Search Box

Friday, April 1, 2016

Leftists don't believe in diversity

If you had to sum up the most basic difference between leftists and conservatives, it would be that leftists believe -- or at least want to believe -- that there are no significant differences between human beings. We all have the same intelligence, work ethic, and so on, and any differences in accomplishment are due purely to difference in circumstance.

Conservatives realize that circumstance matters. But they also recognize human beings come in a full range of IQ's, temperaments, work ethics, propensities to violence, and degrees of truthfulness, as well as a whole host of psychological syndromes. And they understand that these variations aren't necessarily spread evenly across race and gender.

The only intrinsic human difference leftists recognize is that there are good leftists, and bad conservatives.

It's all boils down to whether you believe in diversity or not. Leftists don't, even though they have told us ad nauseum that it is the source of our strength.

19 comments:

Steven said...

100% true.

Here's the latest irritating example of the left ignoring everything scientists have learned about heritability.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/30/intelligence-mental-health-genes-nurture?CMP=fb_gu#comment-71615361

Not sure if this makes me a conservative. I suppose on social issues I am more of a conservative. I feel I can't really identify with it though because I'm more of a left leaning-libertarian on the economic side of things.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Thank you.

And yes, that is an irritating, willfully blind article. You could practically see the author patting himself on the back as he uttered those politically correct thoughts. I assume that was you making the first comment there, btw: good work.

Yes, it does make you a conservative. I think you'll see this more clearly as you get older; I also think that you'll probably get more conservative as you get older, that tends to happen to people.

Anonymous said...

John--It's almost like saying that all dogs are the same because they are all of the same species-cannine. Some dogs are extremely intelligent, some very stupid, some love working, others lazy, some very aggressive by nature, etc and it's mostly based upon their genetic makeup, the individual breed. And, it appears that humans have similar traits based upon genetics, but of course it's not PC to say such a thing-that would be racist. PS-obviously all people have the same basic human rights. Brian

John Craig said...

Brian --
The breeds of dog analogy is an excellent one. The liberals basically say that Chihuahuas are as intelligent as border collies, and that pit bulls are no more violent by nature than Golden Retrievers. I don't think they actually believe that, deep down, but they profess to believe it, and they castigate anyone else who points out such obvious differences.

And yes, of course all humans should have the legal rights.

Samuel Nock said...

The leftist position is completely contradictory and nonsensical: 1. All people are the same 2. We need lots of diversity. But if we are all the same, diversity is (paradoxically) both impossible and a given. If we are all the same, why would anyone care if, say, a start up is all white men? Likewise, if we are all the same, why the Renaissance in Europe, and cannabalism and sorcery in Papua New Guinea? John gives their answer which is "circumstances and opportunity and oppression", but that is all pure question begging (by leftists, not John).

Leftists live by wishful thinking and lies. The right ny truth. That's one reason I actually no longer really like to use the terms left and right. There are rightists who live by lies (National Review cuckservatives) and leftists (although rarer) who do pursue the truth, although they are misguided rather than disingenuous. I would include people like Robert Lindsay and Bernie Sanders in the latter category.

John Craig said...

Samuel --
Thank you, yes, that is the logical contradiction in leftist thinking.

Agree with you about how "left" and "right" can be misleading. The cuckservatives do live by lies……I'm always surprised by how many on the "right" -- or whatever you want to call it -- are willing to give Bernie Sanders plaudits for his integrity. (I agree, by the way, I think he has a lot of the stuff.) After seven years of a socialist in the White House who won't admit that that's what he is, and who won't call Muslim terrorism by its name, a guy who is an open socialist is a breath of fresh air. I disagree with a lot of his stances, and his basic philosophy, but you have to admire him for his honesty.

The Left, btw, would never admit that a Pat Buchanan has a lot of integrity, which of course he also does. All the Left can do is jeer and mock (lamely).

Samuel Nock said...

Right. Look at who is willing to engage I open, civil dialogue and who runs from it or simply want to shut people down. Jared Taylor, Pat Buchanan, Richard Spencer, Vox Day will speak to anyone who wants to engage them in good faith. Most leftists prefer to simply shut these people down. It is at the point that even liberals cannot deny that the far left are the intolerant ones. A university canceling a speaking event by a right wing figure barely gets headlines it's such a commonplace. Yet when was the last time a left wing speaker was unable to hold his or her event? Indeed it simply never happens.

By the above standard, even as it pains me to do so since he is so damn annoying, but I have to place Alan Colmes in the "honest leftist" camp since he will speak with people like Jared Taylor.

I agree with the other point you are making about the problem with using right-left: it's not just a question of honesty; it's a question of the accuracy of the label. The fact is that the mainstream American "right" periodicals are simply not right-wing by any objective historical meaning of the term. Many of them can trace their way back to Trotskyist leftist movements who switched sides over foreign policy. And many others are simply what would used to have been called "classical liberals" in the 19th century, and that philosophy really is not part of the true right.

John Craig said...

Samuel --
Agree about Alan Colmes. He seemed like a decent sort when he was on the Colmes and Hannity show back when it was that on Fox.

I told Jared Taylor once a long time ago that for the four main reasons that whites tend to look down on blacks (less intelligent, more criminally inclined, don't work as hard, and families don't stay together), yellows can look down on whites. He calmly agreed. Not the reaction you might expect from one of the leading white nationalists. And it's certainly not the reaction you'd get if you mentioned black-white differences on those issues to a leftist.

Also, yes, "far right" is now an epithet attached to those who are basically President Kennedy-style liberals. I've been meaning to write a post about how I'm a 1950's-60's style liberal.

Samuel Nock said...

It is one of the ironies of our day that Jared Taylor is considered some kind of extreme far right figure. He is essentially a 1950s liberal is most of his positions, race included.

I don't agree with your analogy and I guess I disagree on that with Taylor as well. My benchmark for evaluating the races is pre-mutual contact. What Africa was speaks for itself. What the "intelligent, hard working, law abiding, family oriented" Chinese produced pre-contact with the West, was -- while highly impressive in relative terms to most civilizations the world over -- an intellectually active but stagnant Mandarin culture, extremely repetitive architecture, no advancements in farming technique for millennia, no mathematical, scientific or philosophical contribution that has withstood contact with Western equivalents, concubines, and overall stasis. What the West gave us was an architectural, musical, artistic, mathematical, philosophical, literary and scientific heritage that is unrivaled by any measure. Charles Murray's Human Achievement has Wetern Europe owning some 94% of significant accomplishments.

The four metrics contain some superficial truth but hide a much deeper -- although, in the terms I am describing, readily apparent -- irrelevance. North Asian intelligence is high: the bell curve is slightly shifted to the right, but it is a much taller curve, fewer outliers (I.e. Geniuses). The hard work was often in the service of menial goals that a higher creativity could have released them from. The strong nuclear family is a foundational Western institution that was not the norm among the elites in China throughout history. The undermining of that institution in the West is a very recent phenomenon.

One thing Taylor does believe, and I agree with, is that regardless of any of those metrics, people's all have a right to be themselves. The intelligence and hard work of North Asians is, from many Americans' perspective, acting to undermine Western cultural norms. The great scientific and engineering miracles worked by Americans of the 19th and 20th centuries were not achieved by students who were in SAT cram sessions on Saturday mornings. That Asians are able to understand and game a system to their advantage may on some level show greater intelligence and hard work, but not of a sort that is what made the West great.

This comment is probably sounding harsher than I mean it to be. I know John's background, and I myself have very deep ties to East Asia (indeed, I live there, speak and read one of its languages, and have family ties.). But the whole "Asians are smarter, harder working and produce better societies" thing does always strike a nerve with me. There are waves and up-and-downs in history, and it is entirely possible that we are entering a stage where East Asia will prove itself the superior civilization. But based on history, I am not at all willing to concede that a priori as the fruits of past generations indicate it is not in fact the case.

John Craig said...

Samuel --
As I was reading your first paragraph I was thinking that I would make the point you made in your second paragraph, about the higher and narrower Asian IQ bell curve. Then I saw that you made it.

I actually agree with everything you say. When I said what I said to Jared Taylor, I was speaking more in terms of how the average Asian-American feels about the average white vis-a-vis how the average white feels about the average black. I wasn't referring to cultural or scientific breakthroughs, or any of the higher level stuff you're talking about.

And I always tell people that that higher narrower bell curve is similar to (and also reflective of) the fact that northeast Asians have less variety in their physiognomy as well.

BTW, I've always felt that the quintessential Asian accomplishment was the Great Wall of China. It was an incredible feat requiring an unbelievable amount of work and organization and will. But, it wasn't quite a feat of engineering genius, nor, in the end, was it all that useful. (It didn't keep the Mongols from invading and conquering the Chinese.)

Also, my point in telling that story was merely to illustrate Taylor's open-mindedness and calmness, not to compare civilizations and geniuses. Another story to illustrate that point: Taylor occasionally sends me pieces he writes and asks me for a critique. When I tell him where I think he's erred, or gone too far, 80% of the time he'll calmly agree and make the change. Twenty percent of the time he'll calmly disagree and not make the change, but the point is, he remains calm and open-minded. You generally won't find that mindset on the Left.

Samuel Nock said...

I see. I did indeed miss the subtle point you were making, I.e. that subjectively, Asians will view things that way. Probably every group finds ways to justify their superiority or station in the scheme of things.

I almost mentioned the Great Wall as well of representative of certain Asian characteristics in my comment.

Taylor is without doubt a very humane and open-minded person, regardless of what the haters say. Glad to know that your personal dealings with him show this to be the case as well.

triethylborane said...

The Oriental peoples, and I primarily mean Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans, are unquestionably better at certain things than are Occidental peoples. If one considers those things more important, they are superior.

But their societies are essentially static. Cut off from outside influences, their art, literature and music, modes of dress, etc. won't change much over hundreds of years. Western societies change constantly, and invent new things, but they also burn out and become retrograde for a long period of time.

White man invents and forgets.
Yellow man copies and remembers.
Black man does none of the above.

That isn't strictly true, but is largely so. Blacks "invented" jazz, but the blacks who were good at it usually had white ancestry and used white instruments and copied white and Jewish musical forms, adapting and embellishing them. Africans often love white music-the country singer Jim Reeves was hugely popular in some African country for some reason, and his music still is. And Caribbean forms like calypso, reggae and ska certainly are based to an extent on white musical forms.

John Craig said...

Triethyl --
"White man invents and forgets.
Yellow man copies and remembers.
Black man does none of the above."

That's a great summary of racial differences.

I don't know enough about the architecture of music to have a worthwhile opinion, but whenever I hear that blacks "invented" rock and roll, I always think, but nobody ever seems to mention that they did on on white instrument, using white recording technology. Also, I've listened to BB King and Muddy Waters and some of the other old black blues guys, and for the life of me, I can't recognize any of their tunes in Beatles or Rolling Stones or Beach Boys songs. But, again, I'm a pure layman here.

charlie is my darling said...

The Rolling Stones were named after a Muddy Waters song and their first two or three albums were nothing but semicompetent (except for Charlie Watts, a fairly decent jazz drummer who decided rock paid a lot better) covers of Howling Wolf, Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley and Jimmy Reed songs. All these men were black bluesmen, most of whom recorded for the Chess label in Chicago and whose "Chicago blues" style, unknown to whites in the US generally, was popular with the black underclass in South Chicago and some other specific areas.(Waters did play some of the folk festivals in the early 60's, which were of interest only to liberal-to-communist whites, but played acoustic guitar at those.) Berry, though on the Chess label, was quite well known by white audiences as a rock and roll artist and also a jailbird (he'd done two stretches already and would do a third, for Tax Evasion, in the seventies). Eventually they got a lot better and started writing their own material, obviously.

The Beatles also were devotees of Chuck Berry and several other black American musicians, but their music had wider influences and their technical competence and ambitions were quite a bit bigger. Their music incorporated the English music hall tradition, skiffle, American country music, and to the extent it was in their sphere of technical ability even Tin Pan Alley and Broadway show tunes.

The Beach Boys were primarily a vocal harmony group at first, and took American East Coast vocal pop (Frankie Valli, etc.), and the California surf music by regionally famous but otherwise unknown people like Dick Dale to make it more widely palatable. However, the song "Surfin' USA" is actually Chuck Berry's "Sweet Little Sixteen" with new lyrics. Aside from Berry, there is little or no direct blues or R&B in the Beach Boys' music at all.

Because of their association with the Beach Boys and a couple of other white pop groups, in fact, most black guitar players (and there were many more of them then than now) would have nothing to do with Fender guitars until Jimi Hendrix used them. There is no guitar more associated with blues music today than the Fender Stratocaster and Telecaster, another irony.

John Craig said...

Charlie is my darling --
Thank you, that was an education, you obviously know a lot more about this stuff than I do. I'd never realized the connection btwen "Sweet little Sixteen" and "Surfing USA" before. I was aChuck Berry fan when young, though I never liked Muddy Waters or BB King. I'd known the latter two were worshipped by aficionados back in the day, but their music just never sounded that good to me. I loved Motown, though that came along mostly at the same time as the British rock and roll invasion. Clarence Carter, Otis Redding, the Supremes, the Temptations, Junior Walker, Marvin Gaye (who eventually graduated to a different sound), etc.

I do think you're making the Beach Boys sound a little more derivative than they ended up being. Yes, their early stuff was based on Dick Dale and not much different than Jan and Dean, but their later stuff -- especially, as is often noted, Pet Sounds -- was completely new -- I think. But you would know better than me.

Samuel Nock said...

There is no doubt that American blacks have contributed to music in the United States. But they have also benefited immensely from the contact with Western music. Again, compare African musical forms and culture pre-contact. It is essentially purely rhythmic: drumming. So while they have blossomed as musicians through contact with Western musical culture, it is a stretch to say that "they created jazz" or rock or whatever. Listen to African music and then listen to early rock or blues. If you can detect even a tenuous connection, you have more sensitive ears than I do. Now listen to English folks ballads (or Appalachian music) and then listen to early rock or blues: the connection (thematically, lyrically, musically, instrumentally) is not just clear; it is unmistakeable, it is part of the same tradition. And, yes, there was a black contribution that made that tradition develop in unpredictable and interesting ways. Even the classic theme of many blues songs -- committing (or being accused of) some crime and then getting into trouble with the law -- comes straight out of the English / Appalachian tradition: Listen to "Little Sadie" as sung by Doc Watson, or "Hiram Hubbard" by Jean Richie. I love Hendrick's "Hey Joe" as much as anyone, but that tradition can be traced back much further than to black bluesmen.

Generally speaking, my issue with the whole "we owe blues/jazz/rock to blacks" is not that there isn't some truth to the statement (although, as I and Charlie above have pointed out, only a partial truth); it is that such a statement is almost always simply pure virtue posturing by white liberals: "I'm going to point out how wonderful and important blacks are by highlighting and exaggerating one of their cultural contributions." In fact, I am much more sympathetic to blacks' taking pride in jazz and blues since it is understandable they would want to hold on to whatever contributions and achievements they have made. And likewise, whites should take pride in theirs: and that means noting the continuity between English folk traditions and modern popular music, not attributing all of it to someone else.

For those interested in this question, the following pair of articles about the white singing voice in rock are fascinating studies:

http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/11/in-praise-of-the-white-singing-voice-getting-to-beyonce-overload/

http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/11/the-white-singing-voice-in-rock-and-pop/

Samuel Nock said...

One quick follow-up on my previous comment. Cultural critic James O'Meara has written a few pieces that make an argument quite opposed to, or at least with a significantly different emphasis, than mine. O'Meara emphasizes that rock very much _is_ the product of black influence, in that it derailed or represented a debased form of what white culture "should" have been producing. He argues that arhythmic music, or music that does not emphasize rhythm, is more characteristically European: thus he sees New Age type stuff as more representative of a pure Western "pop" music. Very interesting articles, in my view, regardless of what one feels about the topic under discussion here.

http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/11/white-rock/

http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/12/light-entertainment-the-implicitly-white-music-of-scott-walker/

Rob said...

Do what I say, not what I do
Don't bring a rational argument to an emotional one. If you do and you're correct, you're just a baby killer, bigot, or uncaring. Oh wait, we're the ones that sold body parts.
We want free choice on abortion but want to regulate and tell you how to do everything else.

John Craig said...

Samuel --
Just read that article about white vs. black music, and yes, you're right, it is fascinating and full of insight. It was all stuff I'd vaguely been aware of but hadn't really thought about or ever put into words. Thank you. (And sorry for this late reply, I was busy at the time, and was reminded of your comment by the more recent one above.)

The most fascinating stuff is often how a small behavioral tic is reflective of a larger character trait, and Lee captured that perfectly.