The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Google vs. Science, Feminists vs. Babies, Commies vs. History, Ad Infinitum

Posted on | August 16, 2017 | 1 Comment

 

Toni Airaksinen of Campus Reform reports that Lee Jussim, a Rutgers University psychology professor, has defended Google “manifesto” author James Damore’s controversial statements about male-female differences. Damore “gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right,” Professor Jussim says, and suggests that Google has “created an authoritarian atmosphere that has stifled discussion of these issues by stigmatizing anyone who disagrees as a bigot.” The essence of this controversy, as I have explained, is average group differences.

The best guide to understanding this is The Bell Curve, and the Google controversy has inspired me to re-read the 1994 book by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray. Sunday night, I turned to Chapter 15, “The Demography of Intelligence” (pp. 341-388), addressing the ways in which modern societies are afflicted by dysgenesis. The major influence involved in this problem is the tendency of highly educated women to delay motherhood and to have fewer children. “Fertility delayed is fertility denied,” as demographers say, and any intelligent person can examine the relevant data and see how this process works.

Not a high school graduate
Lifetime births (average) ….. 2.6
Childless ………………………….. 11.6%

Bachelor’s degree
Lifetime births (average) ….. 1.8
Childless ………………………….. 19.9%

As I summarized this data, “High-school dropouts, on average, had 44% more children than women who had college diplomas. Childlessness was 72% more common for college graduates than for high-school dropouts.” What does this mean? The future will be an increasingly stupid place.

Part of the problem is the willful ignorance enforced by liberal elites in academia and media who are ideologically hostile to the truth. Consider how the media distorted what James Damore wrote. The Google scientist was falsely accused of arguing that women are “genetically unsuited” (Washington Post) or “biologically unfit” (CNN) to work in high tech, which was not at all what he said. Yet liberals are so committed to defending the “patriarchal oppression” thesis of radical feminism that they will tell any lie necessary to prevent an honest examination of the facts (which is why SJWs Always Lie, as Vox Day says).

Character assassination is no substitute for facts or logic, but this is what the Left routinely does. Disagree with a liberal, and you will be branded a Thought Criminal — racist! sexist! homophobe! — because only by such dishonest smears can the failed policies of liberalism be defended.

“When [James Damore’s Google memo] went viral, thousands of journalists and bloggers transformed themselves overnight from not understanding evolutionary psychology at all to claiming enough expertise to criticize the whole scientific literature on biological sex differences.”
Professor Geoffrey Miller, University of New Mexico

What is missing from this discussion is a critical examination of radical feminism’s anti-motherhood bias. According to feminists, “mother” is a lowly occupation, unworthy of any intelligent woman’s talents. Adopting a quasi-Marxist analysis of men and women as hostile classes, locked into a zero-sum-game competition for socio-economic resources, feminists long ago committed themselves to the idea that the only meaningful measurements of “equality” are statistics comparing women to men in terms of high-status professional careers. This idolatry of careerism leads to a number of dubious beliefs, e.g., attributing the “gender gap” in income to sexist discrimination. Beyond such bogus claims, however, we must confront the basic anti-maternal bias of feminist thought. If a woman goes to college and becomes a preschool teacher, feminists count this as a win — a professional career! Yet if the same woman has children and decides to stay home and raise them herself, rather than dropping them off at the daycare center, feminists score this as a defeat, simply because the mother is devoting herself to the care of her own children, rather than earning wages to provide care to other people’s children.

This bias against motherhood is so inherent to feminist ideology that its practical consequences are seldom scrutinized in academia, since the professors of Women Studies are themselves fanatically devoted to the idolatry of careerism. As a result, university-educated women are often indoctrinated with the anti-maternal prejudices that prevail among feminist professors, and this in turn contributes to the problem of dysgenesis examined in Chapter 15 of The Bell Curve.

Those of us who have a real stake in America’s future — because this is the future in which our grandchildren will live — must do what we can to fight the perverse and destructive agenda of radical feminism.

 

 

 

 

Are my wife, my daughters and my daughters-in-law less deserving of admiration than the Democrat Party’s Crazy Cat Lady Caucus? Is motherhood such a despicable occupation that only stupid women should aspire to it? If Americans accept the prejudices of feminism, then my grandchildren — being the offspring of exceptionally intelligent parents — will have to adjust to life in a world populated by helpless morons.

And speaking of morons, Oregon Muse at AOSHQ calls attention to people who don’t seem to understand the concept of free speech, e.g.: “There are limits to free speech. You don’t get to advocate dispicable thoughts that have been soundly defeated.” Notice the idiot misspelled “despicable,” but beyond that, we must ask, which “thoughts . . . have been soundly defeated”? If he means Keynesian economics, I might be tempted to agree, but would that justify me punching Paul Krugman in the face? Does he mean that advocates of economic liberty should firebomb the offices of the New York Times? No, of course not. The author of that statement was arguing that Confederate defeat means that “their speech is not protected.” This principle would seem to require banning publication of, inter alia, Gen. Richard Taylor’s Destruction and Reconstruction: Personal Experiences of the Late War.

Taylor, the son of President Zachary Taylor, led a brigade under Stonewall Jackson during the famous Shenandoah Valley campaign of 1862, and his memoir is one of the finest literary works of its kind. Taylor’s father — “Old Rough and Ready,” the hero of Fort Harrison, the Black Hawk War, Palo Alto and Buena Vista — had a soldier’s disdain for politics, and was reluctantly persuaded to be the Whig Party’s presidential candidate in 1848, with a young Whig named Abraham Lincoln helping lead the campaign that elected Taylor to the White House. The younger Taylor, who had served as his father’s aide-de-camp in Mexico, opposed secession (as did Robert E. Lee, among others) but felt it his patriotic duty to fight for the South when events led to the war, despite his own efforts for peace. Confederate President Jefferson Davis, who had served under Zachary Taylor during the Black Hawk War, had married Richard Taylor’s sister, Sarah Knox Taylor, who died in an 1835 malaria outbreak three months after their wedding. Because of this tie of kinship to Davis, and because of his personal connection with various Republicans who had once been his father’s Whig supporters, Richard Taylor traveled to Washington after the war in an attempt to secure fair treatment for Davis, when the latter was imprisoned at Fort Monroe. Anyone who reads Destruction and Reconstruction might develop an opinion of these historic events that is at odds with the left-wing interpretation advocated by Larry Slobodzian, and therefore Taylor’s book ought to be banned along with Confederate memorials.

 

Aside from his insulting conflation of Confederates and Nazis — Judah P. Benjamin could not be reached for comment — Larry Slobodzian’s argument articulates a “might makes right” theory that would be entirely acceptable to Adolf Hitler or any other totalitarian. Does military conquest justify whatever belief the conqueror chooses to impose upon the vanquished? Did the Battle of Culloden permanently deprive the Scots of their national identity? Or did the Roman siege of Jerusalem forever destroy the right of Israel’s national existence? History gives many examples of conquered nations that have outlived their conquerors, not least of them the states of Eastern Europe (e.g., Poland) which were conquered first by the Nazis and then by the Soviets, both of which totalitarian powers have now crumbled into “the ash heap of history.”

If might makes right, as Larry Slobodzian would have us believe, what about ISIS? Islamic terrorists conquered parts of Syria and Iraq for their “caliphate” and, we may be certain, ISIS leaders would say of the Kurds and Yazidis that “their free speech is not protected.” Slobodzian and ISIS are kindred spirits, however, sharing the intolerant rage of the left-wing mob that toppled the Confederate monument in Durham, N.C. To condemn this mob, Slobodzian says, is to “advocate dispicable [sic] thoughts that have been soundly defeated.” And this brings us full-circle back around to Google’s firing of James Damore.

The triumph of feminism in Google’s corporate culture means that scientific evidence of male-female differences can be relegated to the category of “thoughts that have been soundly defeated.” James Damore can be silenced, and the scientific evidence suppressed, on the same principle that Larry Slobodzian has articulated vis-a-vis Confederate memorials. If a self-declared victim of oppression claims to be “offended” by something or someone, the target will be demonized in much the same way that the memory of Robert E. Lee has been demonized by the Left.

Because the Left now controls the public school system, the universities and the major media, most young people are entirely ignorant of history and unable to articulate a cogent argument against the rhetoric of this Thought Police regime. They are incapable of comprehending how the Google controversy is linked to the Charlottesville controversy, and do not perceive what consequences these dreadful omens likely portend.

Ask yourself why a conservative like me would defend lesbian YouTuber Arielle Scarcella against SJW transgender activists. It is not only that the SJWs are hostile to facts about sexual differences, but also that the accusation of “hate” — transphobia! — is being used to demonize those who dissent from the transgender movement’s ideology. If the SJWs prevail in this effort, can’t we expect in the not-too-distant future that the same brigades of leftist Thought Police commissars who got James Damore fired from Google will seek to disqualify from employment anyone who dares to dispute the claims of transgender activists?

Like I keep saying, people need to wake the hell up.

Also, as I keep saying, Hit the Freaking Tip Jar!



 

 

Comments