THE O’FARRELL COLUMN
 
Luke O’Farrell earlier today     4th November 2007

Brain of Terror

A Procrustean Thesis Awaits Its Theseus



There is only one language – the human language. Vile linguistic bigots may try to pretend that English, Chinese and Navajo are somehow separate “languages”, but they merely reveal their own ignorance and stupidity. Far more unites these three meaning-delivery systems than divides them. They all use vowels and consonants, they all have ways of referring to the past, present and future, of expressing negation and hypothesis, of capturing the world and its complexities. The differences between meaning-delivery systems are so small, the similarities so vast, that we can reach only one conclusion: Language does not exist. And if you claim you can’t understand Chinese or Navajo or Maori, you’re obviously a dangerous bigot in serious need of a decade or two in an arctic re-education camp.

Various different languages

Say no to discrimination:
All these “languages” are the same!

Well, separate languages do exist, of course, just as separate races do. The analogy between language and race isn’t perfect, but it’s illuminating all the same. Some people claim that race is a false concept because it’s impossible to draw clear divisions between one alleged race and another. But the same applies to language. Some dialects of French are like Italian and some dialects of Italian are like French. Does this mean only one language is spoken in France and Italy? Of course not. It’s quite possible to have a chain of villages where every village can understand its neighbors but the villages at the start and end of the chain can’t understand each other at all. Languages can also interbreed like races. I’ve already used words from French, Latin and Greek here. Does that mean I’m not writing in English? Well, no-one makes the absurd claim that separate languages don’t exist, but millions of people make the absurd claim that separate races don’t exist. Race-deniers have the power to make dissenters suffer too. Just ask the scientist James Watson, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. He made some mild and perfectly reasonable comments about differences in white and black intelligence, and quickly discovered that hell hath no fury like a liberal dogmatist scorned.

Structure of DNA

One of the world’s greatest scientific discoveries:
The structure of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)

Dogma was exactly what he was up against. If you want to understand the Watson controversy, these words from St Paul are a good place to start:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

For “Christ Jesus” read “liberal society.” But St Paul was actually much more rational and much less arrogant than modern liberals. He believed in the metaphysical equality of all believers, which was rational enough given his supernaturalist premises, but he didn’t go on to demand that believers be equal in every other way. Modern liberals do arrogantly demand that, but it isn’t rational given their naturalistic premises. When they demand complete equality, they make the crypto-religious assumption that culture and politics somehow float free of biology. They don’t. Unlike chimpanzees, human beings have culture and practise politics. Why is this? Because there are small but extremely important differences between the DNA of these two closely related species. If small differences in DNA are responsible for the existence of culture and politics in the first place, they can certainly be responsible for cultural and political variations among different races. Believing that race does not exist is again crypto-religious. Watson was attacked because he offended against egalitarian dogma, not because what he said was unscientific.

James Watson

One of the world’s greatest scientists:
Race heretic James Watson

Two millennia ago egalitarian dogma was preached by the Jewish St Paul to gullible gentiles. Jewish metaphysicians are still preaching egalitarian dogma to gullible gentiles today. One of them is called Steven Rose and here he is gloating about Watson in that liberal Bible known as The Guardian:

In my blog earlier this week, I was responding to James Watson’s gratuitous attack on me and my alleged views on schizophrenia. At that point I hadn’t seen in detail Watson’s disgraceful remarks about differences between African and Euro-American intelligence. It was these that sparked the real firestorm. Within a day, the BNP had puffed them on their website. Black and anti-racist groups responded vigorously, as did Ken Livingstone’s office. The Science Museum cancelled his sell-out lecture, making it clear that his remarks had gone “beyond the limit of acceptability.” Now the rest of the lecture tour has been cancelled, Watson has been suspended from his post as chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor laboratory in the US – his working base for nearly 40 years (and perhaps not coincidentally for many years the home of the American eugenics movement). And he has made an unreserved apology for, and retraction of, his quoted statements about differences in intelligence between Africans and Euro-Americans, published in today’s Independent. It is clear, however, that the circumstances and content of his original remarks made it inevitable that his book-signing and lecture tour would be cancelled. (The Guardian, “Watson’s bad science”, 21st October 2007)

Marxist ideologue Steven Rose

Not one of the world’s greatest scientists:
Marxist ideologue Steven Rose

Whatever liberals are claiming to the contrary, Watson hasn’t retracted his statements: he still believes that there are significant average differences between white and black intelligence. He has, however, said that this does not imply the “genetic inferiority” of blacks. I agree. I don’t think genetic inferiority is a scientific concept. Are fruit-flies genetically inferior to human beings? It depends on the context. Fruit-flies are certainly inferior to human beings in their ability to do certain things, such as write piano sonatas or calculate a trillion digits of pi, but human beings are inferior to fruit flies in their ability to do certain other things, such as live on rotting fruit or land upside-down on the ceiling. It’s horses for courses, isn’t it? Similarly, whites are well-adapted to one environment and blacks to another. Neither flourishes in the other’s environment: on average, whites are better at building civilizations and blacks better at wrecking them. Just look at Zimbabwe for proof of that. The Jew Steven Rose was one of those who fought to rescue blacks from wicked white rule there and hand them over for tyranny and torture by their own race. He’s never expressed regret for his part in the disaster, but why should he? His intentions were pure and that, in the sight of the Lord, is all that matters.

Marxist ideologue David Aaronovitch Marxist ideologue Steven Rose with the chicks he uses in his research into memory

Racial genetics at work #1:
Jewish Marxists Aaronovitch and Rose

Rose’s Lord is Karl Marx, another Jewish metaphysician who believed that words and willpower can control and indeed reshape reality. That’s why Marxists don’t believe in free speech. He who controls the Word controls the World. Here’s some more of Rose’s article on Watson:

There are two separate issues to be unpicked, on the “science” and on “freedom of speech.” So far as the first goes, if Watson had confined himself to saying (as he now does in his article) that there are likely to be genes which, expressed during development, contribute to differences in individual intellectual performance, then there would be no scientific dissent, even though such genes remain to be discovered, and we may have grave doubts about the status of such measures of intellectual performance as IQ tests. What is scientifically untenable – and indeed scientifically meaningless – is to claim that average differences in intelligence, as measured by IQ scores between different population groups, are caused by genetic differences between those groups – the core thesis of pseudoscientific racism. As for freedom of speech, these freedoms are and must be constrained. We don’t have the right to casually cry fire in a crowded theatre, or to use hate speech – at least in Europe, as opposed to the US.

When Europe was in the grip of the Jew-invented ideology of Christianity, there was no free speech for heretics. Now Europe is in the grip of the Jew-invented ideology of political correctness and there’s no free speech for racists. Racism = heresy. Rose isn’t a scientist, he’s a dogmatist who’d like to shut down a whole field of scientific endeavor because it contradicts his religion. Not that contradiction always bothers him. He accepts that there are “likely” to be “genes” affecting “intellectual performance”, but claims they’ll apply only to individuals, not to races. But if brain-genes differ between individuals, why not between races? According to Rose, it’s because race doesn’t exist. Why not? Because Marxism says so. And why does Marxism say so? Because the existence of racial differences would interfere with what really interests people like Marx and Rose: power. George Orwell said something very interesting in his book The Road to Wigan Pier (1937):

Sometimes I look at a Socialist – the intellectual, tract-writing type of Socialist, with his pullover, his fuzzy hair, and his Marxian quotation – and wonder what the devil his motive really is. It is often difficult to believe that it is a love of anybody, especially of the working class, from whom he is of all people the furthest removed. The underlying motive of many Socialists, I believe, is simply a hypertrophied sense of order. The present state of affairs offends them not because it causes misery, still less because it makes freedom impossible, but because it is untidy; what they desire, basically, is to reduce the world to something resembling a chessboard... The truth is that, to many people calling themselves Socialists, revolution does not mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which “we”, the clever ones, are going to impose upon “them”, the Lower Orders. (Op. cit., chapter 11)

That’s a perfect description of modern liberal psychology if you change something that’s now out-of-date: for “working class”, read “minorities-and-wimmin.” Liberals do not want solutions for inequality, they want excuses for interference. One reason they’re so fervently in support of mass immigration is that they know, subconsciously or otherwise, that it fractures society and affords much more opportunity for meddling and witch-hunting by the liberal state. If the fire brigade tackled fires the way liberals tackle social problems, firemen would pump gasoline onto fires rather than water. They’d then use the bigger fires to demand more firemen and gasoline. But the fire brigade doesn’t tackle fires like that, because it’s an evil white male institution, adapting itself to reality rather than demanding that reality adapt to it. That’s why the fire brigade actually does what it says it will: put out fires. Liberals say they’ll end inequality and create racial harmony – and do the opposite. The thrills of self-righteousness, moral posturing and exercising power are what matter to them, not achieving their loudly professed objectives. Think of what they were chanting in the 1960s and ’70s: “Smash racist Rhodesia! Topple the white fascists! Hand the country over to saintly blacks!”

Robert Mugabe, megalomaniac dictator of Jew-ruined Zimbabwe    ‘Klever’ Trevor Phillips, leader of Britain’s race-police

Racial genetics at work #2:
Black dictators Mugabe and Phillips

Well, they smashed racist Rhodesia, toppled the white fascists and handed the country over, then watched as the saintly blacks turned the breadbasket of Africa into the basket-case of Africa. That’s where liberal policies inevitably lead and the malevolent magic is working more slowly in the West only because the West still has a white majority. Liberals are working hard to change that and to denigrate and destroy our white European heritage. After all, that heritage often has very uncomfortable messages for liberals:

Procrustes (proh-KRUS-teez)

A mythical Greek giant who was a thief and a murderer. He would capture travelers and tie them to an iron bed. If they were longer than the bed, he would hack off their limbs until they fit it. If they were too short, he would stretch them to the right size. (The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, 2002)

Marxism and the liberalism it inspires are procrustean ideologies, forcing people and ideas into fixed patterns, whatever the cost in suffering. But just as the Greek hero Theseus defeated the original Procrustes and ended his crimes, so science will defeat our modern Procrusteans and end the crimes committed in the name of their equality thesis. The more reality threatens liberal plans to use an ethnic fifth column to topple the West, the more hysterical their denunciations of truth-tellers like Watson become. Heirs to the old religious belief in mind over matter, they’re terrified by the idea that the brain is a material organ strongly influenced by genetic differences, like those that exist between the races. Many of them don’t even convince themselves when they claim race doesn’t exist and they’re certainly convincing fewer and fewer members of the public. Whites and blacks are different, cannot be made the same, and do not belong in the same societies. You can see that for yourself every day, but liberals still demand that we believe their lies rather than our own eyes.

LUKE O’FARRELL


Click here for O’Farrell archive