Are people getting better or worse at taking others’ perspectives?

Michael Shermer at Reason writes that mankind is being uplifted by a “moral Flynn effect”–not only are we much smarter than our ancestors; we are also much more moral, and the smarter among us are the most moral of all.  Of course, one’s opinion of this thesis will depend on whether one agrees or disagrees with the moral novelties of recent decades.  I’ll leave the critique of the writer’s biases and unwarranted assumptions to readers who feel they’re not getting enough practice at that sort of thing, limiting myself to a quibble over language.  I would say that the trend he describes is not so much men becoming more moral as men becoming more docile.  The very intelligent, I am willing to concede, are a very docile bunch, inclined neither to violent crime nor to questioning the reigning liberal dogmas, these being Shermer’s two measures of moral advance.  Docility is usually a good thing–heaven forbid I speak disparagingly of it!–but it is not quite the same thing as morality, a potentially wilder attribute.

What I’d really like to talk about is an interesting claim that comes up in the essay.  Shermer proposes an explanation for the connection between intelligence and morality:  intelligence helps us understand the perspective of others, which makes us treat them better.  Thus, the more intelligent of us have broader sympathies, and as the Flynn effect raises the general IQ, society as a whole becomes more compassionate and just.  Here we have an empirical claim that can stand apart from the ethical commitments of the writer.  One might even make this claim while remaining ambivalent on the moral value of perspective-shifting.  Traditionally, justice was seen as the “view from nowhere”; just sampling the different perspectives couldn’t reveal which one is right.  Compassion can be misdirected.  Failure to punish can be a defect of justice.  The more sympathetic party is not always the one in the right.

In fact, I doubt we are getting better at perspective-shifting.  My observations all go the other way.  It seems to me that modern men are uniquely lacking in the ability to assume other peoples’ perspectives, and in fact that they have gotten noticeably worse at it over the course of my own lifetime.

Here’s an example you’ll all know.  Back when I was growing up, it was not only possible but common to have a nuanced attitude toward the American Civil War.  Those of us growing up in the North learned that we were in the right, but we were taught to respect the Rebels’ virtues.  Gone with the Wind was a beloved movie throughout the nation, while today such a movie taking the perspective of the defeated (those “on the wrong side of history”) would be unthinkable.  Indeed, the contemporary world goes to extraordinary lengths to shield itself from other perspectives.  In its fiction, no sympathetic character is ever to be found without the full battery of contemporary progressive opinions.  Shermer himself ends his essay boasting of his inability to understand significantly different points of view, saying that the attitudes of people one century ago “sure seem morally moronic to us today”, and thanks to the moral Flynn effect he doesn’t worry that this might mean that he’s missing something.  In the days of Christendom, no man could call himself educated who hadn’t read deeply from pagan antiquity.  Our new generation, having so little exposure to other perspectives, never had a chance to build up any tolerance to the experience and now finds itself outraged at the slightest ideological nonconformity.

We are the generation that invented a new type of movie to indulge revenge fantasies against long-vanquished enemies.  Is it really true that the generation that enjoys Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained is is better able to adopt outsiders’ perspectives than the ancient Greeks who listened to The Iliad?  Today’s distinctive moral style is better captured by “Spengler’s” response to Gone with the Wind:

Given the sad history of racial oppression in the South for a century after the Civil War, the only thing to regret is that Sherman didn’t finish the job. I stopped watching the film version of Gone With the Wind after Scarlett O’Hara saved her plantation from the tax-collector. I wanted her to pick cotton until her back broke.

Spengler can comfort himself that by the time the “Good War” came a century later, we had gotten much, much better at murdering civilians.  One thinks also of Tim Wise’s famous gloating over the immanent death of white cultures as quite characteristic of our age.  Scipio wept as Carthage was destroyed, realizing that such was ultimately the fate of all peoples, including his own.  Such sentiments are totally alien to the moralists of today, confident as they are of being History’s chosen people.  The posture is that of an Old Testament prophet reveling in the coming chastisement of idolaters and gentiles, and its essence is moralistic sadism.

Our age has not so much increased human sympathy as weaponized it.  Empathy is directed exclusively to recognized victim groups (Jews, blacks, perverts), and it is meant to inspire not works of mercy toward these victims themselves but attacks on their supposed oppressors.  Pity is no longer a check on aggression, but a spur to it.

99 thoughts on “Are people getting better or worse at taking others’ perspectives?

  1. Pingback: Are people getting better or worse at taking others’ perspectives? | Neoreactive

  2. It is ridiculous how the Jewish David Goldman sullies the good name of Oswald Spengler by taking his name as a pen name. There is the stereotypical and hypocritical Jewish outrage. The Jews use moral outrage and verbal aggression to cow Gentiles. And that line “the only thing to regret is that Sherman didn’t finish the job” is an absolute doozy. Imagine what would happen if someone said, “the only thing to regret is that Hitler didn’t finish the job”? Could you imagine the outrage and the schnitzing?

    “Spengler can comfort himself that by the time the “Good War” came a century later, we had gotten much, much better at murdering civilians. One thinks also of Tim Wise’s famous gloating over the immanent death of white cultures as quite characteristic of our age.”

    Tim Wise is also Jewish. I think that the Jews have evolved to have low to no empathy for other peoples and this can be seen in their extreme tribalism. They are extremely tribalistic and any claim they have as to being the discoverers of a universal morality is laughable to say the least. They, as a group, have little to no empathy for outsiders.

    “Scipio wept as Carthage was destroyed, realizing that such was ultimately the fate of all peoples, including his own.”

    Well yeah, that’s because Scipio was Roman, not Jewish. While I don’t support the South (because I support the Union like Jackson, Johnson and Lincoln, and because I support Free Soil), I don’t hate the Old South or its inhabitants. More illuminating is the fact that the Rome-Carthage wars were not fratricidal civil wars and yet Scipio could still feel for his foe. Could you imagine an Israeli crying over the genocide of the Palestinians? Nope.

    “Our age has not so much increased human sympathy as weaponized it. Empathy is directed exclusively to recognized victim groups (Jews, blacks, perverts), and it is meant to inspire not works of mercy toward these victims themselves but attacks on their supposed oppressors. Pity is no longer a check on aggression, but a spur to it”

    Well, that is the perversion of morality that entails this age. Modern man is definitely not physically superior to Classical Man (physically includes both brains and brawn). There is evidence that Classical man had higher bone density and most likely a better diet and brain power.

    • Um, plenty of Israelis cry over the genocide of the Palestinians. Israel has dozens of political parties and some good fraction of them and the population support a 2-state solution.

      • Right, ethnic cleansing is the liberal position in Israel. Since ethnic cleansing is a form of genocide, you seem to be enthusiastically agreeing with Svar. The anti-Palestinian-genocide position is the one state solution with the right of return for Palestinians. That’s a tiny minority opinion among Jews, Israeli and otherwise. It would “destroy Israel as a Jewish state” doncha know.

      • Uh, yeah. Are you telling me that the people here disapprove of ethno-nationalist states? Or only Jewish ones?

      • I’m actually kind of which a.morphous on this one. I personally don’t give a rat’s ass about Palistinians one way or another –not saying I’m proud of my lack of concern, but I’m not going to pretend to have it just to have the stick of a PC-approved victim group to wield against the Jews. If I were an Israeli, I’d probably be dead set against being swamped by adherents of the, ahem, “Religion of Peace”. But that’s their fight, not mine. The last people in Palestine I could really identify with were the British, who were driven out by Jewish terrorism. Anyway, it’s obviously true that there are lots of pro-Palestinian Jews and anti-Zionist Jews. Why anti-semites insist on pretending there aren’t is beyond me. Unfortunately, even Jews who think that Palestinians should have their own state tend to agree that white Christians should not have their own state, as shown by their consensus on immigration and secularism issues. That’s what my fellow theocrats and racists should be focusing on.

      • @ a.morphous

        Huh? Are we discussing the fact that Jews don’t cry about Palestinian genocide or are we discussing what “the people here” approve of? Cause up until your last comment, it seemed to be the former. Or are you now conceding that Jews don’t, in fact, cry about Palestinian genocide?

      • I personally don’t give a rat’s ass about Palistinians one way or another

        10% of them are Christian, and something under half of those are Catholic. So, there is some tension between the whole not giving a rat’s ass thing and the whole identifying most strongly with co-religionists thing.

        Anyway, it’s obviously true that there are lots of pro-Palestinian Jews and anti-Zionist Jews.

        No. The only numerically significant group of anti-Zionist Jews are among the ultra-Orthodox. They are certainly not pro-Palestinian. They are anti-Zionist for inside baseball, holier than thou, Jewish reasons. The rest are a tiny minority of weirdos, people like Bobby Fischer. Here is Pew’s report on their recent survey of American Jews. Quotes:

        About seven-in-ten American Jews (69%) say they are emotionally very attached (30%) or somewhat attached (39%) to Israel. [9% not at all attached]

        Another one:

        When asked whether caring about Israel is essential, important but not essential, or not an important part of what being Jewish means to them, 43% of American Jews say it is essential, 44% say it is important but not essential, and 12% say it is not important.

        Here is Jeffrey Tobin ranting in Commentary about how anti-Zionism is a fringe position among Jews. I wasn’t able to find a statistic specifically on point, presumably because it’s boring to take surveys in which 99% of the respondents respond the same way.

      • Well, Bonald, if you “don’t care” about the deaths of thousands of American boys and the rapes and murders of Middle Eastern Christians due to neo-con(read Jewish crypto-trotskyite) and Israeli lobbying for pointless wars, then that is your prerogative.

        Also, for those of you calling my post nothing but baseless Jew-hatred, here’s some posts from Chronicles, a credible site in these parts: https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/netanyahus-welcome-clarity/

        But please, in your need to be politically correct, please, please don’t stand up for the lives of American boys and innocent Iranian civilians.

      • Not caring about Middle Easterners includes not wanting to be dragged into wars on their behalf. Svar and DrBill: you guys have got to be less picky about your allies. A person can accept the Culture of Critique thesis without taking a position on Israel.

      • Well Bonald, unfortunately we have to take a position on the Jewish gangster state because I care about the lives of young American men: http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2015/April/39/4/magazine/article/10827049/

        I don’t want anymore Chris Kyles coming back psychologically ruined. I don’t want any more soldier killing themselves and I don’t want Middle Eastern Christians getting raped and murdered. We will never have peace long as the Jewish lobby keeps agitating for that burden of a nation.

  3. Pingback: Are people getting better or worse at taking others’ perspectives? | Reaction Times

  4. Could you imagine an Israeli crying over the genocide of the Palestinians? Nope.

    Why ask the question if you already know our answer?

    Why does a good site like the Orthosphere allow this kind of Jew-hating tripe to remain in comments?

    • Not to mention it’s demonstrably false. There are plenty of liberal American Jews who hate Israel. I mean, I despise Western liberal Jews as much as the next red-blooded reactionary, but I have no particular disdain for all Jews. In any case, Scripture explains the current Jewish question very well in Romans 9-11 and gives us a measured, Biblical take on the issue, rather than Jew-hating screeds or the opposing Israel-worshiping Dispensationalists.

      • Not to mention it’s demonstrably false. There are plenty of liberal American Jews who hate Israel.

        Would you mind demonstrating it?

        [EDIT:]

        I got curious about this and found a couple of on-point variables in the general social survey (an annual survey of the US population ongoing since 1972). Here is a table showing how much people like Israel, broken out by what religion respondents were raised in:

        The rows are how much the respondent likes Israel. +5 is the highest (like Israel the most) and -5 is the lowest. The cols are what religion respondents say they were raised in. 57.5% of Jews give Israel the highest possible score for likeability. Only 8% of Catholics escaped the clutches of Fr Coughlin and figured out that Israel is the country more likeable than which none can be conceived. 86% of Jews gave Israel one of the top 3 (of 11) possible scores for likeability.

        On the off chance that the reader does not think “Jews” and “liberal Jews” are synonyms, I filtered the data so that only people who self-identify as liberal and who attend religious services less than once per month are included. This way, we have the dreaded secular, liberal Jews. They give Israel the highest possible score 44% of the time and one of the top 3 (of 11) highest scores 67% of the time. Even in this group, less than 1% give Israel a -5 (and none give it a -4). So, I think we can rule out Jews “hating” Israel in noticeable numbers.

      • https://sites.google.com/site/jewsagainstracistzionism/jews-against-the-occupation-

        There’s also a book called Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism which goes through a bunch of academic Jews who oppose various Israeli government policies. Some of these supposed Jewish Anti-Semites, admittedly, are merely not enthusiastic about a few things Israel has done here and there, though.

        In any case, I don’t really understand why anyone opposed to Jewish influence in Western societies would be all that miffed about the State of Israel. I mean, if it gets liberal Jews out of Europe’s hair and into the hair of the Mohammedan, more power to it, I say. If that means occasionally supporting it against invasion from Islamic forces, it seems a small price to pay for having fewer liberal Jews running around.

      • Uh, you’ve linked some ridiculously marginal group which can’t even afford to pay someone to design a decent web site.

        In any case, I don’t really understand why anyone opposed to Jewish influence in Western societies would be all that miffed about the State of Israel.

        Don’t you find it at all odd how easily discussions of Jewish pathology morph into discussions of the pathology of the person who brought up Jewish pathology?

        I have now been assigned the position that Israel is a bad, bad evil country because it mistreats the Palestinians by a.morphous, Bonald, and nathanjevans. But I haven’t said this. And I don’t think this. I’ve just pointed out that Svar is, in fact, correct that there are no Jews complaining about Palestinian genocide. But the only acceptable conversational response to criticism of Jews is to pathologize the critic.

      • I’ve just pointed out that Svar is, in fact, correct that there are no Jews complaining about Palestinian genocide.

        No, and not very many is totally different. Furthermore, one wouldn’t have to give them a -5 rating to complain about Palestinian “genocide.” They could believe that Israel is too repressive of her ethnic minorities and yet still recognize her as a force in the Middle East for the “liberal democracy” that everyone is so enamored of, leading them to have a less than absolute hatred of Israel.

        BTW, you are making an absolute claim “There are no Jews that complain about Palestinian genocide.” It is enough to produce one Jew in the entire world who complains about it, no matter how marginal they are (and one might expect them to be marginal) to disprove such a hypothesis. I’ll admit that there aren’t many, but that’s besides the point. I’ve always thought it was silly to make such claims unless they are true beyond doubt.

        None of this even touches that I don’t why we’re even debating if you don’t find Israel to be a “bad, bad evil country.” Who cares if Jews aren’t complaining if there isn’t anything to complain about? If I’m “pathologizing” you by saying it, then so be it.

      • I never said I despised ALL Jews. I do like Paul Gottfried, Eugene Girin, and Jews of that ilk. Basically the Jews that don’t act Jewish.

      • BTW, you are making an absolute claim “There are no Jews that complain about Palestinian genocide.” It is enough to produce one Jew in the entire world who complains about it,

        Come on. You actually want me to go through the motions of explaining about hyperbole and how, when someone says something that is obviously literally false, you’re supposed to think about maybe it’s hyperbole? Do you have trouble spotting hyperbole when you’re reading something you agree with?

      • Well, Nathan Jevans, even with the State of Israel are the Jews out of our hair? No. They still find ways to meddle in internal politics of the West and now they have their own state that might have nukes. That is worse than the pre-Israel status quo.

    • Svar has not violated any of our comment policies, so there is no reason to remove his comment. It should be enough that I refrained from drawing attention to the notable Jewish propensity for progressivist prophetic denunciation in the main post. My colleagues have criticized other religions (Mormonism and Islam come to mind) in the main bodies of posts, and we’ve allowed many ugly claims about Mormons, Protestants, etc to appear in comments.

    • “Why ask the question if you already know our answer?”

      That’s a fairly common rhetorical technique.

      Could you state clearly with what it is that you actually disagree?

  5. The hubris of such an article as to actually argue that we are more empathetic or some such nonsense is beyond comprehension. It’s like someone protesting how wise they are: If they are saying it, it probably isn’t so. If someone is saying “yo, hey, we are all better, more understanding people than those neanderthals of the Middle Ages,” then they are probably a moral ingrate with the world’s worst case of tunnel vision. But I describe every secular libertarian.

    There is evidence that Classical man had higher bone density and most likely a better diet and brain power.

    How else could they possibly have built their marvels of engineering? Most of us these days need calculators to make proper change, let alone build a freaking aqueduct.

    • Of course not. Both the Old Testament Jews and the liberals saw/see themselves as the chosen people. The difference is that the Jewish prophets preached repentance to their enemies that they might avoid God’s chastisement, while our “prophets of Enlightenment” can’t wait to put their enemies in their graves and dance on them.

      Heh, in fact, you might say they’re more guilty of the only sin there is in their book, “hate”, than even the Jews, with all their stonings and such.

      • The Old Testament prophets were inspired by God, but I admit to finding them very unpleasant people. As for people who strike the prophetic pose, having not received a direct mandate from God, “moralistic sadists” is certainly a good description.

  6. I would have said that Americans today are profoundly uninterested in each other. Perhaps this is because I am a tedious bore and the truth is, they are profoundly uninterested in me. Maybe. But I really think that Americans today are profoundly interested in themselves. They do not wish to know what I think, they wish to tell me what they think. This is just as well, since, like many here, I have some cranky opinions, but it does not indicate a golden age of empathy. We live in the golden age of narcissism.

    Our morality is the morality one would expect from narcissists–pure theatrics. It’s nothing but striking poses of empathy and outrage and thereby manipulating the emotions of one’s audience. Take a piece of paper and draw a line down the middle. In the left column list every conversation you can remember in which someone told you they were wrestling with a moral dilemma. In the right column list every conversation you can remember in which someone expressed moral outrage. See what I mean. It’s a golden age of narcissism.

    Despite endless warnings of rampant relativism, Americans today are not particularly gifted with historical imagination. This is particularly true when it comes to the losers. I’m not talking about the “victims” of history, who have actually been on the side of the winners, but those who fought and died in a “lost cause.” Among people I know, it is universally agreed that the good guys have won every major war since the seventeenth century (including, of course, Vietnam).

  7. Actually, I think Tim Wise gloated over the actual, physical death of whites (from old age) not the death of white culture. Unfortunately, this was only “famous” in reactionary circles.

    • Yeah, but the real force of the gloat was that no one would carry on our beliefs, and our children would dispise us. This would be the death of white cultures.

  8. I don’t know if I’m part pagan or if I belong in other circles but the loss of concrete continuity of ancestral identity really bothers me.

    • Biological descendants and cultural heritage are not really separable. I would like to think that there is a future for the tradition of which I am part, but would like even better to think that that tradition will to live on in my descendants. I would like to think that my children will continue my line, but would like even better to think they did so within my tradition. If my children repudiate my tradition, I will still love him as my children. And if my tradition is passes into the hands of strangers, I will still love it as my tradition. But, naturally, I would prefer to see these things together.

    • Who says they’re going? The latter commented on this thread after making a significant post last week, and the former has so much to say that if he were to stop posting, I’m afraid he would explode!

      • I believe Mr. Luse is saying that hewill no longer frequent the Orthosphere because Svar’s initial comment was allowed to stand. I think it is unfortunate that Svar’s comment took this thread off topic, but I understand his anger over Goldman’s contemptible opinion about Sherman’s “March to the Sea.” Goldman’s vindictiveness is really quite breathtaking.

      • Mr. Luse is being utterly unreasonable. If he just thought good blogs shouldn’t ever criticize Jews, that would be one thing. I avoid overtly criticizing Jews in my Orthosphere posts, out of respect for the more popular Orthosphere writers, who are all strongly philo-semitic. But that’s not enough! I’m supposed to actively censor commenters as well. I’m not even allowed to be neutral, but have to actively support the Judeo-Manichean narrative that demonizes my faith and my ancestors through my comment-handling. If we were to modify our comment policy to forbid criticism of Jews, we would be placing them in a category higher than any Christian denomination, a category currently reserved for Jesus Christ Himself. Such a policy favoring Judaism above all other peoples, and above the True Faith, would be intolerable.

      • I agree. I just re-read Svar’s comment and find it more reasonable than I’d remembered, particularly if we bear in mind that he is reacting to the vile idea that large numbers of men, women and children of the Confederacy deserved to die by deliberate starvation. As Svar writes, Goldman does appear to be singularly deficient when it comes to empathy, magnanimity in victory, or an ability to see Southerners as individuals. And it isn’t underhanded of Svar to describe Goldman’s perspective as Jewish because Goldman, since emerging from behind the mask of “Spengler,” has said that his perspective is Jewish.

        When a man begins to openly fantasize about the extermination of my ancestors or descendants, and especially when he takes the trouble to rationalize this extermination as something they deserved or will have deserved, I do not take this as idle talk. He has the intention and lacks only the means. This is something one expects Jews and their allies to understand. There have been in this world many false declarations of love, but none of hatred.

      • In all honesty, and unlike Southerners, I do not find Sherman nor the North to be completely villainous or evil. Same thing with the Southerners, I just happen to disagree with the Southern Cause in favor of the nationalist and Unionist position which many Southerners and Northerners believed in. I find the puritanical Yankee religious fanatics(like John Brown) and the Radical Republicans to be absolutely despicable however. Reconciliation is my position and I stand firmly against the modern-day neo-Puritan roundheads and their allies(i.e. the Jews just like the Old Roundheads) actions to villify the South because that goes against my stated goal of reconciliation.

        JMSmith, I respect your defense of my first comment. While I would say it is passionate, I wouldn’t say it has the same amount of vitriol that Goldman has. I also don’t think it is a derailment because many of the promoters of this “new moral revelation” are Jews. I also appreciate Bonald’s commitment to intellectual debate even when it comes to certain Sacred Cows of this age. I mean, if we are allowed to criticize Muslims, Mormons, immigration and the race narrative, then why are the Jews off the table? It seems that any criticism of the Jews regardless of how mild, well-reasoned, and true is pigeon-holed into Neo-Nazi Hitlerism.

      • Dang, Bonald! You have a good original post. I really like it. But this nonsense about a “Judeo-Manichean narrative” (what the dickens is that? what are you talking about?) has just radically revised my opinion of…a lot of things. How in the world you could be actively supporting a “Judeo-Manichean narrative” that “demonizes yourself and your ancestors” by responding strongly to _large_, demonizing over-generalizations about Jews in general is, frankly, beyond me. I guess “supporting a Judeo-Manichean narrative” is some kind of in-group speak that you expect people to recognize and understand. I’m glad to say that I don’t appear to be part of the in-group in question.

        And that on a thread on an original post that was so good. That’s really a shame.

      • Hi Lydia,

        Thank you! About the original post I mean.

        Regarding my esoteric terms: Yes, I suppose the readership of my other blog, where I invented this phrase, is rather small, uhm, I mean “elite”. “Judeo-Manicheism” is my term for the presumption that in any Jewish-Gentile conflict, the Jews have always been 100% right and the Gentiles 100% evil. Although seldom stated so clearly, it is the reigning orthodoxy of the West, routinely assumed by historians, moralists, and grovelling prelates, and it’s the only justification I can imagine for holding Judaism above criticism via comment policy. (The term is introduced here: https://bonald.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/a-priori-reasons-to-doubt-the-judeo-manichean-narrative/ WARNING: MAY BE OFFENSIVE TO ORTHOSPHERE READERS. You’re probably right about not wanting to be part of the “in-group”, Lydia.)

        Let’s talk about what ideas in particular I’m supposed to censor.

        1) Jews are a major and very overrepresented group among anti-Gentile (anti-Christian or anti-white) ideologues
        My judgment: probably true and worthy of discussion

        2) Jews are hypoctrites who only condemn Gentiles but not Israel
        My judgment: false, but not beyond the realm of acceptable discourse

        3) Jews have low empathy toward outsiders (compared to an unspecified control group)
        My judgment: speculative. Who knows? I know of no data either way.

        4) Jews tend to particularly radical critiques of Western/Christian societies
        My judgment: probably true, but hard to disentangle from other variables

        It’s probably true that any other Orthosphere contributor would have banned Svar’s comment. I, however, share JMSmith’s opinion that what Svar said is less offensive than what provoked him but that it would be better to return to the original topic of the post.

      • @ Lydia

        If you are going to criticize my assertions as “demonizing, over-generalizations” and Bonald’s assertion of the Judeo-Manichean narrative as “nonsense”, it is expected that you provide logical reasons backed up by evidence as to why we’re stupid Nazis. Till then, it’s hard to take your ad hominems seriously.

        It seems like nowadays that most gentiles are just like the girl in Fifty Shades of Grey. They take abuse and praise their abusers.

      • @ Bonald

        I am sorry for derailing the thread, my anger at Goldman’s anti-Southern genocidal fantasies have caused me to react in an incendiary manner. I do apologize.

  9. As for the Flynn Effect, Lawrence Auster pointed out that if it is correct, then our ancestors were imbeciles (according to the old-fashioned use of the word). This is wrong, so what’s going on?

    What causes the Flynn Effect seems to be two separate factors. One is the real increase amongst those of lowest intelligence; this is due to improvement in nutrition and a decrease in environmental damage, such as lead poisoning. This has brought up the lower end, which raises the average without affecting the mid range or higher end. The other factor is epiphenomenal: as tests get used for a longer period, they get less reliable, in that examinees’ scores tend to go up over time—even if the test-takers of an “old” test have never taken it before. Since many standardized IQ tests are slightly-changed versions of older tests, rather than complete replacements, this effect is still found, and accounts for part of the Flynn Effect.

    Most damning for the Flynn Effect is that fact that in the century that the U.S. government has been conducting large-scale IQ testing (in the form of IQ tests for military recruits), the one standard deviation gap between white and black test scores has not budged.

    In short, we are not much smarter than our ancestors, but the least intellectually-gifted among us are less dumb than their ancestors, but only due to environmental factors.

  10. Ugly claims like those of Shermer are indicative of the temporally elitist cesspool we live in today. His proposition has two legs:

    1) People are getting smarter

    2) Smarter people are more moral

    Both are untrue, and yet Shermer can claim both are true by simply redefining intelligence and morality to fit a relativistic sliding scale, at which he will place himself and his ilk at the paramount. His real thesis is as follows:

    1 – Agreeing with my opinions makes one smart, and so since more people agree with my opinions today than those people of the past, people are getting smarter.

    2 – My opinions are morally correct, and so since more people agree with my opinions today than those people of the past, people are becoming more moral.

    The liberal sets up a system in which he will always win, come rain or shine. It doesn’t matter if its 1790, or 2015, the liberal wins, even if the liberals in each age have totally contradictory opinions on important matters. Because liberalism has designed the system in thought and politics, they are victorious no matter what.

    When confronted with this kind of anti-logic that refutes any objective source of morality beyond ‘warm fuzzies’ (here deemed: empathy), you have to essentially surprise the idiot by refusing to play his game. State flatly that societies that are intolerant of certain peoples and actions are more successful, and intolerance of evil is a moral virtue. What we have today is a society that is intolerant of goodness.

    Liberals do have empathy, but their empathy is for villains not heroes. Their empathy is for the worms and maggots who sneak and cheat to get what they want. This is the difference Shermer notices, although he doesn’t even realize fully what he is noticing. The filth of a society are now exalted while the virtuous (read: privileged) are hounded out. Our culture celebrates the criminal, the degenerate, the addict, the traitor, and the liar. Look at our empathy for these people! We have made them our new kings!

    A newsflash for this Modernist shill {}

    The animal that coronates a nest of parasitic worms as its lord and emperor is not an empathetic animal, it is a dead animal.

    • No doubt Shermer is arguing a position flattering to himself and his readers, but there is more to it than word games. That IQ is correlated with liberalism is a synthetic, not an analytic, statement. I say again that it is evidence of the correlation between IQ and docility.

  11. Also, if any Catholic is offended by my statements on the Jews, may they also denounce G.K. Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc with the same fervor because they have said similar things about the Chosen Ones.

    I find it saddening that none of the commenters who did take offense showed the same amount of outrage at David Goldman’s wish for the complete genocide of the Southern folk. Say what you want about the Southerners, atleast they have some class.

  12. The question posed in the article by Shermer that Bonald cites is easy to answer. The model of empathy is Christ. Do modern Leftists, who claim to be the culminating maximizers of empathy, imitate Christ or denounce Him? They denounce Him and His morality while apologizing for the hounds of Mahound and every other zombie-like, empathy-less savage, of whatever kind, now onscreen in our global CGI end-of-the-world movie. Has the Great Leader and Teacher, the One For Whom We Have Been Waiting, our providential Empathizer-in-Chief, said so much as one word about the slaughter of Christians in the Ummah? Leftists are precisely as empathetic as the hounds of Mahound and those other savages, whom they resemble so closely in their fundamentalist attitudes, as to be indistinguishable from them.

  13. What genocide of Palestians? When was it and how many Palestians were killed?

    Whatever be the views of Goldman, the actual moral level of the state of Israel is OUTSTANDING. better than any Christian monarch of yesterday and incomparably higher than any 20C restoration of reaction — Franco, Hungary, Croatia etc etc.

    Which Christian monarch supplied his enemies with food and water while still fighting?

    The granddaughter of the President of Hamas is at present receiving treatment in Israel, I have read.

    Even the views of Goldman are not vile, provided one reads them in proper spirit. He does not call for genocide and it is a slur on Sherman that he intended to create genocide. The work that Goldman refers is to destroy the power structure of the Slave-owning class.

    • The “proper spirit” with which to read Goldman’s remark would cause one to think this: “But sir, Sherman did finish the job.” Food production in the deep South was either destroyed or placed beyond the reach of Lee’s army, which therefore surrendered shortly thereafter. So yes, it would be a slur on Sherman to say that he intended genocide. He didn’t. It is not a slur on Goldman to say that he, Goldman, regrets that Sherman did not intend genocide.

      The power of the slave owning class was very largely broken. Without slaves they had no labor, and without labor their land was nearly worthless. And the behavior Goldman deplores did not really spring from this class, who didn’t really need night riders to keep Blacks overawed.

      • Of course this isn’t actually correct — they had plenty of labor, they just had to pay for it. Land was still valuable in the South and famers did well.

        I’m with Boland, however, and deplore Goldman’s original comment — which is not in the spirit of this guy:

        “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

    • Yeah, okay. Israel is morally superior to Franco. Whatever you ideologue shill. Your defense of Goldman’s obvious vitriol means you are either morally tone – deaf or a sycophantic philosemite

      Look up the death of Rachel Corrie and the U.S.S Liberty and then tell me Israel is far more moral and trustworthy than 20th century reactionary states. I personally refuse to kiss the hand the that twists the knife in my back. It’s called having a spine. You could stand to have one yourself, foreign.

      • The one in which Israelis kill and maim Palestinian women and children and drive the Palestinian people off of their lands and out of their homes.

      • I have read Auster. Semi-fan of the guy. That being said, I guess you’ve never read Voltaire. Or H.L. Mencken. Or G.K. Chesterton. Or Hillaire Belloc. Or Franco. Or Martin Luther. Or the Church Fathers. Or Cicero. Or Seneca. Or Thomas Aquinas. Or most of the Popes back when the Church had a spine. Or Francis Bacon. Or Ulysses S Grant. Or William Tecumseh Sherman. Or Mark Twain. Or Richard Wagner. Or F. Scott Fitzgerald. Or Henry Ford. Or George Bernard Shaw. Or even Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour Himself.

        I suppose I am suppose to ignore these great men(and there are many more!) of diverse and eclectic backgrounds, of Man and of God, Catholic and Protestant, Christian and Heathen, and even Secular and Liberal for what?

        Auster is the exception to the rule and however in my opinion, Gottfried and Girin make better exceptions than did Auster.

      • Svar, what do any of those men have to say about the modern state of Israel and its relations and politics with surrounding peoples? I’m not interested in the Jooos; I asked about this supposed genocide.

      • I know this will come as a shock, but Auster didn’t get along with Girin or Gottfried. I would say Girin and Gottfried are definitely friendlier towards what some would call (depending on your perspective) “non-philo-semites” and others would call “anti-semites.”

      • @ Andrew

        What it means is that I am more likely to trust the Palestinians version of events than that of the Jooos. This whole “the Moooslims are trying to get rid of us so go attack secular dictator Saddam Hussein” ordeal we went through really made me lose trust in the Jews as a group.

        @ Bruce

        I am not surprised one bit. Auster was no fan of paleoconservatives and he made that very clear. What Gottfried and Girin are able to do is empathize with Goyische anger at Jewish behavior. They are both inward – looking men who do not partake in the hysterics that Auster would partake in whenever a Gentile would criticize the Jews. In this way, both Gottfried and Girin are exceptional. I have nothing but praise for both of them. There is nothing wrong with a Jew(or any other minority) who fully assimilates beyond watching football and wearing suits and jeans-and-tees; true assimilation occurs from within and is then reflected outwards.

      • I give Auster the benefit of the doubt. From early on in his work he was the recipient of frequent verbal attacks by literal neo-nazis so I assume this is why he was so sensitive to anti-semitism.

      • Svar, Israel did not invade Iraq or Kuwait or Libya or ….. That was us and the blood is on our hands, not Israel.

      • Andrew, don’t put the deaths of thousands of American boys, the rape of Chaldean women and children and the murder of Chaldean men at the hands of Islamic savages, and the destabilization of an entire country upon us. Blame the neocons and the Israeli lobby and their sabbat got lackeys like Dunya who pushed us into that unnecessary and unjust war. My hands are clean and free of blood.

      • Svar, I bought into it at the time. I was an administrative snafu away from entering Marine Corps officer training after grad school upon hearing about Pat Tillman’s death. Not because we were helping the Jews or Israel but because we were bringing freedom! and liberty! and democratic government! to backwards peoples. We were making good on America’s destiny to spread peace and prosperity all through the world. All of which would inevitably result in a bounty of security and safety at home, at a time when we really needed it of course. This is not a Jewish distortion of America’s purpose. A fire in the minds of men, and all that. Strands of this evil Luciferian New World Order nonsense go back to the Founding, even to the early 1600’s. (Including your guy Francis Bacon and his The New Atlantis)

        In any case, your genocide now seems reduced to a particular view or interpretation of certain events. Real genocide is pretty binary (ie. it obviously happened or it obviously didn’t).

      • The Jews are definitely trying to displace the native Palestinian people and that is technically genocide by the current definition established by the U.N. As for your service, your hands are free of blood. You were mislead as were men like Chris Kyle.

        And I agree with you that the Jews are not distorting the whole Americanism spiel. That ridiculous spiel started with the fanatical Puritans, who back in England were more tolerant of the Jews than their fellow Christians and Englishmen. It was no wonder the Puritans were so deeply hated.

        The problem is, that the Jews (neocons and friends) took that engrained American spirit of Democracy-and-freedom spreading for a war that benefited them and only them. And now they are trying to the exact same thing to Iran. Have you heard the pure unadulterated BS that Netanyahu is trying to sell to Americans? Srjda Trifkovic has made a good take down of Netanyahu’s arguments over at Chronicles.

      • Srjda Trifkovic has made a good take down of Netanyahu’s arguments over at Chronicles.

        Srdja was literally hanging out with Radovan Karadzic when the whole Srebrenica thing was going down. Be careful of your allies.

        @ Bonald

        By the way it’s not rat’s ass its rat’s arse.

  14. A few observations.

    1. Why should I care what Michael Shermer thinks? Obviously, given what I now know about him (having looked him up – I never heard of him before) he is going to be wrong about almost eveything.

    2. I like David Goldman’s work, especially his Spengler column. I like the fact that he blogs from the perspective of an observant Orthodox Jew – which is in many respects sharply in contrast with the perspective of secular Jews. But if hyperbolic black humour is going to be taken as moral principle, well then the reader is in trouble…

    3. wrt Shermer’s piece and the Flynn Effect: the Flynn effect is about rising IQ test scores (i.e.exam results) – it is not about rising intelligence.The most recent over view concludes “Indeed, the observed effects of test type suggest a negative association between IQ gains and psychometric g.”

    http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/105-years-of-flynn-effect-very-fluid.html

    In other words, probably IQ test scores have been rising, but actual underlying general intelligence (‘g’) has been falling- as indicated by the considerable slowing of simple visual reaction times (anobjective correlate of g) since about 1880.

    4. Anyone (like Shermer) who regards higher intelligence as the salvation of modern nations should spend more time on a college campus – take a look at the recent campus architecture, for example (architecture being a baromenter of the soul). Intelligence without honesty and courage is a negative factor in human affairs.

    5. Bonald makes an excellent point – Docility is not virtue; otherwise we should all be taking antipsychotics. (Having said that, Ablify/aripirazole was the best selling drug in the world last year – so it seems that our masters do equate tranquillized docility with virtue, as did the psychiatrist-commissars of Soviet Union).

    • Intelligence has always been a rather nebulous word, and so I don’t trust IQ to actually test anything other than how well one can design a self-fulfilling prophesy. In terms of knowledge, the young generation today is typically very cognizant of how modern computer technology works and various celebrity factoids, but ask them about even basic geography, history, politics, or God help us, theology, and they are utterly clueless. In the words of Malcolm Muggeridge, we have indeed educated ourselves into imbecility in the West. If the concept of public school was indeed to breed generations of men and women adept in a huge range of topics, it has proven itself a miserable failure. In trying to be experts in every field, these generations are experts in none, or at best, one or two superficial and fleeting crafts.

      Docility seems to also have a connection to feminization of young men. (See the scandal of Ritalin doping little boys in kindergarten because they won’t behave like girls). Docility as the primary societal mode of conscience is indicative of a crypto-gynococracy where a warped femininity is rewarded while any display of masculinity is quashed.

  15. “The Jews are definitely trying to displace the native Palestinian people and that is technically genocide by the current definition established by the U.N.”

    So, the “reactionaries” are to use definitions peddled by UN of all things!.
    Tell me, how many Palestinians have been displaced in past 40 years.
    Do not forget 6.5 million displaced people in neighboring Syria.
    A single Govt project in India for instance, may be to build a power plant, displacesMORE people than all the Palestinians displaced since 1967,

    • “A single Govt project in India for instance, may be to build a power plant, displacesMORE people than all the Palestinians displaced since 1967,”

      So apparently you do know the answer. Good. Now the Indian gov’t displacing aboriginals and dalits in favor of Upper and Middle Caste Indians is all fine and dandy but once again, it is not Hindus that are preaching anti-American hate in the media and the universities. The moment that does occur, I will gladly bring that up as well as the caste system.

      There is a Persian saying: Sometimes lions have to become like foxes.

      Very true. Especially when dealing with snakes.

      • > it is not Hindus that are preaching anti-American hate in the media and the universities

        Like I’ve been saying, it’s this preaching anti-American (and, more importantly, anti-white and anti-Christian) hatred that’s the real issue here. It’s better to address it directly.

        Actually, lots of Hindus do hate us as vehemently as Jews do. I had trouble believing it, but Mark Richardson had some posts on his blog about Indians complaining that Australians are racists who deserve to die in agony or whatnot. It was a Jewess who called the white race a cancer on humanity, but lots of Mohammedans, Indians, negros, and hispanics would say the same thing except with more profanity. So the fact that it’s Jewish-inspired hostility towards us that’s dominating the media has more to do with which non-white group is holding the megaphone than that group’s level of antipathy for us. How Jews came to hold such a position of cultural power is an interesting question. Why whites and Christians are so universally reviled is another. The wisdom of allowing our countries to be swamped by people who feel this way about us–that shouldn’t need much discussion.

      • “Actually, lots of Hindus do hate us as vehemently as Jews do. I had trouble believing it, but Mark Richardson had some posts on his blog about Indians complaining that Australians are racists who deserve to die in agony or whatnot.”

        Trust me, it is true. Lots of Hindus have a antagonistic view towards whites and for little to no reason.

        “It was a Jewess who called the white race a cancer on humanity, but lots of Mohammedans, Indians, negros, and hispanics would say the same thing except with more profanity.”

        I agree with you on those with the exception of Mohammedans. They hate Christians and they only hate whites because they are mostly Christians. The Saracens have no antipathy for their European co-religionists. Hispanics are a bit different as well. It is mostly the Indios that have the most hatred, the Criollos, the Cautizos and “High” Mestizos, and some Mestizos don’t share the same amount of hatred. I would go as far as to say their was no or little animosity before the advent of Plutarcho Elias Calles and his PRI. The PRI has this sort of Marxist-Aztec nostalgia going on and these new Mexican immigrants are nothing like the Old Mexicans that we’ve always had in the American South West. The Old Hispanic culture of the Tejanos, Nuevos Mexicanos, and Californios was different than that of the Illegals. One group you’ve missed out on are Asians. While I think that the Vietnamese and the Filipinos are kind, docile people who make great citizens(and are mostly devout Catholics) and while I do have great respect for the Japanese, I have been noticing the prevalence of Korean-American and Chinese-Americans(like Suey Park and Arthur Chu) pushing radical left agendas. In fact, I think that Koreans, Chinese, and Hindus are starting to fill in the same sort of niche that the Jews traditionally hold due to their similarities in intelligence and ethnic nepotism. This is quite interesting since the Koreans, Chinese and Hindus did not evolve in the uniquely Jewish context.

        “So the fact that it’s Jewish-inspired hostility towards us that’s dominating the media has more to do with which non-white group is holding the megaphone than that group’s level of antipathy for us.”

        Could you elaborate further? For some reason I am not understanding exactly what you are trying to say here.

        “How Jews came to hold such a position of cultural power is an interesting question.Why whites and Christians are so universally reviled is another.”

        Are these questions not that which you already know the answer for?

        “The wisdom of allowing our countries to be swamped by people who feel this way about us–that shouldn’t need much discussion”

        The problem is the belief that discussion is needed as opposed to action. Sometimes it’s best to think and act like a Taoist.

      • > Could you elaborate further?

        If Hollywood were run by Indians, you and I would soon be writing about what heartless, subversive, hypocritical bastards Indians are. Right now we don’t care about their bigotries because they don’t dictate what we see on TV or what “all educated people know”. What if the Jews’ attitude toward us is typical, so that swapping them with any other minority group wouldn’t change anything?

      • “If Hollywood were run by Indians, you and I would soon be writing about what heartless, subversive, hypocritical bastards Indians are.”

        True.

        “Right now we don’t care about their bigotries because they don’t dictate what we see on TV or what “all educated people know”. What if the Jews’ attitude toward us is typical, so that swapping them with any other minority group wouldn’t change anything?”

        I don’t know. I believe that the Jews have this idea that they are safe in a diverse area as opposed to a homogeneous one. Either that, or it is like what Voltaire said about how in the same way Germans have blond hair, Jews have fanaticism burning in their hearts. They are the eternal revolutionaries like E. Michael Jones says. I think it’s the unique context in which they evolved both culturally and genetically that makes them want to cause upheaval in every host society they occupy. I don’t know if this applies to other groups that did not evolve in the Jewish context. My viewpoint is that the defective and outcast members of the higher-IQ groups like Indians, Chinese, and Koreans (and of course, Whites) are aping the Jews to gain power and influence. We see this with certain Kulturkampfen like the GamerGate ordeal and the radical twitter campaigns by Social Justice Warriors.

  16. America itself was built by displacing and exterminating the native populations. So who shall cast the first stone?
    “But it is not your own Shire”, said an elf to Frodo.”there were others before hobbits here and there will be others after hobbits are no more”.
    Displacement is an ever-present phenomena. Jews were displaced from Arab countries. Why do you not mention it? Why also forget the displacement of Tibetans by Chinese or of Hindus by Pakistanis? or a thousand other examples of displacement.

    There is something called “the right of conquest”. It is a strange “reactionary” that forgets the primodial right to conquest but remebers defintions created in UN.

    All nations exist and maintain themselves by exercising this right to conquest by might. Even the exceptional US possesses no “valid” title to its territory but its armed might.

    • America itself was built by displacing and exterminating the native populations. So who shall cast the first stone?
      “But it is not your own Shire”, said an elf to Frodo.”there were others before hobbits here and there will be others after hobbits are no more”.

      Well, the Jews have been casting their stones for a while. Now it’s our turn.

      “Displacement is an ever-present phenomena. Jews were displaced from Arab countries. Why do you not mention it?”

      When was this? What was the context. If this was in Roman times the only “Arab” countries were in the peninsula.

      “Why also forget the displacement of Tibetans by Chinese or of Hindus by Pakistanis? or a thousand other examples of displacement.”

      Because Pakis and Chinese have not infested our universities teaching how Americans should wallow in guilt for displacing the Indians.

      As for Tibet, I personally sympathize. Hindus and Pakis, well if the Hindus were smart they would have done likewise and sent their Saracen population west.

      “There is something called “the right of conquest”. It is a strange “reactionary” that forgets the primodial right to conquest but remebers defintions created in UN.”

      Oh yes, then there also must be the right of expulsion for certain troublesome groups right? Just like the monarchs of England and Iberia, right? Or would you be against that philo?

      “All nations exist and maintain themselves by exercising this right to conquest by might. Even the exceptional US possesses no “valid” title to its territory but its armed might.”

      And all nations continue to exist and prosper when they bar and remove traditionally dangerous groups from their lands no?

      • Svar,

        >>>“Displacement is an ever-present phenomena. Jews were displaced from Arab countries. Why do you not mention it?”

        When was this? What was the context. If this was in Roman times the only “Arab” countries were in the peninsula.<<<

        In response to your question, this website is useful:

        http://jewishrefugees.blogspot.co.uk/

        vishmehr24,

        I admire your attempt to educate the anti-Semites, but I suspect your efforts (like mine) will fall on deaf ears.

      • “I admire your attempt to educate the anti-Semites, but I suspect your efforts (like mine) will fall on deaf ears.”

        And I feel the same with you Philo. Do educate me. What about the Jews do you find so great? Is it their charming personalities? Their grace and class? Their completely non-harmful and constructive politics and social views(like that of Betty Friedman, Abbie Hoffman, Saul Alinsky, Howard Zinn, William Kunstler, and George Soros)? Their civic-mindedness? Their complete lack of greed when it comes to money (some good examples of noble, high-minded Jews in this area would be Bernie Maddoff and Jordan Belfort)? Their predisposition toward honesty? Their respectful nature towards Christians (like Matt Stone and Charles Krauthammer)?

        Please tell me why, Philo, you find these people to be so flawless and tell me why such an innocent and wondrous people free of blame and brimming with grace have been thrown out of country to country to country and universally despised. An ignorant anti-semite like me would not know.

  17. Pingback: Pitiless Pity « The Thinking Housewife

  18. I don’t think it’s accurate to say the Israelis are trying to genocide (if I may use that word as a verb) the Palestinians. The Palestinians are weak. If they wanted to, the Israelis could genocide them completely.
    It used to be a not uncommon talking point among some paleoconservatives that the Israelis are to the Palestinians like the Nazis were to the Jews. This was supposed to provoke a sense of irony in the reader. It was a ridiculous idea. If they were like the Nazis they’d have the means to do a lot more to the Palestinians than what they’re doing.

    • “The Palestinians are weak. If they wanted to, the Israelis could genocide them completely.”

      Couldn’t the same be said for the Jews in Nazi Occupied Europe?

      “It used to be a not uncommon talking point among some paleoconservatives that the Israelis are to the Palestinians like the Nazis were to the Jews. This was supposed to provoke a sense of irony in the reader. It was a ridiculous idea. If they were like the Nazis they’d have the means to do a lot more to the Palestinians than what they’re doing.”

      Here’s a quote by G.K. Chesterton on Nazism: “the new Nordic Man has all the worst faults of the worst Jews: jealousy, greed, the mania of conspiracy, and above all, the belief in a Chosen Race.”

      Also: “If there is one outstanding quality in Hitlerism it is its Hebraism”

  19. > Traditionally, justice was seen as the “view from nowhere”; just sampling the different perspectives couldn’t reveal which one is right. Compassion can be misdirected. Failure to punish can be a defect of justice. The more sympathetic party is not always the one in the right.

    I know this is not the main argument and I agree broadly with the main one (more sympathy for the gay, less sympathy for the homophobe, total amount about the same), but I have to disagree with it. If you are talking about some non-instrumental punishment to balance some kind of cosmic ledger because it somehow needs balancing, and rest of the things your faith requires you to believe about justice, then yeah, sure.

    But if you are looking for efficient instrumental ways to use punishment, reward and a hundred other tools to influence the behavior of other people or yourself and if you are pragmatic and define justice as “whatever incentive works without being overly cruel” then yes, empathy is very useful. Empathy helps figuring out what incentive will work.

    However we should not confuse empathy with “being nice”! Empathy is just a mind-reading skill that can be used for utmost cruelty, like the rat cage in the last pages of the novel 1984.

    One thing I never figured out about modern liberalism is how exactly they go from “I know what you feel” to “I give a damn about what you feel”. How they claim evil comes from lack of empathy, sociopathy, psychopathy, i.e. not knowing how others feel. Why isn’t it more obvious that there are many masterful manipulators, evil Machiavellians who know perfectly well how we feel and abuse the heck out of it without any regard to our well-being? My hypothesis is that at some gut level liberals refuse to believe in evil, so they cast it as the lack of information.

    This is weird, because evil is not necessarily a religious category. It can be an evolutionary side-effect easily.

  20. vishmehr 24@ There is no such thing as a “right” of conquest. There is, indeed, a fact of conquest, but there is no “right.” A “right” is something that others are bound to respect. If they don’t respect this right, there are enough other people (or governments) who believe they are bound to respect it to force them to do so. The reason there can be no “right” of conquest is that I cannot claim a right that I deny to others, and in the act of conquest I always deny the “right of conquest” of those I have conquered.

    The Israelis conquered Palestine by superior strength and guile, and they have held on to it because they are superior to Palestinians when it comes to holding on to land. The same thing can be said of any people now in possession of territory anywhere on earth.

    On a Christian blog such as this one, many may believe that the Israelis have a special divinely granted right to the “promised land”. Personally, I doubt this. Moralistic fiddle-faddle just smokes our brains when it comes to questions like this one. The Israelis took the land, the Palestinians want it back, and the two peoples will fight until one side give it up.

    • I take this very clinical view as well. I have to ask, ‘why do we care about the Israel/Palestine conflict?’. I just see it as no more relevant than the border disputes in Kashmir.

      Three small points.

      1) I have no loyalty to either Arabs nor Jews as a race, since I am neither, but do have kinship with my co-religionists of either race (a small minority in both the West Bank and Israel). The nations at large mean nothing to me on a personal level, and as you say, the strongest will win out.

      2) The existence of a Jewish state is somewhat helpful in many ways for the Reactionary who recognizes Jews in the West as a part of the liberal order, after all it gives them a rightful place to be deported to once the order is finished.

      3) Israel is an interesting study in religious demographics, as the rise of the ultra-religious in Israel as a demographic bloc is likely to impact its politics with startling speed, but for now it remains an American, Atlanticist, and somewhat liberal proxy state. On the other side, the Palestinian Arabs are still largely pawns for Arab regimes who abuse them hypocritically, and only play off the conflict to distract their populations from governmental failures. Understandable, as they find funding from no other sources beyond the Islamophiles in Norway and Sweden, they need the cash.

      To put a fine point on it, Muslims and Jews are going to be killing each other for the foreseeable future. Western Christians should be concerned with our own problems right here, rather than entangling ourselves in that mess.

      There is no sacred duty to protect Israel or help the Jewish nation state. This is pseudo-theological garbage out of the John Hagee school. Our sacred duty is to overthrow Modernity and the liberal tyranny over Christians. Any actors aiding in that tyranny, be they Muslim or Jew, are in the crosshairs of the Reactionary movement, but as far as foreign warring nations go, be it Israel, the Islamic State, Iran, India, or Chad, there is simply no reason to be addressing such issues in depth. The primary goal that comes before all else, is the founding of a Reactionary Christian state. Christians are essentially in a diaspora at the moment, with no homeland where we have self-rule. Why should we care about the Jews or the Palestinians having a homeland before addressing the fact that WE don’t have a homeland!

      Priorities.

      • Your points are very wise. Israel is not sacred, neither do they want to be held sacred by Christians. It should be treated as any other nation-state.

      • “Israel is not sacred, neither do they want to be held sacred by Christians.”

        I doubt that. Israel gets a lot of support from those useful idiots who do, the American Evangelicals. H.L. Mencken was right, American Boobeoisie, indeed.

    • I speak about “the right to conquest” because many (or most) people seem to think that the nations have a right to the territories they currently occupy.
      In this context, the “right to context” means a right to the territory won by a fair fight.

      It is a related point that conquest renders null all the previous titles to the ownership.

    • I agree that a right of conquest in se does not exist vis-à-vis other groups who may simply exercise their right of conquest to displace the initial contest. However, I believe that a “right” of conquest can subsist internally, to expunge the hand-wringing of descendants who question their ancestors’ decisions.

      • Rob @ If we are to speak of a “right of conquest,” we might describe it as a retroactive right–actually a “right to have conquered.” The “right” depends on what the conquerer does with the land he and his people have conquered. This is relevant to that hand-wringers who worry about the land Americans “stole” from the Indians, and to the vexatious question of Israel. Land is like the talent in the parable–use it or loose it!

  21. It is also necessary to distinguish between Israel and American Jews. Ranting generally about the Jews has ever been the major weakness of the European reaction. The middle-European reaction might have won ww2 were they not over-occupied with anti-Semitism.

    • Only the Nazis were occupied with anti-Semitism and only because of the Jewish-created nightmare that was the Weimar Era. Also the major Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik Revolution was of major concern to all reactionaries and other rightists (and Gentile leftists like George Bernard Shaw) of the era.

      Back then, just like now, you couldn’t talk about Cultural Marxism or Bolshevism without talking about the Jews the same way you can’t talk about eggs without mentioning chickens. If you Philo – reactionaries want to ignore these facts, then just stop talking about Cultural Marxism while you’re at it because any conversation about that will lead to the Frankfurt School which was 99% Jewish.

    • Hell you know about Emma Goldman? She was a Jewish immigrant from Russia before the Jewish Takeover of Russia. She came to America and basically incited the death of President McKinley. She promoted feminism, atheism, communism, and homosexuality way back in the early 1900’s. Don’t tell me that reactionaries, conservatives and moderate leftists like Orwell, Shaw, and London didn’t take notice of that little. You see, back in those times people had superior pattern recognition abilities which allowed them to make certain connections which are taboo in today’s day and age

  22. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/03/13) | The Reactivity Place

Comment

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