One of the benefits of having ten readers (I think that’s what we’re up to now) and a robust comment moderation policy is that our site is blessedly troll-free. Which means we don’t have to put up with what I call the Fundamental Paradox of Internet Liberalism. Anyone who has spent five minutes online knows what I mean. It goes like this:
- If you were smart enough to understand what I’m saying about [insert Leftist boilerplate here], you’d agree with me;
- You don’t agree with me;
- Which means you’re too stupid to understand me;
- Yet here I am, arguing with you anyway.
Which makes about as much sense as anything else Leftists do.
The problem is, Leftists have always claimed to be the smartest people in the room. It goes all the way back to Karl Marx pretending that his sub-Hegelian flatulence was “science.” As a basement-dwelling wankmeister* himself, Marx well understood how to appeal to neckbearded sexless losers (thrice redundant, I know). You can get those guys revved up about anything if you cloak it in enough impenetrable jargon, and imply that mastering said jargon makes you mad, bad, and dangerous to know. (See also: Dungeons and Dragons; every video game ever made).
In fairness, it does take some brainpower to “argue” this way. Add to that the fact that most early Marxists were university-educated (back when that really meant something), and it’s easy to see how “intelligence” and “Leftism” got correlated in people’s minds. Add to that the marketing genius of the Comintern, which gave them canned answers to every likely question, and university-trained Marxists really could hold their own in a debate against everyday Joes.
The problem with that, though, is: Since being a university-trained Marxist is a requirement for getting a job in the Ed Biz, the quality of their training varied inversely with the quantity of the trainers. Up through the Stalin years, Red professors would go all narodnik on their summer breaks, “community organizing” in factories and slums. But that’s hard work, and The Workers are gross, so why bother if you don’t have to? Much easier to preach revolution at a captive audience of undergrads.
So now it has been four or five generations since a Leftist has felt the need to actually argue with anyone. They’ve been forcing us to copy the catechism into our blue books since Kindergarten… in the 1960s. They just take it as given that they are Smart, because they have all the answers to everything…. and since they have all the answers to everything, they are by definition Smart. It’s like the Hasselhoff Recursion, if you replace the self-portrait speedo with secret police and labor camps.
Having never seen actual arguments for their own positions, much less the enemy’s, they have no idea how to respond when challenged. Hence the Fundamental Paradox of Internet Liberalism. That they actually seem to consider this an argument for their position — and a good one, if frequency of use is any guide — tells us how far the rot has advanced. Even obvious logical entailments escape them.
That should be a lesson for folks in Our Thing. To over-strain the analogy a bit, we’re in a similar position to the Marxists circa 1900. We’re the only ones who are arguing with actual arguments. We have facts and data, and since you can’t get five Alt-Right (or whatever) guys in the same forum without getting nine different opinions, we’re pretty good at debate. But we still have a Marx-style communication problem: The Left has controlled the commanding heights of culture for so long that we feel we must (and may actually have to) make our case in terms of their flimflam. Any third grader can say “race is a social construction;” proving that race is real takes a university-level understanding of genetics.
And another thing: We have to watch out for second-order effects, too. Just as our Cult-Marxists have fooled themselves into thinking The Fundamental Paradox of Internet Liberalism is a winning argument by living in an intellectual bubble, so we need to make sure we’ve thought through some obvious consequences of our position. We’re all against Lockean blank-slate equalism, right? Race is real, IQ is real, all kinds of behavioral propensities are inherited, right?
What about Constitutional government then?
That Lockean blank slate stuff is the cornerstone of our system. Even if we hold, as the Founding Fathers clearly did, that “all men are created equal” means “equal under the law” (and not “outcomes should be equal for everyone”), representative democracy assumes that all voters are roughly equal. This might have been more true than not in a rural, overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon frontier society, but it sure as hell isn’t now.** The more we learn about genetics, in fact, the less equal we are. At what point do we start scrapping the Constitution?
Let’s take the common (in Our Thing) assertion that an advanced technological society like ours takes an average IQ of 100 to keep rolling. Not to advance; simply to not lose ground. As I’m sure you’ve noticed, the IQ trend lines are all heading downward, and that’s without the accelerant of open borders factored in. America is going to be majority-minority in 20 years; how are those IQ numbers going to look then? If we don’t want 2018 to be the high point of human technical advancement — if, indeed, we don’t want 2018 to seem like some kind of sci-fi utopia from the vantage of 2038 — we’re absolutely going to have to limit the ability of the <100 to free ride off the >100….
Welcome to the caste system, North American version. IF the “society needs >100 IQ to survive” is true, then without a big beautiful wall and a really top-notch eugenics program you can kiss representative government goodbye…. and even with a big beautiful wall and a top-notch eugenics program, it’s still 100-1 we end up with a caste system anyway. I’m all for realism, guys, but when the Left calls us rayciss, is it really any better to reply “no, I’m caste-ist”?
Here again, IF the IQ thing is true, this is the reality. We can’t let our own inside-baseball stuff delude us into thinking we can just deport some Mexicans and all will be Ozzy and Harriet again. Either the IQ thing is wrong, or the Constitution is. Pick one.
*The only reason Marx wasn’t an incel was that the 19th century didn’t roll that way. Here’s the lovely and charming Frau Marx. He married her for the money — sponging off Engels (whose Daddy actually owned a factory) apparently didn’t keep Marx in the style to which he felt entitled.
**My guess is it was about 50/50 wishful thinking, and every major Founder except that moony doofus Jefferson would’ve admitted it with a drink or seven under his belt, but of course I can’t prove it.