In a reissue of The Mismeasure of Man in 1996 Stephen Jay Gould wrote, “May I end up next to Judas Iscariot, Brutus, and Cassius in the devil’s mouth at the center of hell if I ever fail to present my most honest assessment and best judgment of the evidence for empirical truth” (p. 39). So we definitely know where to find him.
We have known this for some time, but a recent study nicely nails it down (see “Study Debunks Stephen Jay Gould’s Claim of Racism on Morton Skulls,” NYTimes, June 14, 2011). Samuel George Morton, who died in 1851, had measured skulls from around the world and found race differences in skull size. Gould claimed that he had remeasured Morton’s skulls and found that Morton had “unconsciously” falsified the measurements to fit his “racist” preconceptions that Africans had smaller brains. But now
physical anthropologists at the University of Pennsylvania, which owns Morton’s collection, have remeasured the skulls, and in an article that does little to burnish Dr. Gould’s reputation as a scholar, they conclude that almost every detail of his analysis is wrong.
Advertisement
Gould’s claim that Morton “unconsciously” made his measurements fit his preconceptions was always the stuff of intellectual chutzpah. Gould had no reason to believe that Morton had any preconceptions at all, and indeed the new study states that Morton had no interest in intelligence (IQ wasn’t even invented until the early 20th century) but simply wanted to study human variation in order to determine if God had created the races separately. In fact, only 2% of Morton’s measurements were inaccurate, and the inaccuracies actually went against the hypothesis of brain size differences. On the other hand, Gould never actually measured Morton’s skulls and his reanalysis of Morton’s data ignored some subgroups and made errors of calculation. Most damningly,
Dr.[Jason E.] Lewis, the lead author, said that on checking the references for some of Dr. Gould’s accusations he found that Morton had not made the errors attributed to him. “Those elements of Gould’s work were surprising,” he said. “I can’t say if they were deliberate.”
I will hazard a wild guess that they were deliberate. As one of the authors, Ralph Holloway, notes,
I just didn’t trust Gould. … I had the feeling that his ideological stance was supreme. When the 1996 version of ‘The Mismeasure of Man’ came and he never even bothered to mention [an earlier study by a University of Pennsylvania undergraduate, John S. Michael] I just felt he was a charlatan.
In Chapter 2 of Culture of Critique (p. 34ff) I mentioned Gould’s failure to cite Michael’s work along with several other obvious indications of scholarly fraud. The first duty of a scholar is to at least deal with the available data, but Gould completely ignored 25 years of research showing a moderate (~.40) correlation between brain size and IQ; he also ignored factor analytic research indicating IQ was much more than a statistical artifact, as Gould claimed. (Gould’s reissuing of Mismeasure was timed to combat the influence of The Bell Curve which had been published in 1994.)
Obviously, seeking the truth about IQ and brain size was never a goal for Gould. The chapter also details Gould’s Jewish identification, his concern for Jewish issues, and his roots in the Jewish-Marxist subculture that was such a major part of the mainstream Jewish community when Gould was growing up.
Sadly, for those of us who don’t believe in Hell, Gould will never be properly punished. His reputation as a brilliant intellectual will live on. A defender of Gould, philosopher Philip Kitcher, states “: “Steve doesn’t come out as a rogue but as someone who makes mistakes. If Steve were around he would probably defend himself with great ingenuity.” Kitcher obviously has very high standards for what constitutes a rogue. I have no doubt that Gould would defend himself with a deluge of showmanship (his public lectures were a three-ring circus of half truths and falsehoods uttered with a supreme sense of self-confidence). Nor do I doubt that his defense would be eagerly embraced by the intellectual left and the media for whom truth has always been irrelevant.
Finally, it’s noteworthy that the other major intellectual villain of Chapter 2 of Culture of Critique has also been exposed as producing false data. Franz Boas’s famous study purporting to show that skull shape changed as a result of immigration from Europe to America was a very effective propaganda weapon in the cause of the anti-racialists. Indeed, it was intended as propaganda. Based on their reanalysis of Boas’s data, physical anthropologists Corey Sparks and Richard Jantz do not accuse Boas of scientific fraud, but they do find (pdf) that his data do not show any significant environmental effects on cranial form as a result of immigration. They also claim that Boas may well have been motivated by a desire to end racialist views in anthropology:
While Boas never stated explicitly that he had based any conclusions on anything but the data themselves, it is obvious that he had a personal agenda in the displacement of the eugenics movement in the United States. In order to do this, any differences observed between European- and U.S.-born individuals will be used to its fullest extent to prove his point.
And yet, the intellectual left will continue to sleep comfortably, realizing that the record of scientific malfeasance (also apparent in the work of the Frankfurt School and psychoanalysis) will not threaten their hegemony in the academic world and the media. What we will not see are articles and op-eds in prestigious media highlighting research on race differences in brain size and the links between brain size and IQ.
It should come as no surprise that science has become politics—the theme, after all, of Culture of Critique. The intellectual, media and political elites are completely corrupt, their position maintained by power and propaganda, the high points rigorously policed to prevent non-orthodoxy. We live in a dark age.
Facing the Future as a Minority
Was the Immigration Act of 1924 Illiberal?
Good post.
I concur, another excellent article by Kmac. Gould was the consummate Jewish “equality” peddler, subverting the minds of the ‘gullible goyim’ with typical reckless Jewish abandon. It’s absolutely surreal how artificers like Gould and his tribal network can so easily play so many Whites for, pardon the Negro vernacular, ‘silly ass-ed’ fools.
I could never understand the obvious “hold” that Gould
seemingly had on practically everyone inside and outside academia. I also recall seeing him on some TV program during which he refused to answer any questions concerning his background, flatly dismissing any inquiry into his childhood, family history, etc. And he got away with it!
Excellent article. On a side note, here’s a clip about affirmative action in sports. This is quite interesting because it shows the extent by which years of conditioning by academia, media, and politics are so powerful that political correctness and diversity replaced common reasoning and truth. It’s so obvious the biological differences between the races and that racial diversity is not strength but only leads to racial strife.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmSzgvaJCn0&feature=player_embedded
Very telling video that shows how deeply students are conditioned to political correctness. Thanks for posting the link.
I am a physicist. I wonder how all this is related to the current crisis in Cosmology, where many theorists (mostly jewish) feel free to say anything that pops into their heads. Unhappy examples are everywhere: absurd schemes to model time on the basis of the complex numbers, bizarre and ugly contraptions for cosmic inflation; universes multiplying beyond the reach of observation; white holes, black holes, worm holes, dark matter; dark energy and naked singularities; theories of every stripe and variety, all of them uncorrected by any criticism beyond the trivial. The theoretical physicists carry on endlessly because he can. I am curious: how is this related to the Culture of Critique, Mr. MacDonald? Would love to hear your feedback.
I think the professor would be out of his depth here. If you really are a physicist, you would be better qualified to write about it.
I’m just a layman, but I think black holes or dark matter are observable things, at least their mass is observable. So these theories have more to them than just some Jews theorizing all day long. I’m also not so sure if the majority or even a plurality of theoretical physicists are Jewish. I doubt it. And theoretical physics has no relevance to most issues important to the Jews, unlike anthropology, sociobiology, or the evolution of human races.
Well just one thing for what it’s worth: I have noticed a certain tendency among Jewish thinkers to get wrapped up in whatever theory they’ve created without grounding it in reality. I’ve heard theoretical physics is full of such speculation these days, theories that have almost no evidence, but instead rely in extremely complex mathematics that may add up to nothing.
Something similar happened with Freud – lots of theorizing with great authority, but very little evidence. Same thing with Boas in anthropology. And so now we see a lot of Jewish players on Wall Street building models in the sky that no one can understand and don’t relate to reality.
So it seems they have a tendency to get lost in their own abstract thoughts, spinning them out of control. I’m not even getting into the issue of malfeasance on their part, just a strange mental habit.
There was an article on just that subject in Culture Wars magazine last year.
Gabor, I may know about the crisis in theoretical physics but I have no idea how it is related to the CoC. I wish I had the time to sit down and do some research on the topic because I truly believe that there is a connection and someone must take the time to find it!
Regarding what you have said about blackholes and dark matter, I disagree, there is no such evidence yet, even though those ideas have been around for over 100 years. Currently, there are several good alternate models for the big bang cosmology because BB is a dying theory. Most current observations today contradict what the BB is claiming. However, people still cling to it because it fits the biblical genesis and the koranic creation model: “the universe began!”. String theory is another disaster that has been lingering for over 40 years with no evidence to its validity. The interesting part about it is that most of the leading scientists in those fields are predominantly jewish: Edward Witten, Leonard Susskind, Freeman Dyson, and many others.
That’s fascinating about Big Bang dying out. I heard some scientist say what you have – it was just Genesis rewrote in terms of physics. Can you recommend any good books or websites for non-technical laymen that have an interest in alternate theories?
Palestinian, what is your take on Einstein and General Relativity? I feel in my bones that the “science Messiah” status of Einstein relates strongly to Jewish propaganda and political machinations, but I don’t really have the physics and mathematics abilities to make up my own mind on the subject. I do know that the theory has had some strong detractors over the years, some of whom have supposedly been persecuted for their stances. Robert Dicke was one such person. I would like to hear an educated response on the subject.
Gray Prince,
I have no issues with General Theory of Relativity (GTR) but I do have an issue with Einstein, the person. GTR had passed many experimental tests and its validity, at least for now, is in good standing. However, as you dig deep into its history, you will quickly realize that GTR was discovered by many other people but not Einstein! I don’t wish to turn this post into a research paper but I will be brief. The famous equation E=mc^2, was actually discovered by an Italian physicist by the name De Pretto. Einstein used De Pretto’s insight in a major paper published in 1905, but De Pretto was never acclaimed! Another example, the famous Lorentz Transformation in STR, is due to Lorentz but Einstein got all the credits. The so-called Einstein’s Field Equation of GTR (considered to be the most sophisticated equation ever invented by a human being) was the invention of the Englishman Hamilton and the French mathematician Poincare and others, but not Einstein! In other words, Einstein “stole” all these ideas from other people and zionism helped create the image of the intelligent jew, like Einstein. If you are interested in some history, I can recommend some:
“The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein”, by Christopher Bjerknes (Warning: it is 3000 pages long and 50% of it is in German.) It is available on the internet for free. Just google it. If you have the time, read only the first 50 pages, skipping the German text if you can not read it.
Christopher Bjerknes has another book on sale at Amazon: “Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist”. Read the reviews of the books before you decide to purchase it (a little expensive.)
http://www.amazon.com/Albert-Einstein-Incorrigible-Christopher-Bjerknes/dp/0971962987
Palestinian,
I think BB theory has a number of compelling evidence. At least that’s what I know about it. (Like the redshift, the cosmic microwave background radiation, the ratio of certain elements, and a number of other things which I don’t remember or are not aware of. As far as I know, a number of these was discovered well after BB theory was created, which was the reason for BB theory to become nearly universally accepted.) I know some physicists, so I’ll ask their take on this issue.
A physicist acquaintence of mine told me (without giving his opinion) that a lot of physicists regard things like string theory as without any scientific value at all, but definitely not BB theory. I’m really out of my depth here. I mean, I can read a number of popular science books, but without devoting an astonishing amount of time and energy I cannot even begin to understand the issues with these theories. The best I can hope for is understanding them a little bit. And I think I’m brighter than average, but it’s simply not an easy subject.
However, I tend to think BB theory doesn’t prove Genesis any better than evolutionary theory does. And I also don’t think Jews really want to prove Genesis at all. Some of them might, but others are just as happy spreading atheism and other materialistic ideologies among the Gentiles.
Jason Speaks,
“I have noticed a certain tendency among Jewish thinkers to get wrapped up in whatever theory they’ve created without grounding it in reality.”
I agree. Palestinian might be onto something. I just don’t want to apply this mechanically to anything, and what Palestinian wrote wasn’t exactly the same thing the few physicists I have talked to think.
Actually, there are those in physics who feel that the worship of Einstein and the brutal attacks on anyone showing him to be incorrect or to have stolen work and ideas, has held physics and other areas of science back in some ways. In physics, when Saint Einstein has been shown to have been wrong, the jewish gatekeepers suddenly show up to explain “… what Einstein really meant,” and then adjust Einstein’s “work” to fit the current situation or to somehow take credit from someone else (unless they’re jewish), making Einstein’s work so malleable that it predicts everything. As noted above, it has been demonstrated beyond doubt that Einstein misappropriated the works of Poincaire, Lorentz, FitzGerald and others, never citing these giants at all, and that Einstein lifted “his” equation, E=mc2, from Olinto De Pretto – Einstein had access to De Pretto’s materials while working in a patent office.
Einstein was another cog, his achievements exaggerated in order to allow the tribe to claim a jew is the greatest physicist, just as the jews have done in other areas, always claiming a jew as the best mind. This is not to say Einstein was a complete fraud either. Sometimes WNs go too far, not realizing that Einstein’s work / discovery of the Photoelectric Effect. However, Einstein is hardly the greatest physicist ever, never mind being nowhere near the smartest man ever, as so many jews claim. Just peruse the net, you’ll see many jews making that claim.
There are some fights going on right now with one side shouting Einstein must be wrong for such and such to work with the other side screaming louder that Einstein was right, look at the fights going on regarding GPS etc.
It’s interesting that someone like David Hilbert (mathematician) who actually submitted a paper etc. laying out GR before Einstein (and citing sources) is ignored by the media completely. The fact that Hilbert wasn’t a jew is no doubt a huge factor. Einstein and his enablers cobbled together the GR work as fast as they could in order to get the myth making going. They realized that someone taking credit for such material could help the tribe ride a lot of things a long way.
To appreciate the scope of what we’re confronting, I recommend the classic take-down of modern physics by the late Dewey B. Larson, “The Mythical Universe of Modern Astronomy”
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/lec/larlect1982.htm
They can’t observe black holes, but they can observe the gravitational influence on nearby objects. That’s why they know black holes exist. Pierre Laplace (french scientist) first theorized that if a star be large enough, then the immense gravitational field produced would preclude even light itself from escaping.
Jason: “I have noticed a certain tendency among Jewish thinkers to get wrapped up in whatever theory they’ve created without grounding it in reality.” lol me too.
Without the hard evidence then the theory is invalid. Jewish influence, for example, is no theory, rather it’s backed up with massive amounts of hard factual evidence. I concluded some time ago that Jews are all theory and no facts. A bit like their holocaust.
iboTTs
The Black Magic hooey of Kabbalism rears it’s ugly and mis-shappen head, in almost every venue the Self Chosen infest.
Palestinian, Thank you, I am aware of Bjerkness’s book and it’s what got me thinking along these lines in the first place. But I don’t see how a trained physicist could take his book completely seriously, but the book is useful for where it leads. In particular, Whitaker’s history of relativity is very interesting on these points. You seem to be confusing results of special relativity and general relativity. E=mc2 is a result of special relativity. Poincare and Pretto derived this before Einstein and Pretto even accused the saint of plagiarism.
The experimental evidence for general relativity is not incontrovertible, from what I have read. Any theory that assumes inertial mass and intrinsic mass equivalence will result in a gravitational red shift. The perihelion advance of Mercury can be derived from classical mechanics, according to some sources. One would really have to be an expert in this field to know, and all the experts already have a vested interest in the correctness of the theory!
TheyRthieves has a good point of view above. Einstein was a genius if only for the law of the photoelectric effect, which was all him, so far as I am aware. Only he has been blown far out of proportion by the Jewish lobby, transformed into a figure on par with Newton or Maxwell, which he probably was not. For example, when do we ever not read of “Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity”, when according to Whitiker, Einstein contributed very little to special relativity, which was mostly the work or Lorentz and Pioncare. I suspect the persona of Einstein is largely an invention, but perhaps so were Newton and Maxwell’s.
A couple a small misconceptions here.
First, while others obviously beat Einstein to the punch regarding key components of Relativity Theory, Einstein at the very least deserves credit as a grand synthesist who understood and coordinated highly complex work that had been done by numerous other physicists and mathematicians. Forget his promoters; they have merely spun and capitalized on conceptual advances that Einstein the man legitimately made.
Secondly, SR/GR was, and arguably still is, metaphysics rather than physics. This is because, although it makes physical predictions, it fundamentally alters the conceptual relationships holding among space, time, energy, and matter. These are all parameters in physics; they are plugged into physical equations in a usually straightforward way. To actually understand how and why they function as they do for the purposes of (the empirical science of) physics, and what their ultimate ontology and cosmological significance may be, requires not merely physics, but high-powered logic and philosophy.
It follows that we can expect the next major advance in physics to come from a metaphysician rather than a physicist. One might reasonably conjecture that he will initially have near-zero cred among academics … no accident, given the deplorable state of modern academia.
Only time will tell.
Abstract thought is a Jewish strong point.
Abstract thought or clever bullshit? I have trouble separating the two, being a builder of structures that actually function.
No – it’s not.
Wasn’t it Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell who discovered the photoelectric effect and Einstein who explained it – and got the Nobel Prize for doing so?
All scientific discovery is cumulative.
There’s a rabbinic-midrashic saying about Torah: “Turn it and turn it and turn it, for everything is in it.”
The interminable interpretability permeating virtually every discipline nowadays is a Jewish invention, their brains having spent 2000 years with the same text as their focus.
This is a great post. We thoroughly enjoy The Occidental Observer for excellent news & actual, unbiased facts.
Thank you Dr. MacDonald!
Yeah, TOO is the best. Mac backs up everything he says with the hard facts, and his expert analysis of the data is awesome. And Matt’s coding and site design has produced the best site on the www. TOO is all class.
Jewish abstract thought is wrapped in their own arrogant “all knowing” mind-set.
I think, therefore I am. The delusional Jewsih mind weaves its own reality. Its one reason they are so effective in lieing, they actually believe their own lies when told often enough.
Not just the delusional mind — it’s that they believe, they’re told they’re exponentially smarter than the goyim.
And, remember, goyim mean cattle
Professor MacDonald stated, “It should come as no surprise that science has become politics—the theme, after all, of Culture of Critique. The intellectual, media and political elites are completely corrupt, their position maintained by power and propaganda, the high points rigorously policed to prevent non-orthodoxy.
We live in a dark age.”
Galileo Galilei could have claimed the same.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
So could Socrates, what’s your point?
My point was made clearly, Athanasius.
Either you’re stupid or you are being deliberately and wilfully obtuse.
…I don’t think you’re stupid…
Or: E pur si muove
How far was astronomy, hell science, set back by prevailing church dogma?
And, more importantly, how are things different today? How much science is held back by the prevailing PC Reign or Terror and Oppression?
Galileo was a genius, who had great insights and sometimes clung to stupid ideas (like the perfect circle shape of planetary orbits), and none of his views were supported by evidence (at the time). While he has the best claims to inventing the scientific method, he himself never practiced it. At the time, there was NO evidence for the movement of the Earth, and since it was a politically controversial subject (BTW the Church clung to the geocentric view mainly because of its adherence to Ptolemaic astronomy and less because of the Bible), it is quite natural that nobody really liked a maverick guy who wanted to turn the official worldview without any good evidence.
Now in the age it was impossible to prove or disprove the movement of the Earth, but pretty soon it became possible, after which the Jesuits and the Church changed their ideas in due course. I don’t think Galileo’s trial hindered science in any way. I think present PC is way more destructive, and could only be compared to the reign of Marxism-Leninism and Lisenkoism under Stalin.
Judas Iscariot is considered a Jewish hero, therefore, be careful before insulting him.
Clark Eberly, in a column published in The Washington Times (June 13, 2011), has suggested that it was John the Baptist (Prophet Yahya) and not Judas who betrayed Jesus by not following him…..
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/did-john-the-baptist-betrayed-jesus/
I was introduced to Gould through PBS, and was floored he could not, did not know how to argue with a Midwestern Creationist. I guess he used to do this alot. The Creationist guy would just pound him (in front of alot of older and middle age Midwesterners). He looked like a fool even back then. Dinosaur in a Haystack also draws false conclusions about evolution, impling that life was a ‘miracle’ to have happened, randomly, by chance. The basics of life are fundamental, and will be found wherever the conditions are conductive. True, you need a slowly rotating earth, cause by a moon impact, but Mars also had a moon impact, it blew out its iron core so it can’t father an atmospher any longer.
Look at Israel, is it a model of democracy? Are they with all that Jewish intellect, a bastion of freedom, a major industrial power? Without the West, Jews have nothing. The sooner they learn this the better, no?
The sooner the West learns this, and enforces the 1290 Expulsion order, en masse – the better for all.
Jimmy – forget Israel being the ‘only democracy in the Middle East’ or ‘America the best democracy in the world’ or ‘India the largest democracy in the world’ – in fact those statements are as much hoaxes as the ‘Six Million Died’.
Democracy, like the other slogans such as human rights, freedom, justce, gender equality, etc. – has been corrupted so much by the elites that they have all lost their original meanings. Interestingly, Muslims make the largest minority groups in the US, India and Israel – but they’re the most persecuted ones in those countries. American Jewish writer Stephen Lendman wrote: “Is it less true for America or in how Israel treats Muslims, many its own citizens yet denied virtually all rights afforded to Jews, and in Palestine none under military occupation.” Indian writer Arundhati Roy compared Hindu right wing (Hindutva) persecution of Muslims in India to Hitler’s persecution of Jews. She asks: “What kind of India they want? A limbless, headless, soulless torso bleeding under the butcher’s clever with a flag driven deep into her mutilated heart?”
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/it-is-not-a-democracy-stupid/
That is correct Rehmat, but the overwhelming reality is that Jews, WITHOUT the West, would be no better than Bedouins running camels in the desert. Although they can excel at many intellectual pursuits, without the structure of the west, what do they have? Communism?, Jewel cutting? Banking? (Not in a non-white country for long) And yet the middle class jews seem to never give up the ghost on who runs the banks, who controls the press, and much of the politics.
When the West falls, Jews fall with them. China will not be so ignorant.
Jimmy – Yes, West’s blind support for Israel and aiding those Israeli vultures with trillions of dollar – has kept Jewish imperialism in Palestine. However, the West do need Israel in Muslim region to exploit the region’s natural resources.
Spain’s former Prme Minister, Jose Maria Aznar (1996-2004), who is listed as an “Author” on Israel Hasbara Committee’s list – wrote an article for The Times (June 17, 2010), titled “If Israel goes down; we all go down”. He wrote: “Israel is our first line of defence in a turbulent region that is constantly at risk of descending into chaos; a region vital to our energy security owing to our overdependence on Middle Eastern oil; a region that forms the front line in the fight against extremism. If Israel goes down, we all go down”.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/israel-needs-nato-membership-for-its-survival/
” We live in a dark age. ”
Yup , these are the times of both lies and ” people of color ”
Humanism is a religion and as repressive as any .
You could convince 1000 thousand whites that the truth is that blacks are significantly less intelligent than whites on average .
950 would not want to know and they would still spew crap like : ” there is only one race , the human race ”
Why ?
Because it makes ‘em feel like they are good people .
The saps that they are .
Well said, John. It is as if most Whites are hypnotized.
Hard to believe, but Stephen Jay Gould appeared as himself on an episode of “The Simpsons” in 1997. In the episode, Lisa and some classmates unearth what appears to be the skeleton of an angel. Lisa goes to Gould to find out what the skeleton is. Gould offers to run some tests. The next day, Gould tells Lisa the tests were inconclusive. At the end of the episode, it is revealed that the angel skeleton was buried as a publicity stunt for a shopping center. Lisa asks Gould why his tests didn’t show that the skeleton was a fake. Gould replies, “I’m going to be honest with you Lisa, I never did the tests.”
(“Lisa the Skeptic,” The Simpsons 8th Season, November 23, 1997.)
Life imitates art imitating life.
This is an excellent post. Thank you, Dr. MacDonald.
I often find it extremely puzzling that men, like Gould, who have brains hundreds of times bigger than my own, could have such huge blind spots. I suppose that what it often comes down to is this: Those “blind spots” benefit them.
Mark, don’t you think those blind spots are there to continue the cycle of revenge.
What i was looking for is whether there is also intellectual dishonesty regarding Darwin’s theory of evolution. Is it science or is it philosohpy.
Its pretty amazing that someone called palestinian here said that scientist cling to many theories because of Genesis.
he had it backwards. Scientist resisted some of these theories because it implied some creation. Einstein refused to believe the universe was expanding because it would have mean that there was a begining and for the universe to remain stable it had to be pin point perfect to the 18 decimal point. But the evidence forced them. With cosmology you can observe.
When is the last time you have seen a species evolving to another? So everybody has their own agenda and science is no different.
Gould wanted evolution but without race differences. He wanted ,I believe, to fight Christianity but wanted racial equality. Precisely what Jews see as their ethnic interest in America. Undermine Christianity but support multi-culturalism.
I don’t see why we should discuss some agendas but not others. Just like their is a Jewish group strategy there is also an atheist group strategy.
Bigmo,
Two comments are in order:
You are giving too much credits to Einstein. He mistakenly thought that the universe was static but later a term called “the cosmological constant” was inserted into the Field Equation only to make the universe expand! In other words (and if we assume that he invented GTR) he really did not know (or even care) whether the universe was static or expanding.
Second Comment: You would be surprised at the percentage of scientists who are actually strong believers in the biblical Genesis. What you may not know is that being a believer in such religious thought is like being a homosexual back in the 1950′s. You just don’t talk about it! BB is alive and well because people think everything should have a beginning and end and the BB supports that.
Palestinian,
The cosmological constant was inserted to achieve a stationary universe. He was quite opposed to the idea of a stationary universe. (BTW stationary universe was kind of an official theory in the Eastern Block, exactly because the BB smelled of Genesis.)
I wrote the wrong thing. He was opposed to the idea of a beginning (and end) to the universe, he wanted a stationary one.
But question was about intellectual honesty. Was Gould honest about Darwinian theory of evolution? Does the science support that? Is the consensus in science regarding Darwin’s theory based on scientific evidence or philosophical reasons like Naturalism etc.
As Phil Johnson once said:
“Its not coincidence that the world’s most prominent Darwinist, is also the world’s most prominent atheist.”
He was refering to Richard Dawkins.
Finally, is biological evolution theory an aspect of Jewish ethnic interest? How would someone like Gould see Darwinian theory of evolution?
Its my belief he supports that as long as it promotes atheism and the weakening of Christianity in America and even the West. He just wants it not to promote racial differences.
Not White and not Christian so you figure.
I doubt that evolution is taken half as serious in Israel as it is in America and the West.
I think you’re on the right track, but not quite. Atheists aren’t naturally a group. By default, they are just the people who sleep through church.
While I am a believer, I don’ think that evolution is in dispute. Anyone who has worked on a farm, or in a microbiology lab (or even taken a microbiology class) can see evolution in action. What is important to distinguish is that evolution doesn’t say ANYTHING about ANY normative values. In fact, for all of us in here, evolution doesn’t say that the white race should should have America, or Europe, or even survive at all. What KM has done is applied evolutionary theory to Jews as a collective, and it seems to be a pretty reasonable explanation of why they act the way they do (i.e., the benefit that they get out of it). I suspect that where he and I differ is that I believe in freewill.
In any event, while atheism is nothing new, people who wear t-shirts with spaghetti and meatballs on them or put “darwin fish” on their cars, are surely buying into a Jewish movement. This is no different than being a hippie, or a metal head, or a punk, or a goth, or an emo, or any other Jew-created, vapid identity that is so rapidly bought into by our impulsive and hedonistic youth. This nonsense exists SOLELY to displace traditional cultural affinity (Christianity being a major part of white cultural identity) and to create people who believe that they have no cultural interests, and who will thus be easily controlled by the masters of media.
Bigmo,
On the website of an evolutionary psychologist I think it natural that people will tend to accept evolution… :) Moreover, I think the opposite might be true. That is, the reason why creationism/ID is so much wider spread in the US than Europe might have something to do with Jewish influence. Or at least there is some connection. After all, both Christian Zionism and creationism/ID need a lot of emphasis on the Old Testament, and a kind of literal interpretation of it.
Moreover, I think Jews have a reason to want the Bible Belt not to believe in evolution or science in general. It’s better for them if the Bible Belt thinks the Old Testament is the most important source of truth, even more important than the New Testament – that way they can keep these Christians both undereducated and strong believers in Zionism.
Gabor,
I believe that there is a lot of truth in what you have written above, in response to Bigmo’s comment. I have often wondered why and how this group that believes in things that are patently ridiculous, cruel and anti-human (and that tries to force those beliefs on the rest of us) could have so much power and influence in this country, regardless of how big their numbers might be.
It is difficult to avoid concluding that the Christian-Zionist hordes have so much clout because they are fierce supporters of Israel and the atrocious things America does to back that “country,”and they, in no significant way, challenge our grotesque economic order.
Anyway, thanks for your comment.
From Wikipedia: Gould is one of the most frequently cited scientists in the field of evolutionary theory. His 1979 “spandrels” paper has been cited more than 3,800 times.[41] In Palaeobiology—the flagship journal of his own speciality—only Charles Darwin and G.G. Simpson have been cited more often.[42] Gould was also a considerably respected historian of science. Historian Ronald Numbers has been quoted as saying: “I can’t say much about Gould’s strengths as a scientist, but for a long time I’ve regarded him as the second most influential historian of science (next to Thomas Kuhn).”[43]
During his lifetime, Stephen Jay Gould’s publications were numerous. One review of his publications between 1965 and 2000 noted 479 peer-reviewed papers, 22 books, 300 essays, and 101 major book reviews by him.[77] A select number of his papers are listed online.
If I recall correctly, there are exactly 3 scholarly citations to Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy.
Obviously it’s the machinations and ethnic networking of the Jews that explain this discrepancy. And “anti-Semitism” that explains KM’s feelings about SJG.
What do expect from a neo-Bolshevist culture built around the Holocaust/Shoah (infinitely more important to the propaganda organs than the American and French Revolutions combined ) and whose major official deity is Martin Luther King? There are minor deities like Rosa Luxembourg-who is an object of state-sponsored veneration in Berlin.
What today’s “Christians” really worship:
http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/2011/06/unintended-consequences.html
(…)
” At the Spirit Water Blood blog, someone posted a link to a Christian blog wherein the commenters line up to throw stones at a clergyman who is called ‘racist.’ Now, I don’t know much about the clergyman in question, but the nature of the comments did not speak well of the people writing them. Their tone was hostile and aggressive, and oddly, when any politically incorrect ‘sins’ are at issue, nobody believes in ‘judge not’ anymore. Condemnation rains down very hard on violators of PC.”
“The one thing I wish I could get across is that those who are casting the stones at the ‘racist’ minister are by extension condemning their own grandparents and other ancestors, because the older generations most assuredly did not hold to today’s required opinions about racial issues and ‘diversity.’ Nor does that mean they were ‘haters’; they were simply realists. But today, it seems to be a worse sin to speak irreverently about certain groups of people than about God himself. I wonder if these politically correct Christians ever contemplate that irony.”
(…)
The number of citations, I suppose, is relevant in estimating an individual’s scientific gravitas. With a huge caveat – OTHER things being equal. I wonder how many times Solzhenitsyn’s “Two Hundred Years Together” has been cited in serious scientific discourse?
Hey,is “Solly” an Irish name?
Good observation, Solly. The answer is “very few”, I’m sure. Solzhenitsyn was side-lined by the Tribe the whole time he was in the U.S. and thus denied an audience with President Gerald Ford, I believe.
It’s a nickname for a fairly common Scandinavian first name. In my case it is not short for ‘Solomon’.
Thanks for the video on this page, I’m afraid this is what we will be subjected to in the future. How to add the suffering caused to us by the jew.
Gabor
Palestinian is largely correct in his assessment of modern day theoretical physics. Although, I am not so quick to dismiss Roger Penrose-complex number guy-as he is. All the interesting research in physics today is centered around understanding the stuff at the tip of lead pencil number two.
The fundamental problem facing Native Born White Americans is their race-replacement at the hands of high fertility post-1965 nonwhites. How are we going to talk to our fellow Native Born White Americans about this? Are we going to sidetrack a debate about this with a detailed discussion about Gould’s scientific fraud? I hope Kevin and Jared Taylor would not do this. I am for unrelenting focus on the race-replacement issue. We need to confront out fellow Native Born White Americans with this very real possibility. Much better to appeal to gut level racial tribalism(see what I wrote about this over at American Renaissance in the thread about neurophilospher Patricia Chrichland’s writings on genes and morality).
There is no question about it that E.O Wilson was a way superior scientst than Gould and Lewontin combined by many orders of magnitude.
Since I mentioned E.O. Wilson-very talented writer-go take a look at the discussion between his scientific colleague Robert Trivers and Noam Chomsky. A very interesting expostion of the scientific literture on the phenomena of deception across many different species and phylums. Kevin, as a social psychologist you really need-a divine edict actually- to take a look at this converstion between Trivers and Chomsky. The transcript is floating around the internet.
In pubic debate about post-1965 immigration policy(race-replacement policy)-it would would make more strategic sense to talk about the race war being waged against the Native Born White American Majority by the predatory Asian in America than the scientific fraud commited by the short pudgy jock sniffing urban rat from Harvard.
“The intellectual, media and political elites are completely corrupt”
That’s my kind of language. And even before I understood about Jewish influence, I always understood that that was true.
iboTTs
It’s not the skull size or the high IQ or one’s Jewish race which makes someone superior – but it’s the wealth and cunningness which gives a person or community to rule others. I bet none of the Israeli leaders or even Madoff have extra ordinary skull size or significant higher IQ – but there is no doubt they rule the western world with so-called ‘high IQ’.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/who-rules-the-west/
“The intellectual, media and political elites are completely corrupt”
Due to government involvement in the economy.
Dr. MacDonald affects how I watch the news, much to the horror, dismay, and fundraising success of Heidi Beirch and the SPLC.
I watched the Weiner saga and recalled what I’ve learned about Jews from MacD.
Weiner was aggressively deceptive. He claimed that he has important work to do in fighting against “oppressive inequities,” so he didn’t have time to tell any more lies. Then the facts piled against him, and he inevitably resigned. But he fought the whole way, as though as a Chosenite he should not be held to account. Even in his surrender speech, he was strong, defiant, and unremorseful. He treated it as just a step along the path to getting back into power as soon as possible.
He exhibited strong Jewish traits. I wish I could have watched the news with MacD.
Do Jews teach their children Darwinian evolution? Do Jews teach their children that they came out of Africa and have a common ancestor with the negroes, and are thus cousins and equals to the negroes? Are they any overtly anti negro racist writings out there by Jews? Are Jews as scared of negro violence as the rest of us?
Julie Love was a Jew. Didn’t stop her from getting killed by a negro.
gibbonite whitey – the great majority of European Jews have Khazar-Turk ancestry. The rest come from North African Berber from Muslim Spain. However, the eastern Jews can trace their roots to Hebrew tribes.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/did-muslims-hate-the-jews/
Gibbonite, remember the Curse of Ham in Genesis 9:20-27 by which Noah placed the curse of servanthood on Ham’s son, Canaan? And the Talmud says Ham and his descendants were smitten – darkened – in the skin. Pretty overtly anti-Negro, wouldn’t you say?
-The Babylonian Talmud
Later Rabbis, for example the author(s) of the Genesis Rabbah, interpreted this to mean Ham (the putative ancestor of Ethiopians) left the Ark black skinned.
Later this idea combined with the curse of servanthood spoken by Noah in Genesis to form the famous “Curse of Ham” justification for keeping sub-Sarahan Africans as slaves.
Exactly! I too often frame everything through the lens of Culture of Critique So much makes sense when looked at in that light.
The ever-arrogant Weiner not only bald-face lied by claiming he was hacked but then tried to cover up the first lies with more lies.
BUT, what I was really aware of were his defenders — Jewish defenders and their lapdogs in the media who would never allow a non-Jew to get away with what Weiner got away with.
Andrew Sullivan saw ‘little reason’ for Weiner to resign.
Yale professor David Gelernter …the congressman ‘didn’t commit adultery or anything near adultery.’ Rather, ‘[h]e committed tasteless stupidity, and there’s no law against that.’
Chris Matthews explained his fear that Democrats would never get the Speakership back because the people in the rural areas of this country who are Christian conservative culturally – you can say backward if you want – but they don’t like this kind of stuff at all.
Well, that justifies it!
Julian Zelizer of Princeton University said that it didn’t matter to the American people that a Congressman we pay with our tax dollars sees fit to spread his frank and beans across the fruited plains.
As for Gould:
Gould originally charged nineteenth-century scientists with ‘juggling’ and ‘finagling’ brain-size data in order to place Northern Europeans at the apex of civilization. Implausibly, he argued that Paul Broca, Francis Galton, and Samuel George Morton, all ‘finagled’ in the same direction and by similar magnitudes using different methods. Gould asks us to believe that Broca ‘leaned’ on his autopsy scales when measuring wet brains by just enough to produce the same differences that Morton caused by ‘over-packing’ empty skulls and that Galton caused with his ‘extra loose’ grip on calipers while measuring heads!
–excerpted from The Debunking of Scientific Fossils and Straw Persons:, Professor Arthur Jensen, 1997.
The much-lauded, much-debunked theories of Gould have reigned supreme in academia for decades while the research of Professors Jensen and Lynn have been suppressed and both scientists have been vilified, demonized and attacked physically.
http://goo.gl/6czSH
“A defender of Gould, philosopher Philip Kitcher, states: “Steve doesn’t come out as a rogue but as someone who makes mistakes. If Steve were around he would probably defend himself with great ingenuity.”
“Philosopher” eh?
Too bad Weiner was such a complete jerk, otherwise you could have counted on similar support from the ‘experts’.
Thanks for this article Kevin. Exposing these charlatans is a very important job.
To me its amazing that ‘Global Warming‘ is being walked through the same front door.
IQ doesn’t stop people from being sheep, in fact I have a feeling that IQ and fear are very closely connected, which is part of the reason why the Talmudic Zionists have been able to co-opt our civilization; that is by threatening those who run our civilization. People at the top in public are very exposed.
“science has become politics (…) The intellectual, media and political elites are completely corrupt, their position maintained by power and propaganda (…)”
There is the same problem in the field of economics as in physical anthropology. I don’t know what the economists are writing in university research papers, but I know there is a problem in the media. They lie or keep silent about the economic impact of mass immigration from the third-world. Even though it should be issue #1.
As a result, normal people have to rely on their own common sense instead of on the experts.
People don’t like to think that the economists speaking in the media are spineless and corrupt. Many White Nationalists still think that big business, more than ideology, is responsible for mass immigration. That explanation doesn’t make sense, but the economic experts won’t help us to find the truth.
What an article, but mostly what a CONCLUSION!
It is the first time, I believe, I read Dr MacDonald using the word Propaganda in this journal. I have just started getting interested in the subject. I am starting to read Daniel Lerner and Harold D. Laswell. I have read a few academic papers on the subject and on the work of WWII propaganda techniques. And it is in these readings that I finally understood how the Holocaust culture was created and invented as a post war denazifying strategy focused on the german people and carried under the hospices of Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Information Control Division of SHAEF, which is the military organism which succeeded to Psychological Warfare Division.
What is interesting is the work which Lerner commmited to later in his life in the field of Development Communication, which much of the foundations were applied in the colonial corporate invasion of south america and other parts of the world.
I also read a paper titled: Semantics and Ethics of Propaganda by Jay Black in the Journal of Mass Media Ehtics. I recommend. One interesting evolution which is observed by many academics in the field is the current morphing of propaganda to the technological culture. The general analysis is that a society where technology is at the source of the new communications, these communications cannot but adopt a propagandist nature.
Therefore change in any political system would mean first address the means of communications before addressing political change, unless both are synchronus in a violent transformation (through violence…for exemple).
As for the internet, while it may offer good source material, as in TOO, the internet itself may not, in terms of possible interaction, offer the much desired catalyst for change, since it can be viewed as socially structured propaganda, as opposed to politicaly based propaganda as witnessed in the main traditional media platforms.
I hope we can read some articles and reflexions on this subject in TOO.
Stephen Jay Gould was instantly recognizable to anyone with half a (normal-sized) brain as a complete self-deluding hack.
The idea that IQ does not correlate with brain size, albeit imperfectly, is comparable to “the earth is a planar disk” and “the moon is made of green cheese” in scientific credibility. That so many people are willing to swallow this consummately Judaic brand of bilge apparently reflects two facts: (1) Jews control academia and the publishing industry (of both of which Gould was a darling), and (2) human cranial capacity has diminished steadily since the Pleistocene, as confirmed by mounting anthropological evidence that would no doubt be summarily discarded by the likes of Gould.
Someone above commented on Gould’s huge brain. I submit that, as indicated by much photographic evidence, Gould’s apparent cranial size was almost all accounted for by hair. In fact, when it comes to big-brained geniuses, one would might as well look to another Gould entirely, namely Elliot.
(Well, Elliot Goldstein, actually.)
Finally, it’s noteworthy that the other major intellectual villain of Chapter 2 of Culture of Critique has also been exposed as producing false data. Franz Boas’s famous study purporting to show that skull shape changed as a result of immigration from Europe to America was a very effective propaganda weapon in the cause of the anti-racialists.
Dr. MacDonald,
To the best of my knowledge, Boas was never shown to have produced false data. Fisher, in 1939, questioned the reliability of some of the data (he found evidence that some of the change in cranial index in Southern Italians might be due to infidelity). There were also questions about whether variations between sample gatherers accounted for some of the changes. Using a different statistical model, Gravlee et al. (2003) showed that the differences for Hebrews and Southern Italians were, in fact, significant. Whether they are biologically meaningful is, of course, another matter (if sample sizes are large enough, differences between means or correlations will be significant, however small). Jantz and Logan (2010) showed that the differences for Hebrews were likely due to cradling practices that differed in the US, whereas for Southern Italians they were due to impaired growth resulting from low socio-economic status.
Boas was a charlatan because of the unjustified conclusions he derived from his data (e.g. Hebrews and Southern Italians were converging towards the American mean cranial index due to the American environment).
I enjoyed your article.
Boas was a charlatan because of the unjustified conclusions he derived from his data (e.g. Hebrews and Southern Italians were converging towards the American mean cranial index due to the American environment).
Dasein,
Are you sure Boas drew that conclusion from his data?
-Franz Boas
Also, what explanation did Sparks and Jantz propose for the change in Cephalic Index Boas found for Bohemians?
Reginald,
Are you sure Boas drew that conclusion from his data?
Hmm, I was going on memory (sometimes a bad idea :)) There is this from Jantz and Logan, though I’m not sure it’s what I was thinking of:
Boas was especially impressed by the changes in the opposite direction on the part of Hebrews and Sicilians, suggesting, on the first page of chapter 1 in the final report,
that ‘‘. . . in this country both approach a uniform type as
far as roundness of the head is concerned’’ (Boas, 1911:5).
Elsewhere Boas (1912) explicitly points out that his analysis
does not support development of an American ‘‘type’’
and the convergence seen in Sicilians and Hebrews is limited
to head shape. However, two things are quite clear
concerning how Boas viewed the causes and magnitude of
the changes he observed. His frequent reference to the
‘‘American environment,’’ even emphasizing the homogeneity
of the New York environment (Boas, 1911:82), meant
that changes were due to differences existing between the
environments left behind in Europe and the new environment
encountered in New York. His characterization of
the changes as ‘‘a far reaching change in the type’’ (Boas,
1911:2) or the ‘‘divergence of the descendents from the European type’’ (Boas, 1911:7) apparently meant that he considered the changes comparable with differences seen among European ethnic groups.
They did not discuss reasons for the change in Bohemian CI in their 2010 paper.
BTW, the 2010 paper was Jantz and Logan.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20737620
KMD ,I think you may be right we are headed into a new dark age .The propaganda machine that worked to beat the USSR has been turned on its own people , but the internet has created a huge credibility gap . The frauds and constructs are coming undone so that soon not even the politicians will believe the garbage they have to mime .
Should we fear that the system might be crashed (financially) and in the chaos a new dark age of totalitarianism be erected under control of the usual suspects .In this new dark age of total media control , no one will be allow to question what the state sanctions–a crime against the public order of humanity.
I do find it suspicious that our ‘leader’s’ so often quote the open internet as a certainty . I wonder if this is not a ruse of duplicity by Talmudic Zionist before crashing of the current economic system , and the erection of censorship filters on all servers connected to the internet , to stamp out sights like this and to control ebooks. By inciting race hatred and disorder (under the guise of diversity) to give them an excuse to clamp down hard .
Basically to re-errect the barriers that have been in place for 100 years to prevent exposer of the people behind the creation of the US Federal Reserve who are also those historically involved in book & media censorship and the creation of our artificial social identity (ASI) controlled by historical and scientific visas , erected by media and eduction institutions that promote false theories by the likes of S Gould , F Boas, Sig Freud , A Einstein , Stern , Greenspan , Summers , Fisher , Foxman etc etc etc . These who are initially promoted by other tribal members into positions of power/prestige to control of the social reality.
Also this creates a way of psych-shocking people who get to the top of various branches and fields of power and government ; dislocating them from the people they rule , by informing them they everything they think about the world and thus their Identity is false.It unmoors them from being able to influence events because the power structure underneath them is in a different reality.
An example of the future is the introduction of 24 hour State News services (ABC 24) being placed on large TV screen in Libraries throughout Australia .So no matter what the ‘truth’ is its only the perception of reality thats important. We see this with 9/11 ,;the blindingly obvious can be ignored because the ASI has excluded this truth .What did Orwell call it , Group Think. As long as there is no cost to holding a false theory by the people in governing power structure and those at the top put a cost on examining the theory (eg .holocaust ,9/ll , Climate Change ) then any falsehood can be perpetrated with the right amount of indoctrination . Not a NWO but a Brave New World.
You get my meaning ? Somethings not right. Blue pill or Red Pill ? Those who think this might be a flight of fantasy I suggest you get hold of ‘None dare call it conspiracy’ or ‘The controversy of Zion–D Reed ; you will see that the human historical identity is not as it seems.
@ Gray Prince [on Einstein]
This may interest you: http://www.enformy.com/dma-stf.htm
It’s an article by late linguist Moonhawk Alford. It’s called Stealing the Fire and is about Physics using linguistic ideas.
Here’s a cut:
“D. Second Incident: Einstein’s Relativity
Staking the Claim on Relativity
Who was on first? The Relativity of Language, under various names, has been around for nearly four hundred years in Germanic linguistic thought, as I laid out in a 1980 Phoenix article called “A Hidden Cycle in the History of Linguistics,” involving the likes of Locke, Leibnitz, Kant and von Humboldt, who in the early 1800s synthesized much that had gone on before. He said, “Each language sets certain limits to the spirit of those who speak it; it assumes a certain direction and, by doing so, excludes many others.”
Relativity had been around for nearly three hundred years before Heisenberg and Einstein heard of it in their Humboldtian educational training in Germany, and even in physics it is still about language, though mathematical languages like Euclidean geometry instead of full-blown human languages — a special case of language, you might say. In light of the crucial role given to language by Heisenberg above, a fundamental principle had to be established in order for work in physics to proceed. The language you use gives a limit to what you can describe.
Where’d Einstein get it from?
Recent chatter on the Linguist-List about Saussure revealed a crucial fact, a mystery figure heretofore overlooked: Jost Winteler. Jost was a Germanic trained linguist at the University of Geneva, Switzerland, while Einstein was a graduate student there; they even shared a rooming house together; and to top it off, Einstein in his later years referred many times to this Germanic linguist, crediting him as the source of many of Al’s most important ideas. Compare to the previous Humboldt statement one made by Albert Einstein in a 1941 radio speech, showing that he understood the anciently made connection between language and thinking: “What is it that brings about such an ultimate connection between language and thinking? …the mental development of the individual and his way of forming concepts depend to a high degree upon language. This makes us realize to what extent the same language means the same mentality.”
you are right about his reputation not suffering. If you go to the American Musuem of natural history, his books are prominently displayed in their own section in the book store a long with Mead- a considerable part of the ‘museum’ is now devoted to merchandising. There are no books by Madison Grant.
The hall of evolution flatly states “although our skin color may be different’ – fill in the rest…
The truth does not matter anymore – they have created a dumbed down, distracted world where the Jewish ‘reality of words’ trumps reality. And you are a nazi/racist if you cite hate facts.
An excellent article and link, Dr. MacDonald. One troubling quote from the TIMES article, though:
“Dr. Gould, who died in 2002, based his attack on the premise that Morton believed that brain size was correlated with intelligence. But there is no evidence that Morton believed this or was trying to prove it, said Jason E. Lewis, the leader of the Pennsylvania team. Rather, Morton was measuring his skulls to study human variation….”
I applaud the folks at the University of Penn. for exposing Gould for what he really was, but what exactly is it that Lewis and team are trying to prove? That Morton’s science was valid? Or that his work wasn’t motivated by racism? What if he HAD been openly racist….would they have come to his scientific defense then? I don’t know why I doubt it, but I do. Science should be science, and a scientist’s predisposition towards racial realism shouldn’t have any bearing on the validity of his or her results (Darwin.)
I can’t help but wonder if their exhoneration of Morton isn’t more of an exhoneration of their University since the Morton skulls reside there. Still, it’s so encouraging to read something like this in a mainstream (left leaning) publication. Exposing leftist intellectual fraud in the scientific community is long overdue. And nobody is more deserving of this exposure than Gould.
exoneration:)
“May I end up next to Judas Iscariot, Brutus, and Cassius in the devil’s mouth at the center of hell if I ever fail to present my most honest assessment and best judgment of the evidence for empirical truth”
this sort brazen lying never ceases to amaze me, but… it’s an interesting choice of ‘villians’ isn’t it? One is a hero to talmudic jews who take credit for executing a blasphomer, the other two were revered in revolutionary France/universalists and marxists as upholders of the ‘republic of Rome -
so is Gould cleverly saying, if I am lying it is for the greater good , I am murdering an evil truth as Brutus murdered an evil emperor
Reginald,
Here is a quote from Senate Document 208, where Boas presented his results on changes in CI:
We are therefore compelled to draw the conclusion
that if these traits [CI] change under the influence of environment, presumably none of the characteristics of the human types that come to America remain stable. The adaptability of the immigrant seems to be very much greater than we had a right to suppose before our investigations were instituted
The second statement might well be true, given thinking at that time. But the first is not justified.
Kevin, Send me your address & I’ll send you a book on Hell which will make your hair stand on end if only one tenth of what it says is true..
Regards, tom
He have studied Subterranian Global Warming instead ;-)
The fact that Stephen Jay Gould is being outed for the charlatan he was is a positive sign. Gould attacked IQ researchers in general and Charles Murray (who has written excellent books) in particular. It was an injustice that he was able to do so much damage in his lifetime but at least the record is slowly being corrected.
As more cases like this are exposed, we begin to see a pattern among at least some Jewish intellectuals and scientists – from Freud to Boas to Gould and so many others – a significant number of Jews in academia are not actually capable of doing real science. They seem capable of “gaming the system” to get a PhD, but the actual work they produced, while having the form of science, has not of it’s real substance.
I can’t imagine someone like Gould ever doing proper science – he seems too wrapped up in his internal world of hatred and ideology. Not all Jews suffer from this condition, to be certain, but there does seem to be a sizable population of Jews that are capable of passing tests, getting degrees, producing papers that look intellectual and scientific, but these individuals are actually quite incapable of true science.
I can recommend two books on the theoretical crisis in physics.
The Logical Leap:Induction In Physics by David Harriman, New American Library, 2010. Leonard Peikoff has a good introduction. Peikoff is excellent when he sticks to philosophy and philosophy of science and NOT when he rants on foreign policy, Israel and his love of war.
Harriman is a physicist and young Objectivist.
I became very interested in physics and mathematics because of my lifelong interest in philosophy. All the sciences started as philosophical questions, see The Basic Works Of Aristotle
in this regard.
The other book I recommend much more critically.
Questioning Einstein:Is Relativity Necessary ? by Tom Bethel,
a longtime conservative writer. He had an earlier Politically Incorrect Guide To Science that had some good points on nuclear weapons and global warming but seemed to favor Creation over Evolution ! I’m not saying that Darwin is a sacred cow but the Unholy Bible is not a guide to anything. The Christ Cult is the Jews’ revenge on the Gentiles as Nietzsche for once correctly put it. Even if evolution was wrong it wouldn’t prove creation is right.
These nuts have now taken over the GOP lock, stock and barrel.
I have read parts of Gould’s incredibly massive The Structure Of Evolutionary Theory and he seems to be an incredibly learned man, almost approaching Isaac Asimov.
Gould has probably forgotten more about science than all of us here ever knew. Even if he was wrong on some things be careful about criticizing your intellectual superiors.
Some you Gentile Gents have deep seated inferiority complexes. You need to work on that and stop behaving like
Goyish bores.
You know Peikoff came out against illegal immigration from Mexico, given that we have a welfare state. I suspect he knows what is up when it comes to race.
Yet more evidence (is more needed?) that Gould must have pretty close to a 100%
fraud:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/kv/beware_of_stephen_j_gould/
Paul Krugman mocks Gould:
http://www.pkarchive.org/theory/evolute.html
If Krugman knocks him, Gould must be better than I thought.
Krugman is a one man disinformation system on economics.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black !
Could be just a case of a charlatan amazed at the chutzpah of an even greater
charlatan.
Yes, once in a while Peikoff recognizes objective reality but he doesn’t make it a habit.
Yes. What bothers me about most of the current Objectivist crowd is that most of them seem to have bought into “modern” ideas of race and ethnicity (i.e. they don’t exist and they don’t matter).
I pick up on a certain naivete’ with regard to race among most of them? Is that your take too?
I notice that Harry Binswanger is totally for open borders without restrictions, which is suicidal. By the way, this doesn’t have anything to do with Objectvism as a philosophy, so don’t feel like you have to defend it (I’m sympathetic to it).
I just want to know if most people calling themselves Objectivists are as blind on race as they appear to be.
Jason, I actually agree with most of what you write about on Objectivists blindness on race.
In early spring 1968 living in the DC area I wrote a letter to dissent from Barbara Branden’s favorable review of the Sidney Poitier movie, Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner ?, by stating the obvious facts of Negro crime and general sociopatholgy.
They immediately cancelled my subscription to The Objectivist to which I had been subscribing for five years.
Even though Mary Ann Sures, close to Rand, told me that I was the biggest purchaser of books from the Nathaniel Branden Institute they cancelled me out.
Branden’s sister wrote me that neither Rand or the Brandens
wished to write for someone like me.
I was very flattered and wrote back that they fell 75 cents short on my refund.
A few months later no more NBI after the big explosion.
I had been to Ayn’s Murray Hill apartment and that fall I wrote a very nasty letter to Ayn after she endorsed Nixon and trashed Wallace, whom I had long supported in Maryland and met him in 1964 and in my first vote at 23 I voted for him for Prez in 1968.
Rand was much nastier on Wallace than she was on Humphrey.
She of course never responded.
I heard later on that she was initially opposed to getting involved in the racism which she correctly thought was an invention of the Left but that Nathan The Terrible talked her into it. I remenber Nathan saying at an NBI lecture in DC in fall 1967 that he had expelled Objectivist students for racism.
So I was not surprised at their reaction to my letter to Barbara.
Binswanger is an absolute idiot. Ask him if he welcomes unlimited Palestinian immigration into Palestine !
Anything thanks very much for your thoughtful comments.
Gould was definitely a Marxist but he was not a Zionist. The idea of that race is a construct goes 100% counter to Zionism. I know that Zionist and Assimilationist strategies are a bit blurred today but it is helpful to understand the differences – they are polar opposites. Zionism poses no threat to me.