On January 11th 2019, Nobel laureate and discoverer of the double-helix DNA structure James Watson was stripped of all his academic titles. This reprisal was undertaken by his former colleagues at Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory and came as a reaction to his latest remarks on the possible genetic connection between race and IQ.

Dr. Watson’s opinions came to light again in a recent PBS documentary entitled American Masters: Decoding Watson, released on January 2nd of this year. In the documentary he is asked whether his views about the relationship between race and intelligence have changed.

“No,’’ Dr. Watson said. “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 IQ tests. I would say the difference is, it’s genetic.’’

In a statement released by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, it was announced that they would be revoking his honorary titles of “Chancellor Emeritus, Oliver R. Grace Professor Emeritus, and Honorary Trustee”. Their reasoning is that: “Dr. Watson’s statements are reprehensible, unsupported by science” and that, “the Laboratory condemns the misuse of science to justify prejudice.”

Watson has not yet been able to give a response to this indictment as he is currently recovering from a car accident. He is resting in a nursing home and described as having ‘very minimal’ awareness of his surroundings.

Needless to say the mainstream media outlets across the world are exercising full damage control over his remarks. The New York Times piece reads: “James Watson Had a Chance to Salvage His Reputation on Race. He Made Things Worse.” Huffington Post: “Nobel Scientist James Watson Stripped Of Titles For ‘Reprehensible’ Race Remarks.”

This is not the first time Watson has made headlines for his views. In 2007 he gave an interview with the Sunday Times in which he stated that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa.” He furthermore states that “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really.”

The social policies Watson is referring to are likely those of mass immigration into the West, the endless aid given to countries with unsustainable population growth, and the enforcement of ethnic diversity quotas and affirmative action across Western employment sectors. The testing that Watson is referring to here is likely that of IQ tests, which, when done on a large scale suggest that different nations, ethnic groups, and even races have different IQ averages.

This theory is evidenced in books such as The Bell Curve, which claims that on average Asian Americans have a higher IQ than do white Americans, who in turn have a higher IQ than black Americans. In response to the book, the American Psychological Association (APA, the largest scientific and professional organization of psychologists) issued a report recognising that there are indeed racial differences in IQ.

However the APA dismiss a genetic explanation for the IQ differential between races. They furthermore state: “In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available.” This view was later disputed by other psychologists, who favour a combination of genetic and environmental factors.

Even with the most cursory of internet searches, one can determine that the nature-nurture debate on this topic is far from settled. Yet the Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory feels justified in its condemnation of Watson’s statements and stripping him of his good name. They do not even bother to state the specifics of what exactly Watson has gotten so wrong. It may be the case that the lab even finds itself at odds with the APA on the issue of race and IQ.

The overreaction of Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory speaks volumes about the political realities of the modern world. In today’s world scientists are forbidden from expressing wrong-think in their field of research. They must now adhere to a strict politically correct orthodoxy, lest they be excommunicated from the scientific community.

Watson himself is the first living Nobel Laureate to have sold his medal, and reportedly did so because of the social ostracisation he experienced at the hands of his fellow scientists. Watson told the Financial Times that he had become an ‘unperson’ after he ‘was outed as believing in IQ,’ and that now “no-one wants to admit that [he] exist[s].”

Detractors of Watson claim that his ‘far-right’ views support ‘white supremacy,’ and should therefore not be tolerated. Yet this claim firstly assumes that a higher IQ must imply supremacy, and secondly ignores the fact that East Asians are purported to have a slightly higher IQ than Europeans, which would in turn render them ‘supreme.’

It is worth mentioning that Watson himself does not even identify with right-wing politics, as evidenced by his endorsement of Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign. To most observers on the right it is evident that neither Watson nor his views on race and IQ support ‘white supremacy.’

So why has he drawn such ire for his comments? Could it be because he has violated some core egalitarian belief? One that is held up as unquestionably sacrosanct by the media and political establishment?

Such an egalitarian belief may be found explicitly stated in the United Nations’ declaration on the Race Question. In the last article it states: “The scientific evidence indicates that the range of mental capacities in all ethnic groups is much the same.”

The declaration does not give any citations for scientific evidence. It was also heavily criticised at the time, despite their introductory statement that: “The competence and objectivity of the scientists who signed the document in its final form cannot be questioned.”

The ensuing backlash eventually forced the UN to admit that the declaration was “chiefly sociologists who gave their opinions,” and that the ‘Race Question’ lacked the authority and support of “physical anthropologists and geneticists.” The UN has since gone on to make more statements on race, each with the same intent but each less factually assertive than the first declaration.

This egalitarian belief of intellectual equality is now left in a rather precarious position, as it is clearly favoured by a powerful world organisation but seems to lack serious scientific evidence in its favour. This becomes palpably evident when a geneticist of Watson’s stature lends his weight to the opposing hypothesis, and the mainstream media proceeds to go into meltdown.

Commentators on the Watson debacle have likened his situation to that of Galileo and the Catholic Church. It would seem an apt analogy, where scientific debate at odds with the ruling ideology must be censored by the powers that be. In our case we have political correctness in lieu of geocentrism, and instead of the Church, we have ‘the Cathedral.’

The idea of ‘the Cathedral’ is a catch-all term used to describe the coinciding interests and agendas shared by supranational bodies, such as multinational corporations, media conglomerates and political unions. It is a force most clearly seen working through institutions such as the UN and the EU, the BBC and CNN, and other bastions of liberal globalism such as multinational corporations and financial institutions.

The aim of the so-called Cathedral is to ensure that everyone abides by their ideology of multicultural egalitarianism and open borders globalism. I would argue, it is a quasi-religious entity, having its own hierarchical system in which progressives can be seen as representing the faithful, the mainstream media alongside academia serving as the priestly class, and the world’s financial elite forming its cabal of cardinals.

The absolutely uniform condemnation of Watson’s remarks by mainstream media outlets over his racial remarks is a prime example of their ideological condition. Not a single one of them is interested in the veracity of his statements, rational debate or the freedom to speak one’s mind.

To counter this new dogmatism we must speak out against the vilification of scientists such as James Watson. We need stand up for the scientific method and the fearless pursuit of truth, especially in the face of state power. The agendas of power are mired in the egalitarian world vision, viewing all peoples as essentially uniform and replaceable economic units. Yet this world view is as confounded by scientific evidence as it is by one’s most basic common sense.

Posted by Eric McMahon

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.