Ignoring Consequences

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.

Loading Likes...

11 thoughts on “Ignoring Consequences

  1. Frip

    I give star ratings to web posts. I’m going to give this my rare 4.5 stars. ****1/2. Besides having great flow and humor, it confronted our own side’s thinking, options, and PR dilemma. This is very needed. We’ve got to beat the shit out of our own side in a good way.

    Reply
    1. Rick

      My dystopian future fear is the remaining upper IQ’s will be corralled and used like machines to keep the machines going, until they inevitably die out because the morons forget to feed them. This thought-provoking post leads me down paths I’ve not considered much. I’m not a monarchist, and without significant population reduction we won’t be splitting up into small tribes of hunter-gatherers anytime soon. Not for Corporations taking the reins. Not a fan of Failed Socialism. Don’t believe the Fundies have any good ideas. Heck, this Constitution thing’s been great, but it does have some quirky wording that could lead some folks astray.
      Hmm…

      Reply
  2. Jimmy

    Happily endorse reduced rights for effective wards of the state, segregation, heriditary monarchy: the whole shebang.

    It amuses me the democrats are touting a basic jobs program. Like them I’m prepared to endorse slavery too.

    Moldbugs city state block encryption city states with hazy undefined reference to migration rights is a bit nutty but heads in the right direction. Our hysterical antipathy to slavery is unhelpful considering we have tens of millions of net negative human beings roaming around our societies.

    Reply
    1. Severian Post author

      There’s precedent: England’s Poor Laws disenfranchised anyone on public assistance, and George Fitzhugh, the most eloquent American defender of slavery, once proposed enslaving shiftless whites who couldn’t take care of themselves.

      Fitzhugh was (probably) joking, but the English Poor Law provision was real. I’d extend it further — nobody getting a government check for any reason can vote. (Soldiers can vote when they separate, even though they might be receiving pensions, as a reward for service). At a stroke, you’ve disenfranchised poor people, old people, and the entire “public service” sector. (You’ve also reduced the Democratic Party to about 6 voters, but that’s a feature not a bug). Fraud is punishable by loss of check in perpetuity. This would go 75% of the way to restoring America to sanity, and best of all, it probably doesn’t even need a Constitutional amendment . Call it a tax, as in “government checks come with a 100% tax on your franchise.” That works — just ask John Roberts.

      At that point, who even needs slavery? Shut off the government tit, and it’s amazing how fast there will be scads of Americans willing to do “the jobs Americans won’t do.”

      Reply
  3. Anonymous White Male

    “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.”

    They may have gotten away with that more easily in the early to mid 20th century because we didn’t have any substantial data on what happens when you have a “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”. Turns out, there is no such thing. Just another “Dictatorship of the Elite”, in this case, the front of academics and/or “philosophers” (i.e., mental masturbationists), fronting for those that financially control them. Besides, the “Proletariat” are really dumb fucks. They just want a guaranteed income, alcohol, pussy, and a nice fishing boat. Hey, who doesn’t?

    “At what point do we start scrapping the Constitution?”

    Something nobody ever notices is that there has never been, nor ever will be, a perfect form of government. They all have advantages and disadvantages. There are “good” and “bad” people and the primary function of government is to keep the “bad” people from taking advantage of the “good” people, or at least no more than is going to occur in nature. Sure, government is also there to referee arguments between “good” people, like when Cousin Billy Bob smashes the TV set over Uncle Louie’s head because he changed the channel. But, as some “philosopher” (i.e., mental masturbationist) noted, “Government is Brute Force”, and another “philosopher” noted that “Government is Best That Governs Least”. You have a group of people. They interact willy-nilly and shit happens. Most “intelligent people” (whatever that is) believe that you should outline the rules for the interaction of groups of humans, a lubricant of sorts for smooth, daily functioning. A Contract that states what the responsibilities and duties of government and the citizenry are. Everyone knows the rules, so what’s the problem? The problem is that humans are, for the most part, self-centered creatures that are going to try to get away with as much as possible. But, it does not benefit the group to try to define every possible outcome, so you paint broad strokes, believing that they will apply 99% if the time. Then you have to have someone to decide when you have outlier events. This introduces grit into the smoothly running machinery of day-to-day life. Someone is invariably going to get screwed. Count on it. It requires Solomon-like wisdom to mediate these disputes. We have never really had many Solomon’s in the past, and we have none now. We have replaced the decision making process with a money making process, and now we have “mini-gods” that make rulings that ultimately benefit those that already have the power. Plus, we have to stand-up when they enter and leave the room.

    I really don’t have a problem with the United States Constitution. I think, as contracts go, it was pretty good. And I don’t think people ever change, so it is just as applicable today as it was 230 years ago. The problem occurred when the definition of the citizenry and posterity changed from a White group of people to a mixed group of people. At this point, we are limited in how we can correct this. We can try to “fine tune” the problems by making more laws and spending more money. Except that this just makes things worse. Which is probably why it is what will happen. We can get rid of all non-Whites. Yeah, like that’s going to happen with the corrupt electoral process we have created. We can scrap the Constitution and start all over. No thanks. The “People” no longer exist. We only have “Peoples” now, and everybody wants more than they deserve. Or, we can fragment into a series of different “nations”, peacefully or violently. I don’t think we can ever get everybody on the same page with this. I believe it will happen, but it will happen in spite of us, not because of us.

    The trick will be in creating the next contract. I would hope that people would learn from their mistakes, but I also hope that I will win the lottery. One of the problems with the original Constitution was that it didn’t define what race the citizenry should be. The States did, and subsequent laws did, but not the Constitution. It, of course, was obvious to everyone that was involved in creating it. But, you don’t rely on the common sense of the masses of the future. They should have specifically said, “This government is BY and FOR White people only. We mean it. We are only concerned about ourselves and our descendents. If some pigmentally enhanced individual makes it into this “country”, which is not the same as the government, good luck. You depend on the kindness and the charity of the people that formed the government. You can never receive money from the government and you will never vote. If that doesn’t suit you, tough titty. Blow me”. Oh, and the Constitution should have created some super-secret hit squad to take out traitors and subversives. Like women with green hair and males with man buns. Not like that would ever be subverted and perverted and become like the FBI. Nosiree.

    Reply
    1. Severian

      The problem with ANY contract, though, is that it presumes roughly equal parties. But the more we learn about HBD, the more we see how UNequal people really are. At what point do we say So-and-So just doesn’t pack the gear to legitimately contract? (This is why we don’t let kindergartners take out small business loans, for instance — they’re simply incapable of understanding what they’re signing).

      BUT: if some part of the population doesn’t pack the gear to legitimately contract, by what right do we rule over them?

      This has been a major problem with Social Contract Theory from the get-go. Even if we assume a State of Nature in which everyone is a fully autonomous, wholly rational, roughly equal adult in his right mind (which has never existed and cannot exist), any contract they make is only valid for them. Even if we say that their children are fully under their authority until age 18, don’t they have to re-contract when they come of age? What if they don’t? Why should they have to obey a contract they didn’t make, don’t agree to, and have no mechanism for changing?

      This was a big objection to Hobbes’s Leviathan, with its absolute inherited monarchy, but it works just as well on John Locke and all the rest. Nobody ever asked me if I want to be an American. The physical and economic problems of expatriating aside, it’s ludicrously hard to renounce your American citizenship, even if you found a more congenial nation to move to which allowed you to move there. Meanwhile I’m subject to American laws, pay American taxes, can be drafted into the American army, etc. (If you want to say that’s offset by my enjoying American roads, the American dollar, and American military protection, I’d agree with you, BUT it does nothing to address the underlying principled objection — I can choose not to drive on American roads; I can’t choose not to pay American taxes).

      And it gets worse the more advanced society gets. Again, let’s stick with that 100 IQ figure. If that’s the threshold for making a legitimate contract — and since it’s the threshold for maintaining society, how could it not be? — then right now half the population can’t legitimately participate in government. Nor do we legitimately rule over them. Short of deporting 150 million people, I don’t know we get around this….

      ….without abandoning not just the Constitution, but the entire Social Contract Theory of government.

      I’m sure the Libertarians have taken a crack at this. I’m told Robert Nozick gave it a go in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, and for that matter Bakunin and the other anarchists took a stab at it, too. Maybe they have the answer. But I don’t (and I doubt they do either).

      Reply
      1. Unconcord

        Feudalism could be a pretty good deal, or it could be Russian near-slavery, but either way it didn’t account in the slightest for the IQ of the nobility. And if groups with IQ are what we need to run this joint, then we ought to submit ourselves to MENSA, regardless that they’re bitter, socially inept folk who are better at solving grueling puzzles than at holding down a job at Burger King.

        Virtue. Virtue and discipline. That’s the answer. Rude clay can be sculpted into a masterpiece, but titanium is no good if left in the ore under an acid drip.

        Reply
  4. Anonymous White Male

    And that’s why I said:

    “there has never been, nor ever will be, a perfect form of government.”

    I quite caring about perfection decades ago. I am more concerned with results. This is another reason why Communists in the early 20th century could attempt to pretend that Marxism could work. There was insufficient evidence that it couldn’t. We have sufficient evidence now. And idiots still want to believe it can work! Its like Evolution, or Afrocentricism. Where are the transitional forms and where is Wakanda? Don’t exist because the “theory” is wrong. As far as ruling over others, I’m sure there have been individuals in America that have concerned themselves with the morality of imposing structure and rules on people since 1789. But, prior to 1964, the great majority of Americans took for granted that the good outweighed the evil. In the end, if the majority of citizens don’t believe this, the country will not survive without totalitarian control. There are still some that believe Monarchy is the way to go (see Amerika). It can work, but it has to benefit a tipping point of individuals. In the end, it requires wisdom, common sense, the ability to think for oneself, and barring that, a sense of trust in your leaders, a sense of belonging, and a uniformity of ethnicity for a country to survive. Without that, nothing will work. So, whadda ya gonna do?

    Reply
    1. Severian

      I’m not concerned about perfection; I’m worried about what works.

      Communism was based on false premises; therefore, it failed. Social Contract Theory is also based on false premises; therefore, it too will fail.

      HBD has given us insight into the mechanism by which it will fail — the 100 types. The question, then, is not “how do we patch up the Constitution so that it will work again?” The Constitution is a Social Contract, which is false. The question is, “what will replace the Constitution”? It may take a long time — I hope it lasts long enough to get my kids well and truly launched in the world (somewhere in the mountain fastnesses of Visegrad), but it’s gone regardless.

      At least, it is if that >100 IQ thing is true.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *