Almost Forbidden Thoughts
“Without censorship in the West, fashionable trends of thought are fastidiously separated from those that are not fashionable, and the latter, without ever being forbidden, have little chance of finding their way . . . "
—Solzhenitsyn, Harvard Address
We all know that there are truths that are almost never stated publicly in the U.S.—truths that media, politicians, and “intelligentsia” pretend do not exist. Astute observers, Tocqueville and Solzhenitsyn among others, have noted that in “American democracy” public discourse tends to group-think and is neglectful or hostile to ideas lacking group-think respectability.
Some of these truths are things that absolutely everybody knows but may not be mentioned without penalty. Others have been so long buried under complacent or expedient denial that much effort is required to discern them.
Here are a few of my almost forbidden thoughts. Doubtless you will have some of your own.
Heredity has as much or more control over our individual fates as environment; i.e., intelligent children tend to come from intelligent parents.
Medical care was not unaffordable in the U.S. until the federal government got involved in it.
Massachusetts, which has vaunted its moral superiority for almost four centuries, is the most corrupt state of the Union—even more so than Nevada or Loosiana.
“Capitalism” in the U.S. does not mean free enterprise. It means government subsidy and protection of Big Business.
Abraham Lincoln was a very good politician, but he was no statesman. He was not a Christian, nor was he always benevolent and sincere.
Black people commit more than their fair share of crimes—especially crimes of violence and corruption in public office.
Since the mid-20th century, American literature of high quality has been mostly the product of Southern writers.
(To be continued)
Entries(RSS)
There are two kinds of men who arouse the people: one is the man on horseback. He is the embodiment of the Führerprinzip and claims in that romantic Rousseauian and most Jacobin way to be the voice of the people; the other is the one who speaks with tamed, trained and tempered power (the meekness of which Christ speaks in the Sermon on the Mount) the truth against the fashionable trends of thought of a given era whether it be the era of the Pharisees or the era of political correctness and thereby gives the people the courage to speak with their own voice. Is there today a man of such meekness among us, not from whom, but through whom we might gain the courage to speak with our own voice against the ultimate censor which is not the bureaucrat of the state appointed to such an office but the scissors in our very heads.
All of Dr. Wilson's statements are true -- one of which needs qualification, given that race has been discussed in the past 50 years in a highly charged atmosphere.
1. "Black people commit more than their fair share of crimes — especially crimes of violence and corruption in public office [that is, those Blacks who were brought to the United States prior to 1808, a majority of whom experienced in the North black codes; in the North and South slavery {though mostly in the South}; in the South Reconstruction {which exploited rather than helped these Blacks}; Southern Redemption; and after 1900 Jim Crow disenfranchisment and segregation de jure and de facto in both public and private accommodation; after 1950 their family structures (pretty stable until then) damaged by the "sexual revolution", a revolution that also damaged non-black family structures. Let me insist that this history NEVER excuses crime by ANYONE by some supposed victim status; a human being has free will and is responsible for his actions. Let me also insist that this sad history does NOT make European Southerners "totally depraved", as the New England Calvinist tradition would have it.
[In contradistinction to pre-1808 Blacks, West Indian Blacks and Africans who entered the United States after, say 1900 do NOT commit their fair share of crimes of violence and corruption, because their history is different. The intention of the European powers to abolished slavery was announced at the Congress of Vienna. Between the British Abolition of Slavery Act of 1833 and the Brazilian abolition of 1888, all non-USA slavery in the Western Hemisphere was abolished, almost always peacefully, the owners paid for there slaves, the European former slave owners sailing away, and West Indians de facto running their own affairs. Dr. Wilson, I know, isn't suggesting race is the criteria, but history]".
Dr. Wilson,
I always enjoy a good breach of bad taboos.
---
A major problem with hospitals is emergency cases. By law hospitals are required to treat certain emergencies, and they are often not paid for treating them.
Of course, lacking that law I doubt a hospital would turn away a man having a heart attack but lacking all of the appropriate insurance papers.
The myth of the self pay is mostly unfounded. Self pays are usually no pays, a few idealists at LewRockwell.com excluded. That said, the costs can of course be passed on to those with insurance who do pay. As always, having pity on the poor hits those who are just a little better off (call them the middle class I suppose) the hardest.
Illegals only add to America's burden. Illegals commit crimes, and they use our court system, our prisons, our roads, our schools, and of course our hospitals.
If the American market wage was raised far fewer no-pays should exist. However the very free trade and open borders the libertarians call for undermine the market wage. A common culture, a moral Christian citizenry, and a less transient populace should reduce no pays as well.
Romney's health care plan is popular among local doctors. Cosmopolitan America is going to end up with his or another's health care plan. Maybe Hilary will get her way, or perhaps Obama or Giuliani will have a chance to pull something more totalitarian from his sleeve. A federal government armed with the ruthless IRS could extract medical fees from no-pays if possible.
Another trend is formerly independent doctors seem to increasingly be working for hospitals as employees. Whether this is the result of no pays, government involvement, malpractice insurance, or the evil Invisible Hand I dunno.
I don't wish for government healthcare, but in the back of my mind I do wonder if some people are capable of being "free." The less capable and less disciplined lose out. Perhaps what we need is small government involvement using programs that encourage those within to act correctly, e.g. to get a job and to repay debts. If possible help the less fortunate to gain a little self respect and to develop working habits.
As usual, I've wandered a tad off topic...
Rodney King,
Though it's in breach of the modern taboo, everything I've seen suggests that blacks due to genetics tend to commit more crimes. This is based upon every statistic I've ever seen and upon personal experience.
To be quite honest, I think we pretend race, or at the least regional genetic variation, doesn't exist only because it's more pleasant to do so. That there are differences does not mean one is superior to another any more than does differences between the sexes. There’s no need for any group to be ashamed, but no one should hide from reality.
West Indian Blacks certainly seem to commit their share of crimes in Britain, though I'm sure Sowell blames the rednecks for that too.
Dr. Wilson,
A quote from your article supra:
"Massachusetts, which has vaunted its moral superiority for almost four centuries, is the most corrupt state of the Union—even more so than Nevada or Loosiana."
In a past life, I had reason and occasion to be, from time to time, in the former German Democratic Republic. There, among contacts and acquaintances, I had a friend whom I will call "Bernd" for this public posting. He had been denounced and arrested by STASI because he had had Western publications in his apartment. He spent several years in jail but was eventually rehabilitated because of his linguistic abilities. He and I would meet once or twice a year. In planning our meetings, usually by telephone, he would use a code to warn me whether or not those who would be with him might be from STASI. If he used the German word for "coworkers," then in all likelihood those with him were not STASI. If he used the German word for "colleagues," then in all likelihood, they were from STASI. (One was, of course, never really sure!) Well, we occassioned to meet at the Leipzig Book Fair in the 1980's. Bernd had used the word "colleagues." I had to assume that STASI was drinking with us in the form of a petite lady in her thirties, intellectual and all, and a most professorial man in his mid to late fifties. When one is in the presence of banality, conversation quickly becomes mundane. At some point in our conversation of a foursome, Bernd and I started talking about Louisiana and quickly moved to a mutually understood passive resistance in that when we spoke of Louisiana, we really meant the German Democratic Republic. I told Bernd that Louisiana (then at least) was a one-party state ruled by the Democrats (Edwards was in office), a state steeped in corruption, and a state which had exchanged basic freedoms for a pervasive welfare system which was one of the contributing factors in the corruption. On that day, my "brave" state of Louisiana became the source of deniable resistance to the communist regime of the GDR!
You're right. We are corrupt, but no man or state is worthless, he or it can at least be used as a bad example!
CW: ditto
May I just add:
Not only naifs are capable of being in contact with their creaturliness via the awsome and beautiful power of mother Nature, she transcends the 'cool'.
One more: in the north the only southerners were from brooklyn, n.y. and rarely. (sorry enigmatic humor)
"There are two kinds of men who arouse the people: one is the man on horseback ....
" the (other) one who speaks with tamed, trained and tempered power "
Mr. Peters, I always enjoy reading your posts but this one seems a bit confusing to me. Is there not a difference between the active and contemplative life ? Is it not a bit too general to lump, Lee, Jackson and Jeb Stuart , the last of the cavaliers, with the Rousseauian and most Jacobin way."
The chivalric road of cavalry and calvary seem to me to have more in common than what we can account for in terms of politics -- populist or Christian. Socrates being another example of the chivalric hoplite and pious citizen. Are they really as exclusive as the Puritan influence and history would suggest or was King and his Knights just a ruthless band of money grubbers and power brokers in the early image of modern politicians ?
Mr. Reavis,
Your words:
"Is it not a bit too general to lump, Lee, Jackson and Jeb Stuart , the last of the cavaliers, with the Rousseauian and most Jacobin way.”
I was eluding to "the man on horseback" as is articulated in the definition infra:
"NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. men on horseback
1. A man, usually a military leader, whose popular influence and power may afford him the position of dictator, as in a time of political crisis. 2. A dictator."
It was in no way an intended reference to Lee, Jackson and Jeb Stuart, who were, in my understanding, precisely the antithesis of the "man on horseback" as reflected in the definition supra.
I am sure that George Washington was sorely tempted to become that, Lee, no doubt in other ways, too; but they were both "meek" in the sense of the Sermon on the Mount - powerful men who nevertheless, were poor in spirit, i.e. they knew that they were fallen and flawed, were ones who mourned, i.e. lamented their fallen and fallen condition, and thereby became "meek," i.e. placed their power and prowess under the yoke of the Christ and thereunder became tamed, trained and tempered, not yielding to the temptation to become "the man on horseback."
The "man on horseback" is full of hubris, arrogance, pride and articulating prowess. He is the wild horse which takes himself and herd into danger. Meek men, like Lee, Jackson and Stuart, are the tamed, trained and tempered horses under the will of their Master; and under His will their, awesome power does great things.
While it is not my intent to turn this into a current political exchange, I did note as I attempt to review the current crop of candidates, that Dr. Ron Paul pledged to a group to which he was speaking that he would be a strong President, if elected, because he would not yield to the temptation to act unconstitutionally. Not to yield to such temptation would mean that he too is tamed, trained and temper by the Master and would make him a meek man in the context of the Sermon on the Mount.
It is certainly not my intent to be the author of confusion. I do acknowledged that I have strayed a bit from Dr. Wilson's initial post - like a young pup, gone to chase a March hare while I should be bounding after the white stag.
Mr. Peters,
How stupid of me. You are right and I fully understand. No confusion, I simply have never heard the term as you used it which reveals my confusion and ignorance , not yours. Thanks for the clarification and lesson in humility for me. "Brokeback Mountain ? " Catholics for Free Choice ?" , " Having issues ?" it is time for me to retire. I no longer understand the language that I never knew very well in the first place. (and I still have four more children to raise.) Thanks again for your kind reply.
Hi, Frank, wuzup? Well, re your #4 supra:
1. “West Indian Blacks certainly seem to commit their share of crimes in Britain [...]”
Frank, man, EVERY ethnic group and EVERY so-called “race” and EVERY nationality, rooted or rootless, commits more crime in the industrial world than in 1950, save maybe Vedanta Hindus, Confucian Japanese, and Anabaptist Amish. James Q. Wilson and Pope Benedict XVI can tell you why. And it has nothing to do with “race”.
2. “[...] though I’m sure Sowell blames the rednecks for that too.”
Hey, man, I’m with ya here, Frank! I get the impression that Sowell took what he wanted from D. H. Fischer’s chapter on the “Scots Irish” in _Albion’s Seed_, and ignored the rest.
3. “That there are differences does not mean one is superior to another any more than does differences between the sexes. There’s no need for any group to be ashamed [...]”
Frank, my friend, however much your claim about race is lacking in proffered evidence, I guess you’re the kind of racialist with whom I’ll can live.
Now for the 2nd problem in Dr. Wilson’s otherwise fine observations.
“Heredity has as much or more control over our individual fates as environment; i.e., intelligent children tend to come from intelligent parents.”
First point: When I had read this, I wanted run up and down Sunset Blvd. and cry out to everyone whom it met “EUGENICS LIVES! Let’s hitch a real smart dude and a real smart dudette and let ‘um breed! And let’s make darn sure that stupid people have lots and lots of birth control and abortion!” I’m not sure that this is conservatism, and I am pretty sure that Dr. Wilson doesn’t want to lock arms with ol’ Frank Galton and Little Miss Maggie Sanger (both Eugenics fans, both racialists).
So let’s face facts. If a tall dude marries a tall dudette, does that mean for sure that their kids will be as tall or tall at all? Nope, it just means that it’s more likely. Does it mean that their kids will be even taller? That’s even more doubtful. Ya know what I’m sayin’? I think this is what Dr. Wilson is saying with his careful word “tend”.
Second point: Does intelligence = wisdom? I don’t think so. The very biggest fools are very, very intelligent, and those two opposites, Burke and Jefferson agree with me. Burke pointed out bluntly that “the age of chivalry is gone. —That of sophisters, oeconomists, and calculators, has succeeded and the glory of Europe is extinguished for ever.” At best, Burke considered the revolutionary intelligentsia to be High I.Q. Bowl lunatics. Dr. Fleming, maybe not Burke’s most fervent fan, has also said that peasants 300 years ago spoke in the proverbs that would seem to us clichés, but these proverbs had the sanction of a 1000 years of prescription. (Mass man is a different story, to be sure.) Tom Jefferson was no fan of Burke at all, but he thought that folk who spent their lives following the wrong end of a mule might have more sense that Hamiltonian hucksters and loan sharks.
I can imagine any teacher could tell you similar things about very bright kids: that they’re very immature, apt to dream up utterly loony ideas and schemes, sometimes think they’re so smart that they don’t have to listen to others or read others (and thus they don’t learn much), write very elegant garbage on essay questions, and a few affect an arrogance to the teacher that obliges their removal to the “time-out” room, as it’s so delicately called.
Take it from me, man. I’ve taken the Precious Body to two of several places: death row and mental hospitals. 99% of the folk on death row are (1) male, (2) poor, (3) had a bad lawyer, (4) killed a "white" person (though a very high percentage are "white" themselves), (5) are ugly (both in terms of what nature gave them as well as tattoos – indeed the jury just took a look, and ... ), and (6)have low IQs, as doubtless also their parents. Folk in mental hospitals are (1)only slightly more female than male, (2) tend to be upper middle class at least (and thus (3)able to afford good lawyers), (4) more often “white” than “black”, (5) are better looking than the average (the good-looking are used, and thus abused), and (6) are very, very smart – as doubtless also their parents.
Those of you better informed than I about the work of Paul Babiak (_Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work_) and Robert D. Hare can tell us if psychopaths/sociopaths are also more intelligent. It’s certainly been my experience with these types, as it was Dante’s (see the souls in his lake of ice), Hawthorne’s, and Little Miss Flannery’s view of the matter. But I’m not going as far as Jack Rousseau’s First Essay, mind you. So chill.
Rodney King,
Re. #2. The point of this article is forbidden thought. Dr. Wilson spoke some forbidden thoughts, about heredity and race, and you proceeded to clean them up for him in a way that is indistinguishable from how a PC liberal would look at the matter. Thus proving his point that said thoughts are indeed forbidden.
There is NO sound basis to claim that heredity/genetics/race doesn't have at least something to do with the higher propensity of blacks to commit crimes and your attempted obfuscations don’t change that. The reason recent African immigrants tend to do better could have a lot to do with the quality of immigrants vs. native stock. Many African immigrants are doctors or other professionals.
Stop denying reality Sid ... err ... I mean Rodney. Your attempts to publicly purge paleoconservatism of any and all taint of “racialism” are embarrassing. The lengths you go to to deny obvious reality is beneath someone as obviously bright as you are based on your other comments.
Sorry if it bursts your taint free thoughts balloon, but race exists, and it means something. Not as much as the true racialist invest in it, but it is not insignificant and you know it. Your hyper pure viewpoint seems unable to distinguish between realists who refuse to deny reality and true racialist.
It is well established, through cross-cultural studies of criminality, that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime wherever they are found and whatever their origins.
I believe "the Color of Crime" published by the New Century foundation has some information on this.
While I fervently believe from my own experience as a child and as a parent, from the basic understandings of my faith concerning the family and from the data available on the family that a family made up of one biological mother and biological father, both of whom in their complementing division of labor are committed to their children, gives children the best chance to become themselves functional adults in things spiritual, intellectual, emotional and physical and while I firmly believe that every departure from that norm - be it single parenthood, divorce, the death of one or both of the parents, incarceration, or slavery which rips apart or undermines the family - raises the risk for children that they will not become functional adults and will transmit that disfunctionality into the next generation, I must nevertheless wonder why, so it seems, do blacks appear to have faired less well under the stresses of these social pathogens than have other groups who have over their long histories undergone similar travails and challenges. I well think that long-term cultural memetics and biological genetics have played no little role in that difference. Acknowledging this does not in any way degrade the person. It simply acknowledges the challenges which they have in striving toward personal, familial and social functionality given their heritage and their genetic lineage.
Blacks from West Indian and other non-former-slave backgrounds do commit less crime than the American Black underclass, but still more than whites. The fact is, there is no substantial group of Blacks living in a Western society that doesn't get into trouble more often than the surrounding non-black population in general.
That isn't to say that they have a phenomenally high rate of murder or mayhem necessarily. Where the lower members of the black underclass commit serious violent crime, these blacks do stuff like Chuck Berry's camera club follies, financial crime, etc.
We can confidently make some statements. One is that there is such a thing as race. Another is that for all intents and purposes, race consists of what Steve Sailer says it does-a race is an extended partially inbred family structure. Third, we can speak of Blacks, Congoids, Negroids, or whatever terminology is in vogue, as being one of the basic races of man in general, and one whose skin colors are generally darker although they substantially overlap with some members of other groups, and one which is not primarily identified by skin color at all but by bone structure, physically.
Fourth, we can say that as a group, this group has certain behavioral and mental characteristics, and that one of these is a strong focus on the present environment-they tend to live soley in the present, and future consequences of any given behavior are not as strong a deterrent or spur to a given action as they might be in other groups.
I don't think Blacks are necessarily "bad", nor do I think that a Western society cannot operate smoothly with a reasonable number of Blacks in the population. But I do think that in dealing with social issues these tendencies have to be taken into account. For example, long prison sentences are a waste of time and money when applied to Blacks, except to warehouse them out of society's way. There is no substantial difference to a Black, or a very much less substantial difference than there would be to a white convict, whether he is sentenced to three or fifteen years in prison. The extra thirteen years merely cost the taxpayer an additional four hundred thousand dollars. The death penalty, though, is a substantial deterrent to them-provided it is carried out promptly.
Blacks have taken a different evolutionary path. Yes, evolution happens to some extent, but I don't believe we evolved from pond scum...
Anyway, as multicultis like to proclaim: diversity ensures man will survive. Also Solzhenitsyn wrote, "Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities; the very least of them wears its own special colours and bears within itself a special facet of divine intention."
And for other reasons too I favour diversity of nations (not multiculturalism.)
"Rodney," I mentioned the age old commonsense wisdom that we are all governed by our heredity. I was thinking there of families more than races. You at once make accusations of totalitarian "eugenics." You give a perfect demonstration of the procedure that makes honest, rational discussion impossible in this country. Your attempt to disguise yourc ensorship with flamboyance and meaningless concessions to the discussion.
Mr. King, regarding your example about height. In genetics there is a concept of regression to the mean. If two tall parents have a kid, the kid is likely on average to be shorter than both. (You generally standardize the height of the mother for a son by adding five inches. Minus five from the father for a daughter. This is very rough, obviously.) If two short parents have a kid the kid is likely on average to be taller than both. Same with IQ. Two really bright parents are likely to have a child who is not as smart as either of them. (This causes great consternation in some families.) Two not so bright parents are likely to have a kid who is smarter than them.
If you think about it, this makes sense. Otherwise you could end up with polarization and freaks instead of a bell curve since people do not generally randomly assort when it comes to procreating. There are outer limits of what genetic variability can bring about. The genes are not infinitely pliable.
The problem with the PC thought police (anti-racists and otherwise) is that they throw all we know about genetics into the ash bin not because science demands it but because it is a "forbidden thought."
Look at poor Larry Summers for example. He spoke a very scientifically supportable and virtually self-evident truth, and he was hooted out of his job for it. Such is life in PC America.
Red Phillips' post offers a correction that supports my ultimate view. There is little in his post that I could disagree with. Thanks. I am not supporting a "thought-crime"; I am resisting a pretense and exposing a fallacy.
In reply to other posters:
“The reason recent African immigrants tend to do better could have a lot to do with the quality of immigrants vs. native stock. Many African immigrants are doctors or other professionals.” - Simi Valley Cop
Exactly! Simi Valley Cop. It’s culture and history, not race and genes.
“Not as much as the true racialist invest in it [...]” - Simi Valley Cop
There’s hope for you, Simi Valley Cop. And I’m glad that you don’t take William Pierce seriously.
“Blacks from West Indian and other non-former-slave backgrounds do commit less crime than the American Black
underclass, but still more than whites” -Bret Ludwig
The proof in the pudding is in the tasting, to quote the proverb correctly. And I have a conservatives preference for the concrete and demonstrable. So, my friend Bret, let’s have you take, say, Eleuthera in the Bahamas, the Bahamas themselves “black” 85%, “white” 12%, and Harlan County, Kentucky, 95.56% “white”, 2.62% “black”. Then let’s have you compare their respective violent crime rates. Then demonstrate a clear cut cause-effect relation between the DNA and the crime in these places, to the exclusion of other factors. Then maybe will have something like proof rather than assertion. And no proof = no case. I look forward to the results of your research.
“I don’t think Blacks are necessarily ‘bad’, nor do I think that a Western society cannot operate smoothly with a reasonable number of Blacks in the population “– Bret Ludwig
There’s hope for you too, Bret Ludwig. Western society can operate smoothly with a reasonable number of Bret Ludwigs in the population.
“‘Rodney’, I mentioned the age old commonsense wisdom that we are all governed by our heredity. I was thinking there of families more than races. You at once make accusations of totalitarian “eugenics.” You give a perfect demonstration of the procedure that makes honest, rational discussion impossible in this country. Your attempt to disguise yourc ensorship with flamboyance and meaningless concessions to the discussion.” – Clyde Wilson
Dr. Wilson, I myself mentioned the age old commonsense CONSERVATIVE wisdom that people are the products of the history, patrimony, prescription, habit, custom, sentiments, tradition, ceremony, and religion of their “small platoon”, and that DNA (as well as the plans of “sophisters, oeconomists, and calculators”) has little to do with it. I know well that YOU are talking about families, and that YOU abjure odious Eugenics, and I said so. OTHERS can, will, and have taken your premise of genetic governance and developed the argument in pejorative way (to say the least). One can say that the premise is true and their deduction is faulty; or one can say the premise is false, or false with respect to what really counts in our judgement of other humans (e.g. intelligence does not equal wisdom or rectitude). However we may reason, I am thus not sure that we are in disagreement as to the conclusion.
Yet to say that for me to say this, for me to say that it isn’t conservatism, for me to demand proof for assertions, for me to mention the turning by some (not you) of a blind eye to the untold suffering that “scientific racalism” has caused human beings in the past century (and not just in Los Angeles), – to say that by my so saying “makes rational discussion impossible”, is an attempt at “censorship”, and amounts to “flamboyance and meaningless concession” – in short to say that I am about utter obscurantism – is amazing!
Dr. Wilson knows the history. Were the Southerners George Washington Cable and Lewis Harvie Blair – both Confederate Veterans –; Wade Hampton (SC governor), Francis T. Nicholls (LA governor), Alexander Stephens, L. C. Q. Lamar, E. C. Walthall of MS, M. C. Butler of SC, Isham Harris in TN, Thams C. Catchings of MS – one and all Redemptorists, Bourbon Democrats, AND anti-Jim Crow – obscurantists? Were the Southern Populists and the earlier Tom Watson? Was C. Vann Woodward? The strange history of Jim Crow (not to mention the stranger history of Jim SNOW!) continues.
Can we learn from Dr. Fleming? He suggests that in the multi-ethnic AND multi-racial society in which we all live, the best modus vivendi is to just ignore race. (I pray that I have reproduced his argument correctly.) This would make a good gentlemen’s agreement, and I offer the open hand to the gentleman, Dr. Wilson. Ya know what I'm saying?
"Rodney,"
"... and that DNA ... has little to do with it."
On what scientific or otherwise grounds do you base that assertion? That statement is not supportable. You rule it out because it offends your sensibilities. Would you object if I said race/DNA has little to do with skin pigment or hair texture? (In fact, hair texture is one of the defining characteristics of race.) Then on what grounds do you object that race/DNA may have something to do with IQ and crime proneness?
Dr. Fleming's advice to ignore race may be wise, although I highly doubt that you ignore it when deciding where to buy a house, send your kids to school, or go to church, but it is another thing entirely to pretend that race doesn't exist and doesn't matter. That is flat earth society territory.
Your "it's all about culture" argument is pure liberal social science pablum.
I have a saying: 'spare the Rodney, spoil the race.'
I kid. I kid.
Rodney are you really Sid? I guess it doesn't matter on this virtual plane.
Race is a part of our heritage; it is a tradition. It's important mostly for identity and for a diversity of nations.
I tend to agree with most everything Fleming says, but if he favours amalgamation then I'm happy to say I've finally found something I disagree with him on.
Reg. intelligence, it is certainly a prerequisite of wisdom or at least makes a man more conducive to wisdom. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
My piece was about the distortions of American discourse. Among others things that went almost unnoticed, I made empirical observations that heredity, which has been fundamental in the understanding of humanity from the earliest times, is hardly mentioned in any public discussion, and that the black crime rate is a fact almost barred from discussion. This was not intended to provoke a discussion of race, but a discussion of the puerility of American public life.
I think that IQ tests measure very well what it is they measure, and they are certainly relevant to public questions such as education, but they tell us nothing about the immortal soul.
The Frum-O-Meter. That is hilarious?
Dr. Fleming approaches this subject of family and genetic heredity in his book, The Politics of Human Nature. Any anthropologist worth his scholarship considers both the genetic and environmental influences in any given culture. It is impossible or at least incomplete to do otherwise. Black crime statistics are like Roman Catholic birth rates in America, they are anathema to the current crop of leaders in both communities because they reveal far more about the deficiency of the leadership than the human potential of their followers. It's like blaming America's enlisted Marines for the misadventure in Iraq . IMO
With Dr. Wilson's statement in #23 I have no problems.
For the sake of clarity: I am the very first to find fault with pre-1808 Gringo Blacks – an ETHNIC GROUP with a particular history, NOT a race with particular genes -- for having adopted or maintained a repertory of behaviors that is self-defeating, that re-enforces stereotypes, and that promotes violence, the greater percentage of which is against members of the same ethnic group. And in this judgement I am supported by B. T. Washington, Robert Woodson, Juan Williams, Shelby Steele, John McWhorter, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Alan Keyes, Larry Elders (whose _The Ten Things You Can't Say in America_ reminds me of ... Clyde Wilson), Ezola Broussard Foster (whose views on religion and family remind me of some folk at the Rockford Institute), Stephen L. Carter, Vernon Robinson, H. K. Edgerton, et al. and maybe Marva Collins – many of whom are conservatives, most of whom have been called “Tom” and “Oreo” (as have I), and all of whom are regarded by some misguided souls to be of inferior IQ because of their supposed race. And I'd gladly "buy a house, send my kids to school, or go to church" in the Bahamas. And I bet Simi Valley Cop would too! Check it out!
For the sake of clarity: I am NOT calling Dr. Wilson someone to be rendering aid and comfort to scientific racialism. For he IS talking about family, not race. I AM saying that the premise of genetic governance has been taken by lesser men who have gone places with it that Dr. Wilson doesn’t wish to go. Let's keep them from going there.
For the rest of you, all I want is truth in advertising:
As I read your arguments, your thought (I except Dr. Wilson) is not so much conservative as more analogous to the nationalist theory, either in method or content, of John L. O'Sullivan, Treitschke, Cecil Rhodes, Delcassé, Beveridge, T. Roosevelt, Barrès, the anti-Dreyfusards, Marcus Garvey and Black Nationalists, František Palacký and Pan-Slavism, Schönerer and Pan-Germanism, Verwoerd (maybe), assorted irredentists, and American exceptionalists, and Dishonest Abe – or other supporters of a “far-flung battle line” and “dominion over palm and pine”. We’ll forget for a minute that such thinking caused two world wars. None of these dudes were conservatives. For conservatism is more interested in localism than nationalism.
I regret that SOME of you (certainly NOT Dr. Wilson) have thought analogous to the content or method of Gobineau, Houston Steward Chamberlain, Wilhelm Marr, Madison Grant, Galton, Margaret Sanger, Alfred Ploetz, Eugen Fischer (sorry to say it), and to the people who have caused me the most grief: Leonard Jeffries, the Melanin Theory supporters, and those who believe that “we descendants of slaves are superior [to “whites”] because the inferior died and were weeded out on the slave ships” – and other supporters of supremacy over “lesser breeds without the law”. None of these were conservatives either. And we’ll forget for a minute what THIS thinking caused.
In passing: Most of the thought here (again NOT Dr. Wilson and NOT anyone associated with the Rockford Institute) also can’t be rhymed with Catholic Social Teaching. Not that anyone so far has claimed that it can be.
Bottom line: you guys ga-ga on genes (and I'm NOT talking about Dr. Wilson) are doing what McCarthy, the John Birch Society, Nixon, and Daniel Moynihan (“benign neglect”) did: Legitimizing in the eyes of the public illegitimate enemies. Why don’t you just hand a sword to Black Nationalists, Black Racists, Hispanic Racists, Cultural Marxists, Hallmarxists, and the Frankfurt Schoolboys and say “please slay us!” In short, not smart politics.
Let's drop this and get back to "puerility of American public life" and "distortions of American discourse".
I said, "Your hyper pure viewpoint seems unable to distinguish between realists who refuse to deny reality and true racialist."
Rodney then said, "I regret that SOME of you (certainly NOT Dr. Wilson) have thought analogous to the content or method of..."
I rest my case.
You seem very inclined to lecture us on what is conservative. Race denial is a very modern viewpoint embraced by politically correct liberals. It is an even more modern viewpoint than scientific racism which it was created to counteract. So it is conservative to embrace a totally modern viewpoint that is not scientifically supportable and is counterintuitive so we can avoid any taint of wrong think? Whatever Rodney.
>>“I don’t think Blacks are necessarily ‘bad’, nor do I think that a Western society cannot operate smoothly with a reasonable number of Blacks in the population “– Bret Ludwig
There’s hope for you too, Bret Ludwig. Western society can operate smoothly with a reasonable number of Bret Ludwigs in the population.
hi i enjoyed the read