By Nicholas Stix
Far be it from me to defend an alleged neo-Nazi named Craig Cobb, whom I heard of for the first time but five minutes ago, from Hunter Wallace at Occidental Dissent, and yet...
Someone named Trisha Goddard, whom I also just heard about for the first time five minutes ago, invited Cobb to appear on her (presumably cable TV) show, and take a DNA test. Goddard then claimed that the test showed that Cobb is “14 percent sub-Saharan African!”
My good friend Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has repeatedly promoted my work,* wrote “The reality is that those obsessed with race and anti-Semitism quite frequently turn out to have very serious secrets.” (*Here, here, and here.)
(That’s right: By their logic, Mark Potok and the SPLC are tied to Nicholas Stix!)
If we take Mark seriously, and follow his logic, is he intimating that he may be a closet Nazi?
The reason my title wonders aloud whether this DNA wasn’t a hoax is because a company that does business doing DNA analyses, the Icelandic firm deCODE genetics, almost certainly pulled a hoax on Nobel Laureate James Watson in 2007. Watson had famously made public his entire genome, and the company “analyzed” it, following the public racial humiliation of Watson (and his rank cowardice, in submitting to it, and even lying about what he knew about race and IQ), claiming that he was 16% black and 9% Asian.
As my VDARE colleague Steve Sailer wrote at the time, we knew enough about Watson’s background to know that the analysis was false. Thus, we have a heretofore largely unknown company almost certainly committing scientific fraud, in order to shore up its public credibility and reputation, so as to make money off of DNA analyses.
(I just re-read Sailer’s analysis, and saw that he didn’t charge decode with any sort of fraud. So, the charge comes from me alone. Sailer says that Watson may have some long-ago non-white forebears, whose genetic markers keep coming up in analyses, thus inflating their contributions. But that’s Sailer being overly generous. decode didn’t speak in such careful, judicious terms. The company went out of its way to depict Watson as being only 75 percent white, which would require his having one black-Asian grandparent, or two partially black and/or partially Asian grandparents. As Sailer shows, that is simply not the case, nor is it the case with Watson’s great-grandparents. Thus, deCODE lied.)
It’s like the countless people in academia and the media whose “credibility” is based entirely on their constant lying about race and society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
If Watson is 16% black and this Cobb is 14% black, the black features would show, because you can be as little as 1/32nd black and the rest white and the black shows. Adam Clayton Powell was 10% black.
My instantaneous response to this is that was a set up from the start. Cobb wanted to go to North Dakota and set up a commune or "homeland" so called whitey supremacists. And now this, saying that he is part African, negro/Bantu. sounds like a set up to me that he went on TV to have this "revealed". This was all planned from the start. SPLC is known for shenanigans.
Watson 16% and he discovered DNA whereas Barack Obama is 50% black (100% if you go by mother contributed DNA) and he uses his white privilege to do absolutely nothing of value.
I read that Oprah Winfrey paid for analysis of her DNA, which revealed that she is a Zulu. A Zulu princess, no doubt. How her ancestors got to America remains unexplained.
Post a Comment