Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Steve Sailer on Public Taboos

There's a lot of good stuff in Steve's piece today, as is just about always the case, but I'm most intrigued by the quote I pulled out for the quibcag. It is indeed illogical for a Darwinist to believe in human equality. The only people who can logically support such an idea are creationists, who can simply assert that God made everybody equal. Though there's really no support for that in anybody's scriptures that I know of. And of course a creationist doesn't have to believe in human equality either. Indeed, anybody who's met any number of human beings can't logically believe in human equality. But of course everyone must say that he believes in it, lest he be fired or otherwise disciplined.

Actually, it's worth another essay to describe how the atheistic left has held on to all the silly parts of religion, while discarding the parts that might make sense.

Well, read Steve here, and when you go to the original at Takimag, there are oodles of comments worth reading.

From Taboo to Common Sense

I’m sometimes accused of having created a vast secret corpus of sinister ideas that I keep carefully hidden away from the millions of words I’ve published.

I’ve always wondered: When exactly would I have had the time to do this? And do I really seem like the kind of writer who would cunningly keep his best ideas unexpressed, especially when there is a big “Publish” button staring me in the face and all I have to do is click on it?

On the other hand, what about the giants of the past who had the brainpower to pull off something as complicated as this? The political scholar Leo Strauss (1899-1973) and many of his neoconservative acolytes have long argued that greats such as Plato and Aristotle had both inoffensive doctrines for the public and “esoteric” teachings for their inner circles.

Straussianism was all the rage a decade ago, when the neoconservatives were flying high and feeling their oats. For example, back in 2003 at the peak of neocon self-regard before their war in Iraq went so definitively wrong, William Kristol and Steven Lenzner trumpeted in The Public Interest

Strauss set himself a remarkable task: the revival of Western reading, and therefore, of philosophizing. Strauss claimed that he had rediscovered a forgotten kind of writing, and that for almost two centuries the proper manner of reading the greatest works of the past had apparently disappeared. If Strauss in fact rediscovered the art of writing, then he made possible the revival of Western letters. If Strauss’s work is sound, he made it possible for us today to appreciate great books in the spirit and manner in which they were written. And the almost universal vehemence with which his rediscovery was initially denounced and ridiculed by the scholarly world demonstrated just how completely this art had been lost.

And if this art of talking out of both sides of your mouth was good enough for Plato and Aristotle … Strauss’s secret decoder ring technique thus encouraged “the wise” (the neocons) to guide “the gentlemen” (well-born gentiles of sound instinct but very little brain, such as George W. Bush) in manipulating “the vulgar” (you and me) into foreign policy adventures whose underlying purposes could not be presently disclosed.

We haven’t heard much about Straussianism lately due to the unfortunate series of events in Iraq that befell the best-laid plans of the sages. But that doesn’t mean that Strauss was necessarily wrong about the ancients. And that has interesting implications for how we should read current works.

As the approaching 20th anniversary of the publication of The Bell Curve reminds us, the best minds of our age have reasons for being less than wholly frank.

For example, about a year ago, a distinguished psychologist approached me with his plan for a scientific meeting of researchers and journalists on IQ, heredity, and race in his home city, one of the great capitals of the Western world. I cautioned him that the last such meeting there had been broken up by leftist thugs with the apparent approval of the police. He decided to make all the arrangements in secret, and was thus able to carry off his plan without his colleagues being beaten for their heresies.

Read the rest here:
Quibcag: Not sure who the girl with the whip is, but the illustration is by mixcool.

1 comment:

  1. Basicly, I think we can only be equal if we are all genetically engineered/ eugenics, and since no one wants to talk about that, then I say, 'fine we arent equal then'.