“Jews are adapted to capitalism”, and other nonsenses of the new scientific racism

Nicholas Wade's A Troublesome Inheritance argues that the genetic differences between racial groups explain why the West is rich and Africa is poor - but beneath the new science lies an old, dangerous lie.


Before getting into quite why Nicholas Wade’s A Troublesome Inheritance - a book which argues, among other things, that Jews possess a genetic “adaptation to capitalism” - is racist, it may be worth thinking back to the summer of 2012. Viewers of the BBC’s coverage of the Olympics on 10 August would have been surprised, between heats in the 200 metres, by a short video explaining how the slave trade made black people into better athletes:

For those of you unable to watch, the argument (as cheerily introduced by John “you’re never going to be, you know, a looker” Inverdale) goes like this:

The slaves of the Caribbean and American plantations predominantly came from a select group of west African ethnic groups
Only the fittest slaves survived the horrors of transportation to, and working on, plantations
Their descendants overwhelmingly make up the best professional sprinters in the world
African-Americans and Afro-Caribbean people are genetically predisposed, through evolution, through survival of the fittest, to be sprinters

Spot the problem? Congratulations - you’re better at this than Nicholas Wade, former deputy editor of Nature, writer for the New York Times and Washington Post, pop-sci author and pusher of the hypothesis that: a) there is a biological basis for race, and b) racial differences explain cultural and societal differences.

In this, he is partly correct - at least, in the way he defines “race” - but in oh-so-very-many other ways he is not. Frankly, it may well be that A Troublesome Inheritance is most useful as an illustration of the gap between the popular understanding of racism and the reality of how it operates. Wade very clearly does not consider himself, or his conclusions, to be racist, writing that "no one has the right or reason to assert superiority over a person of a different race". Yet this book is ultimately racist, because it does exactly that.

http://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2014/05/jews-are-adapted-capitalism-and-other-nonsenses-new-scientific-racism


Much to read and shows up the idiocy of this Wade and this I found to be very telling:





And so the perception – on both sides of the Atlantic – takes hold that racism is not a system of discrimination planted by history, nourished by politics and nurtured by economics, in which some groups face endemic disadvantage – it's about ignorant old people getting caught saying mean things. By privileging these episodes – outrageous as they are – racism is basically reduced to the level of a private, individual indiscretion made public. The scandal becomes not that racism exists but that anyone would be crass enough to articulate it so brazenly.

The reality of modern racism is almost exactly the opposite: it's the institutional marginalisation of groups performed with the utmost discretion and minimum of fuss by well-mannered and often well-intentioned people working in deeply flawed systems. According to a recent US department of education report, black preschoolers (mostly four-year-olds) are four times more likely to be suspended more than once than their white classmates. According to a 2013 report by Release, a UK group focusing on drugs and drug laws, black people in England and Wales are far less likely to use drugs than white people but six times more likely to be stopped and searched for possession of them. In both countries black people are far more likely to be convicted, and to get stiffer sentences and longer jail time.

This is the soporific, statistical drumbeat to which black children march through our institutions and to which society as a whole has become inured. You are unlikely to find many of these preschool teachers throwing around the N-word or judges reminiscing about slavery. Apparently, until you do, there will be no big story here. It's just the way we do things. The problem is no longer that it's brazen, but that it's banal.

Yes Tess and?

What a  wonderful derogatory site you have found there Tess, I never new wives and girlfriends were called unpaid sex workers now?
Sounds like something straight out of the UKIP manifesto, is that why you left out the link?

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-pi.html



Now shall we get back to what this is about, and this mans poor article on scientific racism?

It's from 1984 by George Orwell.

However Tess, I think Orwell would have disagreed with you in relating his book to the crap written by Nicholas Wade.

Sassy wrote:It's from 1984 by George Orwell.

However Tess, I think Orwell would have disagreed with you in relating his book to the crap written by Nicholas Wade.

She got it from that site Sassy, just reading it made me laugh, it really was like reading the views of some of the UKIP supporters you here today.


http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/about.html

Sassy wrote:It's from 1984 by George Orwell.

However Tess, I think Orwell would have disagreed with you in relating his book to the crap written by Nicholas Wade.

But not relating to the crap written by Didge.   

Oh right, my mistake, saw Newspeak and immediately went to the book.

This book disgustingly justifies racism through science.  Horrendous!

Tesstacious wrote:

Sassy wrote:It's from 1984 by George Orwell.

However Tess, I think Orwell would have disagreed with you in relating his book to the crap written by Nicholas Wade.

But not relating to the crap written by Didge.    

Crap, as seen it was from that site, which as seen was poorly trying to divert from the topic at hand, so what are your views on scientific racism Tess?

Didge wrote:What a  wonderful derogatory site you have found there Tess, I never new wives and girlfriends were called unpaid sex workers now?
Sounds like something straight out of the UKIP manifesto, is that why you left out the link?

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-pi.html



Now shall we get back to what this is about, and this mans poor article on scientific racism?

Why have you posted that link, which has nothing to do with my post?!! I was simply referring to Orwell. TBH I didn't read past your first sentence, as it's always the same..... "...this is the acceptable thing to believe... this belief goes against politically correct principals.... this belief is forbidden.... this is raaaaaaaaacist....... hence the blanket newspeak comment, which is all you ever spout.

I won't be told how to think, what to say, what to believe.

I am not a number I am a free man (woman).

Number 6

Tesstacious wrote:

Didge wrote:What a  wonderful derogatory site you have found there Tess, I never new wives and girlfriends were called unpaid sex workers now?
Sounds like something straight out of the UKIP manifesto, is that why you left out the link?

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-pi.html



Now shall we get back to what this is about, and this mans poor article on scientific racism?

Why have you posted that link, which has nothing to do with my post?!!  I was simply referring to Orwell.  TBH I didn't read past your first sentence, as it's always the same..... "...this is the acceptable thing to believe... this belief goes against politically correct principals.... this belief is forbidden.... this is raaaaaaaaacist.......   hence the blanket newspeak comment, which is all you ever spout.

I won't be told how to think, what to say, what to believe.

I am not a number I am a free man  (woman).  

Number 6

Behave Tess, yes it was because of what relevance did your reference to to an exact match of 1984 from that website have to the article?

None

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-prin.html

Coincidence?

behave

Nobody is denying a view to what people can say but a critical view of what is being said, sorry I do not buy your bullshit answer, it was from that site and we both know it where again you offer no view point to the actual article in reference to this new book. So your reference to Orwell and that statement has no relevance to the critical view of the book.

Didge wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:
Why have you posted that link, which has nothing to do with my post?!!  I was simply referring to Orwell.  TBH I didn't read past your first sentence, as it's always the same..... "...this is the acceptable thing to believe... this belief goes against politically correct principals.... this belief is forbidden.... this is raaaaaaaaacist.......   hence the blanket newspeak comment, which is all you ever spout.

I won't be told how to think, what to say, what to believe.

I am not a number I am a free man  (woman).  

Number 6

Behave Tess, yes it was because of what relevance did your reference to to an exact match of 1984 from that website have to the article?

None

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-prin.html

Coincidence?

behave

Nobody is denying a view to what people can say but a critical view of what is being said, sorry I do not buy your bullshit answer, it was from that site and we both know it where again you offer no view point to the actual article in reference to this new book. So your reference to Orwell and that statement has no relevance to the critical view of the book.

Who do you fucking think you are, you arrogant shit? Calling me a liar? This was my link, showing the same site as you used, but I never even saw the shit you pulled from it. This is the only page I used:

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-prin.html

Tesstacious wrote:

Didge wrote:



Behave Tess, yes it was because of what relevance did your reference to to an exact match of 1984 from that website have to the article?

None

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-prin.html

Coincidence?

behave

Nobody is denying a view to what people can say but a critical view of what is being said, sorry I do not buy your bullshit answer, it was from that site and we both know it where again you offer no view point to the actual article in reference to this new book. So your reference to Orwell and that statement has no relevance to the critical view of the book.

Who do you fucking think you are, you arrogant shit?  Calling me a liar?  This was my link, showing the same site as you used, but I never even saw the shit you pulled from it.  This is the only page I used:

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-prin.html

 ://?roflmao?/: 


So you just admitted it was from the same site?

Ha Ha

Hilarious, so again what relevance did your point have on the critical view of this new book by Wade?

None

It seems your view is it is okay for you to be critical of anything but where thee is something you think should not receive critical views, then it is people being denied their views.

Sorry that is bullshit, again you actually offer no view to the book at hand or have any relevance there is any link here to views being denied.

Man alive I never new critical reviews should be banned now when people publish books?

 :\\:[:

Christ. Same old same old. Back on ignore.

Tesstacious wrote:Christ.  Same old same old.  Back on ignore.

Yes your same old excuse when you get challenged on why you posted something to then when it is shown to have no relevance you play your get out of jail free card.

Sorry that excuse is starting to wear very thin, you either come here to debate, back why you posted something, which as seen made no utter sense because it was just a critical review of a book, or you can do as you always do sit around having one of your childish strops.

Tesstacious wrote:
Newspeak was the official language of Oceania, and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism. In the year 1984 there was not as yet anyone who used Newspeak as his sole means of communication, either in speech or writing. The leading articles of the Times were written in it, but this was a tour de force which could only be carried out by a specialist, It was expected that Newspeak would have finally superseded Oldspeak (or standard English, as we should call it) by about the year 2050. Meanwhile, it gained ground steadily, all party members tending to use Newspeak words and grammatical constructions more and more in their everyday speech. The version in 1984, and embodied in the Ninth and Tenth Editions of Newspeak dictionary, was a provisional one, and contained many superfluous words and archaic formations which were due to be suppressed later. It is with the final, perfected version, as embodied in the Eleventh Edition of the dictionary, that we are concerned here.

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought -- that is, a thought diverging from the principles of IngSoc -- should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression  to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever.

  

CONGRATULATIONS, Tess' !!!

YOU'VE read Nineteen Eighty Four !!!

WELL, guess what ~ so have I !

And probably more than half of the other members on here..

Might as well give up while you're still ahead...