RSS
This video is available on Rumble, BitChute, and Odysee.
James Watson is the world’s most famous living scientist. He won a Nobel Prize in 1962 for the discovery of the structure of DNA.
He was showered with awards and honors, won 20 honorary PhDs, taught at Harvard, and ran Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory for 40 years.
His career and reputation were shattered for saying that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.”
Cold Spring Harbor fired him. Later, it put out a statement: “Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) unequivocally rejects the unsubstantiated and reckless personal opinions of Dr. James D. Watson.”
They weren’t unsubstantiated and they weren’t reckless. But Cold Spring said they were even worse than that: “reprehensible.” This great scientist, now 95 years old, is ending his life in disgrace.
Many have gotten the same treatment.
Noah Carl had an Oxford PhD and in 2018, was appointed to a prestigious fellowship at Cambridge.
Alas, it turned out he had written unfashionable things for such publications as the British Journal of Sociology, the Journal of Biosocial Science, and Intelligence. The Guardian reported the shocking news: “Cambridge gives role to academic accused of racist stereotyping.”
Dr. Carl had to go.
Bo Winegard was a tenure-track assistant professor at Marietta College in Ohio.
This article, one of the best you will ever read on race differences, will show you what a careful and reasonable thinker he is.
Writing and talking about these subjects ended his career.
Jason Richwine, Harvard PhD, worked as a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
In 2013, it came to light that in his PhD thesis, he warned about “a lack of socioeconomic assimilation among low-IQ immigrant groups, more underclass behavior, less social trust, and an increase in the proportion of unskilled workers.”
Heritage Foundation didn’t try to prove him wrong; it just shoved him out.
Nathan Cofnas is a fellow in philosophy at Cambridge.
He has written about the maniacal opposition to studying group differences in this paper: “Research on group differences in intelligence: A defense of free inquiry.”
He writes that the famous intellectual Noam Chomsky wrote that it is wrong to investigate an association between group membership and IQ because that interests only “racists, sexists, and the like.”
Howard Gardner is famous for a theory about “multiple intelligences” including such surprises as musical intelligence and interpersonal intelligence.
He says, “I myself do not condone investigations of racial differences in intelligence, because I think that the results of these studies are likely to be incendiary.”
He’s afraid of the truth.
James Flynn is famous for the Flynn Effect, or what appears to be a gradual increase in IQ scores around the world.
In a book, called Are We Getting Smarter?, he wrote that the question of racial differences in IQ is an empirical one that can be answered by proper investigation.
However, “If universities have their way, the necessary research will never be done. . . . It is always just far more important to establish whether squirrels enjoy The Magic Flute.”
Nathan Cofnas has another paper about hostility to science.
He quotes Daniel Dennet, professor emeritus of philosophy at Tufts University, who doesn’t care how theoretically sound what he calls “dangerous” scientific hypotheses may be.
“if I encountered people conveying a message I thought was so dangerous that I could not risk giving it a fair hearing, I would be at least strongly tempted to misrepresent it, to caricature it for the public good.”
Deceive people for the public good. And he’s a philosophy professor.
One of the most ferocious opponents of science is Eric Turkheimer, who has taught psychology at the University of Virginia since 1992.
He nailed his colors to the mast in 1997, in an article called “The search for a psychometric left.”
He warned fellow lefties that if they keep claiming that intelligence is a myth and that there’s no such thing as heritability, they’ll look like idiots. He called for a left that would accept the obvious, but would go only so far: “It would assert that the most important difference between the races is racism.”
Twenty years later, he was still battling the facts. In a 2007 paper in Cato Unbound, he wrote that “questions about the role of genetics in the explanation of racial differences in ability are not empirical.”
Not empirical. That means they can’t even be studied. Incredible. Furthermore, “it is a matter of ethical principle that individual and cultural accomplishment is not tied to the genes.”
Ethical principle? This isn’t science anymore. He says people who disagree with him “deserve the vigorous disapprobation they often receive.”
Prof. Turkheimer has built a career on the idea that the children of rich people grow up in environments that let their genes for intelligence express themselves fully, while the genes for intelligence in poor children are smothered by bad environments.
The implication is that this is why blacks have lower IQs than whites or Asians.
In 2020, a team of researchers led by Bryan Pesta looked into this theory in a metanalysis called “Racial and ethnic group differences in the heritability of intelligence.” They found that in the United States, there was very little racial difference in the heritability, or the genetic contribution, of intelligence. Prof. Turkheimer and a disciple wrote a blistering reply called “A Cautionary Example of Fringe Science Entering the Mainstream.”
Right in the abstract they complained that the Pesta paper was “an example of how racially motivated and poorly executed work can find its way into a mainstream scientific journal.”
They also complained about severe “rhetorical flaws,” whatever they are. After harrumphing about supposed scientific mistakes in the paper, they warned that “Attempted appropriations of contemporary genetics to further hereditarian, racist, and White-nationalist arguments have increased in frequency and sophistication.”
Gosh. Bad people like me read science papers. Scholars better stop writing stuff that proves we’re right. How to stop them? With “interdisciplinary coordination at multiple levels from publishers to editors, editorial boards, peer reviewers, and promotion committees.”
In other words, a coordinated campaign of censorship to make sure findings they don’t like never see the light of day.
Calls for censorship are bad enough in what is supposed to be a scientific paper. Even worse, the editor of the journal refused to print a reply from the original authors. This is a ghastly breach of scientific ethics. Pesta et. al. appealed to the editor, the publisher, and even got eminent scientists to complain on their behalf. No dice. In the meantime, Prof. Turkheimer was tweeting that Dr. Pesta and his co-authors were “openly racist and anti-Semitic authors.”
Accusations like that alone are enough to discredit someone.
Publications also suffer in this climate of hysteria.
In 2020, the same Bryan Pesta, along with John Fuerst, submitted a paper to The Journal of Intelligence. It was called “Measured Cognitive Differences among UK adults of Different Ethnic Backgrounds.” Cognitive differences? Ethnic backgrounds? Uh, oh. Independent scholar Emil Kirkegaard posted the rejection letter, which said, “The journal will not publish articles that may lead to or enhance political controversies.”
What? Anything significant could be controversial. But Eric Turkheimer might accuse you of racism and antisemitism. The editor said he hadn’t even looked into the scientific validity of the study but it might be controversial, so peddle your paper somewhere else.
Last year, a publication called Nature Human Behavior issued editorial guidelines: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans.”
All humans? Murderers? Psychopaths? Mental defectives? No. The problem is that “research may — inadvertently — stigmatize individuals or human groups. It may be discriminatory, racist, sexist, ableist or homophobic.”
You may not be a racist, but if you find race differences you could be violating someone’s dignity and rights. Needless to say, “Race and ethnicity are sociopolitical constructs. Humans do not have biological races.”
And, of course, “potential harms to the populations studied may outweigh the benefit of publication.”
So, we suppress the truth if it might hurt someone’s feelings. What a disgusting betrayal of science. I’m sure there are plenty of journals that operate this way. These guys are at least honest enough to admit it.
The US government wants to suppress the truth. “The National Institutes of Health now blocks access to an important database if it thinks a scientist’s research may enter ‘forbidden’ territory.” The Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes is a collection of genome scans of millions of people along with extensive data about their health, education, occupation, and income.
It’s a crucial tool for understanding how genes act on humans. But you have to apply to get the data, and NIH won’t let you have it if it thinks your findings might “stigmatize” someone.
I want to ask all these censors and bullies: What are you afraid of? Do you think that if the data prove there is a genetic contribution to the black/white IQ gap, blacks will riot, and loot, and burn? They do that already. They do it precisely because we refuse to accept racial differences. Because we teach blacks that if they are not as rich and powerful and happy as white people it’s because we’re constantly griding them down. They loot and riot because we tell them over and over that America has been one, long, racist swindle that never gives them a fair shake.
Think about yourself. Part of growing up was realizing that you aren’t the smartest or the strongest or fastest or the best squash player and that the other guy beat you fair and square. We are telling entire races — blacks and Hispanics — never to grow up, to believe all their lives they are being cheated every day. Why shouldn’t they riot and loot — and hate us? It’s what we get for pious nonsense about equality. And if you doubt this pious nonsense, you’ll never have a career in science — or in anything else, if the thought police have their way. What a miserable, bound-to-fail system.
A multiracial society is going to be one problem after another, even without trying to build it on fantasy. People who suppress the facts, who deliberately keep us ignorant are, in their way, as destructive as rioters and looters. Maybe worse. They want to shackle your mind and make sure you get used to it.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Because (((we))) teach blacks that if they are not as rich and powerful and happy as white people it’s because we’re constantly griding them down.
There, I fixed it for you.
Because who is this “we?” Like We’s on first?
How interesting that the oligarchs of semiteness that push this rubbish that the black is intelligent, would be horrified if for one moment they were told that blacks were remotely similar to themselves in intelligence.
Oh no, semiteness sets itself apart from the rest of the World when push comes to shove!
The whole house of cards tumbles.
The scientific field is rift with social justice warriors and advocates who work 24/7 to suppress objective science that does not support their premises. It is a struggle to publish science that is contrary to the woke narrative. Without the ability to publish such science, science fails to represent itself.
The Big Jewish Lie
The Floyd Myth
https://www.dailyveracity.com/2023/10/21/prosecutor-comes-clean-derek-chauvin-is-innocent-and-immense-pressure-was-put-on-them-to-charge-him-and-change-autopsy/
I’ve tried to teach blacks and except in maybe 2% of the black attendees, they all failed horribly. This was in a technical, troubleshooting field.
To Jared, “we” includes those that look huwhite to him.
Jews: There is no way that any meaningful difference in IQ between Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans could have evolved within a mere sixty five thousand years of perfect genetic isolation. That’s not nearly enough time for evolution to produce any measurable difference in intelligence. That’s a blink of an eye in evolutionary history. Don’t you know anything about evolution, goy?
Also Jews: After the ancestors of Ashkenazi Jews moved to Italy about twelve hundred years ago, they’ve subsequently evolved an IQ that is a full fifteen points higher that the native white goyim of Europe due to strong selection for being good at money lending, which requires a lot of intellectual faculties. This occurred despite the fact that the Jews were originally low-IQ Palestinian goat herders who, upon arrival in Europe, intermarried with gentile women of Southern Italian extraction (not the highest IQ European group). The subsequent twelve hundred years of imperfect isolation, where 60% of Jewish DNA was replaced through miscegenation with native European goyim, was more than enough time to boost Jewish IQ from the low 90’s, which it was in the Levant, to 115, which it ended up being among the AshkeNazim in Germany twelve hundred years later. A mere thousand years of imperfect isolation is more than enough time to raise IQs by over twenty points. Don’t you know anything about genetics, goy?
How surprising: “He is Jewish.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Turkheimer
Typical case of “rambling”. We learn about Prof. Turkheimer only after the middle of the text – and I suppose that he is meant with the “man who wants to keep us ignorant” – but it is never said so. Maybe the video is better.
Hopefully, those you listed as having been disgraced and careers ruined will be exonerated; sadly, this will not happen in James Watson’s lifetime, but perhaps he knows that someday he will be honored as the honest race realist he is.
Bo Winegard has gone on to join Aporia, where, hopefully, he will have a long, fulfilling career.
It should be noted that Russia and China do not denigrate those researching intelligence differences among races.
If woke SJW are so concerned about poorly executed scientific work, they should cut the AGW crap.
The purpose of science is to discover the truth…all else is bullshit. To an intelligent society, knowledge is the goal .
This man wants you ignorant. His name is Jared Taylor and he will never ever mention the Jew.
Of course he is a slithering slime ball Jew.
Turkheimer is a Jew and Jared Taylor is married to one.Whats your game Jared?The Jew playbook is to rev Whites up about Blacks but ignore that it is the Jews who both incite Blacks to harm Whites AND make sure Whites can never organize or defend themselves.You are trying to misdirect us Jared Taylor and we ain’t buying what you are selling.You want us hopeless and blaming the symptom(Blacks)instead of being positive and knowing Satanic Jewry will be defeated by our Lord God.I love and accept Christ and I deny the Satanic Jews attempts to separate me from my Father in Heaven.You are a fraud Jared,just like fat ass Jew stooge John Hagee.Two cons.
i think the establishment’s problem is – if we accept theories of racial intelligence hiearchy, then we’ll have to accept that whites are pretty low down the scale. We’ll just be left clamouring to claim we’re not at the bottom.
If ever there was an article capable of shattering the “core [societal] programme” of large numbers of would-be “liberals”, this is the one.
I found myself in a position of knowing that this crucial information needs to be shared amongst our/my peers, whilst even wondering if I dare to share the article amongst my friends!
My own “programmatically induced” impulse to self-censor is testament to the the effectiveness of “their” (the bad guys/ gatekeepers/fat-controllers/fearful-megalomaniacs) success in mind-control: MKULTRA-derived programming techniques (eg. Psychic Driving) applied en mass..
Of course I will be sharing this article!
Thank you Mr Taylor, for providing an excellent summery of the politically motivated suppression of enquiry, knowledge and, ultimately, understanding.
This is the clearest evidence I’ve seen yet, that this is a subject I need to be paying much closer attention to!
Thank you,
Kali.
I thought this article was about Mr. Unz for second. I got excited there.
a few hours ago, Haxo put up a comment on Steve Sailer’s current Scientific American thread, cutting through his BS and explaining why SA is no longer Scientific or American. No surprise, Steve X’d it out:
“Scientific American” is no longer Scientific or American because
the current editor, Laura Helmuth, is a wokester femenoid Jewess.
Cf. her learned essay @
https://smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/hanukkah-food-smackdown-latkes-vs-hamantashen-49752543/
You come off as an atheist,you and the Jews will get along well in eternal Hell.You may mock God but in the end you will cry for His mercy and it will be to late.I rebuke you in the precious name of Jesus you hasbara rat.
Every time I read a Jared Taylor article I feel like he is missing the point, a couple of points in fact.
Firstly, it isn’t just about intelligence, its mostly about behaviour.
Many decades ago I worked with a man (a white guy) who could accurately be described as a moron. He was only marginally literate, he couldn’t even spell the name of the firm he worked for, even after several years he had to step outside and copy it down from the side of a works van. He was painfully slow at any task that involved the cognitive processes but George was actually OK, he was good natured, worked to the best of his ability and never did any harm to anyone. A community of people like George wouldn’t drive local shops out of business by stealing from them and then complain about living in a food desert. A community of Georges wouldn’t burn down the neighbourhood because someone with the same colour skin as them had died in police custody.
Secondly, imagine a world where it was accepted that average black IQs were lower than those of whites and Asians, what would we do with the information?
It would be foolish to assume that a person was intelligent because they were white or Asian or to assume that a person was stupid because they were black. One could make a similar case that people from upper or middle class backgrounds have a higher average IQ than people from working class backgrounds, does that justify bringing back class based job allocation? It isn’t as if most jobs require intelligence anyhow, most normal jobs have been deliberately dumbed down to moron level in order to reduce the wage bill.
The real problems are with attitude and behaviour, with upbringing and education. In Jared Taylor’s own words…..
A question for Jared Taylor, who is this “we” that is doing all that malicious and destructive “teaching” and “telling”? because it is they that are the root cause of most of those problems. Until Jared Taylor is prepared to answer that question honestly, his analysis will remain incomplete, dishonest and ultimately worthless.
I took this opportunity to document Mr. Sailer’s soft censorship and inform others about how it works.
He finally let your comment emerge – way upthread – as #16. But this will be obscured if I ever return, and from anyone who ever clicks on the post for the first time.
After years of evasion, Mr. Sailer recently acknowledged that he Whims subjectively, based on the “Quality of commenter.” Anyone who spends time on his blog knows that this is determined by the extent to which someone (i) concurs with Mr. Sailer’s Exceptional! takes or (ii) sends him money.
Let’s not forget how J.P. Rushton was treated. The man stands tall in history for facing slings and arrows for his research on environment and evolution.
There’s a famous video of him in a debate with huckster David Suzuki.
Ignorant? Look at America today and you’ll see the job is almost complete.
This article is a good listing of modern travesties.
The Dennet quote is very valuable and the importance goes far beyond this topic. It shows how almost everyone will respond when they see something in a certain way. It is surprising to see this admitted by a scientist, but he is doing us a favor. The message is that scientists are human and not unbiased automatons. Their certainty does not make them trustworthy. Verify and then trust.
I don’t feel sorry for Watson. He had an effective life and was fortunate enough to be burned at the stake for a cause which he felt strongly about.
To quote the wise Dr. Simon Tam, “Light it”.
One of the assumptions built into modern sciences, specially the “soft” sciences and humanities, is that one needs a lot of data to come to valid, scientific conclusions. This is actually completely false. Consider the Pythagoras theorem: one does not need to cut out right-angled triangles and measure their sides to come to the conclusion that the sum of the square of the short sides is the same as the square of the longest side. A bit of thinking is all that is needed. Hence, Greek texts on physics almost have no experimental results but assume that any fool can measure but only the clever man can start from these simple postulates to build an extremely sophisticated mathematical edifice. See, for example, Archimedes’s work on hydrostatic equilibrium. Obviously, he had done some simple experiments but felt it was too embarrassing to report on them when he had far more complicated theorems to prove based on his “simple” observations.
In this sense, independent of the hiding of data, it is impossible to hide the simple fact that people are different and that there are group difference, often very profound. There is no way one can look at the ancient, deep and sophisticated civilizations of China and India, for example, and then at the primitive African “civilizations” to see that there must be some biological cause underlying this difference. The former civilizations had invented sophisticated literature, philosophy, medicine, science and mathematics (and religions) and the other was still living essentially in a primitive and per-written world. Genetic and race-based data is not needed to come to this conclusion. Just some thinking is enough.
Christianity, that came much later and that was a phase-change from the somewhat primitive & materialistic Judaic world-view, represented a great change in the inner life of Western man. The “Word” was central and through the Word the idea that concepts of literature, science and philosophy could be transmitted across long periods of time, and to anyone and not just one’s own ethnic group, took a hold in the Western mind. Hence the Western love of abstractions (for good and bad) and the deep fruits that emerged from it, including modern science and technology. I mean, what is an iPhone but a reification of the abstract notion of man’s control on the natural world?
Hence, I think this push to keep people ignorant is bound to fail and in fact is failing. As things become more abstract and complicated (consider that < 0.001% of people can tell how say a car or a rocket engine or a computer works, leave alone understand say abstract group theory) the biological differences become more acute. After a day at work on problems of physics and mathematics when one heads home and sees "youths" running around with pants around their knees, hoodies on their heads or racing around quiet neighborhoods creating nuisance, it is impossible not to come to the conclusion that these behaviors are biologically driven. In fact, technology and science, specially deep abstractions in physics, mathematics and philosophy, heighten the differences and not reduce them. We become even more biologically driven and not less. (Contra say Pinker who thinks we can overcome our biology, we really become more and more what our biology makes us to be).
Hence, I would not worry about any "man who wants you ignorant". The man may want anything he likes but this is like saying "this man wants to dam the ocean" or "this man wants to block the sun by his girth". Things are past that point now and it is impossible. Following Caear we can exclaim, "Hence! wilt thou lift up Mount Olympus?"
Turkheimer is an early lifer, of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Turkheimer
His role as an early lifer academic is to serve as Tribal Mind Guard, one of many.
Their job is to make sure no study of genetics exposes their tribe’s predispostion toward criminality in all areas of human activity, which he and many others represent in the academic world. Obviously!
Turkheimer’s “argument” has nothing to do with ethics and every to do with power. They are so blinded by their lust for power and corresponding addiction to scapegoating that they can not see that the more power they have the more they undermine it.
Turkheimer’s entire career is an acting out of the arrested development Churchill mentioned in that famous quote of his. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Winston_Churchill#:~:text=Even%20though%20he%20was%20wary,be%20towards%20%5BJews%5D%22.
Who living today could possibly deny that he was right? The response of Jews at the time was as it is now, they criticized it, they denounced it, but they didn’t refute it. In fact, they didn’t even deny it. They could if they wanted to and they sometimes do. But it doesn’t make it any less true.
Jews as a racial group have more power than any other group in the history of the world, simply because of the state of the world today in human and natural resources as opposed to the past.
But there’s a reason they forbid any open and honest discussion about how they acquired that power. It’s exactly this arrogant and obnoxious* Gag Order on reality that is already undermining their power and will continue to as long as it exists. Just look around!
*Speaking of arrogant and obnoxious, check out Turkheimer’s photo in the wiki link. Says it all. The intellectual buck of explanation stops with me and mine. Oh yeah? I think reality is going to have something to say about that smart ass. Since reality, sooner or later, always wins. Just look at the university under their control.
Yep! Just posted a comment with the same link that mentioned his early lifer status.
Of course, some of the offended might fire back that Danial Dennet isn’t an early lifer. True enough. But he knows who butters his bread. He might be a willing useful idiot, and he certainly likes being a celebrity intellectual, but he’s still a useful idiot.
In other words, he’s still a servant.
I believe the phrase you were looking for is –
EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
“This great scientist, now 95 years old, is ending his life in disgrace.”
I disagree. He stood behind his findings, and will be remembered as an honest man. Had he capitulated to the leftist dogma, then he would have been disgraced.
I spent most of my adult life working in technical, troubleshooting jobs. Most Black techs never made to the same level I was at. (Though I will say that I had several very good, very dependable, Hispanic fellow workers. Great guys!) As for Black techs, they were rare, but I did in fact work closely with one who was very good at troubleshooting. He actually saved my butt at least twice on problems that had be completely mystified. Alas! He was also NEVER on time. Did not usually understand the difference between work and socializing. Could never be depended on to fulfill his commitments. He was moved from one position to another because of customer complaints. To top it all off, when he failed to get a promotion he wanted, he blamed it on — you guessed it! — RACISM.
Of course Jared Taylor also wants you ignorant. In particular, he’s reinforcing the idea that you need Harvard’s permission to believe Darwin.
Further, that the correct way to get Harvard’s permission is to whine about the decisions they’ve made, like a little bitch. Freeze peach. As if this doesn’t reinforce them. “Your decisions matter, Harvard.” Harvard: “Thank you, thank you.”
Harvard never censored an Amishman. They didn’t ask for permission. Is it the plutocratic wealth of the Amish you can’t match, or their Spartan military might?
Harvard is American. Jared Taylor is American. Being ignorant – and especially using the term “educated” for this ignorance – is American culture.
“You can’t do science without an NSF grant.” “Excellent opposition and dissent! You go, king!”
I’ve already defected from Soviet America. I’m only here to make fun of the cope.
Hey MarkU, you make good points. I was lucky to have a similar experience to yours when I was still a young man. I worked with a lady who was much like your coworker. Not very bright at all — but a GOOD woman. Honest, hard worker, polite, generous — other than intellect she was exactly the kind of person we should all strive to become.
And as you say, that is the problem with Black culture in the US. The biggest problem is NOT that they are 85IQ on average (though that obviously restricts the number of rocket scientists), it is that they are deceitful, violent, thieves, with no intention to keep any promises. Well, not all of them; but maybe half of them.
@Richard B: “Their job is to make sure no study of genetics exposes their tribe’s predispostion toward criminality in all areas of human activity, which he and many others represent in the academic world.”
Humans and dogs have coexisted in a symbiotic relationship for perhaps 50,000 years. The reason why it has worked so well is that while humans certainly have a more developed intellect, the social structure of wolf packs is quite close to that of paleolithic humans. The human intellect is a benefit to the dogs. The dog’s speed, strength, and natural senses benefit the humans.
Jews and Blacks have a similar relationship. Jews have the brains, Blacks have the muscle, and they both share a culture of crime and deceit.
You thought. Yeah right. Good one, Truth.
Speaking about average intelligence being different among racial groups is verboten and a career destroyer in academe if you’re talking about blacks, orientals and whites, but praised to the hilt if you speak about Jews having superior intelligence to everyone else.
Any reasonably astute observer that lives among many races in North America will see the racial differences playing out every day, with certain racial groups tending to be in jobs that suit their intelligence and abilities. Whites seem to be the outlier in this where we are in all occupational areas. This is probably spillover from the days when it was an almost completely white society and whites did everything.
The Negro Delusion Bubble remains vast, deep, impenetrable.
Negros never fail to fail.