09 December, 2007
So what, son?
Some assiduous shit-shoveller has examined James "Africans are thick" Watson's published genome and concluded that he has a perceptible Black African heritage, equivalent to one African great-grandparent. (I wonder if said toilers among the excrement are among those who are always claiming that "race doesn't exist". Perhaps it only doesn't exist when it suits them.)
I have no doubt the Guardianistas and NYTimes-istas will be all over this like a Global Warming denier gloating over a frosty day in August, but really, so what? As far as I know, I am at least 75% English with ancestors on this island going back 1500 years or more. The other 25% is probably either wholly Irish or a mixture of Irish and Scots, my Belfast great grandparents being a "mixed" marriage. I am happy with my ethnic and cultural identity. But suppose I were given the "Who do you think you are?" treatment and discovered a Lascar seaman or a Nigerian freed slave in my genetic history? So what? It's lost in the noise. It doesn't affect my phenotype, it doesn't significantly impact my effective genotype. Above all it doesn't affect my sense of cultural or ethnic identity or make me any more welcoming to the uncontrolled mass immigration that is destroying this country. Nor, clearly, does this ad hominem "discovery" somehow invalidate Professor Watson's identity or do anything to actually refute his thesis that sub-Saharan Africans are, on average, less intelligent that most other racial groups.
These people who are eagerly seeking out niggers in the genetic woodpile are the liberal equivalent of Nazi apparatchiks trawling through the records looking for Jewish ancestry. Perhaps Professor Watson should take pride in the high quality of his White ancestry which has so evidently compensated for the poor intellectual heritage of his Black ancestry.
Did I just say that? Yes I guess I did. Leave the poor man alone, you bastards! If you disagree with his opinion, put forward counterarguments and spare us this disgraceful sleazy ad hominem distraction.
I have no doubt the Guardianistas and NYTimes-istas will be all over this like a Global Warming denier gloating over a frosty day in August, but really, so what? As far as I know, I am at least 75% English with ancestors on this island going back 1500 years or more. The other 25% is probably either wholly Irish or a mixture of Irish and Scots, my Belfast great grandparents being a "mixed" marriage. I am happy with my ethnic and cultural identity. But suppose I were given the "Who do you think you are?" treatment and discovered a Lascar seaman or a Nigerian freed slave in my genetic history? So what? It's lost in the noise. It doesn't affect my phenotype, it doesn't significantly impact my effective genotype. Above all it doesn't affect my sense of cultural or ethnic identity or make me any more welcoming to the uncontrolled mass immigration that is destroying this country. Nor, clearly, does this ad hominem "discovery" somehow invalidate Professor Watson's identity or do anything to actually refute his thesis that sub-Saharan Africans are, on average, less intelligent that most other racial groups.
These people who are eagerly seeking out niggers in the genetic woodpile are the liberal equivalent of Nazi apparatchiks trawling through the records looking for Jewish ancestry. Perhaps Professor Watson should take pride in the high quality of his White ancestry which has so evidently compensated for the poor intellectual heritage of his Black ancestry.
Did I just say that? Yes I guess I did. Leave the poor man alone, you bastards! If you disagree with his opinion, put forward counterarguments and spare us this disgraceful sleazy ad hominem distraction.
# posted by Edwin Greenwood @ 11:46 
Comments:
<< Home
Edwin G:
Your link to Wiki' may prove part of the problem you speak of.
Pretty well all of the guinea pigs were off TV. Paxman etc.
The BBC and related networks are stuffed with art graduates who have a deep fear of all science and what it might reveal. Very few hard-core scientists are liberals, but the journalistic artworld contains nothing else.
People like Watson could undermine their utopian, processed-cheese view of humankind, and therefore must be silenced.
If, instead, his genotype was shown to be 90% african, liberals would scream with delight even more; not because of what he said about them but because, in reality, they look down on them.
(Imagine if he'd had 14% chinese genes. You would'nt hear a peep).
Post a Comment
Your link to Wiki' may prove part of the problem you speak of.
Pretty well all of the guinea pigs were off TV. Paxman etc.
The BBC and related networks are stuffed with art graduates who have a deep fear of all science and what it might reveal. Very few hard-core scientists are liberals, but the journalistic artworld contains nothing else.
People like Watson could undermine their utopian, processed-cheese view of humankind, and therefore must be silenced.
If, instead, his genotype was shown to be 90% african, liberals would scream with delight even more; not because of what he said about them but because, in reality, they look down on them.
(Imagine if he'd had 14% chinese genes. You would'nt hear a peep).
<< Home
