between
races sexes and classes.
and only socialists think that's not OK.
Watching an interesting thing on telly yesterday about Napoleon's early exploits while the Revolution was still axing people for being different. While the proto-socialists were busy re-organising France (and the French) to match their ideas, along comes this chap who does not fit anyone's categories.
An interesting line in the movie made something quite clear to me. It was along the lines, "Your Revolution is determined to ensure that everyone is the same. Well, here's a man who will defy all your efforts." And he did. It's the trouble with grand social theories; they're always bumping up against the real humans.
Does anyone remember which essay of CS Lewis' that points out that the goal of the New Way is to make everyone the same? Was it Abolition of Man? Or one of the shorter ones? Can't remember, but it was an analogy where a king instructs someone in the way of governing by taking Someone out to a field and lopping off the tops of every ear of corn that sticks up further than all the others. We must all now be Just Stalks. No one is to be a better or taller stalk than all the others.
An email to a colleague:
you quote: "...and one's life is ruined for pointing out that the American blacks' mean IQ of 85, and not racism, is the cause of their underepresentation in the upper echelons of government, business and the professions."
Now this is interesting. An(other) indicator of the ways Britain has gone down the PC tubes is that it is impossible to suggest that one group of people is smarter on average than another. In the US it is actually possible to say or write it and not be ruined. Of course, you have to be Ann Coulter or someone, but it is possible. The capacity of conservatives to recognise differences and acknowledge their legitimacy is what really sets us apart from the liberals. In Britain the worst sin you can commit is to acknowledge that there are differences between people. You can't point out what is plainly obvious. If you say there are differences between races, you are a racist.
If you say that there are differences between men and women, and that there are some things that men do better or are better and more naturally constituted to do than women, you are a sexist (even if you are a woman saying it.)
Dr. James Watson said it and look what happened to him.
Now why don't I like Watson? I can't support him for saying what he said but not because it was "racist". The difference between Watson saying it and someone like Coulter saying it, is that the former is a leftist eugenicist - the ultimate expression of socialism's desire to remake the human race according to a predetermined set of criteria. Socialists, as we have seen, want to do it the slow way with "edcuation", government regulations etc; the elite scientific leftist eugenicist (of whom there are more than most people suspect) want to do it the quick and easy way, by extermination. (Not, of course that they are ready to set up the camps and ovens again. Oh Nonono NO! they want to do it cleanly and hygenically in petri dishes in laboratories. We can allow the sub-normals, the defectives, the Down's syndrome kids, the disabled and the not-so-pretty to die off naturally, even pension them if we want. Or maybe we will think about euthanasia centres... voluntary of course. But the future of the race is in the hands of the geneticists. )
Watson is of the new school of super-socialist who is, like a conservative and unlike his ordinary leftist confreres, ready to admit what the evidence shows him. The difference between a super-socialist eugenicist and a conservative is that the conservative does not feel any need to force the race into a predetermined set of criteria. We’re OK with people being different.
If you define racism and sexism as any acknowledgement that there are inherent differences between the races and sexes, then I'm a racist and a sexist. These differences are evident to anyone who has eyes and ears. The difference between me, a conservative racist and Watson, a super-socialist eugenicist, is that I'm OK with differences. I don't need everyone to be the same.
The goal of socialism is to make everyone the same. The eugenicists are just willing to follow the evidence to find the most efficient way to do that and are not bothered by how it looks. The reason the lefties went all ballistic on Watson is that he simply showed them where their own ideas ultimately lead if followed to their logical conclusion and carried out efficiently. And it made them look bad. Made 'em look like meanies. And one thing lefties hate it's thinking they might be the bad guys. Their whole worldview is predicated on the idea that left = compassionate, friendly warm and nice to doggies and children; and right = nasty and mean.
The reason all the left-liberal types went all wiggy on Watson was that it reminded them that they are all on the same team and that team isn't the one playing on the side of the angels.
But the bottom line for both the “soft” left and the eugenicist left is that they want everyone to be the same and they're willing to kill to do it. Watson got everyone mad because he was willing to admit it. But if you ask the ordinary leftie man on the street of London, "is it OK for a woman to have an abortion if her child has Down's syndrome," you will, at best, get an uncomfortable silence because the answer is, there are fewer and fewer kids born with Down's syndrome every year, and the leftist establishment is just fine with that...in complete agreement with Watson.
Trouble is, there’s always a difference. Not always of the calibre of a Napoleon, but the differences between individuals and groups won’t go away, no matter how much politically correct wishing we do.
Ever ask a eugenicist what it means to have everyone be superior? He can't answer because it means that we have to make sure no one is superior. If you're trying for the superior race, trying to make everyone superior, you actually make everyone the same. Especially if, as eugenicists tend to do, you are willing to kill off anyone whose existence might tend to disprove your grand theory.
C. S. Lewis said that the conservatives are the ones who can live with differences. That's why we believe in differences between men and women, different roles proper to each. Differences in race present no problem and with the “class” issues, we have no trouble with a hierarchical system where there are superiors and inferiors. (The “class war” was invented by Marxists to create a grievance/victim class to be used for political purposes. The Marxists, and later the feminists, excell at creating a constituency of people with imaginary greivances.) It's the "liberals" as they are now called, who insist everyone be the same and hence label anyone who is capable of discerning differences as sexist, classist, and racist.
Watson differs from his liberal co-revolutionaries in that he can see differences between groups of people and admit they exist, but wants to force the human species to be the same. The prolem with socialism is that it cannot be applied to real people in real life. People just persist in being different. Well, obviously if you want the grand socialist experiment to work, the solution is to radically change the human species. (This is why, BTW, I’ve always thought Brave N. World was more frightening than 1984. In Orwell, people are manipulated, but not fundamentally changed. When oppressed long enough,, as we saw with Romania in 1991, man’s natural instinct for freedom will reassert itself. Huxley’s dystopia was more terrifying because that instinct was removed. And because it is being put into effect today.) Watson’s solution to the socialist problem means, in the end, that he wants to exterminate black people, people with Down's syndrome, girls who aren't pretty enough, etc.
This is the real reason why conservatives are nice and liberals are horrid.
