'Blacks Are Stupid': Mindset Of Eugenics

http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html

31 March 2006

Recently citizen scientist Forrest Mims told me about a speech he heard at the Texas Academy of Science during which the speaker, a world-renowned ecologist, advocated for the extermination of 90 percent of the human species in a most horrible and painful manner. Apparently at the speaker’s direction, the speech was not video taped by the Academy and so Forrest’s may be the only record of what was said. Forrest’s account of what he witnessed chilled my soul. Astonishingly, Forrest reports that many of the Academy members present gave the speaker a standing ovation. To date, the Academy has not moved to sanction the speaker or distance itself from the speaker’s remarks.

For some good background material on the realities (not PC regurgitation) of Race try this:

RACE (The Reality of Human Differences) Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele

Miele is senior editor of Skeptic magazine
Sarich is co-creator of the molecular clock used in studies to determine when events occured in the genome (like leaving Africa)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071018/ap_on_re_eu/britain_controversial_scientist_2

Controversial DNA pioneer’s talk halted Thu Oct 18, 6:29 AM ET

London’s Science Museum canceled a Friday talk by Nobel Prize-winning geneticist James Watson after the co-discoverer of DNA’s structure told a newspaper that Africans and Europeans had different levels of intelligence.

James Watson provoked widespread outrage with his comments to The Sunday Times, which quoted the 79-year-old American as saying 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.”

He told the paper he hoped that everyone was equal, but added: “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.”

The comments drew condemnation from British lawmakers, scientists, and civil rights campaigners. On Wednesday The Independent newspaper put Watson on its front page, against the words: “Africans are less intelligent than Westerners, says DNA pioneer.”

Watson, who serves as chancellor of the renowned Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y., was to deliver a sold-out lecture at the Science Museum, but on Wednesday night the institution said Watson’s comments had gone too far and the event had been canceled.

Call to Watson’s book publisher and his office in New York were not immediately returned.

This is not the first time Watson’s speaking engagements have caused a stir.

The Independent catalogued a series of controversial statements from Watson, including one in which he reportedly suggested women should have the right to have abortions if tests could determine their children would be homosexual.

In 2000 Watson shocked an audience at the University of California, Berkeley, when he advanced a theory about a link between skin color and sex drive.

His lecture, complete with slides of bikini-clad women, argued that extracts of melanin �?? which give skin its color �?? had been found to boost subjects’ sex drive.

“That’s why you have Latin lovers,” he said, according to people who attended the lecture. “You’ve never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient.”

Telephone and e-mail messages left with the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory after business hours Wednesday were not immediately returned.

“That’s why you have Latin lovers,” he said, according to people who attended the lecture. “You’ve never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient.”

I think the latin lovers thing MIGHT have SOMETHING to do with alliteration… hmmm…

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
In 2000 Watson shocked an audience at the University of California, Berkeley, when he advanced a theory about a link between skin color and sex drive.

His lecture, complete with slides of bikini-clad women, argued that extracts of melanin, which give skin its color, had been found to boost subjects’ sex drive.

“That’s why you have Latin lovers,” he said, according to people who attended the lecture. “You’ve never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient.”
[/quote]

It’s pretty interesting to note that Melanotan II, a drug which stimulates the production of melanin and causes a sunless tan, also has the added effect of increasing libido. I was beginning to wonder if there may be some substance to this theory.

However, Melanotan I does not increase sex drive, so that kind of shoots down the correlation.

[quote]pat36 wrote:

Well, if he is on the level scientifically I would have to question his samples and the tests he used. To make a bold statement such as race based inteligence levels, he would need a rather large sample of all the races in question with a very clean testing environment.

I think this guy is full of shit is my bottom line. Make bold statements when you have the statistically significant data to back it up. [/quote]

I’m not exactly defending what he said. Rather, criticizing the idea that James Watson is on the same level scientifically as Al Gore. I agree that he’s probably way off base on this one, but he can at least claim to be a scientist. Watson won the Nobel for the structure of DNA, I’d be willing to bet Gore can’t even spell it.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
lucasa wrote:
jlesk wrote:

Watson is a strong proponent of genetic screening, a test to determine whether a couple is at increased risk of having a baby with a hereditary genetic disorder.

What I take away from this post is that jlesk is in favor of more babies being born with a higher risk of genetics disorders. Only the worst of human filth would be in favor of more babies being born with diseases like CF.

Me no follow. WTF?

[/quote]

It just seemed really incoherent to criticize someone for being a proponent of genetic testing. It’s not even close to proven to increase abortion rates and I can’t see how anyone would be opposed to any form of (voluntary or possibly negligible-cost/non-invasive “mandatory”) genetic screening prior to conception. It’s like criticizing someone for saying people should be allowed to train with firearms.

Nobel laureate biologist Jim Watson apologized “unreservedly” Thursday for stating that black people were not as intelligent as whites, saying he was “mortified” by the comments attributed to him.

“I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said,” Watson said during an appearance at the Royal Society in London.

“I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways that they have.”

“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,” he said.

His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: “There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.” …

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3067222.ece

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Is there really any objective way to measure collective intelligence? I think there are far too many variables to make it possible.[/quote]

You do it the same way as everyone else:

Draw stereotypes from a sample pool

It’s called inference and it’s a legitimate method of scientific inquiry

Scientific progress would be completely hamstrung if this method were not used. For one thing, how can you verify that every variable is accounted for in an open system? It’s impossible. Yet we must persist.

Stereotypes…learn them…accept them…love them. I have.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
lucasa wrote:
jlesk wrote:

Watson is a strong proponent of genetic screening, a test to determine whether a couple is at increased risk of having a baby with a hereditary genetic disorder.

What I take away from this post is that jlesk is in favor of more babies being born with a higher risk of genetics disorders. Only the worst of human filth would be in favor of more babies being born with diseases like CF.

Me no follow. WTF?

It just seemed really incoherent to criticize someone for being a proponent of genetic testing. It’s not even close to proven to increase abortion rates and I can’t see how anyone would be opposed to any form of (voluntary or possibly negligible-cost/non-invasive “mandatory”) genetic screening prior to conception. It’s like criticizing someone for saying people should be allowed to train with firearms.[/quote]

Yes,but he proposes it’s ok to test for homosexuality as a disease if a genetic basis is found for it,thus classing it as a disease.

That is the off the scanner stupidity that he endorses.

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
lucasa wrote:
jlesk wrote:

Watson is a strong proponent of genetic screening, a test to determine whether a couple is at increased risk of having a baby with a hereditary genetic disorder.

What I take away from this post is that jlesk is in favor of more babies being born with a higher risk of genetics disorders. Only the worst of human filth would be in favor of more babies being born with diseases like CF.

Me no follow. WTF?

It just seemed really incoherent to criticize someone for being a proponent of genetic testing. It’s not even close to proven to increase abortion rates and I can’t see how anyone would be opposed to any form of (voluntary or possibly negligible-cost/non-invasive “mandatory”) genetic screening prior to conception. It’s like criticizing someone for saying people should be allowed to train with firearms.

Yes,but he proposes it’s ok to test for homosexuality as a disease if a genetic basis is found for it,thus classing it as a disease.

That is the off the scanner stupidity that he endorses.

[/quote]

Well, when you consider that “abortion,” the actual destruction of the unborn child, is considered a right by many…What’s a little test and genetic manipulation? And, why wouldn’t homosexuality be considered a defect, if it truly is a genetic defect? Maybe disease doesn’t fit, but what about defect?

If the mother has the right to destroy the child ultimately, on what basis can one argue that she has no right to test the child and have a homosexual pre-disposition “fixed.” Her body, her privacy. We’ve been told this for how long?

Furthermore, it’s a procedure that would not harm the child. In fact, the child would grow up now with a pre-disposition to use his/her reproductive organs according to their function. Reproduction.

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

Yes,but he proposes it’s ok to test for homosexuality as a disease if a genetic basis is found for it,thus classing it as a disease.[/quote]

I still don’t see a problem. If we were talking about a gene for predisposition to smoking/addiction or predisposition to skin cancer from tanning you wouldn’t be batting an eye at what he said.

On top of that, it’s not like he’s said to herd all those who test “gay positive” in to gas chambers and forcibly sterilize all the gay gene “carriers”, merely offering people information should they choose it.

Are you really in favor of denying people knowledge of their own genes and their own children?

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Well, when you consider that “abortion,” the actual destruction of the unborn child, is considered a right by many…What’s a little test and genetic manipulation? And, why wouldn’t homosexuality be considered a defect, if it truly is a genetic defect? Maybe disease doesn’t fit, but what about defect?[/quote]

Exactly, I conditionally consider abortion to be a crime. I can’t fathom how ‘not reproducing’, whatever the motive, could be a crime. If anything, it’d be self-defeating, everyone who would be ‘gay carriers’ would have to collectively acknowledge not to reproduce. Since that won’t happen, only the people who won’t reproduce won’t pass their personal proclivities to the next generation.

One could also foresee a decline in promiscuity and high-risk sexual behavior based on “curiosity” or “experimentation”. A better understanding of the “gay community” could be achieved as well, lessening confusion about things like the association between homosexuality and pedophilia.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Are you really in favor of denying people knowledge of their own genes and their own children?[/quote]

Once the Eugenism genie is out of the bottle, good luck putting it back. Imagine what governments and other insurance companies will do with it.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
pat36 wrote:

Well, if he is on the level scientifically I would have to question his samples and the tests he used. To make a bold statement such as race based inteligence levels, he would need a rather large sample of all the races in question with a very clean testing environment.

I think this guy is full of shit is my bottom line. Make bold statements when you have the statistically significant data to back it up.

I’m not exactly defending what he said. Rather, criticizing the idea that James Watson is on the same level scientifically as Al Gore. I agree that he’s probably way off base on this one, but he can at least claim to be a scientist. Watson won the Nobel for the structure of DNA, I’d be willing to bet Gore can’t even spell it.[/quote]

Gore is a politician, not a scientist. I willing to bet Al Gore never conducted a double blind study in his life or has performed tests according to the scientific method outside of require college science courses.
Any nimrod can list some facts and draw ad hoc conclusions on them. Hell, it’s done all the time on this forum. We all just little Al Gores…

[quote]lixy wrote:

Once the Eugenism genie is out of the bottle, good luck putting it back. Imagine what governments and other insurance companies will do with it.[/quote]

Thanks for helping me crystallize my point, the Allies already put that genie back. Not surprisingly, it had little to do with actual genetic superiority. Governments were oppressing people and genocides and race wars were occurring long before Mendel was even born.

Conversely, keeping people in the dark about their genetics, forcing them to raise genetically diseased children and forcing those children to suffer genetic diseases, is the essence of oppression.

As for the commercial side of things, what’s an insurance company going to do? Refuse to pay people to have children with genetic diseases the same way they refuse to cover people who smoke? Not rewarding people to propagate genetic flaws is a bad thing?

In the U.S., the “Right to Privacy” would actually prop this system in favor of the individual, allowing them to essentially defraud their insurers by acquiring insurance when they’re healthy, knowing that they have genetic harbingers. (Heaven forbid insurer and insured sit down and figure out how much it would cost to fight a disease, how likely it is to happen, and how best to “save” for such an occurrence.)

The widespread distribution of antibiotics in third-world (even first world) nations has enabled countless millions of individuals who would otherwise have perished before reaching maturity to live out their full lifespans in hopeless poverty and utter despair.

This is humane? I don’t think so.

Anyone who worries about the implications of “crossing the line” on eugenics is a fool. The line was crossed long ago. The entire existence of humanity has been radically altered within the past two centuries. There is no going back and there must be no pretending that nothing has changed, that things are the same as they once were. It’s time to finish the job and do it right.

Thankfully, the solution to the crisis of overpopulation is coming and it will be implemented by the end of the 21st century.

The notion of “precious life” will lose some of it’s sentimental value to domesticated primates once scientists are able to recreate it in a test tube. Along with unplanned reproduction, death and disease must also be eradicated. I predict that I’ll be alive to witness the dawn of this era.

I’ll have to write the book later, so for now, some concepts and hard truths: “Racism” as we know it today, is a relatively recent concept, and when manifesting itself as an evil, is invariably connected with the profit motive (greed). Most people, including those educated enough to know better, are woefully ignorant on the subject, and how the reality we percieve around us is affected (poisoned?) by this.

Example:99.9% of English UK citizens will tell you there was no significant population of Blacks there until post WW2 migration. This is balderdash. A huge infusion came with returnees from the Crusades (in those days, Religion was important, the concept of “race” had not solidified yet). This “Black” strain was eventually “bred out” and some removed by reverse forced immigration (such as the incident where alleged “ne’r do-wells”, including Blacks, were swept from the streets of London, herded on to ships seperated by sex.

A Churchman was brought up, “married” the groups on the ships from dockside, whereupon they were banished to the “colonies”. Today, remnants of these Blacks survive in several English surnames, and in some cases, Heraldry. Most of these people are not aware of their Black ancestry, and many family histories were altered during the victorian era. All this kind of stuff is documented, but not taught in British schools, so people are sincerely ignorant of it. (I’m not picking on the Brits, the same goes for much of continental Europe, including France,Italy, etc).

I wont even start about the Welsh (Sorry my Brother Bushy!/;-). When I was a kid, similarly, I was told there were no Black Cowboys/Horse Soldiers because they had never seen them in the “movies”. Eye-rolling ignorance!). The Americans are even worse in this regard, because they know for a fact intersexing has gone on in the USA, but deny it could be in “their” line. The fact that there is no such thing as “race” except as a concept, and by it’s nature, then inexact, contributes to this. The simple fact is that people “assume” race by visual cues, in short “You are what you look”.

This is gospel to the narrow-minded hardhead as well as the casual “matter of fact” racist. It has little to do with the facts, however. There are literally hundreds of thousands of “whites” who have Black ancestry, and even more “Blacks” with white ancestry. Over the last 150years or so, this is seen particularly in the USA, North/East/South Africa, South America, the Middle East and the Carribean. Just because you have blonde hair and blue eyes does not mean there is not one of those hated Blacks in your family woodpile, Bunky (Hello, calling Mr.Cheney & Obama! Heheheh)…

Uncomfortable facts: It has only been within the last 50 or so years where white supremacist theory has been (generally speaking) questioned. There are only a miniscule percentage of whites who question their general equality to Blacks. The vast majority assume they are superior to Blacks, period. It may not be a big issue in everyday life, but they don’t doubt it. It is irrelevant how much or high a Black achieves, some scumball is always waiting in the wings to pull the race card.

There is no country on the planet (including Africa) where the Black man is not reflexively “looked down upon”. I can vouch for this not only from academic study, but from a bit of personal experience. It’s wrongheaded ethnocentrism unsupported by facts, but a reality nonetheless, a poisonous legacy handed down from the sins of the past. One more thing. I laugh cynically at these Blacks who espouse Islam as a better fit. More ignorance!. The Mohhamedeians outdid the crulest European slave traders by several orders of magnitude, and that is no mean feat!. (The Musslmen were particularly fond of castration and pederasty of captive Blacks).

Racists have to dig hard & misrepresent Bible scripture to justify discrimination against Blacks. No problem with the Koran, anti-Negritude is explicitly written in (and don’t try and buffalo me with that stuff about Bilal, I know better). I’m sick and tired of all the racist ignorance in this world. When men with the credentials this eugenics-lover has, runs his mouth like this, and gets applause, it disgusts and dissapoints. What really makes me sick at heart is I cant do a lot to change it, despite all the knowledge I have gained on the subject.

Screw it! Maybe one day I’ll fly in to Wales, train with Bushy, and have him set me up with one of those crazy local girls of questionable heritage. I can get married,live happily ever after, and piss-off the sub-morons in the process…

[quote]lucasa wrote:

[/quote]

I agree with you to some extent. Screening genes for defects is OK, but I don’t think privacy laws as they stand are going to stop abuses. Heck, your government is already spying on everybody. How long do you think it’ll be before somebody comes up with a “terrorist gene”. Surely, you must have a more fertile imagination than that. As for the insurance companies, don’t fool yourself. They will come up with all sorts of correlations to justify their racist pricing.

After all, Black folks are more likely to get shot than white ones. They are also more likely to smoke, end up in jail, and all the other things which will ultimately be blamed on race if your idea is implemented. And in case of abuse, I’m sure most of them won’t have the money to take the insurance companies to court.

Did any of you folks follow the DNA tests the Sarkozy government was pushing to supposedly end immigration fraud? That was the genie pointing out its nose. Albeit with some provisions, the law still managed to pass this week. I personally find it very disturbing.

[quote]Blacksnake wrote:
…[/quote]
Interesting stuff