The Silencing of Science: How Block-Lives Matter

When I move into a new home, two things go up immediately on the wall. The first is my gold-framed portrait of Richard Wagner. The second is my map of the Universe. One way or another, everything’s there, from the left thumb of the Pope to the whole of the Andromeda Galaxy, from the follicle mites in Obama’s eyebrows to the hydrocarbon ice on Titan.

A map of the universe: the periodic table

But you wouldn’t guess to look at it, because the map is surprisingly small and suspiciously regular. In fact, most of it consists of a set of coloured blocks filled with cryptic symbols and numbers: “Xe” and “2,8,18,18,8,” for example. But that will be a giveaway for anyone who knows a bit of chemistry. My map of the Universe is the periodic table, that astonishing encapsulation of the hundred-odd elements that comprise everything in the material universe.

A cookbook for matter

The periodic table is astonishing partly because it manages to capture so much with so little. If I look around me at the moment, I see a huge variety of things, from sea-shells to books, from memory-sticks to egret feathers. But everything I see is made from just three things: protons, neutrons and electrons. At the conscious level, there’s endless variety. At the sub-atomic level, there’s endless repetition. If the protons in the egret feathers were swapped with the same number of protons in the books, it would be impossible to detect any change. Ditto for the neutrons and electrons, and ditto for any other pair of material objects, no matter how superficially different. The periodic table is a kind of cookbook for matter, listing the recipes used by Mother Nature to rustle up a lustrous weighty solid like silver or a poisonous swirling gas like chlorine from exactly the same ingredients.

But it wasn’t easy to uncover the unifying simplicity of the periodic table. It’s not just a cookbook: it’s a monument to human intelligence, ingenuity, obsession and effort. Or rather, it’s a monument to those things as displayed by White males. Take a survey of the periodic table like Jack Challoner’s excellent The Elements: The Ultimate Guide to the Building Blocks of Our Universe (2012). Reading about the blocks, you won’t come across any Blacks. Instead, the names of stale pale males occur on almost every page, beginning with the Frenchman Antoine Lavoisier (1743–94), the Englishman John Dalton (1766–1844) and the Russian Dmitri Mendeleev (1834–1907).

First found in sunlight

The first two helped lay the foundations of modern chemistry and the last devised its recipe-book: the periodic table. Then stale pale males like the New Zealander Ernest Rutherford (1871–1937) helped explain the patterns of the periodic table. Hundreds of other stale pale males, and a few stale pale females like the great Pole Marie Curie (1867–1934), helped to fill in the table by extracting and refining elements from substances as diverse as slag, seaweed and fresh air. And by detecting one in sunlight before it was found on earth. If the elements are the building-blocks of the universe, then you could say that the scientists who explained and uncovered them were leading block-lives. And block-lives matter in a way that mainstream politics and culture presently refuse to admit.

For example, here’s a curious thing: four of those elements – the obscure but sometimes important ytterbium, yttrium, terbium and erbium – were named from the small Swedish village of Ytterby. It wasn’t just that they were found in a quarry there: Swedes and other Scandinavians worked to extract them from reluctant minerals. And vanadium is named from a Norse goddess and holmium from the Swedish capital Stockholm. Scandinavian men have contributed more to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) than all Blacks who ever lived, despite being vastly outnumbered by Blacks. In other words, even as chemistry was unifying heaven and earth, it was disuniting humanity, because scientific talent and success haven’t been evenly distributed among the diverse groups of humanity.

White European males were necessary for the creation of modern science and might have been entirely sufficient. I suggested in “The Pale Male Paradox” that one factor in their success was their lack of self-obsession: they’re interested in the external universe, not in themselves and their own interests. But, as I also suggested in the article, that renders them vulnerable to parasitic ideologies run by groups, like Jews and Blacks, who are obsessed with themselves and their own interests. The pale male paradox is that pale males have achieved most and are now vilified worst, being held responsible for horrendous contemporary evils like racism, sexism and Islamophobia.

The epicycles of leftism

While chemistry and physics have revealed a true unity beneath the myriad substances and phenomena of the material universe, leftism insists on a false unity beneath the myriad differences of humanity. “We are all the same under the skin,” leftism insists. Therefore we should achieve the same. But we don’t. And so, like Ptolemaic astronomy compensating for its faulty premise of geocentrism with epicycles, leftism compensates for its faulty premise of human equality with nonsense like “systemic racism” and “White supremacy.” After all, what else could explain how the innate genius of Blacks has failed to flower in White societies for so long?

“Nothing else!” say the liars of leftism. “Genetics!” say heretical truth-tellers like the Nobel laureate James Watson (born 1928), a stale pale male who helped reveal how chemistry encodes life. Watson and his late colleague Francis Crick (1916–2004) were the co-discoverers of the double-helix structure of DNA. If Mendeleev revealed the building-blocks of matter in the periodic table, then Crick and Watson revealed the building-blocks of life. So they also led block-lives and their block-lives matter in a way that, once again, contradicts the lies of mainstream politics and culture. Their discovery unified biology rather as the periodic table unified chemistry. The amazing variety of life on Earth, from daisies to dachshunds, from bacteria to blue whales, arises from the same genetic code. And just as you could swap protons between material objects and detect no difference, you could swap genes between living organisms and detect no difference.

Genetics unifies biology, but also helps us see the huge importance of small differences. All mammals share most of their genomes, but they don’t share most of their behaviour, diet and external anatomy. There are vast differences between a tiny insect-eating bat flying hundreds of metres up and a giant squid-eating whale swimming hundreds of metres down. But those vast physiological and behavioural differences arise from small genetic differences. It didn’t take long, evolutionarily speaking, to convert the four-legged land-living common ancestor of bats and whales into its winged and finned modern descendants.

Tiny but titanic

And into all its other modern descendants, from armadillos to zebras. However, one of those descendants, Homo sapiens, is distinguished by perhaps the most important genetic difference of all time. The difference is tiny, compared to everything that unites mammals, but titanic in its significance. What is it? It’s what enables you to read these little symbols on a computer screen. Human beings evolved language and language depends on certain sequences of DNA. We don’t know exactly what they are yet and how they work, but without them humans wouldn’t be human. Without language, we couldn’t organize our societies, inform ourselves so effectively about resources and threats, and cooperate on communally beneficial projects. But that’s precisely why leftism insists on censorship and wants to silence the voices of heretics like James Watson. Leftism wants to prevent Whites from informing themselves about racial difference and the vast threats of mass immigration and racially mixed societies. It wants to prevent Whites cooperating on the communally beneficial projects of self-defence and self-assertion.

And so, when Watson suggested that there were genetic reasons for the intellectual under-performance of Blacks, he was punished with loss of income and prestige. Voltaire said that the English execute an admiral from time to time pour encourager les autres – “to encourage the others.” Leftists burn heretics (metaphorically speaking, at the moment) for the same reason: by punishing a scientific giant like Watson, they were frightening thousands of lesser scientists and writers who might share Watson’s ideas about genetic difference or at least believe that those ideas should be freely debated. In suppressing the quintessential human faculty of speech, leftist censorship is a way of preserving and extending the power of an ideology that cannot survive open discussion and debate.

Archimedes’ midgets

Censorship is also a way of exercising power, something that can be highly enjoyable for the envious and inferior. None of Watson’s critics could match his scientific achievements, but they could assert power over him and humiliate him in public. Even the highly woke British biologist Adam Rutherford, a half-Guyanese Indian and propagandist for wokeism on race, admitted that Watson had been “shooed from public life by the people who walk in his scientific shadow.” But Rutherford doesn’t disapprove of that: he thinks that Watson is a racist and deserves everything he gets. Rutherford also thinks that the great Victorian scientist Francis Galton (1822–1911) was a racist and that it’s right to remove Galton’s name from institutions built on his very clever and creative ideas.

This spectacle of giants like Watson and Galton being toppled by pygmies like Rutherford deserves a name. I’d call it Archimedes Syndrome—Rutherford and company are Archimedes’ midgets. The Greek mathematician and scientist Archimedes (287–212 BC) was one of history’s supreme geniuses, but according to Plutarch he was cut down in his prime by a nobody. Archimedes had defended the city of Syracuse against a Roman siege, but when the city fell, he was engrossed in a mathematical problem. And he ignored an order from a Roman soldier. So the Roman soldier killed him. The story may be apocryphal, but it illustrates a perennial theme of life: how the superior can fall victim to the inferior, the high to the low. The more we’ve learned about biology, the more we’ve seen Archimedes Syndrome in action. As I’ve described in articles like “Verbal Venom” and “How to Cure a White Zombie,” very simple parasites can subvert the brains of much more complex hosts.

A veneer of philanthropy

There’s an obvious parallel to what’s happening in Western politics. For example, stupid people like the Black anti-racist Ibram X. Kendi are subverting culture and politics in the hugely sophisticated White nation of America. White Americans have achieved things utterly beyond the power of any Black collective, like landing men on the moon and probing the universe across vast stretches of space and time. The paradox is that White America achieved so much because it was a high-trust society, but those achievements made America a juicy target for those who could exploit the trust, concealing hostility and self-service beneath a veneer of universalism and philanthropy. By themselves Blacks lacked the intellectual sophistication to fashion what Kevin MacDonald has named the “culture of critique,” wherein White societies are indicted for their sins against racial equality and justice.

Instead, the culture of critique was fashioned and refined by much more intelligent Ashkenazi Jews like Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin, who prepared the way for Black Lives Matter by insisting that Block-Lives Don’t Matter—namely, that genes, the building blocks of biology, don’t exercise decisive influence on the success of Whites and failure of Blacks in advanced industrial societies. Gould’s message was that “human equality is a contingent fact of history,” and that message has been bawled into the ears of American Whites for decades, thanks to Jewish dominance in the media. As Ron Unz has put it:

Throughout the second half of the twentieth century, [Americans’] understanding of the world was overwhelmingly shaped by our centralized electronic media, which was almost entirely in Jewish hands during this period, with all three television networks and eight of nine major Hollywood studios being owned or controlled by such individuals, along with most of our leading newspapers and publishing houses. (American Pravda: Mossad Assassinations, The Unz Review, January 27, 2020)

Language is essential for any human society to exist, but when the media of a society are controlled by a hostile alien minority, language becomes a curse rather than a blessing. It no longer fulfils its function of conveying accurate information that enables effective collective responses and endeavours. Instead, it propagates falsehood and facilitates attacks on the society by its enemies. Blacks, with their low average IQ, could not be so successfully undermining and exploiting White Americans without control of the media by Jews, with their high average IQs.

Salmon’s stern sentences

But Blacks are also undermining and exploiting the White British in a society that had no good historic reason to contain large numbers of Blacks. So why are they here? According to James Thompson at the Unz Review, “The United Kingdom seems to have begun its largest and most transformative policy in a typical fit of absent-mindedness.” That is a disappointingly ignorant and irrational claim by Thompson. In fact, the policy wasn’t “absent-minded” at all, because the same group behind the nation-wrecking 1965 Immigration Law in America wanted mass immigration by non-Whites into Britain too. In other words, Jews opened the borders in Britain just as they did in America, France, Australia, and Sweden.

Exemplary sentences for uppity goyim: Jewish Judge Cyril Salmon (1903–1991)

And even if mass immigration into Britain had indeed begun “in a typical fit of absent-mindedness,” that raises an obvious question: Why wasn’t the British government shaken out of its “absent-mindedness” by the very loud opposition of ordinary British Whites? Blacks who emigrated to Britain from the Caribbean brought a vibrant culture of murder, rape and public nuisance with them. In 1958, ordinary Whites fought back against the Black incursion in the so-called “Notting Hill race riot,” which saw vicious fighting between Whites and Blacks in a working-class district of London. But the British authorities were not on the side of ordinary Whites. As the Guardian approvingly reported: “At the Old Bailey [Britain’s most famous court] Judge [Cyril] Salmon later handed down exemplary sentences of four years each on nine White youths who had gone ‘nigger hunting’.” Judge Salmon certainly wasn’t absent-minded and certainly wasn’t sympathetic to Whites resisting the forced imposition of criminal Blacks on their homeland.

“Entering politics to combat anti-semitism”

But Judge Salmon’s attitudes and “exemplary sentences” are entirely unsurprising, because he was of course Jewish. It’s very interesting that he was appointed to oversee what was clearly designed as a show-trial, just as it’s very interesting that, decades later, the ethnocentric Jew Barbara Roche was appointed as immigration minister under the treacherous Tony Blair. Roche oversaw a massive increase in already very high levels of non-White immigration. She wasn’t “absent-minded” either. In 2001, a Guardian interview said that her “parents were part Spanish, Portuguese, Polish and Russian, and she had entered politics—she still emphasises this today—to combat anti-semitism and xenophobia in general.” In another interview with the Guardian, she said that “I love the diversity of London. … I just feel comfortable.”

Roche feels “comfortable” in an atomized society where she doesn’t stand out as alien and doesn’t fear that White gentiles will turn on Jews, as they have so often in the past. And Roche was also clearly motivated by a desire for revenge on the White British. In one speech in 2000 she gloated about her ability to direct immigration policy, proclaiming herself as the proud descendant of Jews who had been insulted by a xenophobic White Briton. Note how she begins this section of her speech with some lying propaganda borrowed from Jews in America:

Britain has always been a nation of migrants. There were in practice almost no immigration controls prior to the beginning of the 20th century. The 1905 Aliens Act was a direct response to Jewish immigration and it is difficult to deny that it was motivated in part by anti-Semitism. Major [William] Evans-Gordon, an MP, speaking in support of the legislation, said: “It is the poorest and least fit of these people who move, and it is the residuum of these again who come to and are let in this country. … Hon[ourable] Members [of Parliament] opposite do not live in daily terror of being turned into the street to make room for an unsavoury Pole [i.e. Polish Jew].”

I expect Major Evans Gordon would be spinning in his grave if he knew that their descendant would not only be Immigration Minister but would be standing before you today making this speech. (UK migration in a global economy, Draft Speech by Barbara Roche MP, Immigration Minister, London, 11th September 2000)

Britain has not “always been a nation of migrants.” There were “almost no immigration controls” at that time because there was no need for them. Britain was a demographically stable White Christian nation without a societal death-wish. But even at “the beginning of the 20th century” it was apparent to some clear-sighted observers that Jews had achieved disproportionate power and influence here. The satirist Hector Hugh Munro (1876–1916), who wrote under the pen-name of Saki, created a hero in 1904 who claimed that the British Empire was “rapidly becoming a suburb of Jerusalem.” Like working-class Whites in Notting Hill in the 1950s, Saki thought that outsiders were harming Britain, but his opposition was literary rather than physical. He didn’t go to prison for mocking Jews in stories like “The Unrest-Cure” and “A Touch of Realism.”

Calculus versus chaos

Nor did Saki lose his successful literary career. But writers do lose their careers today for transgressing against minority worship and sometimes, like the great historian David Irving (born 1938), also go to prison. In a Land of Lies, free speech and free enquiry are crimes. But the double-think and deceit of Black Lives Matter and the vast official apparatus of “anti-racism” don’t and can’t alter reality. In response to that deceit, we have to insist that Block-Lives Matter—that genes, the building-blocks of life, explain why Blacks underachieve at civilization and overachieve at crime. The genetic similarities between bats and whales are far greater than the differences. But you can’t find a shared environment where bats and whales both flourish.

The same applies to Blacks and Whites. The genetic similarities between us are far greater than the differences. But the differences explain why Whites create calculus and Blacks create chaos. You can’t build a shared society where Blacks and Whites both flourish. More and more Whites can see this simple truth, so the hostile elite will have to put more and more effort into repressing dissent. And that repression will further demonstrate the evil of racially mixed societies, thereby waking more Whites. The vicious circle for the hostile elite will prove a virtuous circle for Whites.

24 replies
  1. James Clayton
    James Clayton says:

    Reminded me to share a comforting read on wannabe Jews. Pass it on:
    Interview with ex-Adventist Ronald L. Numbers
    Ronald L. Numbers is Hilldale Professor of the History of Science and Medicine and of Religious Studies, and a member of the department of medical history and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he has taught for over three and a half decades. He has written or edited more than two dozen books, including, most recently, Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion (Harvard, 2009), Biology and Ideology from Descartes to Dawkins (Chicago, 2010), edited with Denis Alexander, and the recently published Science and Religion around the World (Oxford, 2011), edited with John Hedley Brooke. He is a past president of the History of Science Society, the American Society of Church History, and the International Union of History and Philosophy of Science…

      • James Clayton
        James Clayton says:

        The link worked recently; I suspect exactly the kind of damage control that is the point of the instant article on suppressing search results. That is why I archive important articles the first time I see them including most of those from TOO.

        From the introduction to the apparently suppressed interview with Ronald Numbers:
        Numbers is also the author of Prophetess of Health: Ellen G. White and the Origins of Seventh-day Adventist Health Reform, a book that arguably did for Seventh-day Adventism what No Man Knows My History did for Mormonism. (In other words, it’s not at the top of most Adventist reading lists.)
        Revealing Adventism co-founder Ellen White’s talent for plagiarizing the health reformers of her time and casting doubt upon the divine nature of her prophetic visions got Numbers fired from Loma Linda University, the Adventist stronghold in California, but it also got him this interview with me. So perhaps it was for the best.
        Vegetarian Adventist dietitians have had a big influence on the American Dietetic Association’s position paper on a vegetarian diet since 1988, when the ADA started endorsing vegetarianism. Not all Adventists are vegetarian — some estimates have it around 50 percent, and Numbers has seen estimates as low as 10 percent — but most Adventists believe that God told Ellen White in a vision that vegetarianism, and maybe even near-veganism, is the proper diet for mankind. Could this be in the back of Adventist researchers’ minds as they conduct studies proving the superiority of a vegetarian diet? You can probably guess what I think, but I’m an outsider on this issue and I wanted to hear what a former Adventist scholar had to say about it.
        Were you raised as a vegetarian Adventist?
        Yes. I’m a fourth-generation Adventist. My maternal grandfather was president of the international church. And all my male relatives are ministers, or were ministers, both grandfathers, father, uncles on both sides of my family, brother-in-law, my nephew. I went from first grade through college in Adventist schools. So, I was thoroughly integrated into the Adventist church…

        And, finally, there are many racial Jews similarly calling such shots; see for example Adventist Today magazine editor Lawrence Siebold (2017) and (2017) · On the captivating headline across the front page of the Los Angeles Times read “Seventh-day Adventist Controversy Plagiarism Found in Prophet Books.” …

  2. John
    John says:

    Illegal aliens have been flooding into our homeland at the rate of well over 100,000 per month. Now, let’s say it was 100,000 per month, hence, 100,000 divided by 30 days = 3,333 per day, divided by 24 hours = 138 every hour. INVASION needs to b our #1 focus fore we CANNOT b allowed to not b a super majority in a homeland our ancestors settled, created, built, worked, bled, died for & bequeathed it to us descendants.
    No one in their right mind gives away their homeland.

  3. Jacobite
    Jacobite says:

    James Watson is a current example to others who might think or say the wrong thing, but I’ve long believed that the red-line was originally laid down after Charles Lindbergh’s 9/11/41 Iowa speech for “America First”. By ;pointing out that the interests influencing FDR to violate the Neutrality Act and his 1940 campaign promise that American boys would not be fighting in Europe were Jews and British Intelligence. To read Anne Morrow Lindbergh’s account, in her memoir, of the event and it’s personal fallout, it’s hard to believe that she’s describing the life of “The Lone Eagle” and “The Most Admired Man in America”. You want an object-lesson — that was such a lesson on steroids. I doubt any US public figure, who wanted to remain one, was ever again going to speak the truth about Jewish influence in the US — even if he thought that influence might be neutral or positive. You can read book after book on Soviet espionage and influence operations in the US, with one obviously Jewish name after another, and never see that fact mentioned once. Control of Hollywood? Control of Wall Street? Social media? Academia? Communications conglomerates? Left-wing political contributions? These things are well-known by most informed people, but are never mentioned in any public forum. A bookend to the Lindbergh story would be the fact that Alexander Solzhenitsyn could have written his last book “Two Hundred Years Together” and 20 years later no English translation has yet been published. Nobody in the literary world can ignore that demonstration of total power. But nobody in that world is ever going to mention it in public.

  4. Some White Guy
    Some White Guy says:

    I must disagree with the author’s use of the term “leftism” in his description. What he is describing is AntiWhiteism. Those who are opposed to what is happening to Westernkind may describe themselves as right, center or left, just as those who are at the cause may describe themselves as right, center or left.

    Ditto, people are not “woke”, they are AntiWhite. There is nothing awake about them. There is no such thing as “wokeism”, because again, it is AntiWhiteism at work. Why do you characterize things in these useless terms of the AntiWhites?

    I would change the final imperative to read: “We can’t build a shared society where AntiWhites and those serving White Wellbeing both flourish.” It’s the AntiWhites and AntiWhiteism that have to go. There are unfortunately plenty of Whites who are AntiWhite, and thankfully there are many nonwhites who wish to serve and promote White Wellbeing.

  5. ariadna
    ariadna says:

    A superb essay, as always. Thank you, Mr Langdon.
    Barbara Roche and her tribe mates are not just “comfortable” in a jew-friendly environment, i.e., an atomized society where they do not stand out. If they were comfortable they would … relax. They virulently and savagely hate White Western nations with a maniacal obsession they do not turn on other groups. They have contempt for all “Goyim,” but they reserve hate for White Christians. I do not share the opinion of those who think the root of this hate is religious, or at least not predominantly. I think it is burning envy for the culture and civilization they did not and could not aspire to create. Their unquenched thirst for revenge, which they justify with the eternal victim mythology, is actually their desired revenge for the wound that never heals: that profound, if unexamined, sense of inferiority that will persist as long as White Western nations exist as a paragon of human achievement.

  6. HK Wills
    HK Wills says:

    “Whites create calculus”

    Three times independently no less ! Newton, Leibnitz, Archimedes ( the mathematicians now credit him too since he was 75% of the way there when he died).

  7. Robert Henderson
    Robert Henderson says:

    11. Speciation by culture

    If the argument for Man’s special place in Nature is moved to the ground of culture, Man’s position as an organism with unique qualities which differentiate him from all other organisms undoubtedly becomes stronger, but at the cost of threatening his position as a species as traditionally defined.

    Objections have been raised to the conclusions of Everett and Gordon, primarily in terms of their interpretation of their observations, but assuming there is a fair degree of objective truth about their data, it is reasonable to ask are the Pirana teetering on the edge of what counts as fully human if behaviour is the defining criterion? It is the wrong question to ask. The right question to ask is can homo sapiens be meaningfully designated a species as a species is defined for every other organism?

    Because Man is differentiated profoundly by culture, the widely accepted definition of a species – a population of freely interbreeding organisms sharing a common gene pool – is unsatisfactory, for clearly Man is more than an animal responding to simple biological triggers. When behavioural differences are perceived as belonging to a particular group by that group as differentiating members of the group from other men, they perform the same role as organic differences for they divide Man into cultural species.

    It is worth adding that the traditional concept of a species is far from secure. It is a man-made classification which is often found wanting. For example, the North American Ruddy Duck and the European White-Headed Duck are classified as separate species. The introduction of the Ruddy Duck to Europe has resulted in widespread interbreeding between the supposedly separate species to the extent that conservationists now fear for the survival of the White Headed Duck. It is also true that a growing amount of traditional taxonomic classification is being overturned by DNA analysis.

    Another interesting trait is that members of a species will have different breeding propensities across its distribution, that is, members of the supposedly single species will breed differentially with different parts of the total species population. For example, take an animal which is common to Europe and bring individuals from different geographical parts of the continent together and it may be that those found in the East of the distribution will be less likely or refuse altogether to mate with the those in the West. These barriers to breeding are clearly not purely due to major differences in physical biology. Probably there is an element of behavioural difference which reduces the propensity to breed.

    Animals use various triggers to breed: aural, chemical, condition of feathers and so on. These are seemingly automatic processes whereby one individual responds to another without conscious thought. Even behavioural triggers such as mating rituals can be viewed in the same light. Man, although not divorced entirely from such triggers, adds conscious thought to the process of mate selection. Does that not put Man in an entirely separate category to all other organisms, namely, the one organism who can potentially breed freely across the entire species population? Potentially yes, but in practice no for Man’s capacity for conscious thought and decision making does not mean his breeding is not constrained by the triggers which control other organisms, especially behavioural. For example, most people choose mates who are of the same race as themselves even when they have ample opportunity to do otherwise.

    Even at the level of biology I wonder if Man is quite as discrete as he imagines. To the best of my knowledge no one has tried to create a cross between a human and a chimpanzee or a bonobo – I sincerely hope no one ever does. But putting aside any natural revulsion, would it be so surprising if such a cross was possible? Would it be any more of a intra-species leap than say the production of a mule or a liger (lion/tiger) through the mating of different species? I would not wish to bet against it.

    As for the future, genetic engineering may break down distinctions between species, for example, by genes from one species being implanted into another. Lastly, genetics and/or cybernetics may lead to modifications of human beings so substantial to create what are to all intents and purposes unambiguously separate species of Man with vastly differing abilities. There may come a point where the concept of a species becomes redundant.

    An analogy with computers

    In assessing what Man is, an analogy with computers can be made. As hardware, a particular model of computer is practically identical to every other computer which is classified as the same model. But the software available to every computer of the same model is not identical. They may run different operating systems, either completely different or different versions of the same program. The software which runs under the operating system is different with different versions of the same program being used. The data which is input to the computer varies and this in turn affects the capabilities of the computer.

    It clearly makes no sense to say every computer of the same model is the same even if the computer is loaded with the same software. But of course not all computers are of the same model. They vary tremendously in their power. The same software will run at very different rates because of this. Storage and memory size also vary tremendously. Some computers cannot run programmes because the programmes are too large. We may call all computers computers , but that is to say little more than that all animals are animals, for computers range from the immensely powerful super computers – the homo sapiens of the computer world as it were – to the amoeba of the simple chip which controls lights being put on or off in a room depending on whether someone is in it.

    Are the circumstances of computers not akin to those of Man? Do not the racially based differences in IQ correspond to the differences in power of older and newer computers? Do not different languages represent different operating systems? For example, think how different must be the mentality of a native Chinese speaker (using a language which is entirely monosyllabic) to that of a native English speaker (using a polysyllabic language) simply because of the profound difference in the structure of the language. A language will not merely impose limits on what may be expressed it will effect the entire mentality of the individual, from aesthetic appreciation to social expression. Is not the experiential input analogous to the holding of different data?

  8. Oscar Wilson
    Oscar Wilson says:

    The dominant totalitarian “race, gender, class” movement aims to crush all reference to human biogenetic differentiation in the ostensible objective of turning the white world and indeed much of the rest into manipulable mush; for a partial prophetic warning, see William McDougall, “Ethics and Some Modern World Problems” (London; Methuen, 1925). Scientists or sociologists who step out of line today (e.g. Nicholas Wade, Noah Carl, Richard Lynn, &c) face “cancellation” and those of different viewpoints in the past face “memory-holing” (e.g. Francis Galton, Carleton Coon, Hans Eysenck, now even anti-slavery Charles Darwin, &c); and/or lying vilification. Charles Murray and Richard Dawkins have it coming – you’ll see. Meanwhile Ed Dutton drops bricks on his own toes, but objective DNA, brain-function, hominid evolution and medical genetic research cannot be suppressed entirely. Nor can publication.

  9. Edward Harris
    Edward Harris says:

    The Windians are in the UK because after WW2 the US government insisted that the UK admit them. Previous to WW2 the Windians had emigrated to the USA. This was stated by one of Attlee’s ministers in a newspaper article in the early 1950’s.
    I cannot see how the British will ever be free from the American Occupation.
    The Japanese are occupied by the USA but have a Japanese upper class while the British upper class consists of part Americans and American stooges. The Japanese upper class looks after the Japanese working class. The British upper class dispises the British working class. Hence Japan prospers with no invaders.
    I believe that the white upper class, parts of the middle class and the USA are the real enemies for us in Europe.
    The European Glaubensjuden will never allow the Yankee to go home.
    I prefer Russians to Americans. The former are Europeans, with white skins and sane governments.

  10. ariadna
    ariadna says:

    There are people who are given to opening the Bible at random and reading the page their eyes alight on whenever in doubt, when needing clarification or reassurance on any and all problems or topics.
    Well, the method works! Not on any and all questions, but on one Question in particular, and not by opening the Bible, but another seminal book:
    The Culture of Critique.

  11. Fred Monroe
    Fred Monroe says:

    The invention of the transistor, which soon led to the integrated circuit responsible for digital electronics, was made by a team led by Willian Shockley. He had the same views on race and intelligence as James Watson.

  12. Ned J. Casper
    Ned J. Casper says:

    If “ye search the scriptures” on the internet you will find studies by Chinese scientists like Yuchun Tang on brain differences between Mongolid and Europid peoples. The beautiful ideographic system of writing in China has some handicaps in translating and transmitting scientific ideas; it had a biological basis like all languages, and has biological impacts. There are similar, less serious problems in other cultures; for example, we are stuck with the QWERTY keyboard which is less efficient than other designs, and many seekers of an artificial international language are still largely tied to the gross Esperanto.

    Interesting to reflect that as recently as 1969 the politician Angus Maude wrote a book advising the Conservative Party against importing cheap immigrant labour (“The Common Problem”).

    What do TOO readers imagine the response of western Jewish elites, especially scientists, will be to the ascendancy of a racially homogenous high-IQ Chinese population of 1,500,000,000 in 3,700,000 sq.miles compared to 7,000,000 Jews in 8,000 sq. miles?

  13. jeff miller
    jeff miller says:

    Don’t forget about Vibranium, the most most valuable mineral in Wakanda. Perhaps it’s included in a Table-that-menstruates (as opposed to Periodic).

  14. James Clayton
    James Clayton says:

    I’m interested in knowing what readers here think of the writing generally published the in The Conversation, e.g., I happened upon it when considering the crime-prevention value of public punishment, not to mention the public hangings that were attractions and stimulus to the hospitality industry in arguably better times. Independent restaurants, bars, and hotels are experiencing consolidation due to the lockdown, particularly in California, with its jail and insane asylum-emptying amnesty and sanctuary for practically everything once considered criminal. There simply is not enough mature, responsible manpower to suppress the degeneration, these days– the increasingly wild west– and prevention ought to be considered. The terrorism as effective propaganda at convincing government, whether by homeless waving their arms arguing with imaginary playmates getting free apartments or motel rooms, or violent criminals being “lionized”, e.g., George Floyd, forgiven, and let-go early. Perhaps the propaganda value of punishment for crime ought to be reinstituted before the public’s own hands are the only ones left to take the law into.

    “According to a recent report by the Pew Research Center, the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the most racially and ethnically diverse religious group in the United States. ” They are dispensationalists— hoping, praying, and apaprently working for the literal end of the world. Here’s what they have to say about themselves:
    Adventists Respond to the Call to Care for Refugees” By Daniel R. Jackson President, North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists

    That led me to Douglas Mercer on this little man and his part in his people and their followers’ persecution for corruption and evangelism in similar times:

  15. David Ashton
    David Ashton says:

    “Dr Adam Rutherford, a geneticist at University College London…said the [familiar evolutionary] image of a ‘line of men starting with a monkey who slowly get more upright to a white guy with a beard’…should be removed from the biology books…[and] ‘expunged from the record of everything'” – Xantha Leatham, “Daily Mail” (London), June 21, 2021, p.14. He is the author of “How to Argue with a Racist” (2020) whose theme is that “our racial divides have nothing to do with observable genetic differences”.

Comments are closed.