“Whiteness is not humxness, in fact, white skin is sub-humxn,” she wrote. “All phenotypes exist within the black family and white ppl are a genetic defect of blackness.” – Yosri Khogali of Toronto Black Lives Matter.
OK, ok I’m about to get stoned out of the Amerika.org compound. Even worse than on a typical post. I come to argue that HBD must acquire and exert ownership of its scientific content or it will become a bastardized joke of an academic discipline the way Climate Scientology is currently headed.
It all starts with pointing out the blindingly obvious. You see, #BLM has an intellectual and philosophical problem. No, it doesn’t come from drinking the Molotov Cocktail rather than lighting and throwing it. It happened when they refused the proposition that all lives mattered. At that point they had to explain why, in particular, just Black Lives mattered. At this point, we experience the joy and the pleasure of HBD.
Like the founder of The Harvard University Anthropology Department, we have an idiotic bigot attempting to monetize their own dishonest justification for hatred. Dr. Louis Agassiz practised the psuedo-science of phrenology and attempted to scientifically prove non-Whites were fundamentally inferior. He hated slavery. You see, he was afraid it would lead to race mixing. He was the equal and opposite pole of today’s #BLM Movement.
Unlike Darwin and others, who thought that humans all belonged to one species and that their populations had differentiated through time as they spread geographically and adapted to new environments, Agassiz could not accept that all groups of humans belonged to the same species, and he argued vehemently for the inferiority of non-white human groups. He was not alone in this; several prominent scientists saw populational differences as major and discontinuous, and used various statistical and other arguments to support this. But Agassiz was also physically revulsed by the idea that all humans were equal.
Now Harvard was a leading light of the American Cathedral even back in the 1800s when Agazzis came to be considered a genius for his work in phrenology. Thus it was no great shock that Agassiz’ researxh came to be incorporated into discourse on the floor of the US Senate. In his segregationist manifesto entitled Take Your Choice: Separation or Mongrelization, Senator Theodore G. Bilbo makes the following scientific claim:
Weight of the (negro) brain, which indicated cranial capacity of 35 ounces, as compared with 20 for the highest gorilla and 45 for the Caucasian.
More accurate numbers can be found here. Yosri Khogali bases her own form of racial scientology on melanin content, rather than cranial capacity:
“[they] have a higher concentration of enzyme inhibitors that suppress melanin production. They are genetically deficient because melanin is present at the inception of life….Melanin enables black skin to capture light and hold it in its memory mode which reveals that blackness converts light into knowledge. Melanin directly communicates with cosmic energy,” she added. Khogali then proclaimed: “White ppl are recessive genetic defects. This is factual.”
This brings us to the current state of HBD as a discipline. Like Climate Science, HBD addresses some of the most controversial topics in the modern field of science. Like Climate Science, HBD has some totally brilliant people (Here, Here , and Here) publishing work.
Sadly, like Climate Science, HBD has some obviously fraudulent ideas loose in the discipline like wolves in a hen house. Also, like Climate Science, these ideas get co-opted for political purposes. If you think the psuedo-sapience of #BLM is atypical, you have blessedly forgotten the extent to which Al “The Earth has a fever!” Gore became a deracinated whack-job for hire over Global Warming.
This sort of deliberate and malignant misuse of science could end next week. Climate Scientists like Dr. Judith Curry have launched a nascent campaign to reclaim the ethical and intellectual respect they feel is due their discipline amongst the Geological Sciences. This is condign. I wish her the best of luck in her crusade against the greedy and the disingenuous.
To bring this to point, HBD needs a Judith Curry. It needs one in the worst way. HBD is right about a lot. This won’t be valued or put to good use if the entire field of endeavor is seen as Melanin-obsessed or as measuring skulls in the basement with Vernier Calipers. It’s up to the intellectual best in the HBD discipline to redeem it as a field of knowledge.
When watching excerpts from the recent Olympics in Rio, I was struck by the difference in physiques from the 1970s to today. The women of three decades ago were long and lithe and took on more difficult and graceful routines. In the following video, you can see the elegance and poise of the past.
The difference between today’s overly muscled globalist equal person and the relative health and strength of athletes of yore is alarming. The emphasis now is on power and strength, and today’s female gymnast does a mostly masculine performance that lacks any artistry. This shift from Western aesthetics to a rote repetition of stunts reveals how far the Olympics has fallen.
For example, Laurie Hernandez performs more dance moves, and has dutifully memorized and executed all of the “tricks” from the list of successful Olympic wins, but the routine does not hold together as anything more than a demonstration.
Along comes Aly Raisman, who displays more technical skill, but again her routine is more like a recitation of familiar patterns with no unity between them than a display of artistry and athleticism in union.
Media darling Simone Biles is the girl who is considered to be the best in the world and perhaps the best ever. She is short and stalky, rather ungraceful. Like the others, she embarks on a routine that is very jerky, having no real flow to the movements. Everything seems to be just a technical checklist to be gotten through to obtain the highest points.
Now compare those to Nadia Comeneci, a Romanian gymnast who scored the first perfect “10” at the Olympics in 1976. Notice the lines of her body as she performs compared to our current batch of athletes. They aren’t even comparable. This is a harder skill than all that power tumbling and is so much more aesthetically pleasing.
The broken souls in the mainstream media are beating that tin drum again about how it is bad to be white, and how everyone else is better than you, despite their lack of accomplishments as civilizations and in any area beyond athletics:
The games can be read as something of a physical rejoinder to Trump. “The performance of immigrants and children of immigrants in the Olympics really contradicts Trump in two ways,” Roger Pielke, Jr., a University of Colorado political scientist with an upcoming book on sports, told me in an email. “One is that America is already great (look at the medal count!) and the second is that immigration is a big factor in what makes America great in sports (and business, and culture).”
Ever wonder why people are not enthralled with the Olympics, and really have not been since 1984? It is no longer a national contest. When it was ethnic Germans versus ethnic French, it was an interesting look into humanity that encouraged each group to surpass itself. Now it is diverse teams from all over the world, which effectively look identical with zero actual diversity between them, competing for green cards, or something of that nature.
The bigger point is that being anti-diversity is not about thinking that immigrants are bad in themselves, but that they are bad to have here because diversity itself is toxic. Diversity destroys the majority culture as it contorts to accept the newcomers, even if they are slaves or temporary labor. This in turn destroys social trust, obliterates any sense of mission or values in common, and creates an alienated wasteland where people avoid each other.
In other words, this is not about any group being bad, but diversity being bad. If Sweden flooded itself with Japanese immigrants, who have high IQs and high abilities including athletics, it would destroy itself just as surely as if it admitted Somalis. In the same way, if Nigeria admitted ten million Irish people, its people would be destroyed through the resulting indirect genocide, and its culture would die long before that.
Diversity is death. It is a crazy policy based on emotional gestures, like socialism and zero tolerance policing. It has nothing to do with reality because in reality, people like to be with others like them. That allows them to have social standards, values in common, culture and shared goals; these are essential for the human spirit and sense of well-being. All diversity is toxic, even one drop.
Mo Farah’s brother jailed again after he tried to break into an elderly couple’s home – his 20th offence in a string of convictions
Omar Farah admitted one count of attempted burglary with intent to steal. The younger brother of Olympic hero Mo left his fingerprints at the scene. Farah, 21, tried to break into a west London house in March 2013. He was jailed for 15 months at Kingston Crown Court by Judge Jones. Judge Jones described Farah’s 15 previous convictions as ‘unimpressive.’
However, even if these immigrants were not criminals, they would be toxic — and not from any properties of themselves. The presence of the Other in any form destroys communities and erases culture, which is a consistent goal of the Left as it wants to destroy anything that can compete with ideology as a control principle. Culture, values, heritage, the family and even behavioral standards must die so that equality stands above all else.
In reality, people exhibit group effects, group dynamics, group belonging, and group affiliations. You can also tell a surprising amount about someone by the groups they are associated with or fall into.
Much of the time we have very little information about individuals. As children, there was probably not a great deal to distinguish Mo from his brothers. In such a situation, we should focus upon what we know about the groups they belong to and what patterns we have seen in their group behaviour over time.
What track record of integration into Western society do Somali immigrants have? At what pace and rate do they integrate? What burden of adaptation do they place upon the indigenous population? How about their children and grandchildren? What are their marriage practices (do they extensively intermarry with other groups? Are they clannish in their marriage patterns?) and what forms of family do they have? What are their religious beliefs and cultural practices? How compatible are these with the historic practices of our Western societies? Are they vulnerable to radicalization? What skills do they have to offer? Do we need those skills? Are they jeopardizing the strength and cohesion of the communities and the security of the employment of more vulnerable groups in our own native population? What are their patterns of settling in Western societies? What are their education and employment rates? Have we been able to provide previous generations of immigrants from these groups with secure employment and respected social status (and, if we haven’t, we are we taking in more?)?
What are the demographics of current immigrants? What long term effects might these demographics have (e.g. in Sweden there is now a ratio of 123 males to 100 females in the 16-17 age range, while immigrant groups take about ten years to gain even 50% levels of employment—such statistics should ring warning bells)? Etc., etc.
These are the sorts of questions that need to be asked. Rather than ‘tarring everyone with the same brush’, what we need is the prudent application of the knowledge that comes with probability patterns. Such probability patterns may not give us direct knowledge specific to a given individual (although they can give us real knowledge about risks associated with persons of their type), but they tell us a lot about groups.
But this misses the point: it is not the groups that are the problem, it is diversity. Diversity destroys civilization. It forces people into a society they hate because it is actively working against their values and interests. As a result, those people become selfish and begin to destroy their own society. This pattern repeats again and again, but humans are too pretentious to admit that it is what they are seeing.
The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
by Steven Pinker
509 pages, The Penguin Group, 2002
This book brilliantly debunks an illusion, and then resurrects it through its unsourced emphasis on individualism as a solution to the questions raised. Pinker identifies “The Blank Slate” as a modern ideology, but really, it is the modern ideology: individualism. For that reason, his backpedaling mars the latter half of this book.
The Blank Slate begins by pointing out how prevalent the illusion of equality is throughout academia. The utter intolerance and demonization of any other viewpoint than biological equality is revealed, and then Pinker describes his own struggles with ostracism and professional attacks for daring to believe otherwise than that God created us all identically, just with different skin tones, gender, features and origins.
The thesis of this book retains the simplicity of common sense truth: we are not all equal in ability, inclinations or outlook because we are different in genetics, and that explains our differences. Instead of assuming equality because it makes us feel good, Pinker argues, we should look toward actual diversity, which is that humans are massively different from each other, including by race, ethnic group and family.
He backs up this thesis with extensive data from twin studies, genetic assays and logical analyses which take complex concepts and boil them down to simple language which branches like computer code. For example, Pinker on environmental effects:
A given practice would have to affect some children one way, and other children another way, and the two effects would have to cancel out [for environmental effects to be explained as an interaction between parents and children]. For example, sparing the rod would have to spoil some children (making them more violent) and teach others that violence is not a solution (making them less violent). Displays of affection would have to make some children more affectionate (because they identify with their parents) and others less affectionate (because they react against their parents). The reason the effects have to go in opposite directions is that if a parenting practice had a consistent effect, on average, across all children, it would turn up as an effect of the shared environment. Adopted siblings would be similar, sibs growing up together would be more similar than sibs growing up apart — neither of which happens. (388)
Pinker writes convincingly of the basics of Human Biological Diversity (HBD) by attacking the idea that humans are uniform. Expanding on that, he shows instances where genetic history was so predictive of personality, abilities and preferences as to seem almost magic and uncanny. This provides a convincing counterpart to the begging-the-question fallacy of equality, which asserts itself as true and then attacks any who question the assumption.
Although the vast majority of the book consists of scientific data and its analysis, Pinker necessarily mixes in critical thinking and philosophy to defend what was — at the time — an unorthodox thesis. In fact, the ideas in this book remain highly controversial, but Pinker astutely focused on families and individuals more than heritage-based groupings, which escaped the raging animosity that other books on this topic have provoked.
Some people have suggested to me that these grandiloquent arguments are just too fancy for the dangerous world we live in. Granted, there is evidence that people are different, but since data in the social sciences are never perfect, and since a conclusion of inequality might be used to the worst ends by bigots or Social Darwinists, shouldn’t we err on the side of caution and stick with the null hypothesis that people are identical.
…In the case of human differences, as in the case of human universals, the dangers go both ways. If people in different stations are mistakenly thought to differ in their inherent ability, we might overlook discrimination and unequal opportunity. In Darwin’s words, “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” But if people in different stations are mistakenly thought to be the same, then we might envy them the rewards they’ve earned fair and square and might implement coercive policies to hammer down the nails that stick up. (151)
This book represents the cutting edge of a social and scientific revolution, popularized without adulterating its factual and analytical ferocity. In this pursuit, Pinker adopts a Nietzschean outlook which sees the methods of nature as not random, but intelligent, and through them, shows us why the “cruel” aspects of nature are gentler than our pretense of individual removal from Darwinistic struggle allow us to see.
That outlook makes The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature a rebellion against the pretense of our age which holds that nature was stupid and destructive, and our “enlightened” ways are far superior. It rejects the idea of egalitarianism indirectly by showing that its assumptions are false, and then looks deeper into the evidence to find a logic of nature that approximates the Nietzschean desire for supremacy, competence and elitism.
When the predictions were combined with some basic facts about the hunter-gatherer lifestyle in which humans evolved, parts of the psyche that were previously inscrutable turned out to have a rationale as legible as those for depth perception and the regulation of thirst. An eye for beauty, for example, locks onto faces that show signs of health and fertility — just as one would predict if it had evolved to help the beholder and find the fittest mate. The emotions of sympathy, gratitude, guilt and anger allow people to benefit from cooperation without being exploited by liars and cheats. A reputation for toughness and a thirst for revenge were the best defense against aggression in a world which one could not call 911 to summon the police. (53)
In this way, Pinker foreshadows Jonathan Haidt and his discovery that people are wired for three or more of six concerns, all of which relate directly to group survival that benefits the genes of the individual. This perspective shows us inequality as not just natural, but beneficial, and from that paves the way for another way of looking at human differences which exalts the benefits for the species and civilization in lieu of concern by the individual for the individual exercised through constraint of society to recognize inequality.
Parts of this book drift toward utopianism and this constitutes Pinker’s apology, perhaps, for having discovered and majestically explained the natural reasoning behind a great social taboo. He caps off his analysis with the sort of good-will-toward-all-men language that Nietzsche would have chuckled at, but he does this after he has thoroughly demolished illusions and asserted sanity. For this, he is a hero of the human reinvention of what it is to be human brought on by knowledge of our inherent differences.
An Israeli start-up says it can take one look at a person’s face and realize character traits that are undetectable to the human eye.
Faception said it’s already signed a contract with a homeland security agency to help identify terrorists. The company said its technology also can be used to identify everything from great poker players to extroverts, pedophiles, geniuses and white collar-criminals.
“We understand the human much better than other humans understand each other,” said Faception chief executive Shai Gilboa. “Our personality is determined by our DNA and reflected in our face. It’s a kind of signal.”
Since the rise of the forces that culminated in Athenian democracy and slow collapse, the West has been obsessed with a single idea: equality, or the notion that people are basically the same “inside” (intelligence/character) and therefore, that all behaviors except crimes should be validated, justified and equally accepted.
The point of this thought is to deny that some are more gifted than others in these “inside” areas. If we accept that some are better than others in these ways, that group will separate itself and evolve further, leaving the others behind. In a society of multiple castes, these will end up being the natural leaders and will force better habits on the rest.
Liberalism of the classical sort, which relies on equality as a basis and the earning of money to identify our best, aims to conceal this truth as much as any other form of hybrid with the Leftist ideal of equality. Communism enforces it; our modern capitalist-socialist-managerial crossover state simply subsidizes it while dumbing down everything to the point where people are roughly equal in their ability to paint by numbers in fields in which a procedure exists for everything. Just follow the procedure, and you are considered in the right.
But all of this was based on theory, and proving notions correct because the theory was in the right form. If we make up an equation, and the math works, we do not question whether the equation accurately represents reality. We see the theory works and by our procedure for accepting ideas, we consider it not just theoretically correct but actually correct.
As more information comes in about genetics, the theoretical notion of equality is melting away. The theory does not match the reality. It also conveniently explains how Leftist plans always fail, and the only solution offered — to increase the power of Leftism — will never achieve success, as we see playing out in the ongoing collapse of our society.
In general, individual differences in educational achievement were to a large extent due to genes and the influence of the family environment was negligible. Moreover, there is no evidence for gender differences in the underlying etiology.
Taken from the abstract of “Arithmetic, reading and writing performance has a strong genetic component: A study in primary school children.”
Hard determinism wins in the end. The !SCIENCE! is settled. You can truck your kiddoes to Kuman. You can do your bloody best to get them hooked on phonics; not on Chronic. Whether they play for the Green Bay Packers or the Green Bowl Packers has nothing to do with your behavior as a mommy or daddy. It simply doesn’t matter. Either they win the sperm-shot lottery, or its Gorbutt, PA forever.
I utterly reject most of what I wrote in the paragraph above (but not quite all). It’s there to caricature an unfortunate philosophical point of view. Determinism (religious, biological, social or financial) is often used as a pathetic copout. Families that produce multiple generations of athletes, scholars, business pioneers, war heroes, or successful politicians have more going for them than just Lilith’s Enchanted Ovum and shining pools of +5 Sperm of Smiting. Family lines that consistently produce a certain quality do so because they repeatedly do something right long after they “put the biscuit in the basket.”
A certain level of Bio-Determinism certainly exists. The odds of three generations of Berras playing Major League Baseball strictly at random are about even with my odds of walking into a Trump Casino, playing six hours of Red Dawg and ending the viability The Donald’s candidacy just from the turn of a friendly card or two. The New York Yankees don’t pick their starting catcher by throwing darts. Three generations of Bush didn’t get elected at least governor, if not higher, just from social connections. What we on the Alt-Right call HBD has a significant but not overdetermining role in determining who ends up finishing where in life’s grueling Ironman triathlon.
OK, so what else helps if I want my kids to be smarter, better-looking, and oh yeah, !RICHER! than I ever was? This is why we here at Amerika preach consequentialism. A lot of what you get out of life is the result of what you input. To do is to be said Socrates. It’s like a mathematical function. You set the independent variable going in and then you get a certain result coming out. Determining which values of x will get you at least an acceptable y is analogous to the System Identification Problem from Systems Engineering.
In the JPW Family, the magic ticket from what hard-over HBD types describe as the genetic lottery is mathematical ability. We aren’t all great at it, a lot of us know enough to bang out code, solve intricate systems, and build a good, basic predictive or explanatory mathematical model. We JPWs can do the stuff that gets you hired and out of Gorbutt. So how does that get passed on to the next generation like the baseball skills of Yogi Berra being handed down to Dale?
When you have a tradition, you fight for it. You demand of the generation that comes next. You preserve it athwart an entropic, collapsing world like Amerika. In my family we tell how my maternal grandfather worked as a mathematician for the US Navy. We Americans used to kill the enemy with our minds as well our drones. We let both our children know that we agree with Descartes with regards to which field of study will lead them to the highest rung on the ladder of thought.
In a partially, but not entirely np-complete fashion, genetics does matter. Yet, when it gets overplayed, determinism becomes both an excuse for failure and a facile justification for subtle and self-defeating forms of bigotry. Anyone who has either read Walter Williams or read about a fvcked-up Kennedy brat in rehab would logically concede this point.
HBD can be useful for making large-scale predictions. It doesn’t turn you into a savant-like Hari Seldon. It does not excuse failure to make something out or your own life and relying on genetic determinism isn’t going to get you into Harvard unless you are Princess Lieawatha.
Do what will make you successful and seek what you are naturally predestined to be good at. Both genetics and effort work together and can have positive or negative feedback with regards to determining whether you will get what you want out of life. Determinism is no excuse not to identify what works, codify it as tradition and establish Conservatism as a fight for those traditions that lead to superior outcomes.
With clear Asiatic features and a prominent slope to his face, Encinia clearly has New World admixture which is usually a mishmash of Siberian/Amerind, Moorish or African and Spanish. He looks to be partially white, but the admixture renders him non-white, at least if we want to use the category in a meaningful way for Europeans.
This does not matter to the media, which is always looking for a great white defendant and a third world victim (although Sandra Bland will be a poor case, since she was clearly made delusional by some form of liberal ideology). In their view, even half-Jewish half-Peruvian George Zimmerman can be Adolf Hitler if the narrative calls for it.
I admire your writing and eagerly read it whenever I can. You are the writer I wish I could be: clear, crisp, succinct and hard-hitting. Your insights are many and I have re-read them over the years to not only great appreciation but greater enjoyment.
Perhaps if the media had not shrunk from reporting on the flash mob phenomenon and the related “knockout game”—in which teenagers tried to knock out unsuspecting bystanders with a single sucker punch—we might have made a modicum of progress in addressing or at least acknowledging the real cause of black violence: the breakdown of the family. A widely circulated video from yesterday’s mayhem shows a furious mother whacking her hoodie-encased son to prevent him from joining the mob. This tiger mom may well have the capacity to rein in her would-be vandal son. But the odds are against her. Try as they might, single mothers are generally overmatched in raising males. Boys need their fathers. But over 72 percent of black children are born to single-mother households today, three times the black illegitimacy rate when Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote his prescient analysis of black family breakdown in 1965.
You are wrong in the best way, which is that you get so much right. Everything you say is true, but it is not the whole truth.
I was a witness to the LA riots in the 1990s. The behavior there was the same as in Baltimore: a half-hearted protest that quickly devolved into the dream of every liberal, which is a time when the rules do not apply and everything is free for the taking. Solipsistic people, of which liberals are a subset, do not realize that when the rules go away, they too are likely to be victims and stop enjoying the effects that rules are the causes of. They think it will be anarchy with grocery stores, with themselves at the top; in reality, it will be anarchy among burnt ruins, with liberals serving as tasty Eloi for the munching.
In those riots, the beating of Rodney King — who needed to be beaten to restrain him from continuing his trail of destruction across 50 miles of LA and two black-eyed ex-wives — served as the touchstone for days of rioting culminating mostly in the destruction of the neighborhoods in which predominantly African-Americans lived, much as the Baltimore riots will deprive the poorer residents of shoe stores, drug stores and liquor stores. A touchstone however is not a cause; it is a symbolic event that allows a crowd to organize and finalize its simplistic plan. The actual causes lay much deeper.
Before the IQ and HBD types hit me with a spittoon here let me say that yes, your facts are also true, but like Heather, you have missed the point. I do not deny you but I see your arguments as tangential.
Let me portray for you how it appears to be a minority in society:
You are a captured and defeated people. The wealth here and the laws that protect you are things you could not invent for yourselves. The leaders who do well are not of your people. You are protected by laws that are inherently condescending, and you face a Damoclean choice with police: either they treat you like children and let you get away with murder, which is infuriating, or they force you to obey the rules of the majority, which is humiliating. You face the same choice with personal behavior. You can have your culture and identity but forever be an outsider, a freak to the majority, or you can assimilate and appear to be something exactly as nasty as the term “oreo” implies, someone who gave up who they were to be an Uncle Tom. This applies to every minority in every country and it is why throughout history diversity has been a red flag of the failure of an empire, not its “strength” as our zombie-robot politicians claim.
There is no solution for this situation.
Yes, Heather and HBD types, you can chip away at the edges and talk about the black family and moving people into the middle class. But they will still be a conquered and defeated people, and they will still be seen as collaborators with the regime. In a diverse society, one group must be on top. If a majority decides to cede control, it must do so fully, and then will find itself resenting the other groups. Diversity is a mental trap, a quagmire of policy from which there is no escape. That is: there is no way to make it work, even if we implemented all of your ideas tomorrow with 100% efficiency.
I refer to this as a “second layer” of denial. The first layer of denial is what is publicly acceptable to say. The second layer is what becomes uncovered once one throws away the first layer. For American conservatives, the first layer has been the illusion that we are all the same and the only reason for disproportionate arrests is “racist” policing. We have now done away with that, and admitted a behavioral problem in many communities. But that layer may be denial too, where we are blaming an intermediate for a cause much removed. That cause is diversity itself.
As I have said for decades now, the problem with “race relations” in America is not African-Americans. Even if they do everything right and ascend to the average IQ and behavior of the Japanese or Finns, they will still be outsiders or cuckolds, depending on which of the Damoclean two paths diverging in a yellow wood that they take. There is no way for diversity to work. The only solution is separation, which I believe requires reparations and repatriation to native continents.
I realize that all of what I have said above cannot be said in your columns. You would lose your job. This is one of the reasons — other than the fact that you are the better writer — that I remain an underground blogger and you are in the headlines. I write this merely for your consideration because I know that you, like most who seek truth, will acknowledge it on some level and may be able to use it to see a brighter path for an otherwise moribund policy.
Hail to You provides insight into the ancestry of Hillary Clinton. As I was looking at the picture, another face popped into mind, as you can see above. The similarity is both great and relatively commonplace as this facial type appears quite frequently. On the left, Hillary Clinton; on the right, Miley Cyrus. Draw your own conclusions.
Amy Chua, formerly of Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, is probably a liberal. However, she espouses a very conservative idea: our choices of action determine the results we get.
In Tiger Mother, she outraged parents across the world by showing how if they were willing to work at it, they could make their kids quite successful.
In her newest, The Triple Package, Chua continues the theme — also made popular by Malcolm Gladwell with Outliers: The Story of Success — that how we work determines the results:
The book highlights Jews, Indians, Chinese, Iranians, Lebanese-Americans, Nigerians, Cuban exiles and Mormons as groups with three qualities that set them apart. A superiority complex, insecurity and impulse control are the “three cultural forces” driving these groups to achieve a disproportionate amount of success, the authors suggest.
“That certain groups do much better in America than others — as measured by income, occupational status, test scores, and so on — is difficult to talk about. In large part, this is because the topic feels so racially charged,” the authors write in their introduction.
Despite the nod to human biodiversity topics like IQ and race, this is like Gladwell’s book fundamentally about behavior.
While there’s a good side to that, which is emphasizing the non-utilitarian consequentialist nature that is part of conservatism, there’s also a great liberal lie: if we all just follow the procedure, we’ll all turn out successes!
In the liberal democratic mindset, this translates into the following steps:
Find out what successful groups are doing.
Make it into a standardized curriculum.
Teach it aggressively with those who put in the most hours coming out ahead.
Already American education is bigotry in favor of those who put in the most hours. We are not promoting our smartest students, only our most diligent. The result is a flood of memorizers and imitators like the fools we have in Washington and San Francisco who are highly praised but unable to come up with solutions to real-world problems.
They will try to re-style the question as creativity, entrepreneurship, “hard work” (translation: putting in more hours than anyone else), and other distractions. The question however is not hours or some quirky skill, but a fundamental skill, leadership, which enables someone to identify the necessary task and take steps to accomplish it, usually in company of others.
Chua’s book, like Gladwell’s before it, is another step toward this standardization. If they have their way, children will have no free time and the nation’s top students will work 80 hours a week from age 5 to 30 in order to “prove” they belong at the top. This will get us another layer of witless elites who appear competent but are fundamentally people of no judgment, discernment or ability for long-term thinking.
As my wife just pointed out as we sit here in bed reading, Amy Chua married Jed Rubenfeld. She’s Chinese and he’s Jewish. They’re both from the type of high-performance group she touts as ideal. However, the question here becomes: does such high performance make an ideal society? Another way to phrase that is: why are they here instead of there among the high-performers?
My theory here is that high performance itself is a trap that makes a society nearly intolerable. By rewarding hoop-jumping instead of real-world application of knowledge, we limit the field and make it a competition for hours not ability. This chases away anyone with the brains to do anything else, and so the best become childless artists and the mediocre become elites. While they may be technically intelligent, they have lost the skill of making a society worth living because they have lost the ability to have applied knowledge, and thus they make a society that is pure competition and no joy. It becomes a negative place where people slave away their whole lives to get into the elites, and when they get there, they become utterly insensate to the plight of those below them and act aggressively only for their own advancement. High performance competition creates a self-parasitic society.
As conservatives remind us, the origins of European society lay in the classical ideal: every thing in its place, for perfect balance, leading to a transcendental beauty and joy. This is the opposite of the high performance society because it does not embrace performance for its own sake, but performance in the service of an ideal, like achieving “the good, the beautiful and the true.” It made a better society, which is why they all want to come here instead of live in high performance China.