Then and now — how little some things change

Putnam, 1967. Race and reality.

Gazing at the embers of my fire seemed to offer no solution to this mystery, but the riddle plagued me. What prompted the vast majority of liberals and a large number—probably a majority —of conservatives to close their eyes to the underlying truth? The underlying truth was the strongest weapon the South had on the race issue, yet the South refused to use it. The underlying truth was the strongest weapon conservatives had on the general political front, yet they also shunned it. To expose liberal dishonesty as regards the Negro was both a graphic and expedient way to explode all the fallacies based on the equalitarian ideology, yet conservatives concentrated instead on economic and constitutional questions which, at a time of unprecedented prosperity, had comparatively little appeal to the man in the street.

In fact, few of the arguments of the conservatives had much validity except in terms of the correct answer to the innate-equality dogma. If all races were innately equal, then of course our social organization, both nationally and on the world scene, was full of flaws. If they were not, then the whole problem changed and conservative policies took on new meaning. Thus in refusing to challenge the dogma, conservatives were fencing on a scaffold while liberals laughed as they watched the trap door open. It became quite appropriate to refer to the conservative movement and the Republican Party as the liberals’ kept opposition. Their members were condemned in advance, set up to be ridiculed and extinguished, amid the scorn and self satisfaction of the left. Nevertheless it seemed a fundamental tenet of most conservative groups, and certainly of the Republican Party, that the issue was not to be raised. The very root of communism and socialism which they so vociferously professed to oppose was thus to be left untouched. It struck me as an incredible surrender, and the reasons for it demanded analysis.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Then and now — how little some things change

  1. JL says:

    If it is true that the innate equality dogma, particularly with regard to intelligence, is the linchpin of the neoliberal, postracial consensus, it could mean that if incontrovertible scientific evidence against the dogma were to become available (e.g. from studies of correlation between IQ and white ancestry in African Americans), the whole system would start to totter and eventually collapse. However, it’s more likely that even if such studies were published, the powers that be would come up with ways to neutralize them, or would simply ignore them.

    • Chuck says:

      I would argue that incontrovertible scientific evidence of the manner we are speaking (still) has the potential to destabilize the moral-theology which is a pillar to of the neoliberal, postracial consensus. http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/moral-psychology/ How this would affect the rest of the system is not clear.

      That said, I would agree that in absence of a group of individuals who willing to connect the dots and argue the case forcefully, the high priests of multiculturaldom will either just ignore the data or neutralize it. To destabilize the consensus one would need the evidence and a potent organization to disseminate it.

      I don’t see the later on the horizon. However, I do see the possibility of shifting the consensus and forcing it to mutate into a form that racialists can unhappily coexist with.
      http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/modus-vivendi-liberalism-and-the-right/

      Given the situation, this is the goal.

  2. icr says:

    Wallace should picked Putnam as his running mate in 1968.

    Leaving aside his writings and lectures on race, Wallace could have presented him as a perfect balance to the ticket: Yankee, Ivy League graduate, successful businessman, commercial aviation pioneer and author of an acclaimed biography of TR.

    Couldn’t have been worse than scary “mad bomber” Curtis LeMay. Even hard-core white racists tend to be fearful of “all out nuclear combat”. He could have confined Putnam to a few swing states in the South and border-state region. On race, he could have disclaimed intimate knowledge of Putnam’s books, stated his only policy, and then challenged the press to hunt him down and confront him.

    Since race was the only reason 99% of his supporters voted for Wallace, I don’t see how it could have hurt W as long as Putnam remained his customary demeanor. FWIW, I would have told Putnam to center his speeches around the theme of “reckless social experimentation” and leave his audience (and the press) to fill in the blanks.

  3. Kiwiguy says:

    ***To destabilize the consensus one would need the evidence and a potent organization to disseminate it.***

    Some media seem to be open to this:

    “We will also identify the many genes that create physical and mental differences across populations, and we will be able to estimate when those genes arose. Some of those differences probably occurred very recently, within recorded history. Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending argued in “The 10,000 Year Explosion” that some human groups experienced a vastly accelerated rate of evolutionary change within the past few thousand years, benefiting from the new genetic diversity created within far larger populations, and in response to the new survival, social and reproductive challenges of agriculture, cities, divisions of labour and social classes. Others did not experience these changes until the past few hundred years when they were subject to contact, colonisation and, all too often, extermination.”

    http://www.economist.com/node/14742737

    “Genes don’t determine everything, and most genes don’t vary significantly between populations. But research is constantly finding new gene-trait correlations and group differences. If your faith in equality depends on an ethnically or racially even distribution of all ability-influencing genes, you’re in trouble.”

    http://www.slate.com/id/2217571/

  4. nikcrit says:

    I would argue that incontrovertible scientific evidence of the manner we are speaking (still) has the potential to destabilize the moral-theology which is a pillar to of the neoliberal, postracial consensus.”

    Really? Considering current and ongoing popualtion demographic realities and established racial and sociological dogmas that have been cultivating for the last 40-some years, I think that route is a sinkhole in which proponents of such a view would be spending all their time putting out fires —– of their own and projected-upon making; surely, you can envision being politically isolated and dismissed if going that route; examples from recent decades already abound.

    I sincerely believe there’s a better chance —– a much better chance, actually —– of putting energy, capital and resources into a scientific solution to ‘closing the gap.’ That, and perhaps a mix of policies that would directly or indirectly lead toward black self-correcting eugenic-breeding behaviors, (while, in the meantime, continuing to promote programs that directly lead to gap-widening eugenics {e.g., ‘welfare reform.})
    I mean, if each race has its special talents, contributions and abilities, then I say the northern Europeans should get down to their labs and start cooking up a game-changer that will make all these stale debates and polemics of the last 50 years suddently irrelevant.
    For it will only be some such unanticipated development that will put this issue to rest and make the reams of established contemporary ‘moral-theology’ irrelevant.
    ————————————————–

    “Wallace should picked Putnam as his running mate in 1968.”

    Hmmmm. Now that’s one game-changer-lost that I didn’t consider. 🙂

  5. nikcrit says:

    edit: “(while, in the meantime, continuing to promote programs that directly lead to gap-widening eugenics {e.g., ‘welfare reform.})”

    Should be: “(while, in the meantime, continuing to NOT promote programs that directly lead to gap-widening eugenics {e.g., more ‘welfare reform.})

    • Chuck says:

      nikcrit,

      Refer to some of my replies that I made in my “notes post.” From an HBD perspective, African Americans are just a subset of the white population who are on their way to being genetically absorbed in the manner of Latin america. From that perspective, the population gap is meaningless. It just highlights the inter individual gap — painting it in black and white (and brown and yellow) so to speak. (If Jews were only green.) The the real issue, from an HBD perspective, is the inter-individual gap.

      • nikcrit says:

        Yes, even your modus-vivendi-liberalism-and-the-right link shows that you already considered some of the doubts I expressed; I was mainly just venting on the obvious. I did take a look through your ‘notes’ post; man! you are absolutely tireless and thorough in your quest to debunk those aformentioned ‘contemporary racial and sociological dogmas’; don’t know how you do it; I have never seen such a comprehensive, multi-disciplined retorts; then i went to that blog of abagond’s —– again, htf do you have the patience to sort through that swill? you’re a better and stronger man than I can ever hope to be in that regard.
        To me, as lo0ng as the conceptual fuzz can linger around the value/defintion/relativity, etc., ad infinitum of ‘g’, then the debate will go on and on; that, mainly, is the reason that i feel it best that each camp should eventually just fall on its sword and let some new paradigm arise and dicate the rhetoric for a few decdades —– cuz the current rhetorical murk coming from both sides on these issues is very tired at this point, about 35-years-old and counting, and that much worse for current wearing!

    • Chuck says:

      Nikcrit,

      “i feel it best that each camp should eventually just fall on its sword and let some new paradigm arise and dicate the rhetoric for a few decdades”

      Philosophically, I conceptualize this as trying to complete the dialectic — to allow your new paradigm. I don’t see the reigning one abdicating. I’m not sure what the successor would be. What do you think? If you have an ideas, conceptually break this down into:
      1. Post (biological or not) egalitarianism
      2. Post anti-racist
      3. Post post-western
      4. Post….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s