Projection is so rife among Leftists that seeing what they say about conservatives is a handy guide to what is true about them. And nowhere is that more evident than in the various discussions about IQ. Quite plainly, what Leftists say about the subject is guided by their “all men are equal” ideology rather than by the facts. Their stance has everything to do with ideological bias and has only an incidental concern with the facts.

So what do they do when non-Leftists confront them with the facts? They accuse their opponents of ideological bias! —as we saw in Metcalf’s recent attack on Saletan. Saletan himself could not readily be accused of much but someone he quoted (Rushton) has some association with people who believe that racial differences are widespread (which makes them “racists” in Leftist parlance) so that was enough to throw all Saletan’s pesky facts onto the trashheap. Logicians call such reasoning an ad hominem fallacy. A popular description of it is “playing the man and not the ball”.

So the Leftist argument is that pro-racist bias completely discredits any facts you put forward but anti-racist bias makes whatever you say virtuous. Logically, however, if ideological convictions in a writer make anything he says of no worth then it is writers like Metcalf and Flynn who should be dismissed from consideration.

The underlying argument of course is that Leftists are immune from blame because of their “good” intentions but it would be naive indeed to accept their own claims of that sort about themselves. Judging by their results across history worldwide their intentions are in fact destructive. “By their fruits shall ye know them”. What Leftists pine for is revolution, and, as Friedrich Engels said: “Revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon”

Be that as it may, however, the logic remains that judgements based on the facts are going to be much more reliable than judgments based on the apparent good or bad character of the arguer. The world would be a con-man’s paradise if all that mattered was the apparent good character of someone! And following Leftist logic, bad character would equally be a foolish guide. Hitler liked dogs so liking dogs would be disgraceful! Maybe even dogs would be condemned!

I notice that Saletan does not seem to have been up to making the ancient points I have put up immediately above. His response to Metcalf’s attack on Rushton was to apologize for not mentioning Rushton’s associations! What he should have said to Metcalf is: “I don’t see any problem in referring to someone with opposite biases to yours. The truth is probably best ascertained by hearing from both sides”.

At least Saletan did not back down completely. He merely apologized for not including mention of Rushton’s associations rather than condemning Rushton’s work outright. I myself know very little about Rushton beyond what I read of his work in the academic journals. And to get that work published it has to pass peer review—i.e. Rushton’s work has to be passed as properly reasoned and accurately analysed by experts in the field. Rushton could of course still be making things up but most of the data he uses is publicly available—so it is not amenable to that. And I have heard no claim that any of his findings are unreplicable. Rushton’s work is in fact high-quality orthodox science and Saletan was right to refer to it.

For all I know Rushton f*cks bicycles in his bedroom every night. That has nothing to do with the quality of his published academic journal articles. His articles must be judged in their own right. John Nash (of “Nash equilibrium” fame) was as mad as a hatter but he still got a Nobel for the brilliance of his economic reasoning.

No comments

Yet another bit of reasoning why my UK based blogging colleagues and friends universally said I was “lucky” to have had cancer in Maine instead of here in London. It seems that the UK has the worse survival rates for cancer anywhere in Europe. From what I understand the real trouble is that it takes so long to have your cancer diagnosed here in the UK that it is normally too late by the time they find out what is wrong with you.

Now I know that less than a week, which is how long it took my doctors, is probably quick even for the US. It is such a shame that such an advanced country as the UK cannot do better when it comes to finding cancer in its citizens.

No comments

I owe the following quotation from Harvard historian Niall Ferguson to Tiger Hawk

The contrast between the American and German responses to the Depression illuminates the central difficulty facing the historian who writes about the 1930s. These were the two industrial economies most severely affected by the economic crisis. Both entered the Depression as democracies; indeed, their constitutions had much in common—both republics, both federations, both with a directly elected presidency, both with universal suffrage, both with a bicameral legislature, both with a supreme court. Yet one navigated the treacherous interwar waters without significant change to its political institutions and its citizens’ freedoms; the other produced the most abominable regime ever to emerge from a modern democracy. To attempt to explain why is to address perhaps the hardest question of twentieth-century history.

Niall Ferguson sometimes says things congenial to conservatives but I think that the above quote shows very well that he is far from being a conservative. He seems blissfully unaware of one of the most frequent themes of conservative thinking: The importance of cultural continuity and the value of tradition. From Burke onward, conservatives have argued that the slow accumulation of “what has worked” in a given society is a valuable legacy that can only be lost or discarded at considerable peril. Yet that is exactly where Germany and the USA of the 1920s and 30s diverged.

Germany lost WWI and the USA won it. That did kinda make a difference. And the difference it made in Germany’s case was great. Prior to 1918 Germany had been a constitutional monarchy where the legal powers of the monarch were not much different from the powers of the British monarch. But the traditions were very different. Where the British monarch conspicuously stayed out of politics, the Kaiser was very much a political voice. He made up for a lack of legal powers by using the great prestige of his office to persuade the politicians to do what he thought best for Germany. He saw his role as a check on the politicians and a voice on behalf of the ordinary people of Germany. He was, in short, an important father-figure and the embodiment of the Prussian traditions that were so influential and respected in most of Germany.

But after 1918 that was all thrown away. Not only did the Kaiser go into exile but many of Germany’s previous constitutional arrangements were torn up and a substantially new system of government was invented largely out of thin air. All of the systems that had led to Germany’s defeat were discredited and new systems had to be adopted wherever possible. Any conservative could have predicted where that would lead. And it did.

The USA, by contrast, came out of the war with flying colours, retained its traditional arrangements and remained stable—despite the huge economic disruptions caused by its meddlesome Democrat President. The knowall FDR managed to convert a normal cyclic depression into the Great Depression by attacking business at exactly the time when business most needed support rather than hostility. (See also here and here)

No comments

A little bit of American history you won’t read in your history textbooks

As the Great Depression dragged toward the end of its first decade in 1938, Father Charles Coughlin released the latest issue of his newspaper Social Justice. It reprinted that most notorious and persistent of anti-Semitic tracts, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

Coughlin’s decision to disseminate the spurious conspiracy tale to his millions of followers was not just the same old Jew-hatred, even if part of his financing came from Henry Ford. It marked Coughlin’s transformation from an ardent New Dealer, who had coined the phrase “Roosevelt or Ruin,” to a divisive demagogue.

The through-line from Coughlin the social democrat to Coughlin the biased provocateur was populism. The same ideology that had led him earlier in his public career to attack corporate power and unmediated capitalism, to champion labor unions and activist government, also enabled him to search for a scapegoat.

Source

The above was written by a modern-day Leftist and so pretends that antisemitism was a departure from the Leftist “New Deal” ideas of FDR but we see quite to the contrary here.

No comments

Welcome to the December 3 17th Dec, 2007 edition of best of me symphony.

themaiden presents The United Nations is the Great Satan posted at Hell’s Handmaiden.

Elvis D presents My Gal Poison posted at 365fiction.

Jon Swift presents Swift Reactions 2 posted at Jon Swift, saying, “It’s hard being a blogger sometimes. Sure, you don’t get shot like the monks in Burma, but verbal stings can hurt almost as much.”

SJ Yee presents A Millionaires 9 Question Guide to Goal Setting posted at Personal Development for the Book Smart.

SpiKe presents Start Enjoying Christmas Again! posted at Organize IT.

The Career Counselor presents Breaking the Cycle of Bitterness and Finding Happiness at Work posted at >ask the CareerCounselor, saying, “Personal choice is critical to happiness. Like it or not, the world you create for yourself is a result of your personal choices and attitude. The lens through which you view your situation will determine if you emerge victorious or broken. You can choose to find happiness in your situation or you can choose to drown in negativity and bitterness.”

Alex Blackwell presents What Would You Say Today? posted at The Next 45 Years.

isabella mori presents men, women, and body image posted at >change therapy, saying, “one of the reasons why this article may be of interest is because it forced me to do a plain-language re-write of an interesting but badly written research article.”

That concludes this edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of best of me symphony using our carnival submission form.

Past posts and future hosts can be found on our blog carnival index page.

Technorati tags:

best of me symphony, blog carnival.

1 comment