February 28, 2008

Will Obama return the evil racist's money?

Remember how the New Republic made this big stink about how Ron Paul should give back $500 from Jon White or somebody with a name like that who was an evil racist?

From The Scientist:
In an intriguing election-year twist, James Watson, the renowned biologist who made headlines last October when he told the Sunday Times that people of African descent were less intelligent than white people, has supported a person of African descent for President of the United States, according to the website opensecrets.org. Watson contributed $2,300 to the Barack Obama campaign this January.
In reality, Watson has always been a Democrat, as was, according to his autobiography, his father before him.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer


Anonymous said...

I voted for Paul, and I can understand why you want Obama to get comparable media treatment to what Paul got, but after all the time you spent defending Watson, it seems rather unwise for you to try to gin up the controversy again just to make Obama look bad. It seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. (Especially since the guy who donated to Paul was an honest-to-goodness neo-Nazi; how can it be good for the pro-Watson cause to put Watson the same level, even in jest?)

P.S. For what it's worth, the pro-Paul neo-Nazi was named Don Black.

MensaRefugee said...

Evil Racists dont return money garnered from other evil racists. Where have you been?

Anonymous said...

Oh come on. There is a big difference between James Watson and Don Black. While the general public certainly wouldn't recognize it, the fact of the matter is that James Watson is a legitimate scientist who was chastised for telling the truth, while Don Black is the webmaster of that white nationalist cesspool Stormfront.org.

While I thought the guilt by association game that was played by numerous Ron Paul critics was pretty stupid, this still isn't the same thing because James Watson isn't actually guilty of doing anything wrong himself.

Truth said...

That's because Watson and Obama are related. (On the Senator's father's side.)

Anonymous said...

Don Black runs a hugely popular "White Nationalist" website called Stormfront. So he's not exactly an unknown.

Anonymous said...

A better comparison would be to publically ask Obama to reject the support of all racists groups like the Black Panthers, Nation of Islam and extremist black nationalist churches AND ask him if he will return all monies/support they've provided.

Borderline cases would be to ask him to reject at least some of the more overtly racists things people like his spiritual leader and political mentors have said (if not reject association with them entirely).

Ron Guhname said...

This story must be false: only those who deny race and differences in intelligence would ever support a black candidate, or would ever want to help black people. We all know that all so-called "race realists" openly or secretly want to put blacks in concentration camps.

Anonymous said...

I agree with James K. above. I think Steve Sailer should clarify that the deal is ... if Obama can get away with taking donations from James Watson, it's okay because the latter is not a bigot. It is always a risk, when pointing out a double standard, that you'll be confused with supporting the wrong half. It's not that Obama is getting away with this because the public has accepted (or even understands) genetics; he's getting away with it because the press loves him.
- avid Voegelin fan

Unknown said...

This story must be false: only those who deny race and differences in intelligence would ever support a black candidate, or would ever want to help black people. We all know that all so-called "race realists" openly or secretly want to put blacks in concentration camps.

It's a policy
issue. Despite the blackness, I agree with Obama on more policy issues than McCain. I believe in racial differences in intelligence, but I'm still going democrat.

Of course, if there was a:
get out/partition Iraq
Pro-environment/energy independence
Muslim people suck
Balance the budget
Don't torture
Reform health care
Lower Defense budget and entitlement spending
Increase NASA
End illegal immigration


then sure I'd vote for him.

But, us independents have to pick the lesser of 2 evils.

Anonymous said...

Just because Democrats don't speak the truth doesn't mean Democrats don't know the truth. They know it better than anyone else, what with their 200+ years of experience with the issue. These are the folks who read the Moynihan Report-- and used it as a blueprint.

To switch races, parties and posts for a second, Mr Kabala's reply a day or two ago, that post-FDR Southerners vote GOP now because they're "insiders", while the "northern white" votes Democrat because he no longer is-- if by "northern white", you mean traditional Yankee, that is wrong. He is still voting for the "party of Lincoln", as he has for 150 years, but he's seriously outnumbered almost everywhere. Even Vermont!

Anonymous said...

Steve, irony is wasted on some of this lot.

Anonymous said...

Watson knows a thing or two about statistics. Only ignorant commenters would suggest that Watson considering Obama the best candidate is incompatible with Watson thinking that blacks are dull on the average.

So far as cognitive skills go, Obama obviously hangs out on the right side of the bell curve-- for all races.

Anonymous said...

feigning you don't know who Don Black is. nice. LOL.

Anonymous said...

Troof fantasizes:

"Watson and Obama are related. (On the Senator's father's side.)"


James Watson admixture claims are invalid: graphic evidence

Kari Stefansson "doubts [. . .] whether the 16 percent figure will hold up"

Anonymous said...

Watson and Obama don't have to be related on the latter's father's side. Guess what name shows up in Watson's genealogy... Dunham!

Watson's and Obama's first American Dunhams both appear in early Massachusetts. Watson's John Dunham was a post-Mayflower Pilgrim who came via Leiden, Holland. Obama's Jonathan Dunham changed his name from Singletary when he left for New Jersey.

According to Patty B Myers, who wrote a first-rate genealogy of Woodbridge, N.J., families, "There is no explanation for this alias." She also says of Obama's ancestor:

Jonathan Dunham led two lives. On one hand he was called "a notorious vagabond" in Dunham Genealogy, and was accused on Plymouth Records as being a "ranter" and disseminating corrupt religious principles among his neighbors. On the other hand, he was a respected citizen of Woodbridge who held many important positions.

(Those in the vicinity of Woodbridge might like to know: "His house is now the Episcopal Church rectory.")

There is no sign (yet) that the two Dunham families are related. Or that Jonathan's daughter-in-law (and Obama's ancestress) Mary Rolfe is related to the family Pocahontas married into.

Anonymous said...

Oops... I messed that up. The direct link to Watson's paternal tree is here. Or, if you prefer,

Anonymous said...

Barry Obama is an extremely bright guy. Nobody denies him that. Just remember this. Don't you think Barry O. has his days dealing with the neck wagging rotating finger snappers of the world, he just shakes his head in consternation? I know he does.

As an extremely bright person, you can't deal with 40 ounce drinking b-ball playing nerd hating player pretenders and never think about bell curves. Not possible.

I bet you Obama knows the score better than any of us here. Or maybe he is one of us here.

Anonymous said...

Reg: Cool.

N: I'll prove to Lester that I am not irony-challenged by expressing my opinion that Mr. Truth was certainly joking.

Mike Courtman said...

Clearly having liberal credentials won't protect you from being persecuted by the liberal establishment if you transgress the pc line on race or immigration issues.

Not how the media also treated the 'BNP Ballerina' (who has a non-white partner) and gay pop-singer Morrissey.

Anonymous said...

two guys I'm getting really bored of:




Always and mindlessly shilling for Barry O.

Truth said...

Yeah, I'm sick of that 'anonymous' guy too!

But please, point out one post I have made that would be considered 'shilling'?