All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 20, 2023 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
13:21
This Man Wants You Ignorant
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, I'm Jared Taylor with American Renaissance.
The censors really hate my videos, and they want no one to see them.
So if you like this one, I hope you'll send the link to a lot of people.
James Watson is the world's most famous living scientist.
He won a Nobel Prize in 1962 for the discovery of the structure of DNA.
He was showered with awards and honors, won 20 honorary PhDs, taught at Harvard, and ran...
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory for 40 years.
His career and reputation were shattered for saying that he was inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa, because all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really.
Cold Spring Harbor fired him.
Later it put out a statement.
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
Unequivocally rejects the unsubstantiated and reckless personal opinions of Dr. James D. Watson.
They weren't unsubstantiated, and they weren't reckless.
But Cold Spring said they were even worse than that.
Reprehensible. This great scientist, now 95 years old, is ending his life in disgrace.
Many have gotten the same treatment.
Noah Carle had an Oxford PhD and in 2018 was appointed to a prestigious fellowship at Cambridge.
Alas, it turned out he had written unfashionable things for such publications as the British Journal of Sociology, the Journal of Biosocial Science, and Intelligence.
The Guardian reported the shocking news.
Cambridge gives role to academics accused of racist stereotyping.
Dr. Carle had to go.
Bo Weingard was a tenure-track assistant professor at Marietta College in Ohio.
This article, one of the best you will ever read on race differences, will show you what a careful and reasonable thinker he is.
Writing and talking about these subjects ended his career.
Jason Richwine, Harvard Ph.D., worked as a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
In 2013, it came to light that in his Ph.D.
thesis, he warned about a lack of socioeconomic assimilation among low-IQ immigrant groups, more underclass behavior, less social trust, and an increase in the proportion of unskilled workers.
Heritage Foundation didn't try to prove him wrong.
It just shoved him out.
Nathan Kofnes is a fellow in philosophy at Cambridge.
He has written about the maniacal opposition to studying group differences in this paper.
Research on group differences in intelligence, a defense of free inquiry.
He writes the famous intellectual Noam Chomsky, wrote that it's wrong to investigate an association between group membership and IQ because that interests only racists, sexists, and the like.
Howard Gardner is famous for a theory about multiple intelligences, including such surprises as musical intelligence and interpersonal intelligence.
He says, He is afraid of the truth.
James Flynn is famous for the Flynn Effect.
Or what appears to be a gradual increase in IQ scores around the world.
In a book called Are We Getting Smarter, he wrote that the question of racial differences in IQ is an empirical one that can be answered by proper investigation.
However, if universities have their way, the necessary research will never be done.
It is always just far more important to establish whether squirrels enjoy the magic flute.
Nathan Kofnes has another paper about hostility to science.
He quotes Daniel Dennett, professor emeritus of philosophy at Tufts University, who doesn't care how factually sound what he calls dangerous scientific findings may be.
If I encountered people conveying a message I thought was so dangerous that I could not risk giving it a fair hearing, I would be at least strongly tempted to misrepresent it, to caricature it.
for the public good.
Deceive people for the public good.
And he is a philosophy professor.
One of the most ferocious opponents of science is Eric Turkheimer, who has taught psychology at the University of Virginia since 1992.
He nailed his colors to the mast in 1997 in an article called The Search for a Psychometric Left.
He warned fellow lefties that if they keep claiming that intelligence is a myth, Twenty years later,
he was still battling the facts.
In a 2007 paper in Cato Unbound, he wrote that Questions about the role of genetics in the explanation of racial differences in ability are not empirical.
Not empirical?
That means they can't even be studied.
Incredible. Furthermore, it is a matter of ethical principle that individual and cultural accomplishments is not tied to genes.
Ethical principle?
This just isn't science anymore.
He says people who disagree with him Deserve the vigorous disapprobation they often receive.
Professor Turkheimer has built a career on the idea that the children of rich people grow up in environments that let their genes for intelligence express themselves fully, while the genes for intelligence in poor children are smothered by bad environments.
The implication is that this is why blacks have lower IQs than whites or Asians.
In 2020, a team of researchers led by Brian Pesta looked into this theory in a meta-analysis called Racial and Ethnic Group Differences in the Heritability of Intelligence.
They found that in the United States, there was very little racial difference in the heritability, or the genetic contribution, of intelligence.
Professor Turkheimer and a disciple wrote a blistering reply called A Cautionary Example of Fringe Science Entering the Mainstream.
Right in the abstract, they complained that the Pesta paper was an example of how racially motivated and poorly executed work can find its way into a mainstream scientific journal.
They also complained about severe rhetorical flaws, whatever they are.
After harrumphing about supposed scientific mistakes in the paper, they warned that attempted appropriations of contemporary genetics to further hereditarian, racist, and white nationalist arguments have increased in frequency and sophistication.
Gosh, I guess bad people like me read science papers.
Scholars better stop writing stuff that proves we're right.
So, how to stop them?
With interdisciplinary coordination at multiple levels, from publishers to editors, editorial
In other words, a coordinated campaign of censorship to make sure findings they don't like never see the light of day.
Calls for censorship are bad enough in what's supposed to be a scientific paper.
Even worse, the editor of the journal refused to print a reply from the original authors.
This is a ghastly breach of scientific ethics.
Pesta et al.
appealed to the editor, the publisher, and even got eminent scientists to complain on their behalf.
No dice.
In the meantime, Professor Turkheimer was tweeting that Dr. Pesta and his co-authors were openly racist and anti-Semitic authors.
Accusations like that alone are enough to make you distrust a guy.
Publications also suffer in this climate of hysteria.
In 2020, the same Brian Pesta, along with John Furst, submitted a paper to the Journal of Intelligence.
It was called Measured Cognitive Differences Among UK Adults of Different Ethnic Backgrounds.
Cognitive differences?
Ethnic backgrounds?
Uh-oh.
Independent scholar Emil Kierkegaard posted the rejection letter, which said, The journal will not publish articles that may lead to or enhance political controversies.
What? Anything significant could be controversial.
But Eric Turkheimer might accuse you of racism and anti-Semitism.
The editor said he hadn't even looked into the scientific validity of the study, but it might be controversial.
So, peddle your paper somewhere else.
Last year, a publication called Nature Human Behavior issued editorial guidelines.
Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans.
All humans.
Murderers, psychopaths, mental defectives.
No, no.
The problem is that research may inadvertently stigmatize individuals or human groups.
It may be discriminatory, racist, sexist, ableist, or homophobic.
You may not be a racist, but if you find race differences, you could be violating someone's dignity and rights.
Needless to say, race and ethnicity are sociopolitical constructs.
Humans do not have biological races.
And, of course, potential harms to the population studied may outweigh the benefit of publication.
So, we're going to suppress the truth if it might hurt someone's feelings.
What a disgusting betrayal of science.
I'm sure there are plenty of journals that operate this way.
These guys are at least honest enough to admit it.
The U.S. government wants to suppress the truth.
The National Institutes of Health now blocks access to an important database if it thinks a scientist's research may enter forbidden territory.
The database of genotypes and phenotypes is a collection of genome scans of millions of people, along with extensive data about their health, education, occupation, and income.
It's a crucial tool for understanding how genes act on humans.
But you have to apply to get the data, and NIH won't let you have it if it thinks your findings might stigmatize someone.
I want to ask, All these censors and bullies.
What are you afraid of?
Do you think that if the data prove there is a genetic contribution to the black-white IQ difference, blacks will loot and riot and burn?
They do that already, don't they?
They do it precisely because we refuse to accept racial differences.
Because we teach blacks that if they are not as rich and powerful and happy as white people, it's because we are constantly grinding them down.
They loot and riot because we tell them over and over that America has been one long racist swindle that never gives them a fair shake.
Think about yourself.
Part of growing up was realizing that you aren't the smartest or the strongest or the fastest or the best squash player and that the other guy beat you fair and square.
We are telling entire races, blacks and Hispanics, never grow up.
Believe all their lives that they're being cheated every day.
Why shouldn't they riot and loot and hate us?
It's what we get for pious nonsense about equality.
And if you doubt the pious nonsense, you'll never have a career in science or in anything else if the thought police have their way.
What a miserable, bound-to-fail system.
A multiracial society...
It's going to be one problem after another, even without trying to build it on fantasy.
People who suppress the facts, who deliberately keep us ignorant, are, in their way, as destructive as rioters and looters.
Maybe worse.
They are trying to shackle your mind and make sure you get used to it.
Thank you for watching.
Please subscribe to this video channel.
You might even give this video a thumbs up.
I invite you to visit amren.com.
A-M-R-E-N dot com.
You'll find videos and podcasts, discussions, I think a lot of things that will interest you.
▲
Export Selection