Wednesday, June 10, 2015

That's Why I Offend You

"The sentimental philosophy starts from the first principle that nothing is true which is disagreeable, and that we must not believe anything which is 'shocking' no matter what the evidence may be." 
William Graham Sumner

Sentimental philosophy, or emotionalism, dominates contemporary political discourse.  It is the view that feelings are the arbiters of what is right and wrong.

Ironically, emotionalism now emanates in its most extreme and repressive forms from institutions that were originally founded on reason and free inquiry: the universities.   At the universities, holders of certain sets of feelings are privileged with veto power over the dissemination of facts.  Feminist feelings and feelings of color can be deployed to defeat a proposition or prevent it from being heard. 

From speech codes that prohibit offensive utterances, to mandatory Diversity and Sensitivity training for thought offenders, to mandatory Trigger Warnings on classic literature, to guilt-inducement sessions for unconscious emitters of micro-invalidations, to the erection of Safe Spaces where psychologically fragile members of politically protected groups can be mollycoddled...emotionalism drives the new Orwellian order.  Big Brother has been replaced by Big Mother.  And hordes of infantilized mental children, most of whom inhabit adult bodies, come crying to her like tattle-tales whenever they are emotionally triggered by a joke, opinion, or fact.  They want Big Mother to punish naughty-think.

Meanwhile, the self-appointed lieutenants of Big Mother’s thought police have decreed that the Western intellectual tradition in the sciences, which proceeds based on axiomatic rules of logic and  adherence to empirical evidence, is Sexist and Racist.  Alternative forms of logic (polylogism) and non-objective ways of knowing are just as valid, they say.  To these post-modernists, what matters is not what is true or false objectively but what is right or wrong subjectively, as dictated by their feelings.

For example, a positive, empirically testable claim about how innate sex differences or innate race differences influence social outcomes is automatically wrong.  It doesn’t matter what the evidence is.  To even consider evidence for biologically driven group variations is deemed illegitimate.  Protected groups with hypersensitivities are entitled to feel equal – the scientific method be damned. 

Innate equality must be accepted a priori as an article of faith.  Question it and you can be rendered an Unperson

That is the social status of the unreformed realist.  He is the Unperson who refuses to surrender his cognitive objectivity.  He is the Unperson who refuses to feign deference to the feigned emotional distress displayed by political jackals.  He is the uncompromising defender of objective truth – not merely as a legitimate competing value in the balkanized post-modern intellectual landscape, but a defender of objective truth as a superior value. 

When it comes to understanding nature, including human nature and its variations, objectivity is superior to subjectively self-centered blackness, subjectively self-centered femininity, and the entire socially subjective Social Justice framework within which institutionally privileged identity groups emote and agitate.

In contrast to the sentimental philosophy of Social Justice, realist philosophy start from the first principle that nothing can be agreeable which is false.  In other words, false premises, even if saturated in feel-good platitudes, must be discarded. 

The most heavily sentimentalized false premise of our time is that of innate human equality.  Like a beneficent deity, equality is something that’s widely believed in but never seen.  Equality is never seen because humans aren’t a homogenous species.   

Anyone who looks cursorily at humanity without wearing egalitarian blinders can’t help but to notice biological differences.  Whatever similarities we may share, humans are obviously a polytypic species.  We differ as individuals.  We also differ as descendants of geographically isolated breeding populations that evolved out of the Stone Age in different parts of the world. 
The racial variations that are observable today in the United States, for example, can be traced back to the variations in climate that existed from sub-Saharan Africa to Northeast Asia to Western Europe tens of thousands of years ago.  The ancient ancestors of modern white Americans had to adapt to a cold climate.  Surviving the cold winters of Scandinavia required a different set of physical and cognitive traits than surviving the tropical jungles of Central Africa.  Today, Nordics and Congoids can both survive the comforts of an American city.  Yet even in the same modern environment, their respective ancestrally inscribed racial characteristics express themselves in highly predictable ways.

Almost all traits pertaining to physical appearance and cognitive functioning are highly heritable; and almost all such traits show recognizable patterns of variation that just so happen to correspond with the purported arbitrary social constructs of race and gender.  If race and gender are social constructs, then DNA gave us the blueprints.

No, white males aren’t hard-wired to come out on top in all measures of human ability.  And yes, for a great many traits there is more variation within groups than between them.  The ethnocentric racial sentimentalist who idealizes a particular ethnicity’s phenotype set, and imagines that its members are each endowed with categorically superior traits, is no more objective than the anti-Racist egalitarian.  But whereas white racialists are now socially marginalized, anti-white Diversifiers control the zeitgeist. 

The race and gender tribalists who claim to be fighting for equality use institutional power to privilege their own offendedness and get their adversaries banned, fined, fired, or jailed over intellectual disagreements.  The people you cannot offend profess a creed of equality that cannot be criticized.  Equality is, in the Western world, the only remaining sacralized notion which cannot be opposed – at least not on a fundamental, biological basis. 

In the Muslim world, the prophet Muhammed cannot be opposed.  He cannot even be depicted visually.  The political cartoonist Bosch Fawstin powerfully confronted the totalitarian core of Islam in his sketch of a cartoonist’s hand drawing Muhammad.  “You can’t draw me!” decrees Muhammad.  “That’s why I draw you,” replies the cartoonist.

When an egalitarian prophet of revealed opinion on racial differences and sexual dimorphism decrees, “You can’t offend me!”…the realist retorts, “That’s why I offend you.”


  1. Bosch is an Objectivist and Amy Peikoff is the ex-wife of Randian Leonard Peikoff.

    They have a talk show called "Don't let it go."

    On one of the shows Peikoff came out in favor of "open immigration" although for some reason excluding Muslims except when they were "heavily screened." I gave her some of the evidence in support of racial realism and was eventually banned.

    I saw one of the comments on the Fawstin thread and the person recommended Rand's article "Racism," which is as you know a package deal. Also, this person recommended listening to a Binswanger Q & A which he mentions The Bell Curve. Well, I have that lecture. Binswanger admits he hasn't read it, but denounces the book's "racist premise."

    The only Objectivist I know who appears to be a race realist is the guy who runs the Ari Watch website.

    -Donald Richardson

    1. Leonard Peikoff is at least somewhat realistic about the negative consequences of open immigration. He opposes it in practice given our current political situation.

  2. Peikoff said that even if New Zealand were a perfectly free country, it should not have open immigration with respect to Muslims. I give him credit for that.

    But I went to his site and he had a question to Yaron Brook (ARI president). Brook said that most Objectivists agree on "open immigration" but disagree on how it should be implemented in a mixed economy. So he believes that if Israel or New Zealand had laissez faire they should allow unlimited Muslim immigration.

    The fact is that hard working Muslims who are not enamored of the welfare state still bring Sharia, female genital mutilation, honor killings, the countries foolish enough to take them. Apparently Peikoff is the only Objectivist who has the brains to realize this.

    I hope Brook's Likudnick buddies kick him out of Israel the next time he shows up.


  3. Hey, I know it's not specifically related to this thread but I recently got info an online debate with someone over race and IQ. My opponent basically outlined socio-economic difference and cultural differences as reasons for the IQ gap. He than also stated that IQ is a unfair measure of intelligence. Any states or studies that you could send me that can help me out as I find few via google.

    1. Ignore my poor grammar, my android has serious auto correct issues

  4. Thomas,

    There was a guy named Fringe Element who did a couple excellent videos, one of which was called "Make the world flat" on you tube. Libertarian Realist has some good videos.

    Check out the essays by Jensen/Rushton which are available on the web.

    We live in a technological age. IQ measures those mental abilities that are necessary to succeed in our society.

    -Donald Richardson

  5. Hey LR, how is the book coming along?

    BTW, Martin Armstrong just did a great 1 hr interview at You can watch it here if you want:

    1. The book is proceeding at a disappointingly slow pace.

  6. ARI honcho Yaron Brook had a show recently about the Charleston shooting. It is a good example of what Objectivists think about race. Race is superficial and irrelevant. And Rand's 1963 essay "Racism" is the most brilliant thing ever written on race. Its as if Jensen's '69 article and The Bell Curve don't exist for these people.


  7. I sent Brook links to some videos and articles. He seems like a bright guy, so who knows maybe he will look at these things with an open mind.

    Brook has a Ph.D. in finance so I assume he has some advanced knowledge in statistics. Since he is already by virtue of being an O'ist one of the most rational persons on earth, maybe he can use this to explain why regression to the mean and Spearman's hypothesis aren't strong evidence for the race realist position.

    Seriously, I can't come up with any good arguments against the RR position. The Flynn Effect is about the only thing going for environmentalists, but the fact that gaps stay the same is good reason to think it is a statistical artifact.

    -Donald Richardson