The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Edward Dutton Archive
Death to Heretics
The Case of Nobel laureate James Watson demonstrates the lengths the media is willing to go to suppress an honest, factual discussion of race.
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

This essay is drawn from the book Making Sense of Race, which can be purchased here.

Many of us who appreciate the reality and importance of race have long hoped that “one day” an irreproachable, eminently credible scientist might speak some sense on the matter—breaking open the gates for the rest of us. As we know, popular legitimacy for a point of view is derived not just by what is said but by who says it. Well, that “one day” arrived on October 14, 2007. Nobel laureate James Watson (b.1928) gave an interview to the Times of London in which he voiced the following observation:

I am inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa because all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really.[1]Charlotte Hunt-Grubbe, “The Elementary DNA of Dr Watson,” Times, October 14, 2007, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-elementary-dn...w2vpdr (accessed May 15, 2020).

Hardly a bigoted “racist,” Watson took no pleasure in this fact; indeed, he wished that it were not so and hoped to find workable arrangements. But he stressed that these could only be devised once we came to terms with reality. It is difficult to imagine a more qualified person to bring this knowledge to the public. Watson, along with Francis Crick (1916-2004), co-discovered the double-helix structure of DNA in 1953; he is rightly remembered as one of the fathers of modern genetics and was a leading figure with the Human Genome Project. Who better to break the taboo?

After the Times interview was published, the outrage in the world media came fast and furious. Watson was widely denounced, and some speculated as to whether this once great man had lost his mind. Watson apologized almost immediately: “I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said. There is no scientific basis for such a belief.”[2]Cornelia Dean, “Nobel Winner Issues Apology for Comments About Blacks,” New York Times, October 19, 2007, https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/ science/19watson.html (accessed May 15, 2020). But that was not nearly enough. The next week, Watson was suspended as chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, as well as from its board of directors.[3]Cornelia Dean, “James Watson Quits Post After Remarks on Races,” New York Times, October 26, 2007, https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/ science/26watson.html (accessed May 15, 2020).

The coming decade was one of silence and exile. In 2014, in an act of repentance, desperation, or humiliation, Watson auctioned off his Nobel Prize, claiming he wanted to donate some of the money to Cold Spring Harbor after being declared a “non-person” and bringing disfavor onto his institutional home.[4]Ian Sample, “Billionaire bought James Watson’s Nobel prize medal in order to return it,” The Guardian, December 9, 2014, https://www.theguardian.com/ science/2014/dec/09/russian-billionaire-usmanov-james-watson-nobel-prize-return-scientist (accessed May 15, 2020).

Interestingly, in 2019, some 12 years after the Times interview, Watson returned to the public eye for a documentary on his life made by American public television. When prompted in an on-camera interview on whether his views on race and intelligence had changed since 2007, Watson’s response was “not at all.”

I would like for them to have changed, that there be new knowledge that says that your nurture is much more important than nature. But I haven’t seen any knowledge. And there’s a difference on the average between blacks and whites on I.Q. tests. I would say the difference is, it’s genetic.[5]Amy Harmon, “James Watson Had a Chance to Salvage His Reputation on Race. He Made Things Worse,” New York Times, January 1, 2019, https://www. nytimes.com/2019/01/01/science/watson-dna-genetics-race.html (accessed May 15, 2020).

Watson has now entered his 90s and thus cannot be expected to be an energetic activist for unspeakable truths. But sadly, the “lesson learned” by most public scientists has been to talk about anything and everything except race. In reporting on the Watson affair, the New York Times interviewed various population geneticists, whose work implies racial differences, and yet who each balked at drawing obvious conclusions. One such man was Harvard geneticist David Reich, who has “argued that new techniques for studying DNA show that some human populations were geographically separated for long enough that they plausibly could have evolved average genetic differences in cognition and behavior.” But Reich, the Times reports, rejects racial differences because they “correspond to longstanding popular stereotypes” and are thus “essentially guaranteed to be wrong.”[6]Ibid.
(Amy Harmon, “James Watson Had a Chance to Salvage His Reputation on Race. He Made Things Worse,” New York Times, January 1, 2019, https://www. nytimes.com/2019/01/01/science/watson-dna-genetics-race.html (accessed May 15, 2020).)
The problem is that stereotypes aren’t “guaranteed to be wrong”; in fact, stereotypes generally carry a considerable amount of truth. You would only be exaggerating a little to say that they are “essentially guaranteed to be right,” as they wouldn’t exist if they weren’t helpful.[7]Lee Jussim, Social Perception and Social Reality: Why Accuracy Dominates Bias and Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). Someone like Reich, whose profession is to examine matters from an evolutionary standpoint, should recognize this.

ORDER IT NOW

Richard Dawkins, perhaps one of the most famous living scientists, has talked around the subject of race, and related matters like eugenics, for years in books and in the media. Yet at any moment when the situation becomes too sensitive—and when it appears as if he, too, might get “cancelled”—Dawkins strategically retreats. If he had lived in the age of Queen Victoria, publishing a book entitled The God Delusion might have come at great personal cost.[8]Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (London: Bantam Press, 2006). Published in 2006, during the Prime Ministership of Tony Blair, Dawkins produced a work that, while controversial in some circles, ultimately rewarded him with speaking engagements, endowed university chairs, and television appearances—along with the patina of being “edgy.” James Watson’s mild comments, on the other hand, cast him into near-oblivion.

Notes

[1] Charlotte Hunt-Grubbe, “The Elementary DNA of Dr Watson,” Times, October 14, 2007, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-elementary-dna-of-dr-watson-gllb6w2vpdr (accessed May 15, 2020).

[2] Cornelia Dean, “Nobel Winner Issues Apology for Comments About Blacks,” New York Times, October 19, 2007, https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/ science/19watson.html (accessed May 15, 2020).

[3] Cornelia Dean, “James Watson Quits Post After Remarks on Races,” New York Times, October 26, 2007, https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/ science/26watson.html (accessed May 15, 2020).

[4] Ian Sample, “Billionaire bought James Watson’s Nobel prize medal in order to return it,” The Guardian, December 9, 2014, https://www.theguardian.com/ science/2014/dec/09/russian-billionaire-usmanov-james-watson-nobel-prize-return-scientist (accessed May 15, 2020).

[5] Amy Harmon, “James Watson Had a Chance to Salvage His Reputation on Race. He Made Things Worse,” New York Times, January 1, 2019, https://www. nytimes.com/2019/01/01/science/watson-dna-genetics-race.html (accessed May 15, 2020).

[6] Ibid.

[7] Lee Jussim, Social Perception and Social Reality: Why Accuracy Dominates Bias and Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).

[8] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (London: Bantam Press, 2006).

 
Hide 30 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Voltarde says:

    Reich’s career probably never directly benefited from any association/collaboration with Watson.

    There are dozens if not hundreds of other scientists–prominent and not so prominent–whose careers did benefit, and in many cases greatly, from Watson’s mentoring and influence. Many of these scientists were safely retired from their careers in 2019, and could have come to Watson’s defense. If they didn’t have the integrity to do so on intellectual grounds, they could have had the decency to do so on humanitarian ones. How many of these scientists did?

    Don’t listen to what people say; look at what they do. The scientists that I mentioned above, if they had children, would in almost all cases have taken all possible steps to ensure that their grade-school children attended a private school or one in a district with few if any black students. And the idea that such a parent would have encouraged their college-bound child to have attended an HBCU is absurd.

  2. anon[187] • Disclaimer says:

    Reason is a marker of intelligence crossed with honesty.

    When you harken back to Massachusetts during the Constitution ratification debates, you find local meeting house demands to deny ‘free speech’ provisions on the grounds that they will lead to ‘heresy’, and to demand that sabbath observance be inserted into the document.

    These were not people of any lower intelligence than others within the colonies, but they were intellectually dishonest in what they were seeking to accomplish and mandate upon others.

    Much of any given population is either unable or unwilling to engage in true reason, because anything appearing to conflict with that which they hold unassailable, will provoke a hostile response, even if factual. Watson was a victim of this syndrome.

    • Agree: RoatanBill, Kratoklastes
  3. Anonymous[877] • Disclaimer says:

    Whatever GLOBOHOMO holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of GLOBOHOMO.

    How can one explain having so many intelligent people, who know about and are appalled by the vision that Orwell put forth in 1984, supporting such thought policing today?

    I’m not talking about those who are afraid to speak up. That’s understandable. But how to explain the zealots who on one hand bitch about the suppression of ideas in, say, China, but also support similar suppression in their own countries. The constant conflict in their heads must do a lot of damage.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  4. Zealots know Watson was right but this contradicts orthodoxy.

    For instance in 2019 your average South Korean was 15 more productive (goods and services produced) compared to peers (blacks and Arabs) living on the African continent. The most plausible explanation for this is East Asian cognitive abilities.

    Dawkins is overrated like Einstein whose real talent was making slight improvements to ideas proposed by other people namely Faraday, Maxwell, Hertz, Thomson, Michelson, Morley, Planck, Lorentz, FitzGerald, and Poincaré.

  5. Andrei says:

    An honest, factual discussion of race would destabilize and upend the entire framework of internal and international institutions put in place after WW2. All the (relative) peace and prosperity that the world enjoyed after WW2 is predicated on this false assumption of racial equality. That’s why it’s so imperative for the system to quell any challenge to the official dogma. All the people who have power and privilege now (not just in the West, but globally) stand to lose them if this subject is breached.

    Race is the biggest Pandora’s box in the history of mankind. And when it’s opened get ready to say goodbye to your pleasant, bourgeois, middle-class existence.

    • Agree: Beavertales
    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  6. The fear is what the hoi polloi might do if this taboo was obliterated.

    The oligarchs are moving heaven and earth to maintain the lie of racial cognitive equality. Failing that, they use scare tactics to have the fearful believe that normalizing the Bell Curve will lead to pogroms and lynchings, and Jews being singled out.

    Equality is The Big Lie.

  7. [Some silly people] hoped that “one day” an irreproachable, eminently credible scientist might speak some sense on the matter

    This is a vain hope – and you snuck up on why it’s a vain hope, in the title.

    From the perspective of the orthodox (and therefore from the perspective of mouth-breathing retards whose opinions are imported holus-bolus from an orthodox ‘authority’) heretics are never irreproachable or credible (eminently or otherwise).

    This is true by definition: it is a premise in the orthodox calculus.

    Premise: credible people believe (or at least pretend to believe) that the orthodoxy is correct.

    Now, imagine that you’re confronted with a person who appears credible. Then, that person says something that enables the orthodox gatekeepers to infer that this apparently-credible person does not believe that the orthodoxy is correct.

    The logical conclusion is that this apparently-credible person is, in fact, not credible at all.

    Since a person capable of appearing credible for a long time is necessarily scheming and duplicitous, they cannot possibly be irreproachable.

    There is no such thing as a ‘credible’ heretic during the period prior to the heresy becoming mainstream.

    That old aphorism misattributed to Schopenhauer is relevant:

    Ein jedes Problem durchläuft bis zu seiner Anerkennung drei Stufen: In der ersten erscheint es lächerlich, in der zweiten wird es bekämpft, und in der dritten gilt es als selbstverständlich.

    Every problem passes through three stages on the way to acceptance: First, it appears laughable; second, it is fought against; third, it is considered self-evident.

    Watson’s mistake was believing that his comments would be judged based on their congruence with the scientific method. Silly old bugger: he was encroaching on (secular) religious views, and ought to have known that he would bring the Grand Inquisitors of Wokedom down on himself.

    .

    The “heretic are not credible per se” idea is what I call the “No credible biblical scholar believes” trope.

    In the mid-to-late 1970s the Moses Myth hypothesis was proffered by Thomas L Thompson (among others). The response of the orthodox gatekeepers was “no credible biblical scholar believes that Moses was a mythical figure” – as if that was an end to it… when it’s just a restatement of the definition of “credible biblical scholar”.

    Tommy Thompson was on his way to being a credible biblical scholar until he went all heterodox: one of the reviewers of his PhD dissertation was none other than Josef Ratzinger (who didn’t like Thompson’s ideas at all – which is pretty good evidence that they were correct, since Ratzinger was a fuckwit).

    And as we all now understand, pretty much the entirety of the Old Nonsense is to be understood allegorically or symbolically… it’s pretty much all myth, and accepted as such by ‘credible scholars’, because the definition of ‘credible’ changed..

    Nowadays, you read and hear the same trope concerning the Jesus Myth hypothesis. Bart Ehrman says variants of the trope all the time.

    Point is: it’s not a debate about facts or science, so it can’t be won on that basis. For a start, SJWs ad their ilk are scientifically illiterate. Arguing with them is a bit like the proverbial chess-game with a chicken… eventually the chicken just knocks all the pieces over and shits on the board.

    Zionism; democracy; race/HBD/gender/IQ realism… like all religions, none of these are solvable by argument.

  8. wwebd said: Please skip this comment if you do not like long comments. But I tried to make it worth reading, even if sort of long for this particular forum ……..

    To be fair, had Watson been born in a different place and time, he might just have been some lovable little high school biology teacher who inspired a few of his students to be doctors ….. Your doctor admires people like that, and you would too IF YOUR DOCTOR WERE A REALLY GOOD DOCTOR. Maybe your doctor is, maybe not.

    Look, almost nobody who is considered a genius is actually a genius – think about it this way – if someone unexpectedly asked you, while you were, say, watching a baseball game on TV or while you were putting together a jigsaw puzzle – NAME THREE GREAT GENIUSES FROM THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY – well, there were a lot of people in the 16th century, right? Easy question, right? If someone asked you that while you were watching a baseball game, you could easily give the right answer, right?

    Well …. actually, unless you are someone who IMMEDIATELY KNOWS THAT THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY started in 1500, not 1600, you are at a disadvantage.

    Be honest. You had to think about it, didn’t you.

    Well even if you are one of those one in ten thousand people who do not have to think twice about when the 16th century started and ended, then there is another problem. Let’s say your mind immediately strayed to Newton, Leibniz, and Shakespeare, all of whom, my friends, were at their peak in the Seventeenth Century. (Let’s leave aside for now the fact that, unless you are a scholar with lots of leisure, you probably have no idea who most people would think of as the geniuses of the actual Sixteenth Century, people whose powers of intelligence were at their peak from 1500-1600. Well, of course, young Shakespeare, and a painter or two, but past that, do you really think that, if you are not one in a million, you have any real and accurate idea?)

    Here is the problem, my friends. Unless you are very gifted, and have spent decades studying the relevant time period, it is unlikely you know if Newton and Leibniz were actually original thinkers, or whether they were just, as Newton said of himself, ordinary people who spent a long time pondering over finite problems that belonged to the very small group, among all possible problems, of solvable problems.

    Here is my answer to the problem. Humans are created in the image of God, but, that being said, humans are simply human, and it is rare that a human understands much more about God and the world than his or her fellow humans – every once in a while, some poor celibate Sperger boy (it is almost always a male, sad! – think about it, think about why that is sad) puts together an impressive consolidation of prior knowledge, along with a few inspired guesses and a few inspired discoveries, discovered in those long long lonely hours of ratiocination that poor sufferers from Aspergers are able to tolerate, but that nobody else can —— but that is rare. Sometimes the innovator has almost no mental health (Aspergers, usually, but also manic/depressive and simply manic) issues, but usually he does.

    So, Watson, in the right time and the right place, figured something out. Big deal.

    What is important is to understand that God loves us all, each of us is unique, that most of our so-called geniuses are not all that bright, and that God loves us all.

    There is nothing more fascinating, more complex, or more worth your efforts to understand than this:
    God loves us all, and it is never right to sin against other people, and it is always right to be brave and kind, ESPECIALLY IF GOD GAVE YOU EXTRAORDINARY GIFTS OF INTELLIGENCE.

    Look, if James Watson wants to stand up for himself, good for him. If he doesn’t, well, there are billions of people in the world, and very few of them will care if one person stands up for himself or not. Look, he is rich, but if he weren’t, and if he just wanted to spend time reading good books, I would mail him lots of good books, if he asked. It is all that simple.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  9. D. K. says:
    @anonymous as usual

    James Watson figured out the structure of DNA. You failed to figure out that the 16th Century began in 1501.

  10. @Andrei

    The problems started by looking at race and doing something about it. If the laws were color blind, there would be no need to single out any particular human trait. Men would be treated equally to women. Black would be treated equally with white.

    The mistake was to alter laws to make people unequal. The civil rights laws in particular should never have been adopted. Now we have a concerted effort to make white men the fall guys for everything wrong in the society while blacks do most of the violent crime and are specifically entitled to special benefits under law.

    The solution is to examine the wording of every law, and eliminate all references to human characteristics, replacing them with the word person. No more special laws for women, blacks, etc. Only then can the laws comport with reality.

    • Replies: @Andrei
  11. Andrei says:
    @RoatanBill

    You have a situation where blacks are arrested and imprisoned by a huge multiple relative to whites (like 5 to 10 times more). So either there is something inherently, biologically wrong with blacks or whites MUST BE horribly racist and evil. And if there’s nothing wrong with blacks, well then, something should definitely be done about whites and their racism.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  12. @D. K.

    wwebd said —— You do not seem capable of understanding satire when it is even a little complicated.

    Please never respond again to anything I say.

    I am tired of stupid people who are proud of being stupid.

    And yes, if James Watson is reading this, I am willing to send the poor old fellow a parcel of books, with comments attached to each book, which will make him happy.

    And no, it was not all that hard to figure out DNA back then. There are literally thousands of living people who could have done as much.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  13. @D. K.

    Apparently you are too short for the ride.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  14. D. K. says:
    @anonymous as usual

    ***

    NAME THREE GREAT GENIUSES FROM THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY – well, there were a lot of people in the 16th century, right? Easy question, right? If someone asked you that while you were watching a baseball game, you could easily give the right answer, right?

    Well …. actually, unless you are someone who IMMEDIATELY KNOWS THAT THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY started in 1500, not 1600, you are at a disadvantage.

    Be honest. You had to think about it, didn’t you.

    ***

    If you wish to compare “official” adult IQs, just say so. I certainly am not embarrassed by mine. In the meantime, feel free to list all of your own accomplishments that surpass James Watson’s. I’ll wait….

    • Replies: @anonymous as usual
  15. D. K. says:
    @anonymous as usual

    c. 174 cm (down from c. 176 cm, forty-some years ago)

  16. @D. K.

    I said do not respond to me: that being said, you amuse me, so I take that back.

    And if I were to speak with James Watson, yes, he would be more impressed by me than you apparently are, trust me on that, and possibly more impressed by me than he is by himself. I speak several languages fluently,with an ability to translate between them all as close to simultaneously as humanly possible (that is just a parlor trick, though) and there are literally hundreds of people living today, many of them with lots of descendants already, who would not be alive if not for my professional efforts in a very demanding field of endeavor (not medicine, not chemistry). I do not respond to commands from your ilk so I decline to explain further.

    Maybe you are at the same level as me, and maybe you and me and Watson are all vaguely at the same level. Maybe not. You simply do not know. You seem to believe, however, that you are close enough to discern – which is why you are so excitable on the issue – but trust me, lots of people are excitable.

    If I am wrong, and you really have a right to criticize, say something in 20 words or less that nobody has ever said before as well in 20 words or less. I am very easy to impress if you are the sort of person who can do that.

    Feel free to pick any subject you want, tough guy.

    20 words, go for it, make me laugh. 30 words, if 20 words is above your pay grade.

    • Replies: @anonymous as usual
    , @D. K.
  17. @anonymous as usual

    Take your time. Get it right. You can do it.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  18. D. K. says:
    @anonymous as usual

    “I said do not respond to me….”

    I don’t take orders from anonymous assholes on the Internet.

    “I speak several languages fluently,with an ability to translate between them all as close to simultaneously as humanly possible (that is just a parlor trick, though) and there are literally hundreds of people living today, many of them with lots of descendants already, who would not be alive if not for my professional efforts in a very demanding field of endeavor (not medicine, not chemistry). I do not respond to commands from your ilk so I decline to explain further.”

    Half-wits and their lessers can speak multiple languages fluently, if they were raised in a multilingual environment, when they were young; IQ has little, if anything, to do with it. Regardless, I had stated that you should “feel free to list all of your own accomplishments that surpass James Watson’s.” That is self-evidently not “a command…;” so one only may hope that your command of your “several [other] languages” is markedly better than your suboptimal command of standard English.

    “Maybe you are at the same level as me, and maybe you and me and Watson are all vaguely at the same level. Maybe not. You simply do not know. You seem to believe, however, that you are close enough to discern….”

    All that you need to do to assert conclusively your intellectual superiority to me, Dr. Dutton, and Dr. Watson, all in one fell swoop, is to cite your precise genius-level IQ score from an “official” intelligence test. “Piece of cake!” as the RAF pilots used to say.

  19. D. K. says:
    @anonymous as usual

    “Take your time. Get it right. You can do it.”

    Two points: (a) that postscript, which was presumably directed at me, should have been an additional reply to my second reply to you, not a reply to yourself; and, (b) I still don’t take orders from anonymous assholes on the Internet.

    • Replies: @anonymous as usual
  20. @D. K.

    You failed. Try again. 20 words or less, 30 words if you really need them. Try and be less excitable – remember, it is not me who you are trying to impress.

    I am looking forward to what you have to say.

    As for me, I am amused that you were not impressed with the fact that there are hundreds of people alive today who would not be alive if I were the foolish person you portray me as. That sort of makes you look unaware of what you are saying – doesn’t it?

    Also, don’t use vulgarities in your next reply. It makes you sound foolish.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  21. 30 words, explaining a difficult concept.

    You can do it. Maybe you can share a memory from your gifted years in the 90s – that might do it.

    (Don’t waste the words trying to show I am “stupid”. Nobody cares.)

    By the way, I don’t take IQ tests, or give them. Trust me, though, there are no IQ test writers who I will ever meet who would care to argue with me on the subjects we are arguing on tonight, Mr K. I am one of those people they describe as “off the charts” (I say that not to brag, but to encourage you to do your best going forward on this comment thread).

    • Replies: @D. K.
  22. D. K. says:
    @anonymous as usual

    Vaffanculo!

    [N.B.: If Italian is not one of your many languages, go fuck yourself, anyway!]

  23. D. K. says:
    @anonymous as usual

    When you learn the difference between the 16th Century and the Cinquecento, bambino, feel free to let me (or my descendants) know.

    • Replies: @anonymous as usual
  24. @D. K.

    I see you did not understand that I already know all those differences.

    Anyway, good luck in the future.

    I had hoped you would not be yet another demonstration that a high IQ score does not equate to wisdom, or a useful and delightful ability to communicate as a human being should want to communicate.

    My hopes are often deceived, alas.

    (I started a translation of Dante back in the 80s – Italian is not one of my five best languages – which are classical Latin, Ionic Greek, Russian, French, and English, by the way, but it would have been a good translation – but Singleton and Longfellow were good enough for Americans of my generation, so I desisted).

    Anyway, feel free to actually do what I asked – just 20 words. You can impress people who want you to do well!

    • Replies: @D. K.
  25. D. K. says:
    @anonymous as usual

    “I see you did not understand that I already know all those differences.”

    Let’s go to the videotape:

    “Well …. actually, unless you are someone who IMMEDIATELY KNOWS THAT THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY started in 1500, not 1600, you are at a disadvantage.”

    I can pity ignoramuses, but I detest liars.

    • Replies: @anonymous as usual
  26. @Andrei

    The US legal system has made up crimes where there really are none. All the people in prison for non violent (mostly drug) crimes should immediately be released. Those in prison for violence should immediately be killed and the prisons closed. That blacks are more subject to these phony crimes says they are stupid enough to be involved in drugs.

    The US blacks have been taught to be the underclass, and they play their part well. They are definitely more violent and with less impulse control than any other group. I know from first hand experience having been beat up, robbed, shot and stabbed only by blacks while going to high school. That school required an entrance exam to attend and there were no more than 10 black student in the entire school with thousands of students which attests to their general IQ.

    Many black people are just hard working stiffs like the rest of us, but even they must admit that their tribe has some of the worst and most violent people anyone can encounter. Both the legal system and the genetic makeup of blacks probably has something to do with the US blacks propensity for unsociable conduct.

  27. @Anonymous

    But how to explain the zealots who on one hand bitch about the suppression of ideas in, say, China, but also support similar suppression in their own countries. The constant conflict in their heads must do a lot of damage.

    They eat the cake and have it too. That is not unpleasant! And pleasure causes no damage – see?

  28. @D. K.

    Sad!

    Have you ever considered you might have Asperger’s?

    Ask yourself, if you were talking to someone who is one or two standard deviations more intelligent than you, might you not say to yourself: here is a liar?

    Try to enjoy life more, and next time someone like that is kind enough to try and have an interesting conversation with you, do not react with instinctual negativity.

    • Replies: @anonymous as usual
  29. @anonymous as usual

    Or are you imitating Andy Kaufmann? – if so kudos!

    • Replies: @anonymous as usual
  30. @anonymous as usual

    I really mean this, by the way, young Mr K – I enjoyed talking to you. but out of the kindness of my heart, I have to tell you this —– Trust me, I am not a “liar”.

    What good would it do me to be a liar?

    Years from now, scholars will look back on these interactions and wonder which of us were AI-influenced, which of use were AI, and which of us were human.

    You and me, my friend, were humans.

    And OF COURSE I AM A “LIAR,” sort of —– you poor little guy, don’t you get it – chicks don’t dig guys who always tell the truth, but that being said —- if you are really good at internet archaeology —- you can go back and find my comments circa 2000 or so on the issue of WHEN A CENTURY STARTS.

    Hint: 20 years ago, on a website that was prominent when this website was still promoting potato chips (Utz), I referenced Derbyshire’s book on Riemann’s Zeta Hypothesis, I took a slanting glance at poor David Foster Wallace’s boring book on zeros, I compared the 19th and 20th century bestselling English-Latin dictionaries and the observations of the drudges therein who wrote on the Latin words primus and nullus, I referenced a few old blues songs dealing with beginnings and endings (that was when I wrote as li/arlington on the old Lucianne site! – hello Snowball!) and of course, in one lyrical mystical spiritual paragraph that you can easily find if your internet archaeological skills are any good at all, I described what it means when one era accedes to another, when ALL THE LOVE AND COMPASSION ONE GENERATION HAD FOR ANOTHER GENERATION seems to be gone, but is actually reborn IN COMPASSION when good people who UNDERSTAND why we were created are kind to others. 1900/1901 – I had so so many friends who remembered those years, all now, alas, gone from this world (in a better world, all of them, one hopes) – and as for 2000/2001 — that, Mr K, is so much in my wheelhouse that I have to refrain from bragging.

    my friend, in the kindness of your heart, you refrained from calling me something worse than a liar.

    Remember what you were thinking, remember what you wanted to say, and be glad you did not give in to the temptation to call me something worse. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SAD!

    Remember that I treated you with respect.

    God loves us all. I don’t lie about important things, or about unimportant things, either. Trust me on that. but if it makes you feel good to think of me as a “liar”, all I can say is, you have no idea who you are accusing of that specific fault. Not saying I don’t have a lot of faults. Not saying I don’t appreciate constructive criticism once in a while. Just saying – remember who treated you with respect, and who didn’t. Thanks for reading.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Edward Dutton Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Becker update V1.3.2
How America was neoconned into World War IV