Scrap note #6

How much credit is to be given to honest dishonesty? Answers should be addressed to Rod Dreher, in response to a truly astonishing blog post that sums up where we are right now more frankly than anything I have seen.

Short summary: We have a duty to lie.

In Dreher’s own words:

Given the history of the 20th century, I flat-out don’t trust our species to handle the knowledge of human biodiversity without turning it into an ideology of dehumanization, racism, and at worst, genocide. Put another way, I am hostile to this kind of thing not because I believe it’s probably false, but because I believe a lot of it is probably true — and we have shown that we, by our natures, can’t handle this kind of truth. […] My point is simply that all of us believe that some facts are too dangerous to be known; they are like the Ring Of Power, in that the temptation to abuse them is too great for our natures to bear. […] Admittedly, this puts me in a tight spot. Am I saying that we should ignore reality? I suppose I am.

So there we have it — we have to ban acknowledgement of reality, because Hitler. This stuff is all going to fall apart so quickly (and nastily) that it will shock everyone.

(Like Moldbug, and the DE in general, I think it’s seriously unwise to set things up in such a way that only Nazis get to tell the truth.)

ADDED: Some thoughts on the Dreher piece from Occam’s Razor.

ADDED: Henry Dampier on Noble Lies.

January 30, 2014admin 66 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Uncategorized

TAGGED WITH : ,

66 Responses to this entry

  • Valvar Says:

    Just like guns, truth and rings of power ought to be properly banned once and for all.

    [Reply]

    neovictorian23 Reply:

    And The Bomb. And the crossbow.

    [Reply]

    pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    the leftoid firearm ownership leading to random shootings over perceived slights or plain idiocy is the same as their fear of HBD realities leading to hitler; they solipsitically project *their own* capacity regarding such topics. if they accept that people really are different in meaningful ways, their thinking will be ‘golly gee, i guess we’ll have to round the untermenschen and exterminate them for the sake of progress’.

    (not that im saying theres anything necessarily wrong with that, who am i to judge?).

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 30th, 2014 at 2:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • piwtd Says:

    I continue to be baffled as to why do people think it’s such a big deal. We do not make slaves of people just because their IQ is 85, the slavery and forced segregation were bad irrespective of the IQ distribution. A person with IQ of 80 is allowed to live next door to a person with IQ of 140, they have the same legal rights, they sit next to each other on the bus, they drink from the same water fountain. So why should the progress of racial equality be hindered if we admitted that one group has the bell curve of its IQ distribution shifted from the other group? How is that truth so horrible only Nazis are evil enough to withstand it, or revelation so profound that it calls itself “dark enlightenment”?

    The article is idiotic not only because it prefers a comfortable illusion to the truth but because there is no reason to find the illusion comfortable in the first place, even when one champions the enlightenment value of universal fraternité of all people from all races. People are different from one another, no universalist has a reason to deny this because universalism is not the assertion that people are the same but rather the assertion that the differences do not merit different treatment when it comes to certain basic rights and obligations.

    [Reply]

    neovictorian23 Reply:

    Everything you write is quite reasonable, friend. But Col. Kurtz isn’t being reasonable when he mutters, “The horror. The horror.” People maintain comfortable illusions to hide their Unconscious from their Imago.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 30th, 2014 at 3:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • John Says:

    We’re going to see large numbers of people who are very angry they’ve been lied to, who will be extremely willing to believe the opposite of what the liars have been saying. Throw in long term economic depression and the corresponding suffering and you’ve got a fertile breeding ground for Hitler 2.0.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 30th, 2014 at 3:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • RiverC Says:

    As an Orthodox Christian, Dreher will not long be able to hold that position. It is one thing to forbid knowledge, but once one knows it one becomes responsible for it. Whether Dreher believes it is appropriate for the folks I ride the train with to have a cursory knowledge of IQ differences (a gloss that would cause more harm than help) he will now have to come to terms with what he knows. It’s like for those of us who converted, once we knew that (for instance) more or less every Christian prior to 1600 or so believed in the ever-virginity of Mary, we might not think it’s right to throw that pearl before all comers, but the shadow such a fact casts is immense and un-ignorable.

    Now that it is obvious that Dreher *cares* about HBD, given that it is not based on the word of Alex Jones and photographs taken of blurry flying objects, the march of this idea is inexorable. His next position (as was mine) I predict to be something like, “Okay, the ‘ring of power’ has been forced upon us. How do we ensure that it is used for good?”

    OT, but on the topic of Exit, I now recall that Bill Whittle’s old blog (which I used to read religiously along with Spengler and Wretchard) was called ‘Eject, Eject, Eject!’ There was even a point in which we were developing some kind of community application – the system was originally named (in Latin) – To the stars in a thundering chair. Ejection is a pretty hard exit, in theory.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 30th, 2014 at 3:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • Andie Freud Says:

    Everyone who doesn’t want Tinkerbell to die needs to clap. Also, it’s spooky that when me and my dad Dowse for water the sticks move apart, but when my mom and my sister Ruthie (have I mentioned Ruthie before?) did it the sticks crossed. Weird!

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 30th, 2014 at 3:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • How HBD Will Make you a Better Person | Occam's Razor Says:

    […] Land on Dreher. […]

    Posted on January 30th, 2014 at 4:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lesser Bull Says:

    I read it as protective camouflage. Because whatever the duty to lie might be, in the post he openly, publicly, and linkably announces that HBD is a fact, already mostly proved but even if not yet proved at least very likely from Darwinian first principles.

    Dreher isn’t probably being consciously Machiavellian, but objectively what he’s doing is publicizing HBD plus giving it the extra glamor of being dangerous, forbidden knowledge. You should be happy, he’s using the DE’s marketing technique to teach DE principles.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I am indeed happy.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 30th, 2014 at 4:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • James James Says:

    His fear is misplaced because HBD doesn’t lead to Hitler, as would be obvious to everyone if everyone discussed it freely.

    Dreher is a Christian so he can’t admit the implications of evolution, even when he’s talking about nominally evolutionist progressives who can’t admit the implications of evolution. He says that humans aren’t physically equal but that humanity is “spiritually and morally” equal. But this is bunk. Evolution shows us that humanity isn’t special, it isn’t even a fixed category because species can speciate (races are the origin of species). Dreher is a Christian so he thinks humans are a special species, more important than other species. But what if humanity speciates, and one branch devolves, like the Flores hobbits (http://lesswrong.com/lw/8bl/link_back_to_the_trees/)? Do the two new species remain “morally equal”? No.

    Neoreaction is realist, and Christianity isn’t real, so the two aren’t compatible.

    [Reply]

    neovictorian23 Reply:

    And yet, within the set of those who call themselves Neoreactionaries there is a substantial subset of those who call themselves Christian. Perhaps they’re all members of the Legion of Dynamic Discord (aka Little Deluded Dupes)?

    [Reply]

    Alex Reply:

    species can speciate

    I wonder if it would be possible to speed up the process through artificial selection and induce speciation through selective breeding.

    [Reply]

    anonymous Reply:

    Yes indeed. It’s already been done with fruit flies in the laboratory, not once but multiple times. It’s getting to the point of being a trendy grad thesis project.

    See:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

    Of course, the good lefties at talk.origins (it’s named for a Usenet newsgroup, which one could think of as a sort of forum or bulletin board dating from the 1980s-1990s Internet) would be horrified by the idea of either politicizing the concept or putting it to any practical, relevant societal purpose beyond using it as a rhetorical bludgeon against those horrible, horrible right-wing hicks.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 30th, 2014 at 4:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alexander Irwin Says:

    Condemning something loudly and publicly is the best way to publicize it.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 30th, 2014 at 5:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • neovictorian23 Says:

    Some Dark Enlightenment colleague pointed me to this some time ago, I wish I could remember who…

    From five long years ago, Professor Jonathan Haidt. Note here too, the strange mix of scientific realism and wishful thinking:

    “The protective “wall” is about to come crashing down, and all sorts of uncomfortable claims are going to pour in. Skin color has no moral significance, but traits that led to Darwinian success in one of the many new niches and occupations of Holocene life — traits such as collectivism, clannishness, aggressiveness, docility, or the ability to delay gratification — are often seen as virtues or vices. Virtues are acquired slowly, by practice within a cultural context, but the discovery that there might be ethnically-linked genetic variations in the ease with which people can acquire specific virtues is — and this is my prediction — going to be a “game changing” scientific event. (By “ethnic” I mean any group of people who believe they share common descent, actually do share common descent, and that descent involved at least 500 years of a sustained selection pressure, such as sheep herding, rice farming, exposure to malaria, or a caste-based social order, which favored some heritable behavioral predispositions and not others.)

    “I believe that the “Bell Curve” wars of the 1990s, over race differences in intelligence, will seem genteel and short-lived compared to the coming arguments over ethnic differences in moralized traits. I predict that this “war” will break out between 2012 and 2017.

    “There are reasons to hope that we’ll ultimately reach a consensus that does not aid and abet racism. I expect that dozens or hundreds of ethnic differences will be found, so that any group — like any person — can be said to have many strengths and a few weaknesses, all of which are context-dependent. Furthermore, these cross-group differences are likely to be small when compared to the enormous variation within ethnic groups and the enormous and obvious effects of cultural learning. But whatever consensus we ultimately reach, the ways in which we now think about genes, groups, evolution and ethnicity will be radically changed by the unstoppable progress of the human genome project.”

    [Reply]

    Igitur Reply:

    “Uncomfortable” is such an interesting word.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    We must consider that “Being Black” = Thugs, women are all whores, men all Pimps, incarceration glorification, and RAP are all creations of the 1980s. I was quite alive and aware.

    This is what happened. This Being Black Thug Life meme was a creation of the 1980s, and blacks did not then nor do they now control the media entertainment complex.

    The Media/Entertainment complex is controlled by Code Name “Boers”.

    Actual name withheld for security reasons and to protect the innocent. [[[[—I’m quite serious.

    These Boers are pursuing a century long vendetta against european christians and their entire world, as revenge for existing. For you see the Boers Vendetta for being born is rooted in being the spawn of Cossack Rape by the Muscovy Princes horsemen. They themselves are the very spawn of rape, and they know it. Hence Ho Maternal group membership debates.

    “My Father never fought back” is psycho-code for “He’s not my Father and I know it.”

    The Boers are not to be confused with their Dutch maternal cousins the Amish, who are good if eccentric people and quite without Harm. The problem of centuries has been the Boers ability to drag the Amish along with Tribal loyalty into the dreay cycle of nihilism and looting followed by reaction and revenge, pogroms, expulsion.

    This is a problem that is about to be wrestled. My own ethos is names not groups. You’ll never have enough time for the all the guilty, best not to concern yourself with the innocent. It’s also degrading to hands that DO.

    But if the guilty are not punished in the name of collective innocence, then collective revenge falls on groups. Hence the Guilty must be puinshed. An age old condition of men.

    I shan’t have anymore to say on the subject. Good morning.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 30th, 2014 at 5:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hypothetical Says:

    Human biodiversity isn’t a “fact.”

    It’s a particular interpretation of a phenomenon; and it’s likely inaccurate.

    “The central fallacy in using the substantial heritability of within–group IQ (among whites, for example) as an explanation of average differences between groups (whites versus blacks, for example) is now well known and acknowledged by all, including Herrnstein and Murray, but deserves a restatement by example. Take a trait that is far more heritable than anyone has ever claimed IQ to be but is politically uncontroversial—body height. Suppose that I measured the heights of adult males in a poor Indian village beset with nutritional deprivation, and suppose the average height of adult males is five feet six inches. Heritability within the village is high, which is to say that tall fathers (they may average five feet eight inches) tend to have tall sons, while short fathers (five feet four inches on average) tend to have short sons. But this high heritability within the village does not mean that better nutrition might not raise average height to five feet ten inches in a few generations. Similarly, the well–documented fifteen–point average difference in IQ between blacks and whites in America, with substantial heritability of IQ in family lines within each group, permits no automatic conclusion that truly equal opportunity might not raise the black average enough to equal or surpass the white mean.”

    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/course/topics/curveball.html

    The idea that IQ is absolutely determined by some essential genetic component is not only impossible to prove, the evidence for the opposing argument (i.e. that intelligence is likely determined by social conditions, broadly speaking) is far more compelling.

    [Reply]

    Stirner Reply:

    Holy shit., you linked Steven Jay Gould on a Dark Enlightenment website. Gould ywas both a fraud and a liiar,and even the Cathedral has to admit it:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html

    You have been lied to. You can see how far the rabbit hole of lies goes here:
    http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/

    [Reply]

    Hypothetical Reply:

    To include more of your strikingly religious commentary:

    “You have been lied to. The truth will be painful, but it will be worth it. If you have an open mind and are a critical thinker, it certainly can’t hurt to explore where we are coming from? If we are that shortsighted, you have nothing to fear…”

    The “truth,” if it is as you say, is not painful at all. I don’t fear human biodiversity as a fact; if it is a fact, then there’s nothing to be afraid of. Every single individual human being is different, that much is certain; but we’re not only different because of our genes. We’re also different because of our histories, our social conditions, our upbringing, etc…

    I fear HBD as an ideology, which is exactly what it is on this board. The fundamentalist masturbation around this idea is striking and is an incredibly interesting phenomenon. Rather than a calm, collected investigation of potential genetic differentiations among human beings, what I see here is ideological grandstanding in the name of something apparently solid and concrete (i.e. “genetics”).

    There is no ground of the human; genetics tells a part of a much larger story. The obsession with genetics here is more frightening than any contingency of it as “fact.”

    [Reply]

    James James Reply:

    That’s why Australian aboriginals have small skulls and the Japanese can’t hold their alcohol. It’s all environmental, I’m sure. Conversely, the aboriginals shared an environment with their ancestors, yet lacked their abilities (they lost the ability to build the ships that got them to Australia, and lost the ability to fish, that archaeologists saw their ancestors had). The Inuit shared an environment with their ancestors the Thule, yet lost their abilities. Devolution is horrorism.

    There’s plenty of evidence for HBD, and as Gwern points out, there’ll be even more soon. Seriously, do we have to deal with HBD denialism on Nick Land’s blog, of all places?

    [Reply]

    Hypothetical Reply:

    Yes, because some of us enjoy Land’s work, if not his politics.

    There is no doubt that genetics plays a role in determining various elements of biological constitution and possibly even cognitive capabilities; but it’s highly doubtful that genetics plays an absolutely essential role. That is, genes cannot account for the whole picture, and reducing everything to genes is incredibly shortsighted.

    [Reply]

    Stirner Reply:

    Really? Do you think natural selection for human traits ended 20,000 years ago? Perhaps people who have reproduced in an agricultural economy for the last 5,000 years have evolved different traits than those whose lineage was hunter-gatherers just 500 years ago.

    You have been lied to. The truth will be painful, but it will be worth it. If you have an open mind and are a critical thinker, it certainly can’t hurt to explore where we are coming from? If we are that shortsighted, you have nothing to fear…

    Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes Reply:

    No, human biological diversity is a fact, some aspects of HBD are just easier to prove than others.

    Some traits are exceedingly clear cut, like lactase persistence. Lactase persistence is a solved game, or close to it. There are a few specific genes that produce it and they’ve been tracked down by geneticists. And yes, those gene frequencies vary wildly between populations.

    Quite a few traits are linked to a single gene and it is thus easily proved that human population groups differ in these traits for genetic reasons.

    IQ is quite a bit tougher because it is the product of a large number of genes, not just one. Will it ever be nailed down the way lactase persistence is? Maybe not, but denying the genetic component of IQ is going to make you look more and more ridiculous as time goes on and the research mounts up.

    Thank you China.

    [Reply]

    RS Reply:

    The experiment’s done. Lots of Ashkenazim, Koreans, E-Indians etc arrived in the USA with no property. On average they became more or less elite ; USA Blacks and Ameroids with inherited property stayed poor. (India is a dim country on average, but USA Indians are somewhat smarter than USA Whites.) Old-stock Americans in the 20s-30s-40s did not have a meticulous social program to help Jews reach economic parity, then superiority — because they either didn’t care, or didn’t want it to happen.

    Poor White kids modestly outperform affluent Black kids on various cognitive measures.

    There are hundreds of migrant populations all over the world. In general they behave very like the mother populations.

    Northeast Asian countries other than DPRK (to include Singapore) have very similar economic histories. In general they start out with most of the population farming with hand tools. Once growth starts, it is 15-20x in a few decades. Even Malaysia, with its small Chinese minority, experienced a dampened version of the same thing. Everywhere else, this fails to occur: countries are rich thanks to amenities like oil and tourist attractions ; more commonly, they are poor. Notably, Northeast Asia has had no privileged recent history. It’s had a pretty nasty, traumatic one ; really, most areas of the world have.

    [Reply]

    Peter Reply:

    “The central fallacy in using the substantial heritability of within–group IQ (among whites, for example) as an explanation of average differences between groups (whites versus blacks, for example) is now well known and acknowledged by all, including Herrnstein and Murray, but deserves a restatement by example.”

    No one has argued that between-group heritability can be directly inferred from within-group heritability. That’s just a strawman Gould made up. The importance of within-group heritability for the study of group differences is that the higher it is, the more probable it is that between-group heritability is not zero.

    “The idea that IQ is absolutely determined by some essential genetic component is not only impossible to prove, the evidence for the opposing argument (i.e. that intelligence is likely determined by social conditions, broadly speaking) is far more compelling.”

    No serious person thinks that IQ is 100% determined by genetics. Stop parroting these strawman arguments.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 30th, 2014 at 5:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • Billy Chav Says:

    I really didn’t expect a long SJ Gould block quote demonstrating Lewontin’s fallacy in comments here, but I guess I didn’t expect Rod Dreher to come out of the Sailer closet either. Surprises everywhere.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    There’s no point asking them to bring a bigger boat. Gould is the biggest boat they’re ever going to get.

    [Reply]

    shalmaneser Reply:

    Hey now , there’s also Shalizi, Lewontin and Steven Rose and Dialectical Biology to answer to!

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 30th, 2014 at 6:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • Stirner Says:

    What the horrified progressives fail to see is that HBD opens up entirely new spaces to improve society.

    Education? We have spent 50 years in the US closing the black/white performance gap in schools. But your simply can’t DO that because of HBD and IQ. How about we focus on the basics for this folks, and get them focused on a productive career working in sales, in a body shop, or giving freaking manicures. Adjusted for race, US PISA scores are right up there with Finland, so maybe we can stop constantly reforming our curriculums. The schools are not broken, it’s just that 50% of the kids in the US (at least) do not have the intellectual capacity to benefit from college. Focus instead on finding ways for these kids to be productive citizens.

    Revitalize Cities? Track urban public schools by IQ. Yeah, it’s going to look very segregated and racist, but that is reality, folks. What it does mean is that young hipsters that have kids could actually have access to decent public schools for their kids, without moving to the burbs. I don’t care how many light rail lines you build, nobody who has the option is willing to send their kids to school with a bunch of underclass Orcs.

    Eugenics? Is it ok if it is voluntary? Project Prevention does great things providing sterilization and long term birth control for degenerate drug addicts. It is sad, but less sad that popping out another bastard child and having it taken away by the state just like the last 3 or 4. High time preference among the underclass creates great opportunities to have them voluntarily give up their reproductive capacity. How about if you are low IQ, and are willing to get snipped, you get a one time windfall of 5 or 10 grand? Nothing coerced, nothing forced. Tons of people with high time preference would jump at the chance, and society at large would have at least a first line of defense against Ghetto Players fathering a dozen kids, and Baby Momma’s with 4 kids from 4 different Baby Daddies.

    Welfare reform? You want benefits, you get a shot of DepoProvera or Gossypol. No boosting family income by adding more bastard children to the mix. If you cannot support yourself, you don’t get to create another dependent.

    Pro-Natalism? How about we subsidize high IQ parents that choose to have their kids in their mid 20’s. Make it pay to have the kids early. Husband can work, wife can stay home with the kids until they all enter school. Mom can go to grad school for advanced training during elementary school, and within a few years she is ready to jump start her career – kids all birthed – and suffer only a minimal wage gap vs men. Oh yeah, and if you divorce before the kids become teens, both parents have to pay back their subsidies.

    Is it harsh? Certainly in some cases. It is better than our current course towards Idiocracy? Yes, Yes, a thousand times yes.

    [Reply]

    neovictorian23 Reply:

    Wonderful policies, but do “horrified progressives” really want to improve society? A great deal of progness is based on feeling “enlightened” and “needed” by the poor, the sick and the stupid.

    Utilitarian arguments aren’t going to persuade most progs. If things are getting better because of reactionary policies, who needs progs around to emote their sympathy and concern?

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    The prog response would be more likely to try to eliminate the problem, just like they do with other inconvenient persons and objects.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Of course Progs don’t want to improve society.

    Anyone who thinks they do needs to head over to Benefits.gov and begin a fantasy vacation as someone, anyone else. I always check the block on residence as *Incarcerated*.

    Really it’s a lot of laughs and all of us should get some, we’re paying enough for it.

    For instance…

    http://www.benefits.gov/benefits/benefit-finder/#results&qc=cat_7

    This Haitian immigrant jailed unmarried mother of 4, HIV postive performance artist (oh yes it’s a category) has never worked a day in her life except when she was a victim of 9/11 (she saw it on the prison TV ). Qualifies for 164 programs.

    You’ll laugh out loud.

    BTW as someone mentioned it apparently there is a subsidy for leading and recognized researchers. I’m not sure where they rank in relation to farm workers or performance artists but the question is there.

    Really people mentioning IQ every other comment need to do some homework.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 30th, 2014 at 7:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • handle Says:

    Dreher’s piece is strategically contrived. But if one takes it at face value, it’s fascinating. Dreher says only fascists would tell the truth, and Charlton says anyone secular on the right is fascist.

    So, secular right truth tellers = fascist. Good to know.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 30th, 2014 at 8:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • KS Says:

    What would happen if you told the japanese that northeast asians are, on average, the most intelligent and least prone to criminal behaviour of all the major population groups? How would they react? Would they colonize Latin America? Enslave the africans? Send indians to the gas chambers? Invade Australia for lebensraum? Of course not! They’d just go on with their lives as if nothing happened. HBD is only dangerous when you force cultural marxism on people. That’s how you create resentment and the possibility of blow back. But suppressing HBD wont make cultural marxism work like a charm, because HBD is true whether the cathedral acknowledges it or not. The implications of HBD will not go away because you lie to the masses.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 30th, 2014 at 8:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ex-pat in Oz Says:

    To me, this has always been the threshold question and it is why the Cathedralists have fortified this weakest of all points on their line so fiercely. If you accept the reality of HBD (as has Dreher evidently– equally shocked here), what are the implications for every other aspect of progressivism?

    I pose this question constantly to sympathetic confidants– and even they can’t bring themselves to respond.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 30th, 2014 at 11:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • Steve Johnson Says:

    Ah yes, the nutritional differences that cause American blacks to make up the bulk of the NFL and the NBA and yet stunt their brains so that they don’t show the same talents in any pursuit that requires intelligence.

    How odd.

    [Reply]

    Steve Johnson Reply:

    That was a reply to Hypothetical.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    Old Japanese have an average height of less than 160cm. Pre WW2 Japanese were universally considered midgets by even the Chinese, because of their bad nutrition. Those very midgets built the Zero fighter, the Yamato battleship, and had the best war technology outside of Germany. The bombings of WW2 made their nutrition even worse, and in the postwar era there was actual famine. Those same postwar Japanese built the second biggest economy of the world.

    It seems to me that height is much more sensitive to nutrition than intelligence.

    [Reply]

    Hypothetical Reply:

    So, because certain individuals don’t invest as much time in studying certain fields, they’re automatically less intelligent because they don’t know as much as others?

    You all keep citing statistics involving height, or weight, or physical body shape, etc. You do all realize that these vastly different things than intelligence???

    Intelligence, as it stands, is only ever determined previously by cultural standards.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 31st, 2014 at 12:44 am Reply | Quote
  • laofmoonster Says:

    The availability heuristic breaks down in the addition of new relevant information. Unless you are a LW-ian rationalist, it does not necessarily follow that therefore one should throw out his inaccurate intuitions. (Bounded rationality, instrumental rationality, and all that.)

    Dreher’s confession opens up a different kind of argument about HBD beyond its accuracy. We just have to show that HBD does not lead to Hitler, and people who think like Dreher stop opposing it. Eugenics used to be a progressive position, perhaps it can become one again.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 31st, 2014 at 4:12 am Reply | Quote
  • spandrell Says:

    https://www.mikechurch.com/transcripts/interview-with-rod-dreher-on-ruthie-leming-community-and-the-secret-to-a-good-life/

    Can I call him a hipster doofus?

    for me, moral and spiritual equality is a fact

    A fact.

    Scholars Michael Harner[69] and Marvin Harris have argued that the motivation behind human sacrifice among the Aztecs was actually the cannibalization of the sacrificial victims. While there is universal agreement that the Aztecs practiced sacrifice, there is a lack of scholarly consensus as to whether cannibalism was widespread. At one extreme, anthropologist Marvin Harris, author of Cannibals and Kings, has propagated the claim, originally proposed by Harner, that the flesh of the victims was a part of an aristocratic diet as a reward, since the Aztec diet was lacking in proteins. This claim has been refuted by Bernard Ortíz Montellano who, in his studies of Aztec health, diet, and medicine,[70][71] demonstrates that while the Aztec diet was low in animal proteins, it was rich in vegetable proteins. Ortiz also points to the preponderance of human sacrifice during periods of food abundance following harvests compared to periods of food scarcity, the insignificant quantity of human protein available from sacrifices and the fact that aristocrats already had easy access to animal protein.

    I could go on forever. Christians should shut up. Universalism makes you stupid.

    [Reply]

    handle Reply:

    In your new religion, maybe people could be born with different amounts of inherent dignity and moral worth. Maybe some composite metric of Nobleness points.

    [Reply]

    Valvar Reply:

    They already are, isn’t that the point?

    [Reply]

    Alex Reply:

    Are you saying people who practice human sacrifice and cannibalism are morally inferior to those who don’t?

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    Oh yeah.

    [Reply]

    Alex Reply:

    We can safely assume that Dreher, being a Christian, would cheerfully endorse your universalist belief in a universally applicable moral standard. (Surely a purer neoreactionary position would be that what was right for us was not necessarily right for the Aztecs and vice versa, and so we should leave the Aztecs alone while resisting any mass Aztec immigration.)

    Since he’s a Christian, Dreher can’t mean by “moral and spiritual equality” that everyone does actually adhere to that universal standard; still less that everyone is equally advanced along the path to sanctification. He surely means that all nations are worthy to receive it — even Aztecs can be converted.

    This needn’t imply all nations are capable of the same degree of civilisational complexity or cultural achievement. (Mind you, one wonders if jungle-dwelling Africans are any more uncivilised than ancient forest-dwelling Germans were. Savages can be civilised — equally, the heirs to a great civilisation can sink back into savagery.)

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Alex,
    good, intelligent comment.
    I don’t know what Dreher has in mind, but I endorse the proposition that Aztecs are condemnable for human sacrifice in a way, say, chimps or plague bacilli aren’t.
    I am also willing to provisionally grant Spandrell’s implied premise that Christians and Dreher are both morally and spiritually his equal.

    spandrell Reply:

    I didn’t realize that the purer neoreactionary position was that Cortes should have left the Aztecs alone while advising his King to forbid their migration to Spain.

    If Dreher thinks that all Aztecs would become moral persons through conversion, and that even African nations are worthy of receiving the path of sanctification, he’s a fool. Go to African Christian missions and tell me what you see. I see General Butt Naked as a pastor sanctifying his flock.

    Your link is very disturbing, but all the evidence we have tells us forest-dwelling Germans had better cognitive abilities and a generally more advanced way of living than black Africans, as do present Samis or the forest-dwelling Uralic tribes of Russia. The purer neoreactionary position sure is that genetics means something.

    I´m quite cool with cultural relativism and acknowledging foreign savagery without feeling the need to stamp it immediately. My curiosity often is stronger than my disgust reflex. Still my intellectual curiosity is one thing, which doesn´t take from the fact that the Aztecs were despicable savages and I´m glad they´re not around anymore.

    Do you think Papuan cannibals should be let alone forever? I’m quite sorry the Germans didn’t colonize the place and replace the natives when they could. I hope the Iranians that Australia is diverting there stay and make it a better place.

    [Reply]

    Alex Reply:

    If Dreher thinks that all Aztecs would become moral persons through conversion, and that even African nations are worthy of receiving the path of sanctification, he’s a fool. Go to African Christian missions and tell me what you see. I see General Butt Naked as a pastor sanctifying his flock.

    A few years ago a liturgically conservative Catholic blog posted some photos of a modern Tridentine Mass being offered in Africa. One commentator whined:

    “… is it really necessary that a Mass in Gabon replicate something from 18th century Rome, even down to the lace collars around the altar boys’ necks? I can understand when it comes to things that are actually part of the rite (chant, language, rubrics, vestments etc.), but why does there have to be such a rigid aesthetic in place that resists any of the organic adaptations Roman Christianity has made to West African culture? This might have worked in the days when every prelate in Africa was a white, but in the 21st century, it reeks of colonialism, even when the celebrant is African himself.”

    
Which brought forth this reply from another commentator:

    “… your ignorant comment has made me furious. How dare you insinuate that ‘rigid aesthetics’ is not part of West African culture, or that it is not fitting to be incorporated in the liturgical life of the Church in Africa. What do you know about Africa for you to make such a statement? Should you not be happy that a few thousand miles away, in a culture that does not resemble anything in the West, we can surely identify ourselves as who we are? We are ‘Roman’ Catholics. What would you rather have us wear? Feathers and loin cloth? Or perhaps that is too base. What about a sheet of cloth with a cut out to fit over our heads? And what would you have religious people like the Franciscans and Dominicans wear to give them a more ‘African’ feel to them? Priests in my country of Nigeria where brought up by well meaning Irish priests. In poor villages that had nothing, people chipped in to provide the priests and other missionaries with whatever they needed to give us our own identity as Catholics. And so, we received our faith from the missionaries with much humility, accepting all that was given to us and rejecting nothing out of pride. The Church in the West brought to us this splendid gift and we took it–even with the Latin and vestments and the new order of things. I grew up with Latin and marvelous westernized vestments and our Cathedral was in Gothic style – do you have a problem with that too? It reminded me not of colonialism, but of the universality of our Church and our link even to the Pope himself. If an African prelate becomes pope, I suppose he should don a shaman attire more closely suited to the identity of his tribe too.
What stinks of colonialism is our civil government. It is what the English used to import its terrible democratic republic rule into our country by force and turned us into a country that would always be in turmoil. Subsidiarity was forced out as a principle and changed the way Africans conducted their lives–not the Church. The Church for us has always been the institution that gave us alleviation from the encroachment of colonialism.”

    The Butt Nakeds of this world are what you get when the white man lays down his burden.

    Alex Reply:

    all the evidence we have tells us forest-dwelling Germans had better cognitive abilities and a generally more advanced way of living than black Africans … The purer neoreactionary position sure is that genetics means something.

    That may be so, but the ‘Colonialism’ issue of Radish showed what can be achieved given enough will and determination. Might it be that prolonged exposure to civilisation acts as a eugenic matrix which optimises for those desirable traits in a primitive population which are conducive to civilisation? The problem is that there is no longer any force willing or able to undertake the job. If American blacks are more dysfunctional now than they were in the segregation era (in terms of indicators like educational and economic attainment, family stability and rates of delinquency/crime), then perhaps that’s at least in part because the civil rights movement coincided with a time of revolutionary social upheaval (still ongoing) when the legitimacy of every white Western institution was called into question by white Westerners.  As a result the blacks were denied the opportunity to benefit from exposure to a civilised dominant culture because that culture was in the process of self-immolation. And of course one would expect Western cultural suicide to eventually cause modern urban whites to revert to barbarism as well, a process already well advanced in places.

    That fact that the cultural revolution in the West was initially the product of intellectually sophisticated Westerners also suggests that intellectual attainment alone is no barrier to barbarisation. When Radish gives us an amusing juxtaposition of classical European architecture with an African hut, we can all agree and unhesitatingly affirm that classical European architecture is more culturally advanced. Score one for Western Civ. But on reflection I’n not sure I wouldn’t rather live in an African hut than in a product of the deranged imagination of this oh-so-civilised high-IQ white European.

    pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    aztec human sacrifice could possibly have at one time been adaptive by conveniently serving as a prosaic solution to the question of what to do with sudden preponderances of listless helots. things seemed to get better afterwards, so obviously the sun god was the true god and is smiling on them right? of course as is usual in the course of civilization, eggs get confused for chickens as system overtakes systemization. small minds cleave to simple conceptions, which by the same token are much easier to spread in public discourse. hence, if sacrifice is good, then more sacrifice must be more gooder right? flawless logic.

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    You should shut up. Arrogance makes you stupid.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    Yeah I should be humble and accept the fact that all humans are morally and spiritually (?) equal. All of’em.

    [Reply]

    Karl F. Boetel Reply:

    I must admit, I have never understood how some people can make their mouths form these ridiculous noises: “the equality of man,” any man equal to any other—have they never used public transportation? We are not morally or spiritually equal. Utilitarians are fools. I’d gladly sacrifice a thousand of the average for one decent human being. That, to me, is a substantial net improvement.

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    I would settle for less stupidity. If I wanted village atheist trolling, I would frequent 4chan.

    admin Reply:

    When people are drowning, their mouths can make many ridiculous noises (splutterings most obviously).

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 31st, 2014 at 4:31 am Reply | Quote
  • Dreher and Noble Lies | Henry Dampier Says:

    […] Nick Land and Occam’s Razor have posted their reactions to Rod Dreher’s post in the American Conservative that stated that acknowledging biology is politically dangerous. […]

    Posted on January 31st, 2014 at 5:17 am Reply | Quote
  • RS Says:

    > It seems to me that height is much more sensitive to nutrition than intelligence.

    It’s a fact. Or anyway, pregnant Dutch went hungry late in the second war, and their kids had the same IQ as vintage ’48 Dutch or whatever control group.

    [Reply]

    RS Reply:

    or anyway so it is for general nutrition, macronutrients, caloric sufficiency. apparently iodine deficiency does make you dumb.

    secular change in height in the West didn’t end until the ~1980 birth cohort. that’s true even in the USA, undisturbed by the wars. rather impressive to my mind.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 31st, 2014 at 10:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    I think the Aztecs were actually called Mexica [pronounce Meshica], calling them the long gone Aztecs was an honest mistake. The sacrifices were in lieu of battle casualties and of course religious, they believed blood made the sun shine and crops grow and so on…

    The lesson of the Conquest of Mexico is the brilliance of Cortes. He actually took it intact, then lost it through Spanish intrigue and hamfisted brutality. Cortes’s problem at this point was he needed to be in two places at once and he couldn’t be.

    He then having been driven by force from the Capitol raises an army and conquers by reduction [destruction] the entire country, regretfully. However once he took it quite exceeding his brief he had no path to survival but victory, the governor of Santo Domingo would have hanged him.

    Now that’s what’s needed today.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 31st, 2014 at 10:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • Conservative Progress: Conquest’s Second Law and the Human Centipede | Theden | Thedening the West Says:

    […] wonder what Dreher thinks of liberal capitalism.) This line of thought, summarized by Nick Land as “only Nazis get to tell the truth”, can be seen throughout the excretions of the human centipede, though Dreher is unique in stating […]

    Posted on February 1st, 2014 at 2:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • Turtosophy Says:

    I’ve had this same ‘bad people will use HBD for evil’ argument delivered to me by a hard core progressive (UN Human Rights officer). So who are these bad people? Do they have any power? Answer is no, they do not have any power. Do the current power elite really believe that HBD is false? The most certainly know it is true and they most certainly are using it to their advantage. Pretending HBD doesn’t exist means that everyone is equally responsible for their own success; just work hard enough and you can be rich too. This means that those that are blessed with say high IQ are let off the hook from having a fundamental biological basis to help those who’s IQ is less. Everyone knows that mentally handicapped people are not mentally equal to most everyone else; are the mentally handicapped enslaved by us? No, one can make the argument that the mentally handicapped are treated better than most everyone else. What about dogs and cats? Clearly of lower intelligence than us, but enslaved? No, mostly treated very well (don’t even have to work for their food!) The point is that if we feel a bond with another being and if we recognize that the being is just not as capable as we are, then most people feel compelled to help that being. If we feel a bond with another being, but we think that being is equally capable as ourselves, we attribute their less success to laziness, which we use as a reason to not help them.

    Ignoring HBD has far worse impacts on civilization than recognizing HBD. What a surprise that the group with the highest IQ (Ashkenazim) in the US just so happens to be also the unofficial ruling class. But of course, they got there all through hard work. If the African Americans worked hard enough, they could be there too. What a mind f*ck.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 4th, 2014 at 8:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dreher and Noble Lies - Henry Dampier Says:

    […] Nick Land and Occam’s Razor have posted their reactions to Rod Dreher’s post in the American Conservative that stated that acknowledging biology is politically dangerous. […]

    Posted on December 20th, 2014 at 2:12 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment