clearly.
Posted by Bruno Of Chicago at 12:51 PM on October 20
“But of course William Shockley had massive personal wealth through patent royalties and was completely financially independent and as such could speak out as and when he wanted.
Posted by Peter Williams
“
Watsons is pretty rich from book royalties I suspect. His last book DNA was awesome. Bet his current book sales go through the roof after this.
Posted by Amsterdamsky at 1:07 PM on October 20
Watching CNN`s recent “reporting” on Watson has also been very revealing. They have used the story to promote the “equality” meme, while smearing Watson in the worst tradition of race denial, dissimulative effrontery. The liberal media once again has used selective spin to promote their racially destructive agenda. Bernays would be proud.
Posted by Loo at 1:12 PM on October 20
“Why is desecrating our flag legal and Dr. Watson’s comments hate speech?”
Our flag is red, white, and blue- with the red removed.
The “red” runs things…
Posted by uncle screwge at 1:12 PM on October 20
“I don’t think he actually recanted. He said something like “sorry for offending people”. I don’t think he ever said “what I said was wrong”. Big difference.”
“He didn’t really recant. He did NOT change his mind about the racial differences as far as IQ is concerned”
———————————-
What he actually said was:
“To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief.”
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/10/18/nobel.apology/index.html
Sounds pretty clear cut, perhaps you should actually read his words before commenting.
Posted by at 1:25 PM on October 20
“C’mon, Mr. Taylor, he’s old. Do you expect him to get into a (verbal) fight at his age? Old age has its (rare) privileges, too.” — A Reader
Well, I’m not (that) old, so I’m not really in a position to judge. But it seems to me A Reader’s argument could be made just as persuasively in the opposite direction . —
The Incredible SWM
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I’m about the same age, and I agree with SWM on that. If Watson can’t afford to get into a (verbal) fight when he’s old, and he can’t afford to get into one when he’s young … well then, when would “A Reader” advise?
Posted by at 1:26 PM on October 20
Off topic but same subject——-I was watching the tv news yesterday and a story was in Oklahoma City at NE36th and Kelly, which is the heart of black town, and there had been a gun fight at a quick stop store with injuries. The tv reporter stated very clearly that they had not been welcomed by the neighborhood because they were reporting a “negative story” in that part of the city! Gun violence is everytday life around that part of OKC, but the citizens living there are more worried about their “reputation” than their criminal problem! Typical, hide the facts just so blacks look different than what they are! Of course, the media did the story and told them they will report crime anywhere it occurs.
Posted by Trisket at 1:50 PM on October 20
I whole-heartedly agree with Taylor and many others on this site that Watson’s recantation was cowardly.
However, I’m not sure I’d go so far to claim that his recent remarks and apology are a “step back”. I think many people know the truth when they hear it, are reassured that intelligent and accomplished men and women such as Watson believe similarly, and understand that subsequent “apologies” are the unfortunate consequence of pressures imposed by the liberal thought police. True, Watson would have been a better man had he stood his ground. But, even in light of his ambiguous and confusing apology, just mentioning the truth initially was an insurgent act that gave comfort to many of us.
Posted by Kevin at 2:05 PM on October 20
I read his “apology” and he really didn’t recant anything. He steered away from talking about race, but otherwise made a very commonsense statement about science vs wishful thinking.
It looks like his book, “Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science” will probably sell quite a few more copies thanks to all this controversy. Good for him. From what I gathered from the reviews on Amazon, it is an interesting read, but does not address racial differences.
Hang in there Dr. Watson. Keep shaking the tree.
Posted by John at 2:05 PM on October 20
But is it a setback? Don’t most reasonably intelligent people see this oppression for what it is, the desperate act of a desperate establishment fearful that the fantasy of racial equality is being exposed as nonsense?
Posted by stephen at 9:18 AM on October 20
Good point. I wish Dr. Watson would have stood by what he said, but, the fact is, this story was actually covered in the MSM and probably got a lot of people thinking. Any public statement against the PC establishment is just one more seed planted in the minds of the increasingly disillusioned white populace.
Posted by Conrad R. at 2:40 PM on October 20
There’s nothing sadder than seeing a man standing up for truth and freedom, then backing down like a coward.
Are there any individuals around who haven’t lost their backbones and are not afraid to stick by their guns? Political Correctness is the newest version of an old tyranny — when powerful lobbies like AIPAC and outfits like the ADL need only hiss and growl to assure that only one version of “fact” and one dogma of “science” is accepted.
Until those with the brains can summon some intestinal fortitude, we will still reamain in the dark ages, purposely ignorant and afraid. It’s a terrible indictment of 21st Century Man.
Posted by Bob Smith at 3:02 PM on October 20
It’s always difficult to swim against the angry stream of PC public and media attention. However, if we are not willing to do so, our rightous cause, the cause of truth and civilzation itself, is destined to literally be snuffed out. We have very little time left, folks. I pray that common sense, and real courage will yet flower again amoung the white race. If it does not, we are doomed as a race.
Posted by Mr Simms at 3:02 PM on October 20
“in this furor, you stood not in Galileo’s shoes. No Inquisitor’s fire was being kindled for your flesh.
you had no career to sacrifice, no children who might have to “do without.”
and yet, had you stood by the truth in the face of vilification, even as “the stars fell” about you, you would have crowned your hitherto glorious career in science with a moral glory.”
Dr. Winston McCuen
……………………………………………………..
Very well put, Dr. McCuen! Did Watson turn out to be just a loose cannon after all? According to the latest I have read, he was reported to be already on a plane, hastily high-tailing it back to America — apparently just ahead of a warrant for his arrest for the crime of spreading “race hate” (formerly known as truth). Pathetic!
Yes, it’s admittedly easy for us to push somebody else into the flames, but it would have been glorious to see this renowned man stand tall and refuse to recant and grovel before their Equality Commission, the new British Inquisition. All the good he could have done! At the ripe age of 80, how much time has he left on this earth? He could have made it count for something.
I will say this much for him though: he is a product of another generation, a different time. A time when there still existed such a thing as Freedom of Speech. He apparently has been so secluded in his isolated academic world that he has not been aware of the changes in the new Marxist Soviet Republic of Britain. Well, now he is!
Posted by ghw at 3:13 PM on October 20
William Shockley died in 1989. It’s a shame Shockley isn’t around now, because time is proving his assertions about the black community correct.
Again, the big positive here is that unlike in Shockley’s day, the media does not have a monopoly on what information gets disseminated. Thanks to the internet, Watson’s supporters can make their voices heard.
Posted by Tony S at 3:37 PM on October 20
Shame on you posters who think Watson is somehow innocent of betraying his colleagues and Science itself.
When a “scientist” backs away from the data s/he has collected using the scientific method, it impoverishes Science. It provides validity to those who would snuff out research in entire areas of study. It draws a bigger target on the backs of other scientists who have reached similar conclusions, BASED ON RESEARCH. Scientists who have reached similar conclusions should SUPPORT each other’s findings.
Let the data and conclusions be studied and debated openly and intelligently. Scientists should stand by their research findings until further research PROVES otherwise.
Genetic research will lead to great benefits for humankind. It will also undoubtedly lead to controversy, ethical problems and downright misuse. Science is a process — it is not a religion and it is not static.
The SCIENTIST should stick to rigorous research and leave the ethical entanglements to others.
Mr. Taylor is right on this.
Posted by at 5:14 PM on October 20
Whether Dr. Watson’s comments are true or not, he should have at least had the backbone to defend what he said. Instead, he groveled to the PC police, which is just sad. I understand that Watson was facing a lot of pressure over his comments, but is ensuring his legacy really more important then speaking what he believes to be the truth? Also, shame on the people who have condemned and attempted to punish and silence Dr. Watson. Apparently, the First Amendment doesn’t matter to these people. (I know that the comments were made in Britain, but aren’t all Western countries supposed to live by the same ideals?) Voltaire said it best: “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Posted by Greg M at 5:36 PM on October 20
Though I did think that Watson being 79 — and a Noble prize winner — would give him some protection. After all, he’s not exactly worried about losing a job at that age. But I was wrong.
Posted by Bernie at 10:48 AM on October 20
I’m much younger than that and I’m at the point now I’ll say and believe what I want to even if it costs me my job (I always put money aside to live off of) or friends (real friends will stick with you even if they disagree with you). If you’re not willing to say and do what you believe for fear of ‘what will happen’, you’re a coward as far as I’m concerned.
Posted by at 6:25 PM on October 20
Bernie: “Face it, any academic or public figure who speaks truth on race is consigning himself to being an outcast and a rebel.”
That’s certainly true. I’m a mathematician at Cambridge (England) who used to post here fairly regularly, and on other sites, under this pseudonym. Nevertheless, there was sufficient information in my posts and interests to identify me, with a subsequent strong hint from my Cambridge college that, whilst my current interests would be accepted as eccentricity, further involvement would not obtain such charity. I have only met Watson briefly on formal occasions during earlier visits to Cambridge, and do not know him at all well, but was always struck by the level of excitement his presence generated amongst scientists (and in myself): I have seen at least one Fields medallist reduced to boyish stuttering in Watson’s presence. It is this abundant respect and scientific celebrity that has made Watson recant, rather than fear for loss of his sinecure: ostracisation is a profound disincentive. It’s sad to learn that Lucky Jim can be cowardly, but most of us are. Still, it is still possible to speak truth in private, and to be circumspect. Watson is hardly alone in his views, after all, and we should not forget the progress of recent years. Armand Marie Leroi is an important figure to follow, at Imperial College, London, as is Pinker at Harvard, and A. W. F. Edwards at Cambridge.
Posted by Dryden at 6:26 PM on October 20
Did Dr. Watson indeed “recant”? I’m sure that he was sorry to have said things that caused such a fuss, but his words suggest that he didn’t recant anything:
(( To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief. ))
What he said in his “recantation” is literally true. Africa, as a continent, is not and cannot be genetically inferior: it’s a hunk of real estate. Moreover, as others here have observed, to call something “inferior” is to express a value judgment, not a scientific one.
It sounds to me as if Watson was trying to calm down the hysteria without actually denying what he knows to be true. Not a profile in courage, perhaps, but he chose evasion rather than untruth.
Posted by MilesGloriosus at 7:24 PM on October 20
We should endeavor to “do random acts of political incorrectness everyday!” That is how TRUE kindness is shown to civilization!
Posted by at 7:52 PM on October 20
“Granted, this is not a bold, masculine standing-up to the left-wing authoritarians. But is it really a recantation? Or is it weasel-words?”
Posted by Jim E.
Well, whatever it is, it didn’t save his position, did it? Ultimately, no matter how he “weaseled”, it didn’t help him. He might as well have stood up tall and taken it like a man, not a weasel.
Posted by at 8:02 PM on October 20
EE, Coulter may consider herself Ms. Ultra- Conservative, but while she does not hesitate to mock affirmative action and hate crime laws and oppose illegal immigration, she does not highlight racial differences as posters at this site do. I’ve never known her to state that blacks commit a higher percentage of crime than whites or that they invariably score a lot lower on IQ tests, the SAT, etc., nor that they produce a lot more illegitimate children. Also, despite VA Tech, she still believes Koreans are wonderful(never mind that Korea would never welcome Americans as we did the gunman’s family).
Posted by Cindy at 8:05 PM on October 20
I assume that when he made his controversial statemnt he assumed everyone would agree because it was so obvious that he was right. It is common knowledge that whites have superior brain power to blacks. But when the manure hit the fan he backed down realizing that although what he said was true it was the wrong thing to say for anyone who isn’t inviting controversy. So he backed down hoping things will cool off. So what? The point he made is taken and won’t changed because its the truth and everyone knows it.
Posted by at 8:33 PM on October 20
“When a “scientist” backs away from the data s/he has collected using the scientific method, it impoverishes Science.”
The central issue, seldom touched on here, is state involvement in research, or in education. States are left wing monopolies, and hate truth, therefore hate science.
All state universities are socialist, therefore all hate reality.
B. F. Skinner’s book, BEYOND FREEDOM AND DIGNITY, was financed with a grant from N.I.H.
Posted by at 9:19 PM on October 20
Indeed, at age 79, in the internet age no less, it does seem cowardly in the lowest and most vile degree to me that a PhD with a long and distinguished tenured academic science career could capitulate in such a pathetic manner.
This story serendipituously brings to mind a story that a Uruguayan friend related to me about a group of starving Uruguayan patriot dissidents who departed Uruguay for Italy in the early seventies. As the boat cast away from the docks in Montevideo, in full view of government controlled news cameras and armed military police, the multitude of Uruguayans on the portside of this steerage class rust bucket unfurled a giant banner bearing the following text:
“¡Métanse este país en el culo!”—“Take this country and shove it!”
Now in 2007, 79 year old Professor Watson, who could have bought himself a $75K luxury villa in seaside Mar de Plata, Uruguay with worthless U.S. dollars and continued the defense of his thesis, just plain dropped the ball. This is a classic case of a traitor ingrate who either failed miserably on the climb of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs or had the financial management skills of a Black inner city single mother on welfare.
Posted by Flaxen-headed Strumpet at 10:54 PM on October 20
“EE, Coulter may consider herself Ms. Ultra- Conservative, (snip) Also, despite VA Tech, she still believes Koreans are wonderful(never mind that Korea would never welcome Americans as we did the gunman’s family).”
Cindy,
I have to agree with Ann on this. I’ve spent time in Korea and they really are nice people overall. The crime rate in Seoul is miniscule. People are almost always friendly to me. While Korea, wisely, would probably not allow mass immigration from any one country, there are plenty of Americans here teaching English and doing other jobs.
It would be unfair to judge all Koreans based on one violent act by one deranged nut. After the event at VA Tech, Koreans would apolgize to any Americans they knew. In fact, a Korean four star general apologized to the commander of all US forces here. Koreans as a whole were very ashamed of what this guy did.
Posted by John at 11:08 PM on October 20
Note to Cindy:
Compared to most immigrant ethnic groups in the U.S., the Koreans are wonderful. They work hard, share the local religion, and don’t cause trouble. To pick out a single psychopath a representative of Koreans would be a mistake.
Posted by Reader-1 at 11:23 PM on October 20
To Peter Wiliams (6:52 AM Oct. 20 poster)—“Of course William Shockly had massive personal wealth through royalities…”
Such affirmations only confirm your abject ignorance. Any patents Bill Shockley, along with his three colleagues, developed related to the transistor were corporate property of Western Electric/Bell Labs/ATT. These guys worked for a salary that would let them live comfortably in Northern New Jersey next door to mid-level Mafia Dons. They never collected any income beyond their salaries that their employers didn’t VOLUNTARILY give them.
So, while Bill Shockley was by no means poverty stricken, his quantum leap technological innovations did not yield to him the astronomical wealth that Billy Gates has accrued. (and that Mexican low-tech/low-life tycoon Carlos Slim has recently surpassed)
Posted by Flaxen-headed Strumpet at 11:32 PM on October 20
Think of how hurt he must feel; he’s a scientist, not a fighter.
He’s in the same position as the teens who hung up “loosely-tied loops” in the tree at Jena High School: The teens nor this man had ANY IDEA they were doing anything “wrong”. Maybe he should re-do his work, then he’ll see how idiotic many WHITES are who attack him for political correctness. Blacks may be genetically dumb…whatever. But don’t believe for a moment they are stupid. They are a very calculating race, often playing on White sympathy. I, for one, will never feel “sorry” for this race. Not after what I’ve been through personally and have witnessed. Again and again. I’ve had it with Blacks. I’m always pleasant to any human being at any given time but overall, I want nothing to do with Blacks. I’ve had my fill.
Posted by at 1:02 AM on October 21
At 79 years old, James Watson certainly did disgrace himself by acknowledging defeat when his cause was just. His comments about the limited capability of blacks were attacked by opponents who screamed against the man instead of disputing his words. The reason, of course, is that his enemies knew that his case was indisputable.
What I do know is that the names of leaders of the Cold Spring Harbor Corporation who suspended his administrative duties as a chancellor should become public knowledge. Their behavior has disclosed that their hostility toward white European civilization overwhelms any objective credentials scientists are supposed to have.
These university officials have revealed themselves as being so strong an enemy of the truth that they could be put into the “intellectual terrorist” category. This makes them more dangerous to the continuation of our society than minority incompetence and misbehavior are. I suspect that the officials of The Times of London may fall into the same category.
I can’t imagine why anyone would want to engage in any kind of educational or commercial activities with their universities or their companies. For anyone who feels similarly, this is the website where the names of the officers of the Cold Spring Harbor Corporation can be found:
http://www.cshl.edu/public/05_trust_board.html
hwg
Posted by at 1:36 AM on October 21
So Watson recanted.
The important thing is that his views were represented.
That wouldn’t have happened last year. Or before that.
The debate is shifting.
Posted by mderpelding at 2:15 AM on October 21
Someone wrote: Was he afraid of assassination,jail….. maybe I can’t understand the pressures on him.
I say all of the above and worse! every single person regardless of how much money or power that they have, will always come begging forgiveness for letting the truth slip out. I don’t care if it is the Pope himself! This lets me know that those who are really behind this insanity are truly dangerous.
Posted by Mike at 9:13 AM on October 21
It may well be that Watson’s “manhood” is in question, and that, no matter what he did now, his position may have been in jeopardy. It may well be.
But I don’t think he fully recanted. I get this impression by reading his words carefully. I think he retreated into the language of hypothesis rather than that of fact.
Scientific, left-brained people tend to be logical, practical and safe, rather than impetuous and risk-taking. For such as he to even say what he did is huge, bro, huge!
Posted by the writer surreptitiously and inscrutably known as Jim E. at 12:34 PM on October 21
Mao said something about ‘two steps forward,one step backward’. It can be a sort of wry Socratic boxing,consciously or not. You can disarm someone by granting their point, and let it stand unanalyzed for a third party to see it’s falsehood or absurdity. It’s known as irony. Watson already made his point; that’s what counts. When Mark Anthony says Brutus is a honorable man, he strikes this balance between reaching those in the mob that can be won over, and the provoking the hostile part of the mob that would only be made angry by unambiguous speech. Intelligent and sensitive people see beneath the surface.
Posted by at 12:37 PM on October 21
Jared Taylor wrote … James Watson … he climbed down, apologized …
From Watson’s (abbreviated) statement below it is clear to me that he has not retracted his assertions on IQ and race. Whether or not Watson is aware of the research in this area by academics such as Arthur R. Jensen, Richard Lynn and J. Philippe Rushton has no bearing on the validity of this research.
Watson is good fodder for his original article as he makes non-egalitarian statements, is open to assertions of senility and he is not a leading researcher in intelligence. Arthur R. Jensen and J. Philippe Rushton are leading researchers, not obviously senile and were not interviewed by The Independent.
James Watson wrote http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article3075642.ece
" rel ="nofollow"> here .
… To those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief.
… It … that led me to help to bring the human genome project into existence. In doing so, I knew that many new moral dilemmas would arise as a consequence and would early on establish the ethical, legal and societal components of the genome project. Since 1978, when a pail of water was dumped over my Harvard friend E O Wilson for saying that genes influence human behaviour, the assault against human behavioural genetics by wishful thinking has remained vigorous.
But irrationality must soon recede. … I hope we see whether changes in DNA sequence, not environmental influences, result in behaviour differences. Finally, we should be able to establish the relative importance of nature as opposed to nurture. … In finding out the extent to which genes influence moral behaviour, we shall also be able to understand how genes influence intellectual capacities. … In some cases, how these genes function may help us to understand variations in IQ, or why some people excel at poetry but are terrible at mathematics.
… The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity. It may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough. This is not science.
To question this is not to give in to racism. This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers. … we as scientists, wherever we wish to place ourselves in this great debate, should take care in claiming what are unarguable truths without the support of evidence. …
Posted by Bert Rustle at 12:43 PM on October 21
The two things I detest most in life are cowards and hypocrites. Watson’s recantment of his original stance makes him little more than a sniveling coward, and proves him a hypocrite since his “apology” contradicts what he believes in his heart.
Watson’s original statements only illustrate the obvious; all one needs to do is look at the world, and base one’s judgment on observation. Fact: Africa is a land of absolute squalor run by incompetents, a disgrace to the rest of the planet. Anyone that states otherwise is either a liar or a fool.
It is disgusting that Watson won’t stand up for what he truly believes in, but there are very few real men these days.
Posted by George Taylor at 10:37 PM on October 21
“Blacks may be genetically dumb…whatever. But don’t believe for a moment they are stupid. They are a very calculating race, often playing on White sympathy. I, for one, will never feel “sorry” for this race.”
This is so true. Blacks may on average have lower IQ scores however IQ isn’t the only measure of intelligence by far. Too much stock is placed in it. When it comes to manipulation and shrewdness, blacks can be very cunning. I’ve been around plenty of them and they are very adept at using race to hustle people or gain advantages. They are more shrewd in this than any other race. Blacks are good hustlers and people who’ve never been around them, often buy their bull.
Posted by KC at 6:29 AM on October 22
John and Reader 1, Koreans are undoubtedly preferable to Hispanics and other immigrants, but the fact still remains that Asian countries are just as closed to immigration as the Hispanic and African ones, yet these countries expect their people to be allowed here. We should only be as open to a country as it is to us, and it’s irrelevant if it’s a pesthole no American would want to immigrate to anyway, such as India.
This is another issue, but the VA Tech gunman was not a citizen and therefore should not have been allowed to buy a gun. A non-citizen can’t claim 2nd Amendment rights.
Posted by Cindy at 9:07 AM on October 22
every single person regardless of how much money or power that they have, will always come begging forgiveness … This lets me know that those who are really behind this insanity are truly dangerous.
Posted by Mike
Well, that’s assuming that Watkins actually KNEW who is “really behind this”.
But, given his ivory tower existence, I suspect that he’s pretty naive about such matters — unless he’s been reading amren!!!
Posted by at 2:02 PM on October 22
“John and Reader 1, Koreans are undoubtedly preferable to Hispanics and other immigrants, but the fact still remains that Asian countries are just as closed to immigration as the Hispanic and African ones, yet these countries expect their people to be allowed here.”
***Actually, that is OUR fault. We can’t blame THEM for that. Blame our OWN lax, useless politicians.
“This is another issue, but the VA Tech gunman was not a citizen and therefore should not have been allowed to buy a gun. “
Posted by Cindy
***You are absolutely right. But there again, that is OUR fault. It wasn’t Korean politicians who allowed him to buy that gun. The blame lies right here at home.
Posted by at 2:08 PM on October 22
Rothbard on Soviet Science (1954, first published 2004):
“Planned” science sounds impressive; actually it means prohibited science, where no scientist can follow the leads of his own creative ideas. We have heard a great deal recently about the alleged glories of Soviet science, and about the necessity of the United States catching up with such wonders as sputniks. What is the real record of Soviet science? Professor Baker, analyzing this record, shows that, at the beginnings of the Soviet Union, the old pre-revolutionary scientists continued to do well, largely because science was not yet under government planning. That came with the Second Five-Year Plan, in 1932. The Plan set forth very broad subjects for investigation, but, by the nature of such a plan, many important areas were excluded from the required agenda. “Take almost any branch of non-revolutionary biological science in which outstanding discoveries were made in the outside world during the years of the plan, and you are likely to find that the whole subject was excluded from study.” [1] For example; the study of hormones, and genetics. The Lysenko controversy, the use of the State to eradicate the science of genetics in Soviet Russia, and the compulsory twisting of truth by the Soviet State to fit the ideological myths of its rulers, are well-known, but can hardly be overstressed. It is important to realize
that it is not simply because the Soviet or Nazi leaders were particularly perverse men that they reached out to prevent or cripple science’s drive for truth; but because such actions are inherent in the very nature of statism, and central planning. Power, and its promotion, advancement of the ideology of power, become the highest social goal, before which all truth, all integrity must give way.
Government control of science, government planning of science, is bound to result in the politicization of science, the substitute of political goals and political criteria for scientific ones. Even pro-Soviet scientists have admitted that Soviet research is inferior to American, that basic, as contrasted to applied, research, is neglected; that there is too much red tape; that little fundamentally creative work has been done; and that science is unduly governed by political considerations—such as the political views of the scientist propounding any given theory. Scientists are shot for taking the view that happens to be in political disfavor. And, as Baker concludes: “If the selection of scientific personnel is left to the State, the wrong ones are likely to be given important posts, because those who are not themselves scientists will be let astray by… false claims and pretences… (and) scientists may exhibit a servile obedience to their political bosses.” [2] No wonder that in a list, drawn up by seven scientists, of the two dozen most important scientific discoveries made between World Wars I and II, not one came from the U.S.S.R.
In a follow-up to his earlier book, Dr. Baker has recently reaffirmed these conclusions. He further describes the coerced eradication of genetic science in Russia. He also deprecates the much-touted sputniks. [3] In the first place, if one starts with a given end, and the knowledge of how to get there has already been attained, one can arrive at the end in proportion to the resources one is willing to throw into the undertaking—all this then becomes a purely engineering and economic problem, rather than a scientific research problem, where ends or means are not yet known. [4] If, for some military or propagandist purpose, it was desirable to make a very deep hole towards the center of the earth, the deepest holes would probably be made by whichever nation decided to devote the largest amount of money to the project. The same principle applies to the sputniks. [5] And, even so, Baker points out, American satellites have far superior instrumentation, and are therefore much more important scientifically.
http://www.mises.org/resources/3182dc40-a97c-489c-95e4-78a7e115fe41
Posted by TabuLa Raza at 4:09 PM on October 22
When it comes to manipulation and shrewdness, blacks can be very cunning. I’ve been around plenty of them and they are very adept at using race to hustle people or gain advantages. They are more shrewd in this than any other race.
Posted by KC at 6:29 AM on October 22
No, they’re not. Other nonwhites have learned to play the game and are much better at it and are snatching up the rewards and favors at a better clip than blacks. KC hasn’t been around SE Asians, Indians, E Asians and others from these populations who have decided to play the race card. The blacks were taught to use the race card, they didn’t come by it naturally. That said, the innate cooperative nature of whites makes them gullible, in that they tend to take what these nonwhites say at face value. They don’t fall for this type of trickery because all of their cultures come from peoples whose every generation have indulged in some type of lying and trickery to survive.
Posted by LA is a mess at 6:16 PM on October 22
Did pressure on the elderly doctor emanate directly or indirectly from Jewish intelligentsia?
Posted by at 10:27 AM on October 23
“blacks were taught to use the race card, they didn’t come by it naturally. That said, the innate cooperative nature of whites makes them gullible, in that they tend to take what these nonwhites say at face value.”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Exactly: they were TAUGHT how to use the race card. Let’s not overdo the praise and give blacks more credit than they deserve. Much of their “success” in shaking down whitey and attacking our institutions gthroughout the 20th century was not of their own doing. Let’s face it, blacks in the USA would never have achieved all the gains that they have gotten if they didn’t have another group steering them all the way. If left to their own devices, they would still be back where they were about 1920.
Posted by browsr at 2:36 PM on October 24
