Recently, James Watson, the co-discoverer of DNA made statements to the effect that  from his knowledge of governance (which is zero) and human intelligence(which is zero) that he believes that Africans(his knowledge of whom is also zero) are not able to govern themselves and that any expectations for them to do so is misguided. There was furor over what the gentleman said. The furor, apparently, was based on the fact that Mr. Watson is supposed to be a scientist and, as such, ought to know the social implication of his views. In the extant world scientists, apparently, have social prestige and their pronouncements carry weight; thus, a careless racist statement by a prominent scientist could lead to the perception of Africans as inferior persons and consequent maltreatment of them.  

       Mr. Watson’s view is part of the general racist whites’ view that Africans are inferior to Europeans. The racist view that Africans are inferior persons is actually what the uproar is all about.

       Every once in a while a seemingly respected white academic states his view that black folk are inferior to white folk. Arthur Jensen (1) stated similar views. He predicated his views on his understanding of what constituted intelligence. Apparently, he and his fellow white folk designed what seemed to them an “objective intelligence test” and gave it to people from the various races and black folk scored, on the average, fifteen points below the average white person. On the basis of this test result Mr. Jensen concluded that black folk are less intelligent than white folk. He suggested that black folk are not intelligent enough to attend America’s universities (and implied  that black folk ought to be relegated to vocational studies, otherwise that they ought to be wiped off from the face of the earth; a view made quite clear by Adolf Hitler in his Mein Kampf (2)).

        William Shockley, the inventor of the transistor radio, echoed Mr. Jensen’s views and boldly stated that black folk are inferior to white folk. The authors of The Bell Curve, one, Mr. Murray, a political scientist and, apparently, an “expert on Intelligence”, the other, Mr. Herrnstein, a Jew and, apparently, an expert of the Jewish science of psychology, based on their observation on how folk scored on Intelligence tests (WAIS, WISC and Stanford Binnet) designed, given and scored by white folk, pronounced black folk not intelligent. (3) 

       The furor over such statements made by supposed white scientists is predicated on the public’s misunderstanding of what science is and is not. When Misters Watson, Jensen, Shockley, Herrnstein, Murray etc make statements to the effect that black folk are not intelligent they are making value statements not scientific statements and, as such, are not speaking as scientists. 

      If Mr. Watson, Jensen, Shockley, Murray and Herrnstein claimed to be making scientific statements they do not know what science is all about and ought to be sent back to school to learn what science is or is not.        

WHAT IS SCIENCE?

           Science is a methodological approach to phenomena; science is a way of seeing the world and not the world itself. (4)

        Science is that manner of seeing things that attempt to see them as they, in fact, are without any presuppositions or preconceptions of what they are.

      In science the observer attempts to observe what he sees without injecting his opinion as to what he is seeing.

       In science the observer accepts as working truths only those perceptions of phenomena that can be verified by any one who follows the scientific method. A scientific hypothesis must be verifiable and, as Karl Popper noted, falsifiable.

        Clearly, it is difficult to see things as they are since we always see with our past history of learning and experience. No one can make a statement about anything he sees in the present without his past history playing a role in it. Indeed, it is doubtful that we can see (think) at all without our history influencing what we see. For example, society calls something a tree. A child is socialized to calling that something a tree. An adult’s history predisposes him to see certain phenomena as trees. Thus he sees something and calls it tree. He could not have called it a tree if he did not have the past experience he had. We all see with glass darkly, with biased lenses; the idea of objectivity in perception is more myth than reality.

        If we do not have a past can we see anything, or know anything? We seldom see anything as it, in fact, is; our past affects our present. In such a situation are we seeing anything, as it is, in the present? Do we see at all or are we merely projecting the past to the present, distort the present and not see it? What is the truth, today’s truth as opposed to the truth we see with yesterday’s eyes? See David Hume (5)

       Nevertheless, science makes a noble effort to see things as they are, preferably without the past influencing its perception.

        Science is mostly empirical, that is, it observes what it sees in the environment without bothering with the little question of whether what it sees is really there or not. George Berkeley (6) reminds us that in as much as we do dream and see a world that seems like the world we see in the day time, that the world we see in the day time may very well also be a dream? Could solipsism be true? The issue of idealist monism versus materialistic monism has not been solved to any ones satisfaction.

      Science makes the assumption that the world it sees is real, never mind that it may not be real. Let us just observe that it takes the auspices of a human being to observe that a tree fell and that without us we do not know that a tree fell. Thus, theoretically the observer could influence what he observed. Quantum mechanics, especially Heisenberg (7) and Schrodinger (8) actually raises questions whether the observer determines what he observes. No problem; let us assume empiricism as the methodology of science and move on.

     In Aristotelian (9) categories, science is mostly inductive as opposed to Plato’s (10) deductive reasoning; that is, it draws conclusions about the nature of what it sees from seeing it as it is, not from apriori conceptions of what it is. Science builds theories about the nature of phenomena from empirical observations, not from preconceptions and beliefs of what they are.

       On the other hand, religion is mostly deductive. Religion accepts certain concepts as true (perhaps, based on authority, such as the notion that a prophet of God said that they are true) and then applies those concepts to what it sees in the world hence does not see them as they are. Religion, for example, believes that human beings are moral creatures. It uses morality in assessing human behavior. It judges human beings with morality, with ideas of how they ought to behave. Approaching human beings with certain moral presuppositions religion judges their behaviors as either good or bad.

         Science, unlike religion, does not have presuppositions of what constitutes good or bad behavior or what human beings are or are not. Science merely observes human beings as they are without moralizing about what it observes. 

       Consider. I saw John take an apple fruit and eat it. You, too, saw John pick and eat that apple fruit. There is inter-observer agreement here. Both of us, observers, agree about what we see and verify it to our mutual satisfaction. This is science.  However, if I proceed to say that John took an apple fruit that does not belong to him, that he stole it, I would have engaged in an unscientific behavior; I would be making a moral statement. Here are the implicit problems in making a moral statement. One: who determined who owns what apple?  Two: who decided that it is stealing to take an apple fruit and eat it?  Perhaps, society made both determinations. Three:  on what grounds did society make those determinations?  Perhaps, society made them through its laws?

       Political science (11), an aspect of science, teaches us that society’s laws are the product of politics. In making laws, powerful interest groups influence law makers. Therefore, laws do not necessarily represent fairness. To say that one should not eat that particular apple is not a statement of justice but a statement of law, law which, as we know, reflects the interest of the ruling groups in society.

       Is it natural to say that the apple eater stole it? Of course not; to say that one stole something is to make an unscientific, though legal statement.

      What is legal or not is a social construct (12) and does not necessarily operate in nature. In nature we see animals taking apple fruits and eating them without regard to who owns them. The idea of ownership and stealing are social constructs, not natural phenomena.

       A scientist can observe the act of a person picking and eating an apple fruit and call his observation scientific but the moment he states that the act is either good or bad he has left the purview of science and is now in the murky world of social constructs, constructs determined by power relationships of those in society. Those who have more wealth and power make laws and use those laws to claim certain things as their property and prevent others from laying claim to them; if those excluded from ownership tried to disobey extant property rights they are considered antisocial and are arrested, and as criminals tried and punished. They are punished by laws made by the powerful in society. What constitutes criminality is a social construct, not a natural reality.

      The point to all this seeming hair splitting is that there is distinction between pure observation and moral statements. Observation can be scientific but it can also be moral. When an observation makes a moral statement it is not a scientific statement.

         Science does not make moral statements. Science should not say that one thing is better than another. Science can observe things as they seem to be but should not make a judgmental statement about them.

       An American psychologist (is there a universal science of psychology) can say that he constructed what to him is intelligence test and that he gave it to folk and that the various races scored differently on it.  This is an acceptable empirical statement, for his claims of different scores can be verified by any one who chooses to do so. But the moment he proceeds to say that based on the different scores on his test that some races are superior and others inferior he is now making value statement. He is now expressing his preferences, his view of what constitutes superiority or lack of it; he is no longer making a scientific statement. 

      Let me ask the following questions of our arrogant but empty headed Western psychologists (come to think of it, the more empty headed a human being is the more arrogant he tends to be and the more knowledgeable a human being is the more humble he tends to be, for the more one knows the more one knows that one does not know a lot). Who constructed the test in question? The White American constructed it. Who said that such a test is the only way for ascertaining intelligence? The white American said so.

        Are there other conceptions of intelligence? There are other ideas of intelligence and how to test it. If so, why should we limit ourselves to the test designed by white Americans?  There is absolutely no reason why we should do so. If a white American designer of certain test claims that his test is the only one, well, he is deluded.

       Let it be observed that it is the master that tests the servant, and the very fact that a white American dares to test a black person reflects their unequal political relationship, one the master and the other the servant. Political relationships do change; masters do become servants.

      The agents of ascendant empires presume to know what is true and test their minions. But if history is any consolation it is that empires come and go. We had Egypt , Greece , Rome , Britain , France and Russia etc as once mighty empires but today are no more. All things being constant the present behemoth, the world Hegemon , America would also join the once powerful empires of the world. White Americans that today run around amusing themselves on how superior human beings they are will soon be disabused of their arrogant fantasy. China and India are already knocking on the door of superpower status.

        For the purposes of this discourse, however, what is salient is that to make a statement that one thing is good and another bad, one thing superior and another inferior, is a value statement, and perhaps a moral judgment and not a scientific statement.

       There is no natural evidence that one thing is better than another. Is a human being better than a mouse?  To nature a human being is not superior to a mouse. To say that a human being is superior to a mouse is a value statement, a self serving statement and an unscientific statement.

       Nature does not tell us that one thing is better than another. What we construe as better than another is what serves our personal (or group) interests. 

      To human beings things may be different, separated and unequal. To human beings certain things are good and others not good; it all depends on their functionality to human beings. Consider fire. Fire burns people so it is not good, right? But fire is also used to cook food so fire is good, right? To nature fire is neither good nor bad; fire simply is. Fire is part of nature, to judge it as good or bad is not a scientific behavior. 

       Nature produced everything and everything that exists is part of nature.

THE PROBLEM OF NEUROSIS

        Human beings are those creatures that find certain behaviors useful in their struggle to adapt to their impersonal environment. Those behaviors that enable them to survive they term good and those behaviors that do not conduce to their survival they term bad. .

       Human beings must judge good and bad because certain behaviors conduce to their survival and others do not.  However, what conduces to their survival may not conduce to the survival of other organisms; what human beings consider good or bad is relative to their needs and by no means good or bad in themselves.

      Given their motivation to survive (13) and the fact that certain behaviors, more than others, conduce to their survival, human beings make moral judgments. To them, what is moral (good) is that which enables them to survive.

      Some human beings (actually all of them in degrees) see their bodies as weak and not conducive to their survival. (14) Perceiving their bodies as not good enough some human beings reject them and invent what seems to them superior bodies and selves, and as Alfred Adler pointed out, a mere compensatory self, a fictional self.

      As Karen Horney (15) sees it, the rejection of the real self and pursuit of a mentally constructed ideal self is the nature of neurosis.

        Neurosis is that human tendency to see the body and its self as not good enough, reject them and use ones thinking to construct ideal alternatives to them and aspire to attaining the ideals.

      All human beings engage in this neurotic behavior hence all human beings are neurotic. All human beings, in degrees, reject their real selves and want to become ideal selves. To be a human being is to be a neurotic animal, an animal that rejects his animality and wants to become something more than an animal.

      However, some human beings do pursue ideal selves more than others hence are more neurotic than others. Those human beings that are conscious that they rejected their bodies and selves and are striving after ideal, perfect alternatives to them are clinically called neurotic persons (that is, the various personality disordered states, such as paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal, narcissistic, histrionic, borderline, antisocial, avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive and passive aggressive).

       Normal human beings pretty much do what neurotics do except that they are not consciously aware of the fact that they rejected their real selves and pursue ideal selves. As it were, the normal person repressed what he did, self rejection; he placed his rejected self into what Sigmund Freud (16) and Carl Jung (17) would call his unconscious. From the unconscious, what was rejected influences the normal human beings’ behaviors.

       In the neurotic person self rejection is conscious and pursuit of ideal self is conscious; in the normal human being self rejection is unconscious and pursuit of an idealized self is also unconscious As it were, a neurotic is a conscious creature whereas a normal person is an unconscious creature. The neurotic is more self aware whereas the normal person is closer to animals in the sense that he is not conscious of the forces operating in him.

       (To be human, as opposed to being a mere animal, is to be self conscious; the normal person is mildly self conscious whereas the neurotic is very self conscious; the neurotic, in effect, has attained a higher level of human beingness though he is not yet healthy; to be healthy is to let go of self consciousness and, as Buddha (18) recommends, relapse into a sense of undifferentiated oneness with all being and work for all beings’ interests.) 

     The neurotic is aware of what he is doing. He is aware that he rejected his real self and wants to become an ideal self. He is aware that he does not like his real self and wants to become an alternative perfect self.

       The neurotic is aware that his ideal self, the self he wants to become, is made up by him. He is aware that he is the one who constructed his ideal self and that it is ideational, is a mental construct and not real. Real or not the neurotic is driven by obsessive compulsive desire to become his ideal self, for he sees his real self (animal self) as unacceptable.

       To the neurotic the real human being, particularly the human body, is, to put it bluntly shit. He sees his body as feces and rejects it and wants to become an alternative self that is better than his body.

       The neurotic knows that he is not his ideal self and that he would never attain his ideal self. Thus, he is always living in conflict: to be his real self or to be his ideal self? To be or not to be, Shakespeare’s neurotic character, Hamlet, asked. To be God like (neurotic ideal self) or to be human (mere animal)? This constant consideration of what self to be produces anxiety for the neurotic.

       The neurotic lives in neurotic anxiety, anxiety from self rejection and desire to attain an imaginary ideal self. If you want to become an ideal self and compare your real self to it you must necessarily fall short of it and feel anxious. Reality is not art; human beings are not fictional ideal selves, they are mere animals wishing to be godlike. To be neurotic, which is the state of current Western man (the intelligent ones), is to live in anxiety. Those living in traditional societies, with a few exceptional persons, are not yet at neurotic state of evolution; they tend to still be in the womb of society and have little or no individuality. Eric Fromm (19) explored this phenomenon in some detail.

   The psychotic (schizophrenic, manic depressive, deluded etc) does what the neurotic does; he, too, wants to be ideal. He too has judged his real self, the human self, as not good enough and rejected it and replaced it with an imaginary ideal self. Unlike the neurotic, the psychotic has forgotten that he is the one who constructed his ideal self and now takes his imaginary ideal self as real and pretends to be it.

        Whereas the neurotic wants to be ideal but knows that he is not ideal, the psychotic believes that he is his ideal self construct. Thus, we see schizophrenics actually believing that they are god or Jesus Christ or whatever ideal self they constructed for themselves; we see bipolar affectively disordered persons believing themselves to be the richest men in the world or the most beautiful women in the world, and acting as such when they are poor or ugly.  We see deluded persons believing themselves this or that when that is not true; we see deluded characters believing that some persons are out to get them (such beliefs make their insignificant lives seem important) when no one is out to kill them.

       In sum, the normal person rejected his real self and seeks an ideal self and this dynamics is in his unconscious and he is not aware of what is going on in his psyche; the neurotic did the same thing and the dynamics is in his conscious mind; the psychotic engaged in the same behavior but believes himself his imaginary alternative self. The insane person is a person who believes in his imaginary self as true; the neurotic is a person who wants his imaginary ideal self to be true but knows that it is not true; the normal person is not conscious of what he is doing. The normal person, as it were, is sleeping and dreaming; he is not aware of the forces motivating his behaviors; he is closer to animals, if animals are construed as less self conscious than human beings, in his unconsciousness.

         Neurosis is the human tendency to reject the real self and seek an alternative ideal self. The desire to become ideal drives people to accomplish a lot. Many scientists are driven to their high accomplishments by neurotic forces. Many scientists want to transcend the human condition; they rejected their real selves, the animal self, and seek to become ideal selves, the godlike self (the all knowing self, as opposed to the animal that just exists in nature).

     Having rejected their real selves, some neurotic scientists deny what they did and project their self rejection to other persons. Thus, a white scientist who sees his real self as nothing significant denies it and projects his sense of nothingness to black folk. Now, he sees black folk, those who remind him of mere animal status, as insignificant nothing. He then treats black folk as if they are insignificant.

        In projecting his negative self perception to black folk the white neurotic manages to avoid confronting the fact that he sees himself as insignificant (unintelligent).

         Clearly, human beings see their animal selves as unimportant. Their bodies are feces. Have you seen a dead and decaying body? A rotting body smells like feces. The human beady is dressed up feces or as the good book, the bible, put it, “whited sepulcher”. 

       An awareness of the human condition leads to self rejection and quest for an ideal alternative to it.  

      For our present purposes, white neurotic scientists reject their animal self and project their self rejection to black folk and see the latter as animals, that is, as unimportant.  Of course, black folk are animals, but so are white folk.

      When white folk stop projecting their rejected selves to black persons they would then accept themselves for what they are, animals.

       Consider the writers of the Bell Curve. What are they? They are two packages of feces, literally. They are feces and know it but reject it. They project their negative self assessment to black folk and think that they have managed to convince themselves that they are not shit. They give away what they see in themselves to other people.

        Man is that animal that knows that he would die, rot and smell to high heaven and that makes him hate what he seems to be. He attempts to convince himself that he is more than his body but has no evidence to support whatever imaginary ideal self view he assigns to him.

       In religion man posits God (see the writings of St Augustine and Thomas Aquinas for example (20)) and attributes to him all sorts of imaginary powers, such as changelessness, permanency, eternity, immortality and all knowingness (these are what he wished that he were) and by identifying with that God he believes that he is now as important as his God.  Alas, it is man that constructed whatever idea of God he has.

      There is no evidence for the existence of God (which does not mean that God does not exist).   

      Man knows his future death and possible oblivion and does not like it, and attempts to deny it and replace it with an ideal future. He often projects his negative (animal) self assessment to other people. 

        Man must learn to accept his real self, the animal self and quit projecting what he thinks that he is to other people.

      White neurotic scientists must deal with their neurosis and quit amusing us with their silly statements about who is superior or inferior. No human being is superior, not even to mice. To nature all biological organisms are the same, equal and one; nature certainly treats all of them the same; the recent (2005) tsunami in East Asia swept over two hundred thousand people to death, and, perhaps, the same number of dogs and cats to death, thus showing what nature thinks of human beings worth.

   To nature human beings have no worth and value and the sooner neurotic white scientists accept this fact and stopped amusing us with their occasional lunacy of talking about who is superior or not the better for all of us.

      The pursuit of neurotic worth leads to maltreating other human beings. Adolf Hitler, the quintessential neurotic realized that as an animal he had no worth and tried to use his mind to invent an ideal self, an imaginary self. In pursuit of that ideal self he murdered those who seemed not to fit his neurotic ideal self.

       In pursuit of neurotic ideals human beings murder each other; therefore, it is time neurotic white scientists stopped telling us about their imaginary worth.

       All intelligent human beings know that they are existentially nothing. Whatever worth we give to ourselves is make belief, made up and not true. We reject the fact that to nature we are nothing and, instead, juxtapose a seeming worthwhile self and pretend to be that imaginary important, significant self.

       Neurotic human beings invent an imaginary ideal standard of behavior. They employ their imaginary ideal standard to judge themselves and other people as good or bad.

      When a neurotic sees you, he judges you with his neurotic standards of good and bad and in doing so sees you as either good or bad and treats you as such. But in reality you are neither good nor bad; you are a biological organism thrown up by natural forces.

       We distort our perceptions with our neurotic values and standards. We make life miserable for each other by judging each other with our imaginary ideal standards. This need not be.

       Human beings ought to just accept themselves as they are without judgment as to whether they are good or bad; they ought to just see themselves as a variety of animals and leave it at that.

       Alas, it is difficult to heal neurosis for human beings always hate their animal selves and wish that they were godlike. The universities are teeming with neurotic scholars and scientists, folk with fancy ideas of who they think that they are. These fools so delude themselves that they are no longer living in the real world. Then a realistic Adolf Hitler comes along and knows that human value is imaginary and that if he wishes he could round up all the imaginary important persons and gas them to death and no god would stop him from doing so. (God did not stop Hitler from murdering fifty million persons or Stalin from murdering thirty-five million persons; only human beings stopped the paranoid neurotics/personalities.)

       To nature it does not smatter whether people are gassed to death or not; burning people to death is no different from burning wood to ashes. That is the truth that people are trying to run from with their fanciful neurotic ideas of superiority and inferiority.

        The goal of science is to see things as they are and this includes seeing people as they are. People are biological organisms; they are like dogs and cats, perhaps, with more complex brains (but do not pursue that line of thinking by telling yourself that men, for example, build mansions, a seeming complicated engineering undertaking; building a mansion is not more important than building a bird’s nest, both are means of sheltering the biological organism’s body from the elements;  an earthquake or volcano destroys the mansion as it destroys the bird’s nest meaning that to nature they are the same).

       Animals, human beings included, are the same and that is all there is to it. All these talk of superiority and inferiority is neurotic and it is better we healed white neurotics of their neurosis, their desire for imaginary worth.

       One has always wondered what gives some white folk the arrogance to place themselves in judgment seat and judge who is superior or inferior. They are playing God. Those who play God when, in fact, they are mere animals are obviously deluded, an aspect of psychosis (the other aspect is hallucination). The racist scientist or skinhead who claims that his race is superior to other people is a psychotic person and needs his swollen head shrunk to normal proportion where he sees all people as the same. (21).

THE BASIS OF RACISM

        The individual, black or white, perceives himself as nothing. The individual denies that negative self perception and projects it to other individuals, particularly to those who seem less developed than him.

       The self is always conceptual and not tangible; each of us, as George Kelly pointed out, building on his inherited biological constitution and social experience constructs his self concept; some having a more realistic self concept whereas other have grandiose self concepts. (22)

      In this light, white individuals perceive themselves as not good enough, deny their negative self perception and project it to Africans. Such white persons see Africans as he thinks that he is but denies, as nothing significant (as unintelligent etc).

        Neurosis is the perception of ones real self, particularly ones body as not good and rejection of that self and desire to be an ideal alternative self.  The neurotic postulates an idealized self and ideal standard of behaviors; he judges himself and other selves with his imaginary ideal standards; he moralizes about peoples behaviors to the extent that they do not meet his ideal standards. He thinks that he sees Africans who fall short of his standards and considers them as inferior to him. 

      To the neurotic white racist, Africans are unimportant persons. He is true as long as he accepts that he too is an unimportant person, for unimportance is his assessment of the human self, though he denies it and projects it to Africans. To nature, all animals are unimportant things.

        Science studies unimportant human beings without moralizing about it, or judging it as good or bad. 

       The world of matter is nothing; people as part of matter are nothing. Science studies matter, nothingness, without telling us that it is good or bad. To science the world of matter is an interesting object that presents itself for study. Scientists see a world and that world invites them to study and understand it on its own terms, not as scientists want it to be. The business of science is studying things as they are, not as scientists want them to be.

       What folks do with the result of scientific studies is up to them. Science, for example, studies how the world is put together, and works. The world has destructive forces (such as nuclear forces). People can use science’s understanding of nuclear forces to do what serves them well (say, generate electricity) or to blow themselves to smithereens. Nature certainly does not care what people do with scientific knowledge and its applied form, technology.  Technology can be used for good or bad (good and bad are human judgments, not nature’s judgment).   

       Neurotic white scientists are pushing the envelop by always talking about how inferior black folks are; they are no longer amusing; they are becoming increasingly irritating, so annoying that someday some black folk would aim at destroying the white race via nuclear technology. I am sure that white scientists know that soon nuclear technology would be available to all people and that to keep on talking nonsense about white superiority invites attacks on white folks.

       Apparently, some racist whites believe that only white folks are capable of understanding nuclear science. Poor fools, if only they go to their own college campuses they would find that it is mostly non-whites that are studying the physical sciences. It is only a matter of time before nuclear technology spreads to all parts the world, Africa included. At that time the chicken would come home to roost for racists. We all know where abused and denigrated third world folk would like to test their crude nuclear devices: American cities. Americans are, of course, aware that their cities are the intended recipients of third world nuclear explosions and that is why they are running around trying to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. However, if history is our guide we know that once a weapon is invented and it gives advantage to the inventor that other countries would seek and eventually acquire it for they want to return to balance of power in their international relations. It is self serving for the West to be the sole possessors of nuclear weapons and want to prevent others from having it. As long as only the West has nuclear weapons it would bully non-Westerners into doing as it pleases an unacceptable situation. Political realism suggests that it either all nuclear weapons are destroyed or it would spread to most countries. This is particularly so as we reach critical mass in our knowledge of nuclear science and engineering. Initially, new knowledge seems difficult and only some understand it but when critical mass is attained it seems easy and all can understand it. In the past only the best minds understood Isaac Newton’s mechanics but today most high school students take it for granted. Soon, nuclear science would be high school stuff. At that point, third world folk would be rigging nuclear weapons in their garages and using them to blackmail those who currently blackmail the rest of the world, the West.

       It is in white folk’s survival interests for neurotic whites to just shut up and stop insulting other people’s sense of dignity.

      Human beings are animals that want to have dignity, even if that dignity is imaginary.  If you attack their dignity they are likely to attack and even kill you. Neurotic white scientists are attacking black folk’s dignity and in the process setting themselves up to be counter attacked by black folk. The Jew (such as Herrnstein) who, for some reason, seems incapable of learning from his sad experience is mostly at the forefront of this attack on black folk’s dignity. He has forgotten that Hitler and German Nazis saw him as worthless vermin to be eradicated from the surface of the earth and embarked on killing him. This “vermin” is now trying to make black folk seem to have less worth hence setting black folk up to be killed by racist white folk. Luckily, there are over a billion black persons in this world and only a handful of Jews. When push comes to shove black folk would kill off Jews. So let the neurotic Jew who thinks that it is funny to denigrate black folk’s worth keep on doing so. When black folk become angry and kill him, as usual, he sees himself as an innocent victim that other folks killed. No, he is not an innocent victim; he brings the attacks of other persons unto him by his on-going existential cowardice, his inability to call a spade a spade, his refusal to state the truth of human sameness, equality and oneness. Apparently, these moral cowards are motivated to please their racist white masters by joining them in putting black folk down, hoping that white folk would see them as worthy of acceptance. Apparently, the Jew is the most contemptible and despicable creature that walks this earth and no wonder white racists believe that it is necessary to get rid of him from the world. How dare an oppressed person join oppressors to oppress black folk?

DISCUSSION

      I talked as if there is no force other than natural forces. Some persons believe that there is a non- material force at work in the universe. That may very well be true. Whatever that forces is, it has to be a force for love to make any sense and to be accepted by rational persons. From where one stands only love makes life meaningful and worth living. To love is to unify with the loved object. To know ones union with all beings gives us peace and happiness.

     White neurotic scientists ought to try practicing love for themselves and for all people; they might experience the peace that their shabby lives lack. One must live a desperate life to be always having the desire to put Africans down, as neurotic white scientists do. The mark of a noble life is a life dedicated to effort to improving all people’s lives, not putting any one down.

       (Who gave white racists, scientists or skin heads, the right to judge non-whites inferior? Psychosis? (23) They need to be healed of their insane desire to seem superior to other races; in reality they are not even superior to dogs!)

CONCLUSION

         Western scientists are human beings.  Like human beings everywhere, they suspect that as they are, bodies, and bodies’ epiphenomenal personalities, they are not good enough, that they are nothing.

       Nature, what scientists believe in, does not treat human beings as if they are anything other than animals. Nature destroys human beings as it destroys animals and trees. Therefore, a human being who limits his nature to nature must feel like he is not special, that he is nothing.

       Religious persons do not limit themselves to nature; they see themselves as the creation of a supernatural force hence feel a self worth that transcends what they would feel if they limited themselves to nature.

       Scientists who limit their self concepts to what nature warrants necessarily see themselves as nothing.  Nevertheless, they want to seem important. They want to seem special, intelligent, worthy and valuable but such feeling cannot be justified in nature, for in nature they are just like the rats they study in their laboratories. These people, therefore, play a mental trick on themselves: they consciously deny their self assessment as nothing special and project that self assessment to Africans.

        Africans, in their materially underdeveloped status, seem closer to animals hence as nothing. Thus, in the racists view Africans, those who seem materially underdeveloped, are the nothing they see themselves as but denied. The racist, contrary to his swaggering, actually believes that he is less than feces, deny that negative self assessment and project it to Africans.

       James Watson, despite his Nobel Prize in biology, believes himself as nothing important; at the conscious level he denies that negative self assessment and projects it to Africans. In giving what he sees in himself to Africans he imagines that he is now an important person. Poor fool; he is still food for worms. How old is this old fool, any way? Seventy five years old? A fool at seventy five is going to be a fool forever. In a few more years the old fool would have been eaten by worms. This is the human reality that idiotic racists refuse to grapple with and come to realistic terms with.

       We are all one humongous nothing and ought to accept that reality without denying and dissociating from it and displacing it to other persons and maltreating them.

        The solution to racism is for neurotic Western scientists to understand what is going on in their minds, the conscious and unconscious aspects of their minds, and stop projecting their rejected negative aspects to Africans.

       Science necessarily leads to the perception of man as nothing more than animal hence as nothing significant. Therefore, scientists must accept that they are nothing and leave it at that.

       On the other hand, if scientists want to have some “delusions” of worth they can always return to religion and be told that a great God created them and therefore that they are great. Religion gives people worth that are not based on scientific, that is, natural ground.

      Contemporary Western man destroyed religion, that which gave people worth, and accepts nature (science) as his epistemology. Science does not give human beings worth. Godless Western man cannot feel like he has worth. Let him accept that reality and stop projecting his denied worthless self to Africans.

      If to nature man is nothing then both Western scientists and Africans are nothing. As we make our beds we must sleep on them. Those who teach people that they are animals, only, must accept that they are animals and stop denying that fact and projecting it to Africans so as to retain feelings that they are superior animals.

       Scoring high on IQ tests does not make some animals superior to other animals. The whole IQ hullabaloo is really a neurotic attempt by inferior feeling western pseudo scientists, psychologists, to convince themselves that they are superior animals. The fact is that if all we are is animals having a higher score on IQ tests des not make any of us superior animals; high or low scores on IQ tests does not obviate the fact that we are animals that will end as, as Shakespeare’s Hamlet, that epitome of a neurotic, observed, food for worms. (By the way, Asians score higher than Caucasians on IQ tests, by as much as Caucasians score more than black folk. I suppose that this makes Asians superior to Caucasians, or are there reasons why this is so, such as Asian discipline and studiousness? I leave it to white folks to rationalize why they are “dumber than Asians”. When you begin ranking people you may turn out the loser. We all know that the slave master is as enslaved as the slave. No human being is free as long as another human being is enslaved. It is either freedom for all or no one has freedom.)

         Religious folk may have some value, value scientists ought to investigate and see if they have worth apart from what nature teaches them? May be people actually are part of spirit that transcends nature hence have the worth that religions teach? 

       An America  poet,  Helen Schucman, (24) wrote an interesting metaphysical poem, A Course in miracles,  that claims that man is more than his body and ego, is part of spirit hence has the worth that eludes those who limit their self conception to animal (body) alone. May be she is correct? Why not go find out?

        In the meantime, would neurotic Western scientists who suspect that as animals they are worthless please do all of us a favor and accept the logic of science: that they are nothing, and stop seeking pseudo important status by projecting their sense of nothingness to African people. Enough please.

      Africans are sick and tired of been the receivers of the behaviors of childish Western neurotics’ attempts to seem important by making them seem unimportant. It is either all human beings have value or none of them has value; if Africans are unimportant Caucasians are unimportant.

       Finally, it is obvious that this essay is in line with the philosophy of existentialism. (25) Existentialism, my frame of reference, sees life in human body and body’s epiphenomenal personality as totally meaningless and purposeless. It, however, does not flee from our meaningless world into some make belief world of religion. It accepts what is and makes the most of it. It studies science and technology and uses them to improve this world, meaningless as it may be. As stoic philosophers (26) would say, grind your teeth and make the most of a bad situation without complaining about it, for complaints would not change it. As old time epicures (27) used to say: eat and live well for tomorrow you will die and become food for worms.

      Pessimism may be uncalled for; for in the final analysis we do not know that religion is wrong in positing a part of us that transcends matter? Be that as it may, what matters, it seems to me, is to love all human beings. Racists ought to learn love rather than their present hate, and experience the peace and joy that come from loving our fellow human beings.

*This essay was written in response to James Watson’s arrogant statements regarding Africans supposed inferiority and white folk’s superiority. Dr Osuji can be reached at ozodiosuji@gmail.com

NOTES

1. Arthur Jensen. Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R.. (2005). Thirty years of research on Black-White differences in cognitive ability. Psychology, Public Policy, & the Law, 11, 235-294.

2. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.  1925.

3. Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray.  The Bell Curve. New York : Free Press, 1994.

4. Karl Popper. Conjectures and Refutations; The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1959.

5. David Hume. Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. 1740.

6. George Berkeley. A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (1710) and Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous.

7. Werner Heisenberg.  Physical principles of the quantum theory, translated into English by Carl Eckart and Frank C. Hoyt ... 1930.

8. Erwin Schrodinger. The interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" Ox Bow Press (1995)

9. Aristotle. The Politics of Aristotle.

10. Plato. Republic.

11. Harold Laswell. Propaganda Technique in the World War (1927; Reprinted with a new introduction, 1971)

Robot  Villager

# 1 Recently, James Watson, the co-discoverer of DNA made statements t...Read the full article. Posted by Robot| 13.11.2007 14:19

Abujaboy  Villager

# 2 I stopped reading early on. Psychology is a "Jewish science"? NOW who's the rascist? Posted by Abujaboy| 14.11.2007 05:47

robert  Villager

# 3 The flow of this write-up, from start to finish, the deductive reasoning, is inspiring. I read books, a lot of them – from simple novels to academic treatise; this is a masterpiece in the art of writing. Thanks for a great quality evening reading this article. Posted by robert| 14.11.2007 09:05