Untimely Observations

Ecstasy of Vituperation

I have read with some amusement the attacks on Richard Spencer and his present project, which over the past few days have multiplied on the internet like microbes in a culture. I note that Spencer’s enemies share two salient characteristics: a religious belief in human equality and a Borg-like collective consciousness: they have all articulated identical criticisms (e.g., Spencer and other Alternative Right writers do not mind discussing the existence and consequences of human biodiversity) and two of these critics, exasperated by the absence of tattoos on Spencer’s visage, have faithfully reproduced what strikes me as an obviously apocryphal story. As is often the case with attacks from mainstream quarters, they reveal more about the nature of the attacker than about the target. In evidence are obtuse, conformist minds that take pride in their willful ignorance; slow, dull brains of negligible cubicage and low neural density; mean-spirited souls whose likely response times in IQ tests would need to be measured in geological eras.

What is ironic whenever these politically correct ninnies scream about ‘racism’ is that in doing so they lay bare the illogical and contradictory nature of their position. If one is a champion of diversity, one celebrates the evidence of its existence. Yet, these anti-racist nupsons who so vehemently and ridiculously object to our analyses declare themselves champions of diversity only to then wail in horror and undo themselves in invective, whining, and vituperation each time evidence of diversity is acknowledged in oral or written communication. To my mind, this is indicative of hypocrisy: the aforementioned anti-racists claim to be one thing, but are, in fact, quite another. Beneath their fine, universalist rhetoric and celebrations of multicuturalism lurks a totalitarian heart, yearning for total homogeneity: their ideal world is a grim ball of mud, where all humans look the same, think the same, speak the same, and earn the same, in conformity to the Left’s delirious visions of universal equality – a brave new world of gray cities and cement office blocks, filled with polyester carpets, neon lights, Formica surfaces, and rows upon rows of identical cubicles. Does not equality necessitate homogeneity? Does not diversity necessitate heterogeneity? Is not the former predicated of sameness and the latter on difference? If so, then, why is human biodiversity such a problem?

We know the answer, of course: our critics think that the instant we acknowledge that skin pigmentation is one of a suite of traits evincing distinctive patterns linked to different populations, we are going automatically to legislate compulsory castrations, slavery, lynching, hangings, and worse, on an industrial scale. By that logic, then, the abolition of the monarchy in the United Kingdom will lead automatically to the guillotining of the royalty and the aristocracy (it happened in France, after all), the condemning of adultery will lead automatically to lapidations (it happens in some Muslim countries, after all), investing in dotcoms will automatically lead to investor hysteria and a massive market bubble (it happened in the late ‘90s, after all), and so on. The Lefties (and that includes the faux conservatives) have a cartoonish perception of the world.

The problem with the Left is that they are deeply insecure. They are reassured by monotony and homogeneity: Communism proved it. They are also control freaks: their obsession with regulating, legislating, monitoring, recording, and taxing every aspect of our lives proves it. They project their inadequacies on us, and accuse our side of possessing all the pathologies that afflict, and in many instances are unique to, their psyches: rigid dogmatism; extreme conformity; breath-taking arrogance; self-righteous smugness; self-serving myopia; a propensity to favor systems over aims, abstract theory over empirical evidence, artificiality over nature, and wishful thinking over practical experience. They are suspicious of inquisitive minds, and thus seek to straitjacket them with endless speech codes, thought crimes, sensitivity training, taboos, and academic orthodoxy. They are terrified of exposure, and, as any university student conversant with Leftist theoreticians will know, hide behind arcane terminology, impenetrable syntax, opaque conceptualizations, meaningless metaphors, and rococo theoretical constructions. They fear excellence and individuality, and thus elaborate sanctions to level down, hold back, penalize, limit, constrict, restrict, reshape, and redesign originals and high achievers. They are mediocre, pedestrian, below average, and thus invent analytical frameworks that absolve them of responsibility for their failures – this necessarily involves a one-size-fits-all vision of society and humanity. And they are profoundly disturbed by, and hysterically intolerant of, anything inconsistent with their queer and peculiar constructs and worldview, to the point where fundamental difference must be obliterated at any cost. Consequently: the African bush must be urbanized; Whites extinguished; females masculinized; males feminized; laws harmonized; and every human on the planet must be androgynous and coffee-colored, live in a city, work in an office, and hold Leftist views.

Did not the Swedes attempt something similar during the second half of the 20th century (except without the race mixing), and came to enjoy some of the highest suicide rates in the world?

The Left abhors hierarchy. But, again, if the Left were not so deeply insecure, Leftists would realize that there is no single hierarchy, but, rather, a multiplicity of possible hierarchies. Human biodiversity does not equal a single vertical scale that orders all humans from inferior to superior, according to their IQ scores. Contrary to Leftist myth, those who accept the existence of human biodiversity understand that a human is more than just an IQ score: general intelligence (what IQ tests are designed to measure) is but one of a multitude of different traits. Because human populations are essentially adaptations, or specializations, to given environments that, over millennia, exerted slightly different evolutionary pressures, humans can be ranked in many different ways, depending on what trait one chooses to look at. The White race originated in an environment that selected for higher general intelligence. And since human groups have tended to invent cultures that reflect their own particular suites of traits, the cultures invented by White – or European-descended – peoples, have been predicated, and indeed placed a premium on, general intelligence. There are regions in the world, however, where the environment selected less strongly for intelligence and more strongly for other traits. It will be found that different cultures assign different levels of importance to different traits, and that, accordingly, the peoples belonging to these cultures may well choose to rank humans as per the traits most important to them. Therefore, while IQ is central to us because it has consequences within our civilization, the study of human biodiversity remains ultimately about understanding man from a multi-dimensional perspective. This is why I find it ironic that the Left tries so hard to rubbish Eurocentrism, when, through their single-minded preoccupation with IQ in discussions of race, they betray, in fact, a quintessentially Eurocentric view. But then again, the Left is and has always been singularly myopic.

Personally, I am content with a diverse and varied world, rich with contrasts and differences in focus or emphases. I do not mind if the human ecological footprint varies from one population to the next; if some live in prehistorical communities and others in space-faring utopias; if there are pronounced differences between the races or the sexes along variety of dimensions. Humans can create meaning in their lives in many different ways. And why not? Not everyone is designed for, or wants, or needs, the world as the Left imagines it ought to be.