National Review gets out jackhammers, digs through rock bottom to find whole new low

This is like something you’d expect to see on Stormfront. The thesis, written by John Derbyshire, is essentially this: If elected President, Barack Obama will stifle scientific inquiry because genomic research will reveal that white people are genetically superior to black people.

This is where we’re at now. The National Review is supposedly a respectable and legitimate, if conservative, organization.

The more Obama widens his lead, the uglier it gets. We’re finding out who everybody really is now, aren’t we?

Hmm. “Cultural Marxist”. I have no clue what that’s supposed to mean, but it sure sounds cool. Yeah, I’m a Cultural Marxist, y’all.

Well, to be fair to Derbyshire, he’s saying more that an Obama victory will stifle scientific inquiry in genomic research because the left is hostile to the idea that there are innate genetic differences in ability and IQ and such, and so a Democratic Presidency might discourage research on such things.

That is not the thesis.

Well, DUH! It’s surprising Obama’s above characterization of The Bell Curve is even considered controversial at this date, even by the NR crowd. Even more surprising is the author’s assertion, a few paragraphs down, that it reflects “cultural Marxism” in Obama’s world-view. :rolleyes:

The hell it isn’t. Derbyshire is an admitted racist, by the way.

Cultural Marxism is the “Frankfurt School”, which produced sociologists like Horkheimer, Marcuse and Adorno. (I’ve also seen it used to refer to Gramsci, although obviously he was never part of the Institute) It’s also called Critical Theory, and it’s an attempt to use Marxist theory to explain culture, especially looking at how mass culture is shaped and controlled by socioeconomic factors.

William Lind has this theory that Cultural Marxism is endemic on the left (which I think he drasticly overstates, although there’s no doubt that the Frankfurt School had a major influence on academic leftist though, and that the American left has adopted some of its ideas on culture), and that it’s used by the left to criticize traditional western values with the ultimate goal of destroying Western Civilization (which I think is totally off the wall). But anyway, people like William Lind and Pat Buchanan will use “cultural Marxist” to refer to the left wing in general.

Thanks, C A. Slight ignorance reduction achieved.

This meme keeps popping up on the RW in many odd ways, some rather unobtrusive. See this thread.

Apparently. (Has a Chinese wife, though.)

A cite for those who are curious:

He later “clarified”

Offered without comment, other than the underlining, which was mine.

Derbyshire’s also an ex-Christian apostate, pretty much the odd man out at NR.


BG, a friend of mine back at grad school was kinda racist. I was arguing with him about interracial marriage (I see nothing wrong with it) & asked him about marrying Orientals. His response “Well, IQ-wise, they are definitely not inferior so I don’t get as worked up about it.” To which I responded “So really, Orientals should be the ones careful about marrying us whites, huh?” He laughed & admitted I had a point.

Derbyshire most certainly does believe that further genetic research will prove beyond doubt that black people are inherently inferior. So do the guys who run Gene Expression. (Brown people who hate black people, and the white women who love them?)

There’s just no sorting out the science from the politics in this field of inquiry. Quite a bit of the research Derb and the gnxp boys quote was financed by neo Nazis. White nationalists are still some of the most enthusiastic backers and promoters of these ideas.

It’s a tad, shall we say, unrealistic, to expect anybody in the Obama administration to fund projects which involve partnerships with Nazi sympathizers.

Scientists, that is to say, real scientists, not neo eugenicist crackpots, will get plenty of funding to examine the genetic basis of the problems which affect all Americans. Cancer, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, schizophrenia, Down’s syndrome, autism, not to mention the biggest of them all, old age. Plenty of work there for legit scientists without giving any money to guys who measure black guy’s dicks at shopping malls.

With regard to which potential administration will “kill science”, I feel more comfortable with the prospect of an Obama presidency. Obama has firmly stated support for stem cell research (contrast his views with those of John McCain). Obama (after an initial stumble) has also backed mass vaccination (McCain has stated his belief in the discredited theory of an autism-vaccine connection). It’s Republicans in recent times that’ve shown far more willingness than Democrats to stifle research that doesn’t suit their ideological leanings (i.e. climate change).

Derbyshire is a bigoted ass. National Review has embarassed itself by giving him a platform.

If you’ve got a disaster like Sarah “I’ve seen the footprints” Palin, you’ll say anything to change the subject.

Well, whatta you know. I’m wrong.

Here’s a cookie.

Awwww. Stock loses that bad? :smiley:

Since when do right-wingers give a flying fuck about scientific inquiry?:confused:

Backatcha, Scylla. Here’s a cookie for rising above being wrong. Respect earned.