Re: Times review of Rushton book (fwd)

I agree with Alan hundred percent. whoever raises objections to such
racist books tend to focus on the "contoraversial" nature of author's
argument rather than "explictly" denouncing the racist underpinings of
"genetic science". eventhough people find it controversial, biology
teachers still teach this horrifying crap. such statements are part
of the cirriculum in high schools and universities.furthermore, there is
an implicit consensus among all evolutionary scientists that genes
determine human behavior. you don't need to openly talk about
"race" or "racism" to be racist. those nonsense scientists publish
researches in MAJOR scientific journals and magazines about IQ, genetic
programming and stuff like that, yet they are still considered to be
"scientific" by LARGE community of scholars including not only
"conservatives" but also "politically progressive" people. genetic
scientists are funded by research institutions and government agencies in
the name of "scientific exploration". many people (even some of my leftist
friends here)find DAwkins' _Selfish Gene_ crap "politically neutral" and
"scientifically sound", however obviously racism constitutes a backdrop to
his arguments. Racism is more serious than ever before. it has become
"normalized", a problem of 60s, so to say; whoever thinks is not the case
is naive in my view.  

Mine

>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.