There’s a semi-interesting article in AEON MAGAZINE called "The Golden Quarter. Some of Our Greatest Cultural and Technological Achievements Took Place between 1945 and 1971. Why Has Progress Stalled?" Though overstated — articles such as this are exaggerated to stir up ‘controversy’ and garner attention — , it does make for provocative reading because we’ve all been living under the assumption that progress is happening faster than ever. But maybe the pace of change/progress has been overrated because we’re swept up in the online world where new apps dazzle us, lending the impression that everything about the world is changing when, in fact, what may be really changing is only our perception of the world through zippy gadgets that hook up all of humanity in a ‘global village’.
Personally, I believe tremendous innovations are being made and humanity, at least in the West, is on the cusp of mega-breakthroughs in biotechnology and artificial intelligence. If history teaches us anything, it is never to predict the future. Hell or heaven may be waiting for us, or combination thereof. But we won’t know until we get there. Also, despite the phenomenon of globalism, different parts of the world will likely progress or regress in their own manner, and what may be a golden age for one part of the world could be the dark ages for another part. Today, Israel and Saudi Arabia seem to be doing great while rest of the Arab/Muslim world is being torn apart and burned to cinders. Russian economy is in free fall whereas the American economy seems to be on the rebound. Who knows what the future holds for EU, a very unstable entity, or for China, a nation of great potential and massive problems.
Nevertheless, Michael Hanlon, the author of the article, makes some startling arguments that remind us of how little progress there has been in real terms in the last 30 or even 40 yrs. I was surprised to hear that chances of surviving cancer today hasn’t improved all that much since the 1970s. And of course, today’s airplanes, though computerized, are still modeled on the standard blueprint of the 1960s. In some ways, the rise of the internet and online world may have had a negative impact on innovations in many fields. After all, if so much of our communication and work can be handled via the internet, it will foster accelerated innovation in software but depress innovation in hardware since we’d only need a few gadgets to access what we want. What need for new stereo systems if we can get all our music via the computer? What need for better reading materials if we can get all our reading material via downloads? What need for electronic devices like dvd players if we can watch all our movies by internet streaming? It’s like if we were to invent a teleporter — like the one in STAR TREK — , there would be no need for cars, airplanes, trains, and etc. We could all just enter a booth and be teleported back and forth around the world.
But science and technology aside, Hanlon is so blinded by self-righteous Political Correctness that he fails to see the hole in his very argument. For any innovation to be possible, there has to be a free exchange of ideas, opinions, and speculations. Genuine innovation must be founded on truth, but then, of course, truth is a double-edged sword. As every person or group has its own agenda, myths, values, self-image, and/or interests, certain truths are preferable to others. Indeed, when truth undermines one’s world-view or paradigm, there’s a tendency to suppress the truth through taboos and ‘correctness’. This is as true of ideology as of religion. The most famous case in history of a truth-teller’s ordeal under the powers-that-be is probably the story of Galileo’s persecution at the hands of the Catholic Church that couldn’t abide by the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun than vice versa. Though wrong on facts, the Catholic Church insisted on its rightness on the basis of moral/spiritual correctness. If indeed God is the source of all truth and if He created man with a special duty and destiny in the universe, why wouldn’t He have created Earth in the center of everything? And if the Bible, as the Word of God, is infallible, then what it says about the Creation of the World must be true. Genesis says God created the Sun(as an object in the sky) after He created the Earth. Thus, Catholic Church doctrine wasn’t merely academic or theoretical. If it were, Church authorities could have accepted Galileo’s findings. The problem was Galileo’s observations went against the moral and spiritual — the righteous — world-view of the Catholic Church. It undermined the entire paradigm of the special relationship between God and man.
|Nobody cares about the Nakba. Michael Hanlon probably doesn't.|
Though the world we live in isn’t totalitarian like the Soviet Union or Red China, a similar kind of mind-set prevails in Political Correctness. Instead of progress being associated with free inquiry, free debate, open discussion, encouragement of controversy, and rejection of taboos, the prevailing Liberalism(that dominates the academia and media) identifies ‘progressivism’ in close association to certain social, political, and/or cultural agendas favored by the Power Elites that are mostly dominated by Jews and homos in the West.
But Michael Hanlon is blind to this because he is so sure that ‘progress’ is all about ‘anti-racism’ and homomania. Sure, if ‘racism’ is something peddled by the KKK, the Nation of Islam, or the Nazis, genuine progressive would entail that we reject and denounce such ideas. Nevertheless, we must ask ourselves if we are rejecting certain ideas and views because they are factually wrong or ‘morally wrong’. I would argue that the ideologies of KKK, Nazis, and Nation of Islam should be rejected because they are factually wrong. The Nation of Islam’s racial theories are ludicrous. Nazis were factually wrong about ‘Aryans’ being some mythical superior race. And KKK members were mostly ignoramus bigots who didn’t know much about anything. I would argue that Nazism, KKK-ideology, and Nation of Islam’s world-view are morally wrong because they are factually wrong. (Nevertheless, one can argue for the moral rightness of something that is factually wrong and the moral wrongness of something that is factually true. The existence of God is factually wrong, but a moral or at least moralistic view of life can be built upon the idea of a special relationship between God and man. In contrast, even if evolution is factually correct — one would have to be an idiot in this day and age to go on rejecting the basic tenets of Darwin — , one could argue that it ultimately makes for an amoral view of life that renders even morality into just a game of struggle and survival, i.e. there is no higher morality in evolution.) But, the radical racist idiocies of the Nazis, KKK, and the Nation of Islam does NOT mean that all theories of race and racial differences are false. The recent book by Nicholas Wade, TROUBLESOME INHERITANCE, details how races are real and racial group differences exist. But we don’t need a book to tell us that. We know from statistics in street crime, school bullying, and sports that blacks are stronger and more aggressive than other races. We know from Jewish power and success that Jews, as a group, have higher IQ than other groups. We know that some races tend to have certain facial and hair features while other groups have different features. Even among black Africans, there are marked differences among Ethiopians, Nigerians, and Xhosa peoples. Indeed, they may be seen as different races, just like white Europeans and yellow East Asians are seen as members of different races even though both peoples have light skin and straight hair.
Even if the bigotries of old-style ‘racists’ should be rejected, we are still confronted with racial problems stemming from the facts of racial differences. Maybe these problems can be overcome, maybe they cannot be. But they are here to stay, and in order to understand them, we need a culture of free inquiry, free debate, and open discussion. But what goes by today’s ‘progressivism’ doesn’t allow freedom of discussion and debate. Instead, all people working in the media and academia must bow down to the Politically Correct Lie that ‘race is just a social construct’ or ‘race is just a myth’. This isn’t science. It’s not truth. It’s the dogma of the neo-religion of Political Correctness peddled by Jewish elites. Because Jews got burned by white radical racism of the Nazis in the 20th century, they’ve concocted a new ideology that discourages and punishes any kind of ‘racialist’ thinking among whites. If anything, ‘racism’ or race-ism should only mean ‘belief in races and racial differences’. After all, ‘ism’ simply means belief, therefore ‘race’ and ‘ism’ should mean belief in races, racial consciousness, and racial differences. It shouldn’t automatically mean ‘racial surpremacism’, ‘racial hatred’, ‘racial arrogance’, and ‘racial chauvinism’. ‘Ism’ must means belief. Why should a race-ist be conflated automatically with a radical racist? It’d be like conflating a socialist or social-democrat with a Stalinist or Pol-Pot-ist. Most people who call themselves ‘socialists’, after all, are not hardcore Stalinists or Maoists. So, why should it be assumed that a race-ist is a Hitlerite or someone who wants to join the KKK? Furthermore, if all forms of radical racism is evil, how come Jewish groups are allowed to hold extreme views in Israel?
|Child in Gaza facing freezing weather. But does Michael Hanlon care?|
What we’ve had since the advent of the secular quasi-religion of Political Correctness is agenda over truth, faith over facts, ‘ideality’ over reality, (self)righteousness over rightness, and the Narrative(that tells a favored story) over Noticing(of what’s really happening). In non-political areas such as science, math, and technology, there’s a great deal of progress being made — regardless of Hanlon’s arguments — because people are free to pursue the truths of hard facts and see what works and what does not.
But in the field of ‘social science’, true progress can only be measured in terms of what is true and what isn’t true. To be sure, discovering what is true may not solve social problems. In some cases, they may make matters worse. After all, Detroit is so far gone that I doubt if spelling out the problem — that crazy blacks caused its downfall — will do much good. Detroit will rise again only if entire areas are bought by whites who move in en masse to gentrify the city block by block. Though people are loathe to admit that blacks ruined Detroit, even mentioning the truth won’t do much good at this point since blacks are blacks and will continue to act like blacks. In some cases, speaking the truth may make things worse. For example, for the sake of political priorities or social peace, the lie or myth can be more productive and useful than the truth. The Soviet mass killing of Polish officers in Katyn is one such example. For the sake of the US-Soviet alliance, the Allies just made believe that the Nazis did it. During the war, it was more important to save the alliance with a lie than threaten it with the truth.
|Jackie Robinson as a 'credit to his race'.|
Anyway, in the long run, the myth of racial equality couldn’t hold. Eventually, lies cannot be the foundation of a stable order. Only harsh repression, social tyranny, and isolation from the rest of the world can sustain a system of lies. It’s like the old feudal system of Japan could last as long as Japan was shut off from the world. But once modernity and freedom flowed into Japan, the old ways began to fade fast. Likewise, even though the myth of racial equality seemed to be doing wonders in gradually bringing whites and blacks together through moral pressure(on whites to be nicer to Negroes) and social pressure(on blacks to be more respectable so as to be worthy of being accepted by white middle class society), it was bound to fail because, in truth, whites and blacks are NOT equal on the biological level. For the myth of racial equality to work, it is necessary to maintain a repressive system like the one in Cuba where blacks are prohibited from running wild and acting like crazed rappers and looters. If Cuban blacks acted like that, there would be police clubs cracking their nappy-ass heads, and there would be nothing they can do about it as Cuba has no ACLU or ‘free media’ to bring attention to ‘police brutality’.
|Sly and the Family Stone. Negroes doing what comes to them naturally.|
Of course, the official ideology of racial equality is still enforced in America, at least in rhetoric. But in practice and in what people do(as opposed to what they say), no one much pays attention to the myth. In both black/white animosity and amorousness, the operative dynamics is fueled by racial differences/inequality than racial equality. Many whites flee from black areas because blacks are correctly seen as more aggressive and stronger(and even physically bigger). And many blacks fail in school and fall behind because of their lower intelligence(which is why so many depend on ‘affirmative action’ to go to good schools) and unrulier nature. But, it’s also true that interracist relationships between blacks and whites — overwhelmingly black male and white female — have to do with the predominant perception that black men are more sexually domineering and white women are more attractive. And if white guys in the past possessed sufficient racial pride to get riled up about the interracist threat and pushed back in the name of white male pride and white racial survival, today’s white boys are more accepting of black sexual domination but because they, like white women, have surrendered to the ideal and image of the Negro as the superior racial male. White men have been pussified into a bunch of Ken Burns who probably would love to see his wife be humped by Jack Johnson. As he is so wussy and ‘faggoty’, he might even get off with some Negro pumping him in the ass. Even straight white males seem to be turning ‘gayish’ in the presence of Negroes. They act like beta-dogs groveling and whimpering before the bigger alpha dog.
|Ken Burns. Totally disgusting white boy Liberal pansy who bends over to Negro supremacism.|
Same goes for social science. Though what we learn from social science may or may not help us to solve social problems, the first order of business of ‘social science’ is to study and discover what is true and what isn’t. Whether or not practical lessons can be derived from such studies and applied to the socio-politico-economic realm, social scientists need to aim for the truth since only the truth can serve as a sound basis for social policy. Why did communism fail in the end? Despite all the propaganda, campaigns, hysterias, rallies, social engineering, and etc., it failed to deliver enough bread for the people. It was economically inefficient, socially repressive, ideologically dogmatic, intellectually stifling, and at odds with certain basic aspects of human nature. Soviet Union was one of the most spectacular of all social experiments, but it collapsed almost overnight in the late 80s and early 90s.
Likewise, why is the Western Civilization beginning to crumble and risking collapse? Because it is now based on ‘false truths’ of multiculturalism, diversity-mongering, myths of racial equality, wonderfulness of Jews, homomania, radical narcissism, anti-race-ism, Negrophilia, and etc.
Of course, the Nazi experiment also failed because it was premised on the ‘false truths’ of ‘Aryan supremacism’ and other nutjob racial theories that over-estimated the invincibility of the Germans while woefully underestimating the resolve, ability, and power of Russian Slavs. Indeed, even if Nazis had won World War II, their ideology would have failed in the long run because it was founded on too many lies. In the end, lies get in the way of the truth that is the only surefire foundation for long-lasting stability.
Whether ideas and observations in ‘social sciences’ are useful/applicable or not, the first priority is to dig for the truth. Of course, truth alone isn’t enough. After all, there is nothing that can be done about South Africa now. Even if everyone in South Africa — even Negroes — and the West could be convinced of the racial differences between whites and blacks, South Africa will remain black-ruled, and its problems will keep multiplying as blacks mismanage many sectors of the economy and government. So, truth is never enough to save a social order.
|Sweden. More Immigration from the Third World a good idea?|
Michael Hanlon writes:
"Risk played its part, too, in the massive postwar shift in social attitudes. People, often the young, were prepared to take huge, physical risks to right the wrongs of the pre-war world. The early civil rights and anti-war protestors faced tear gas or worse. In the 1960s, feminists faced social ridicule, media approbation and violent hostility. Now, mirroring the incremental changes seen in technology, social progress all too often finds itself down the blind alleyways of political correctness. Student bodies used to be hotbeds of dissent, even revolution; today’s hyper-conformist youth is more interested in the policing of language and stifling debate when it counters the prevailing wisdom. Forty years ago a burgeoning media allowed dissent to flower. Today’s very different social media seems, despite democratic appearances, to be enforcing a climate of timidity and encouraging groupthink.
And then he writes:
"Does any of this really matter? So what if the white heat of technological progress is cooling off a bit? The world is, in general, far safer, healthier, wealthier and nicer than it has ever been. The recent past was grim; the distant past disgusting. As Steven Pinker and others have argued, levels of violence in most human societies had been declining since well before the Golden Quarter and have continued to decline since. We are living longer. Civil rights have become so entrenched that gay marriage is being legalised across the world and any old-style racist thinking is met with widespread revulsion. The world is better in 2014 than it was in 1971."
Doesn’t he see any contradiction between his gripe(that today’s young are conformist unlike the 60s generation) and his praise(that we are so much better off today because certain ideas and outlooks are forbidden)? Incidentally, were the Counterculture radicals of the 60s really all that freedom-loving and risk-taking? Or were many of them merely driven by power-lust and looking to the future when they would wield the power to enforce their version of ‘correctness’ on everyone in quasi-Maoist style? In that case, the so-called ‘risk-taking’ of the 60s gave birth to the ‘new conformism’ since the principal animating force wasn’t love of freedom and liberty but lust for power and control when radicals would finally get to take over the institutions and decide what should be approved in thought and expression.
Hanlon argues that even if technological innovation has slowed down, we should congratulate ourselves for having created a much better and peaceful place for everyone. But is what he calls ‘progress’ in human affairs really progress? True, we are living longer, but whites and some other peoples are not having kids. They are dying demographically. In nations like Germany and Japan, people may be living longer, but there are far fewer young Germans and Japanese, and they are not reproducing in sufficient numbers. As Germany has high levels of immigration, it could lead to the abolishment of Germany, a social/racial cultural entity that has lasted for thousands of years.
And what does ‘gay marriage’ have to do with ‘civil rights’? Hasn’t this emphasis on the ‘gay agenda’ effectively drained leftism and political activism of any real concern for the underclass, working class, and the middle class in favor of the vain narcissism of homo elites who are favored by and allied with Jewish oligarchs who run entire parts of the world as their financial fiefdoms? What does ‘gay marriage’ have to do with civil rights when bakeries are driven out of business for refusing to bake ‘gay wedding cakes’? Should NYT be fined or driven out of business if it refuses to run advertising for dildos? Dildos may be perfectly legal, but doesn’t NYT have the freedom to choose what kinds of ads to run in its paper? Then, why shouldn’t bakeries have the freedom/right to decide what kinds of cake they wish to bake? It’d be one thing if a bakery said "We won’t serve homos", but where is the problem with a bakery that refuses to bake a ‘gay wedding cake’? Also, businesses are not allowed to open in certain cities if their owners support true marriage. Besides, if Hanlon really believes in ‘marriage equality’ as a ‘civil right’, where is he on ‘incest marriage’ and polygamy? Why is ‘gay marriage’ a civil rights issues, but ‘incest marriage’ isn’t promoted as a civil right for ‘incest-sexuals’? So much for equality. Some perversions and forms of sexual deviance get special treatment while others are still treated as anathema. So, it all depends on whether your group has the support of and alliance with the all-powerful Jewish globalist oligarchs, with whom Michael Hanlon seems to be in cahoots.
More importantly, if social science should be about truth, where is the truth in conflating homo fecal penetration — what goes by the name of ‘anal sex’ — with the ‘rainbow’? What does the beauty of the rainbow have to do with a homo guy’s penis stained with fecal matter or with an anus bleeding from being pummeled by homo penises? And on what biological basis are we to assume that a homo man’s fecal hole is the sexual equivalent of a woman’s vagina(that was properly designed by nature to a sexual/reproductive organ)? Isn’t it a form of radical relativism to say that a homo guy’s fecal hole is the ‘sexual’ equivalent of a woman’s vagina? Isn’t it an affront to womanhood to say that Barney Frank’s crusty smelly bunghole has the same ‘sexual’ value as a woman’s vagina? Considering what women go through in childbirth to produce new human beings, how can any sane person say a homo man’s stinky fecal hole should be elevated the same status as a ‘sex’ organ as a vagina? It’s as biologically absurd as saying storks bring babies or that there’s any veracity to Creationism. Homomania is not about civil rights. It’s about elitist privilege of the globalist elites who’ve gained total control of Western banks, media, government, advertising, academia, and entertainment. The ‘gay’ agenda has been the favorite of billionaire oligarchs all around the world. They love it because rich elites are minorities everywhere — especially Jews — , and so, they want accustom the masses to the ‘new normal’ idea that they should bend over to the biases and predilections of the ruling minority elites. Therefore, we are to believe that 2% of the male population that is homo and practices ‘sex’ by sticking penises into fecal holes are just as sexually legitimate to human survival as all the women in the world. But can anyone name a single human life that was born through the fecal hole of a homo anus? Maybe Barney Frank, but even he was born of a woman from what I heard.
As for ‘old-style racism’ being ‘met with widespread revulsion’, I do see progress in that. What person in his or her right mind would say the views of the KKK or the Nazis had much validity. Also, even ordinary white Americans in good ole democratic USA had certain racial and ethnic prejudices(of nasty and petty nature) that thankfully passed from history. But Hanlon isn’t seeing the big picture because his form of PC favors certain groups and focuses only evils of certain groups.
It’s true that whites, usually condemned for ‘past racism’, have become more tolerant and open-minded. But then, toward which groups? In the current US, whites are much less likely to badmouth Jews and blacks. But are whites equally ‘anti-racist’ against all groups? What about white American animosity toward Muslims, Arabs, Iranians, and Palestinians? If anything, the Jew-run media often encourage white American hostility toward nations and peoples who are perceived to enemies of Israel. And what of Jewish animosity toward Russia? This Jewish animus isn’t targeted only at Putin but at all Russians and Russian culture itself. The vile Jewess Anne Applebaum even goes so far as to say that Russians can never be like ‘us’, i.e. Cold War should go on forever between the (Jew-dominated)West and Russia. Now, suppose if someone said that "Jews can never be like us." That would be grounds for his/her dismissal and destruction, but Jews can say horribly stereotypical things about other groups without repercussions. Where is Hanlon on this? Jennifer Rubin played an instrumental role in having Jason Richwine fired from the Heritage Foundation, but it seems she can get away with having extreme friends and espousing hateful opinions against Palestinians. The likes of Sheldon Adelson can urge US government to nuke Iran, but they suffer no negative consequences. If anything, they are allowed to play a prominent role in American elections. There was a huge brouhaha over Donald Sterling’s request to his mistress to stop bringing black dates to basketball games, but the likes of Adelson get a total pass for suggesting that US nuke a nation that poses no threat to the US or even to Israel. (Iran has no nukes while Israel has 300 illegal nukes.) And considering the ongoing oppression of Palestinians and zero sympathy among US politicians for the victims of Israelis, it seems ‘old style racism’ is very much with us against certain groups. How is that the likes of Hanlon congratulate themselves over the end of white rule in South Africa but have nothing to say about the ongoing radical racist rule of Israel/Palestine by Zionist supremacists? I guess he puts food on the table by sucking up to Jewish oligarchs who own and run most of the media in the Western world.
Furthermore, even though ‘old style racism’ was sometimes ugly and even deranged, the problem of PC is it attacks even rational and factual race-ism — ‘race-ism’ simply meaning belief in the existence of races, possibility of racial differences, and the need for racial consciousness. Of course, such attacks are always selective. For example, Liberals have piled on Charles Murray for suggesting that whites have higher IQ than blacks. But the same Liberals have no problem with Steven Pinker saying that Ashkenazi Jews may indeed have higher IQs than gentiles. Also, though Jimmy the Greek was attacked for saying that blacks make better athletes, David Epstein the Jewish sports writer has been left alone and even praised for detailing the many ways in which some races are better at certain sports than other races. By now, surely we’ve all noticed that West Africans are better at sprinting and East Africans are better at long distance running. Epstein the Jew is allowed to notice such things, but white gentiles better shut up about them. So, there’s clearly a case of ‘who, whom’ in the rules of who gets to say what and who doesn’t. If the subject is ‘controversial’, Jews can discuss it in their own manner, but no one else better touch it and should just stick to the standard PC line of how ‘race is just a myth’ or ‘race is just a social construct’.
But most damaging of all is that the failure to address issues of racial differences and HBD(human bio-diversity) may lead to the downfall of the great achievements of modernity. Steven Pinker and Michael Hanlon are right to acknowledge that there’s been great social and moral progress around the world. But in which part of the world? Even within the US, why is Portland so much better off than Detroit? Why is Singapore what it is while Haiti is a cesspool? How come black Africa has lagged behind much of the world? Why is even progress in black Africa driven by investment by Chinese and Indians? How come Israel has done so much better than Arab nations? Would Israel do better if it practiced open doors policy with its Arab neighbors in the name of ‘diversity’? Suppose all Arabs sincerely abandoned their hatred of Zionists and wanted to come to Israel to find work and marry Jews. Should Jews then openly embrace Arabs and let Arabs come and go freely in Israel? Will Israel really be well-served by the arrival of countless Egyptians and Yemenis? Based on all available facts, Israel’s success owes mainly to Ashkenazi Jews who are known for their higher IQ and European cultural influences. Indeed, even non-Ashkenazi Jews in Israel are, for the most part, nothing special. So, HBD — human bio-diversity — does matter, and Israel would do better to be racially conscious in promoting higher birthrates among Ashkenazi Jews of European origin. After all, Israel has stringent rules against African immigration and has even taken measures to discourage birthrates of Ethiopian Jews whose IQs are low and whose performances lag way behind that of other Jews.
How does Michael Hanlon feel about such race-ist measures taken by Israelis?
While ‘old style racism’ that indulged in nasty name-calling and stereotyping was indeed ugly, the new-style PC ‘anti-racism’ could very well destroy Western Civilization as we know it. With current birthrates, European demography will shrink by 35% every generation. If, in tandem with such demographic collapse, countless millions of angry Muslims and aggressive/savage black Africans arrive in Europe and have lots of babies who grow up with no respect for Western values, what will happen to Western Civilization? The West will become like the Middle East and, worse, like Sub-Saharan Africa. And then all the gains and achievements that Pinker praises in BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE will be lost. Seriously, would Singapore be served well by importing 2 million black Africans on the premise of ‘anti-racism’ that all races are equal and that ‘race is just a social construct or myth’? Seriously? Such idiocy will destroy any well-governed society. Such is NOT progress but regress into barbarism, even into savagery, like what’s happened to Detroit, Newark, black areas of St. Louis, and etc.
But because of PC, any mindless ‘anti-racist’ agenda is conflated as ‘progress’ when its effects are anything but. Look at Malmo, Sweden today as the result of increased immigration from Muslim and African nations. Parts of the city are regressing toward barbarism, but because ‘diversity’ and ‘equality’ are automatically conflated with ‘progress’, the charade goes on that the West is making progress with open immigration. But Hanlon is blind to all that because PC had turned him into a silly mind-slave of globalist Jewish oligarchs who are surely petting his head for being such a good little boy spouting PC nonsense.