This Man Wants You Ignorant
Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, October 20, 2023
Even if it wrecks the country.
James Watson is the world’s most famous living scientist. He won a Nobel Prize in 1962 for the discovery of the structure of DNA.
He was showered with awards and honors, won 20 honorary PhDs, taught at Harvard, and ran Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory for 40 years.
His career and reputation were shattered for saying 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.”
Cold Spring Harbor fired him. Later, it put out a statement: “Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) unequivocally rejects the unsubstantiated and reckless personal opinions of Dr. James D. Watson.”
They weren’t unsubstantiated and they weren’t reckless. But Cold Spring said they were even worse than that: “reprehensible.” This great scientist, now 95 years old, is ending his life in disgrace.
Many have gotten the same treatment.
Noah Carl had an Oxford PhD and in 2018, was appointed to a prestigious fellowship at Cambridge.
Alas, it turned out he had written unfashionable things for such publications as the British Journal of Sociology, the Journal of Biosocial Science, and Intelligence. The Guardian reported the shocking news: “Cambridge gives role to academic accused of racist stereotyping.”
Dr. Carl had to go.
Bo Winegard was a tenure-track assistant professor at Marietta College in Ohio.
This article, one of the best you will ever read on race differences, will show you what a careful and reasonable thinker he is.
Writing and talking about these subjects ended his career.
Jason Richwine, Harvard PhD, worked as a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
In 2013, it came to light that in his PhD thesis, he warned about “a lack of socioeconomic assimilation among low-IQ immigrant groups, more underclass behavior, less social trust, and an increase in the proportion of unskilled workers.”
Heritage Foundation didn’t try to prove him wrong; it just shoved him out.
Nathan Cofnas is a fellow in philosophy at Cambridge.
He has written about the maniacal opposition to studying group differences in this paper: “Research on group differences in intelligence: A defense of free inquiry.”
He writes that the famous intellectual Noam Chomsky wrote that it is wrong to investigate an association between group membership and IQ because that interests only “racists, sexists, and the like.”
Howard Gardner is famous for a theory about “multiple intelligences” including such surprises as musical intelligence and interpersonal intelligence.
He says, “I myself do not condone investigations of racial differences in intelligence, because I think that the results of these studies are likely to be incendiary.”
He’s afraid of the truth.
James Flynn is famous for the Flynn Effect, or what appears to be a gradual increase in IQ scores around the world.
In a book, called Are We Getting Smarter?, he wrote that the question of racial differences in IQ is an empirical one that can be answered by proper investigation.
However, “If universities have their way, the necessary research will never be done. . . . It is always just far more important to establish whether squirrels enjoy The Magic Flute.”
Nathan Cofnas has another paper about hostility to science.
He quotes Daniel Dennet, professor emeritus of philosophy at Tufts University, who doesn’t care how theoretically sound what he calls “dangerous” scientific hypotheses may be.
“if I encountered people conveying a message I thought was so dangerous that I could not risk giving it a fair hearing, I would be at least strongly tempted to misrepresent it, to caricature it for the public good.”
Deceive people for the public good. And he’s a philosophy professor.
One of the most ferocious opponents of science is Eric Turkheimer, who has taught psychology at the University of Virginia since 1992.
He nailed his colors to the mast in 1997, in an article called “The search for a psychometric left.”
He warned fellow lefties that if they keep claiming that intelligence is a myth and that there’s no such thing as heritability, they’ll look like idiots. He called for a left that would accept the obvious, but would go only so far: “It would assert that the most important difference between the races is racism.”
Twenty years later, he was still battling the facts. In a 2007 paper in Cato Unbound, he wrote that “questions about the role of genetics in the explanation of racial differences in ability are not empirical.”
Not empirical. That means they can’t even be studied. Incredible. Furthermore, “it is a matter of ethical principle that individual and cultural accomplishment is not tied to the genes.”
Ethical principle? This isn’t science anymore. He says people who disagree with him “deserve the vigorous disapprobation they often receive.”
Prof. Turkheimer has built a career on the idea that the children of rich people grow up in environments that let their genes for intelligence express themselves fully, while the genes for intelligence in poor children are smothered by bad environments.
The implication is that this is why blacks have lower IQs than whites or Asians.
In 2020, a team of researchers led by Bryan Pesta looked into this theory in a metanalysis called “Racial and ethnic group differences in the heritability of intelligence.” They found that in the United States, there was very little racial difference in the heritability, or the genetic contribution, of intelligence. Prof. Turkheimer and a disciple wrote a blistering reply called “A Cautionary Example of Fringe Science Entering the Mainstream.”
Right in the abstract they complained that the Pesta paper was “an example of how racially motivated and poorly executed work can find its way into a mainstream scientific journal.”
They also complained about severe “rhetorical flaws,” whatever they are. After harrumphing about supposed scientific mistakes in the paper, they warned that “Attempted appropriations of contemporary genetics to further hereditarian, racist, and White-nationalist arguments have increased in frequency and sophistication.”
Gosh. Bad people like me read science papers. Scholars better stop writing stuff that proves we’re right. How to stop them? With “interdisciplinary coordination at multiple levels from publishers to editors, editorial boards, peer reviewers, and promotion committees.”
In other words, a coordinated campaign of censorship to make sure findings they don’t like never see the light of day.
Calls for censorship are bad enough in what is supposed to be a scientific paper. Even worse, the editor of the journal refused to print a reply from the original authors. This is a ghastly breach of scientific ethics. Pesta et. al. appealed to the editor, the publisher, and even got eminent scientists to complain on their behalf. No dice. In the meantime, Prof. Turkheimer was tweeting that Dr. Pesta and his co-authors were “openly racist and anti-Semitic authors.”
Accusations like that alone are enough to discredit someone.
Publications also suffer in this climate of hysteria.
In 2020, the same Bryan Pesta, along with John Fuerst, submitted a paper to The Journal of Intelligence. It was called “Measured Cognitive Differences among UK adults of Different Ethnic Backgrounds.” Cognitive differences? Ethnic backgrounds? Uh, oh. Independent scholar Emil Kirkegaard posted the rejection letter, which said, “The journal will not publish articles that may lead to or enhance political controversies.”
What? Anything significant could be controversial. But Eric Turkheimer might accuse you of racism and antisemitism. The editor said he hadn’t even looked into the scientific validity of the study but it might be controversial, so peddle your paper somewhere else.
Last year, a publication called Nature Human Behavior issued editorial guidelines: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans.”
All humans? Murderers? Psychopaths? Mental defectives? No. The problem is that “research may — inadvertently — stigmatize individuals or human groups. It may be discriminatory, racist, sexist, ableist or homophobic.”
You may not be a racist, but if you find race differences you could be violating someone’s dignity and rights. Needless to say, “Race and ethnicity are sociopolitical constructs. Humans do not have biological races.”
And, of course, “potential harms to the populations studied may outweigh the benefit of publication.”
So, we suppress the truth if it might hurt someone’s feelings. What a disgusting betrayal of science. I’m sure there are plenty of journals that operate this way. These guys are at least honest enough to admit it.
The US government wants to suppress the truth. “The National Institutes of Health now blocks access to an important database if it thinks a scientist’s research may enter ‘forbidden’ territory.” The Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes is a collection of genome scans of millions of people along with extensive data about their health, education, occupation, and income.
It’s a crucial tool for understanding how genes act on humans. But you have to apply to get the data, and NIH won’t let you have it if it thinks your findings might “stigmatize” someone.
I want to ask all these censors and bullies: What are you afraid of? Do you think that if the data prove there is a genetic contribution to the black/white IQ gap, blacks will riot, and loot, and burn? They do that already. They do it precisely because we refuse to accept racial differences. Because we teach blacks that if they are not as rich and powerful and happy as white people it’s because we’re constantly griding them down. They loot and riot because we tell them over and over that America has been one, long, racist swindle that never gives them a fair shake.
Think about yourself. Part of growing up was realizing that you aren’t the smartest or the strongest or fastest or the best squash player and that the other guy beat you fair and square. We are telling entire races — blacks and Hispanics — never to grow up, to believe all their lives they are being cheated every day. Why shouldn’t they riot and loot — and hate us? It’s what we get for pious nonsense about equality. And if you doubt this pious nonsense, you’ll never have a career in science — or in anything else, if the thought police have their way. What a miserable, bound-to-fail system.
A multiracial society is going to be one problem after another, even without trying to build it on fantasy. People who suppress the facts, who deliberately keep us ignorant are, in their way, as destructive as rioters and looters. Maybe worse. They want to shackle your mind and make sure you get used to it.