Re: Times review of Rushton book

I appreciate Carlos Capellan's comments and especially his forwarding of
the Times review. I would disagree with his interpretation, however. The
review is, on balance, favorable towards Rushton's thesis. I would argue
that providing a rather flat accounting of Rushton's theory, remarking
that other academics think his work is serious and not bigoted, and then
implying that the opposition to him is based on politically motivated
censorship rather than on science does constitute a "favorable" review.
The "objection" to genetic determinism seems to focus on the possibility
for gene therapy to repair the supposed "inferior" beings, rather than
including the serious scientific objections to this nonsense.  And I am
quite sure that the book will now achieve considerably more attention
now that it has been mailed out. This is just one round -- the purpose
is not to win everyone over to all the book's premises, but rather to
try to present the book as "CONTROVERSIAL BUT SERIOUS SCHOLARSHIP" .
That's why a massive, immediate response can establish it in people's
minds as the crack-pot, pro-Nazi garbage that it really is.