Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Learning Better

     Dystopic’s latest illustrates nicely why he’s become a power in the DextroSphere. Here’s the opening:

     One thing that has become clear to me over the years is that people can reason themselves in and out of pretty much anything. Evidence can be provided for just about any assertion, no matter how ludicrous, and debunking it can lead to an endless rabbit hole of argument and counter-argument that never resolves much of anything. You can test this by googling just about any idiotic idea, and mountains of “evidence” will be found to support it.

     So how does a man determine what is true, or at least more likely to be true?

     Those ninety-five words make the rest of the article irresistible...at least, for any man who values facts and is disgusted by the ubiquitous campaigns to displace them in favor of feelings and slanders. I urge you to read it all before continuing on to the tirade below. Yet there’s a component missing from the list of filters Dystopic provides, which I hope to supply here.

     “I understand, Dr. King - you were compelled by the 'truth - tropism' of the scientist. He must go where the data is to be found, even if it kills him.” -- Robert A. Heinlein, “Blowups Happen”

     Some years ago I realized that a considerable fraction of my anthropological and sociological assumptions were persistently contradicted by that persistently aggravating old nag, reality: i.e., the evidence of my senses. My perceptions were amply confirmed by the evidence of others’ senses and the aggregate of news reportage about matters pertaining to crime and public safety. To wit: the white and black races differ markedly in intelligence, aggressiveness, and propensity for lawbreaking.

     To notice those patterns was the first step along a socially hazardous route. I could feel the danger even at the outset. However, “dangerous” data is data nevertheless; being a scientist by education and inclination, I decided to collect it and study it. Despite the prospect of widespread condemnation and social ostracism, I was determined to know the facts...and in time, I became confident that I knew them.

     Today we’re seeing the fruits of the assumption, urged upon us from the cradle and trumpeted from every major organ of “information” in our society, that race is merely a matter of skin color. The Left is determined to make persons who’ve taken my journey through the facts and have arrived at the conclusions I’ve drawn into utter pariahs. Yet the facts, including facts their pet media organs have striven to suppress, are on my side.

     Philippe Rushton searched for the reasons for the race-discriminating patterns I’d noted and ultimately focused on differences in reproductive patterns. While his proposed explanation is effectively impossible to test by experiment, it is consistent with the observed and observable facts, including the grotesque disproportion of black families headed by a single mother. However, that makes it anathema to the bien-pensants determined to vilify and silence anyone who cites facts that point to important differences between the races.

     When John Derbyshire, having long ago absorbed the same facts and reached the same conclusions, elected to compose and publish “The Talk: Nonblack Version,” a worldwide campaign of denunciation erupted against him. That campaign included many persons who had worked alongside Derbyshire for years, knew his intellect, sobriety, and decency, and decided to ally with his detractors even so. But then, “shut up” has been the bien-pensants’ reaction to anyone who dares to differ with their gospel of racial interchangeability:

     If the bien-pensants could support their contentions with facts and reasoning, they wouldn’t be quite so determined to silence us who differ.

     If you haven’t closed your ears to the fishwifely shrieking of the feminists, you’re undoubtedly aware that they trumpet two statements repeatedly:

  • Women are men’s equals in every way;
  • Women require special legal privileges as protections from men.

     It takes less than three seconds’ contemplation to unearth the hard-driven contradiction between those statements. Yet feminist activists, especially their street agitators, strive constantly to silence anyone who dares to make note of the clash.

     The following was clipped from Cassie Jaye’s excellent documentary The Red Pill. It depicts the behavior of feminist activists at a Toronto talk by men’s rights writer and activist Dr. Warren Farrell:

     Note that all the obscene screaming, all the demonizations and denunciations, and all the violence issued from the feminists. Had they any rational case to make for their claim that the Men’s Rights movement is a disguised attempt to deprive women of their rights, would they have done what the clip depicts?

     Cassie Jaye several times refers to her exploration of the Men’s Rights movement as a trip “down the rabbit hole.” She didn’t intend the reference to Alice in Wonderland in a derogatory fashion, but rather as a metaphorical illumination of the great distance between what she’d previously believed and what she expected to see. Those who’ve braved the storms of feminist outrage to see her film are aware of just how closely and determinedly the entrance to the “rabbit hole” is being guarded...against any exploration by them.

     The implication could hardly be clearer. After acquiring significant legal, social, and economic privileges that give them the privileged, empowered position in contemporary Western society, the feminists are unwilling to have the other side – the really oppressed side, as Miss Jaye depicts – state its case where others can hear. Were they to be heard, the obscene imbalance in our laws and customs might be corrected. Women would no longer get away with claiming to be “victims of the white male patriarchy.” They would be required to prove their assertion that they’re “men’s equals in every way” by actual performance.

     That, they cannot do.

     I could go on. I could cite the factual evidence against Islam, homosexuality, the transgender craze, and other darlings of the bien-pensants. However, I choose not to exhaust my Gentle Readers’ patience; besides, if they’ve been reading me for a while, they’ve seen it all already. Let it suffice to say that when some viewpoint starts being treated as an unquestionable dogma – i.e., when persons who question that viewpoint, or who unearth evidence for a contrasting view, are vilified and hounded for daring to disagree – is the instant when rational minds, determined to know the facts, should start searching for reasons it ain’t exactly so.

     Dystopic cites his ultimate decision to accept my view about mortgage debt – i.e., that it’s best avoided rather than embraced as a kind of asset – as an example of the way a mind focused on truth rather than what’s generally believed should proceed. We’ve looked at the facts available to us and have formed our conclusions on the basis of what we know and have seen and heard. The thundering herd disagrees, as do a huge number of financial gurus and “advisors.” Moreover, I, at least, have been denounced for my argument against leaping into debt-laden home ownership.

     I’m accustomed, even inured to denunciation. Remember, I’m an out-loud-and-proud racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic abuser of the physically challenged. That comes with consequences. But the phenomenon should stimulate some thought in observers standing apart from the fusillades.

     The question that should immediately arise in the mind of an honest, open-minded observer is a phrase that should be familiar even to a Gentle Reader who lacks any knowledge of Latin:

Cui Bono?

     Who is it that fears disagreement with “what everybody knows,” and why?

     Food for thought.


Col. B. Bunny said...

No project or initiative or "movement" of the left can be justified on the basis of even incremental improvement in the lives of anyone -- other than destitute third-world people and local parasites. Power-crazed zealots, now, that is a different matter.

The invading foreigners in Europe have showed up with debit cards and 100 Euro notes, and a lot of money is expended by NGOs to make the human movements possible. European elites do more than merely allow it or meekly surrender to it, so help me God. Yes, they do. This is Plan A.

So is it a matter of "better to reign in hell than serve in heaven"? I don't think so. In the short term it looks like elites are willing to foul their own nest and be content to shuttle around in armored limousines between residential and shopping redoubts and prime holiday sites.

Not an attractive option.

So why do all that is humanly possible to bring down Western countries? The grisly reality is that elites have long been enamored of eugenics and the elimination of the inconvenient. Right now there are some seven billion people on the planet, most of whom are inconvenient according to the mindset of the Earth First, Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, euthanasia, and ZPG people. As a result of importation of Muslims and other primitives and Western people's moral and intellectual flabbiness, the West will cease to be an economic powerhouse and the rest of the world will rapidly depopulate thereby vastly reducing the environmental damage that humans savagely inflict on Gaia.

Anyone who wants to call this twisted and demented please feel free to do so without threat of defamation proceedings initiated by me. However, I ask only that any attack on this bit of fancy ALSO include a showing of why mass importation of primitives into the heartlands of the West is NOT also twisted and demented.

The mind reels to try to understand the pure satantic forces at work in the West today. Gigantic error is in the process of working itself to the final chapter.

Pascal said...

Fran asks: "Cui Bono?"
My answer: The Misleaders.

So, who are the misleaders? Well, Plato's cave analogy informs us that the Sophists intended their subjects be constrained to focus only in the direction where they can only see shadows cast upon the cave wall. And Fran has provided us ample examples above with their useful idiots insisting we not turn our heads -- or else.

Yet even we who do turn our heads don't know for sure who all the misleaders are. So we try to make it as plain to our brothers, even those who wish not to hear us, what the preponderance evidence is and how it informs us as to where the misleaders are leading us.

Col Bunny: you have gone further in that direction than most. I don't know if you have seen that excerpt from an email I sent in 2003 to Fran at the Palace of Reason (and later repeated at Eternity Road).

"In a missive on the misanthropy inherent in the campaign to limit human births, Pascal wrote:

I believe that we can tie much of what appears to be illogical to this desire to limit human population by a few, and by the many who are misled into believing that either God or nature -- including human nature's drive to overcome any adversity -- will be insufficient. You know: those who are convinced that Malthus has just got to be eventually correct."

It was with this that Fran chose either to launch or add to his Death Cult series.

Sadly, Col Bunny, it was a series for which Fran received very few positive comments. Such is the nature of the truth you have been propounding around the blogs much to the similarly deaf ears Fran and I have had to endure.

Aside from "who are the misleaders?" there is also the question you raise above as to why they mislead even if it seems it all leads to their own destruction.

So, as was clear to me when I sent Fran that short note, the evidence one amasses from the study of the postmodernist death cult and its activity does inform us why the misleaders believe as they do.

But it does not provide us with the means to alter their course (forget about changing their minds) via any means that would not also please them. They are begging for widespread bloodshed.

Solution: I say sadly that I am one who places little faith in formal worship as propounded by any denomination even before their mainstream institutions were brought to ruin or near ruin as they are now. Nevertheless, I'm inclined to agree with Fran in how much importance we must place in prayer.

Those who have not yet rid ourselves of our consciences still feel compelled to save posterity from the machinations of these misleaders or our souls will languish in misery wishing we had found a way.

Dystopic said...

Even black cops know the truth of black crime, deep down. There is an article somewhere (I forget where, but perhaps I will find it later) wherein Black Lives Matter suggests to a black cop that only black cops should patrol black neighborhoods, because the white cops are racist.

The black cop replied with something to the effect of "hell no, I don't want to get shot by some nigga. I'd rather patrol the white neighborhoods and write tickets."

Ironically, making it so only black cops patrol black neighborhoods would mean more dead black cops. What's more racist?

I suppose, as Andrew Klavan explained, they would tell the black cop to shut up too.

Col. B. Bunny said...

Well, that was a fascinating read. Thanks for that bit of history. Here I thought I was mining a new vein of malevolence. I'm glad to be loosely in such company. Fran's observation "To aspire to redesign or recondition Man, it’s necessary first to deny his nature." is choice. The celebration of homosexuality and the repulsive deformation of the nature of womanhood are good examples. And what cannot be changed or distorted into a new "reality" must be attacked and reviled. This is a problem that's been around a long time.

It's odd to conclude that many men have adopted a view that involves self loathing. The people who like to cut themselves seem to be isolated aberrations. What to conclude when large numbers of seemingly normal people engage in the same behavior. Darren Osborne has a good piece at The Unz Review now where he argues that modern economic life is such that the person who crosses accepted boundaries risks heavy economic and life penalties. Also, I think that vast numbers of today's Western populations live in such a rarified bubble of health, prosperity, and (diminishing) security, that their ideas are not tested by simple facts of existence that confronted their ancestors. Not all succumb but as a result there are not a few women who view having been born into a Western country as a personal misfortune where a "sexist" remark, look, or attitude can plunge them into the Slough of Despond. This freedom from reality checking has permitted the flourishing of the most astonishing rot in the last 150 years such that the Death Cult can prosper. Socialists economics are poisonous and treacherous. So is multiculturalism. So is diversity. But all are wildly popular with the parasites and destroyers.

Trying to discuss reality with the deluded is like Walter Matthaus's accountant in "A New Leaf." He comes out to tell Matthau's character that his trust fund is out of money. Matthau simply doesn't understand the concept of "out of money" and hilarity ensues. One of the great movie moments.

Col. B. Bunny said...

So are multiculturalism . . . .

Col. B. Bunny said...

Tommy Sotomayor has choice views on such matters.