Sean McBride wrote: Ethnic nationalists have a proven history of using genetic science to promote ethnic supremacist myths, and to justify discrimination against and even the extermination of ethnic outsiders (including entire "inferior" ethnic groups). Genetic science was an important factor in producing the Holocaust. As we speak, some ethnic groups around the world (including in Israel) are developing biological weapons that target specific ethnic groups for genocidal elimination.
It is easy to understand why ethnic nationalists pursuing genetic research on ethnic issues are subjected to harsh questioning. Ethnic nationalists who demean ethnic outsiders on the basis of genetic science are usually one or two steps away from committing violence against those ethnic outsiders -- that's the historical pattern. Could you give an example of what you are talking about? In this context it seems as though you may be referring to MacDonald or Salter. It is not good to leave a nebulous accusation like this hanging. I could easily come up with dozens of specific examples of Zionists demeaning ethnic outsiders in ways that I find offensive. I can't say the same of MacDonald or Salter, but maybe I am missing something. A good source of striking Zionist examples is the remarkable article, Israeli Intellectuals Love the War <http://antiwar.com/hacohen/?articleid=9486> , by Ran HaCohen. Excerpt [This concerns Israel's most recent attack on Lebanon, and the simultaneous attacks on Gaza] - ... The Israeli intellectual, however, would shrug his shoulders at this as typical "Eastern primitivism." We liberals have our highbrow poets, with refined taste and overwhelming erudition. Like Ilan Shenfeld, who claims he has "always been a leftist" which is why, like every true poet, he suffers so much in this war: "It's not easy for me to write a poem that supports war and urges to invade a sovereign area of another state and devastate it." Shenfeld overcame this difficulty, and his poem, alluding to "the national poet" Bialik, shows once again that true agony always yields the best poetry: "March on Lebanon and also on Gaza with ploughs and salt. Destroy them to the last inhabitant. Turn them into an arid desert, an uninhabited, turbid valley. Because we yearned for peace and wanted it, and our houses we destroyed first, But they were a wasted gift for those murderers, with beard and Jihad bands, Who shout: 'Massacre now!,' and who have neither love nor peace, Neither god nor father. [ ] "Save your people and make bombs, and rain them on villages and towns and houses till they collapse. Kill them, shed their blood, terrify their lives, lest they try again To destroy us, until we hear from tops of exploding mountains, Ridden down by your heels, sounds of supplication and lamentation. And your pits will cover them. Whoever scorns a day of bloodshed, He should be scorned. Save your people, and make war." (Ynet, July 30, 2006) Tim Howells > > tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Sean McBride wrote: > Now: when one sees genetic research being promoted by ethnic nationalists of any stripe, certainly red flags should be raised. There is a history here, and it is indeed an appalling history. The burden of proof is on the researcher to explain precisely what he or she is up to. > As reasonable and innocuous as this might sound, this kind of political correctness is pure poison in the context of scientific and scholarly research. For example, Frank Salter has described how at one talk Kevin MacDonald was challenged to renounce neo-Naziism, and how, when he refused members of the audience shouted abuse and shook their fists in the air. Now it happens that MacDonald's rejection of the neo Nazi movement is a matter of public record, but as usual his behavior was above reproach. These kinds of political demands have no place in a scientific or scholarly context. > Imagine if a speaker had led off by shaking his fist in the air and demanding that everyone present denounce the crimes of Zionism. The behavior of MacDonald's critics was just as bizarre and inappropriate and counterproductive. Science cannot function in this atmosphere. > Tim Howells > ' > > > > > > I should state my position on this: I am strongly opposed to any forms of genetic research and science which are used to harm or discriminate against any human beings. We have a horrific example of the misuse of genetic "science" before us in the Nazis and their crimes against humanity. > > > > But I also believe that genetics play an important role in human behavior, and that we should follow the scientific facts wherever they lead. Genetic research and science may play an important role in solving many human ailments and improving the quality of life for us all. I am opposed to applying any scheme of political correctness to scientific research other than the Golden Rule -- don't abuse others. > > > > Now: when one sees genetic research being promoted by ethnic nationalists of any stripe, certainly red flags should be raised. There is a history here, and it is indeed an appalling history. The burden of proof is on the researcher to explain precisely what he or she is up to. > > > > Alan aelewis@ wrote: --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, "tim_howells_1000" > > timothy.howells@ wrote: > > > I have read some of Rushton's scholarly work, and some of the > > > critiques. On this basis I would say that Rushton comes across as > > > very reasonable and solid scientifically. It is his critics who > > > come across as raving lunatics. > > > > Yes, he comes across very reasonable and solid scientifically. > > It all adds up, if you accept his premises, which are based on > > ignorance. By that I mean he (and his ilk) attribute to genes > > everything that either cannot clearly be explained in any other > > way, or that can be explained but the explanations are still > > more or less debateable. The truth is that we don't KNOW, for sure, > > and he is basing his whole view on that ignorance. (That's the > > very short version.) > > > > And yes, his critics come across as raving lunatics, sometimes. > > That's because he is carrying forward a line of thought and > > argument that have extremely nasty associations. His critics > > are not reacting to him, as such; they are reacting to the whole > > fetid sewer that is associated with the kind of ideas he is > > advancing. > > > > Alan > > >
