Wrong White privilege pin colour!

This month the students at Elizabethtown College in US “are wearing white pins in the shape of puzzle pieces to remind them of their white privilege.”

The campaign was launched over the weekend by the Elizabethtown College Democrats, who say it aims to make students at the small and private liberal arts college in Pennsylvania more introspective about issues of race, especially in their predominantly white region of Lancaster County.

“Discussions about race are often perceived as being only open to people of color, but I think it is just as important for white people to partake in conversations about race,” Aileen Ida, president of the College Democrats, told The College Fix via email.

Obviously these students have right to pay $56,200 in tuition and fees to make a fool of themselves but at the very least they should get the colour of the pin consistent with history. The appropriate colour for the pin should be blue for the following reason.

The Pact of Umar, an apocryphal treaty between the Muslims and the Christians, that later gained a canonical status in Islamic jurisprudence states the following.

Obligation to identify non-Muslims as such by clipping the heads’ forelocks and by always dressing in the same manner, wherever they go, with binding the zunar (a kind of belt) around the waists. Christians to wear blue belts or turbans, Jews to wear yellow belts or turbans, Zoroastrians to wear black belts or turbans, and Samaritans to wear red belts or turbans.

Given that most of the White students are Christians, the appropriate colour for the pin should be blue. Using white as the pin colour leaves them aligned with the Ku Klux Klan. Is that really the message these students want to send? Even the Nazis got it right historically, when they specified yellow as the colour for the star that Jews had to wear as a badge.

Of course this left the Taliban in Afghanistan in a quandary, when they specified, during their  rule from 1996 to late 2001, that the Hindus had to wear badges in public to identify themselves. With no precedence for Hindus in the Islamic jurisprudence, they selected yellow as the colour of choice for these badges, thus staying within the confines of the Pact of Umar.

Michael Flynn’s political assassination by the Deep State

US continues its march toward a Banana Republic status with an out of control intelligence community in tow. The Week opines.

The United States is much better off without Michael Flynn serving as national security adviser. But no one should be cheering the way he was brought down.

The whole episode is evidence of the precipitous and ongoing collapse of America’s democratic institutions — not a sign of their resiliency. Flynn’s ouster was a soft coup (or political assassination) engineered by anonymous intelligence community bureaucrats. The results might be salutary, but this isn’t the way a liberal democracy is supposed to function.

Unelected intelligence analysts work for the president, not the other way around. Far too many Trump critics appear not to care that these intelligence agents leaked highly sensitive information to the press — mostly because Trump critics are pleased with the result. “Finally,” they say, “someone took a stand to expose collusion between the Russians and a senior aide to the president!” It is indeed important that someone took such a stand. But it matters greatly who that someone is and how they take their stand. Members of the unelected, unaccountable intelligence community are not the right someone, especially when they target a senior aide to the president by leaking anonymously to newspapers the content of classified phone intercepts, where the unverified, unsubstantiated information can inflict politically fatal damage almost instantaneously.

Bloomberg notes.

There is another component to this story as well — as Trump himself just tweeted. It’s very rare that reporters are ever told about government-monitored communications of U.S. citizens, let alone senior U.S. officials. The last story like this to hit Washington was in 2009 when Jeff Stein, then of CQ, reported on intercepted phone calls between a senior Aipac lobbyist and Jane Harman, who at the time was a Democratic member of Congress.

Normally intercepts of U.S. officials and citizens are some of the most tightly held government secrets. This is for good reason. Selectively disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state the power to destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity. This is what police states do.

In the past it was considered scandalous for senior U.S. officials to even request the identities of U.S. officials incidentally monitored by the government (normally they are redacted from intelligence reports). John Bolton’s nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was derailed in 2006 after the NSA confirmed he had made 10 such requests when he was Undersecretary of State for Arms Control in George W. Bush’s first term. The fact that the intercepts of Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak appear to have been widely distributed inside the government is a red flag.

All this was not an isolated event as WaPo notes.

Nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

More disturbing is the release of SIGNIT related to this case.

President Trump’s national security adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn, was forced to resign on Monday night as a result of getting caught lying about whether he discussed sanctions in a December telephone call with a Russian diplomat. The only reason the public learned about Flynn’s lie is because someone inside the U.S. government violated the criminal law by leaking the contents of Flynn’s intercepted communications.

In the spectrum of crimes involving the leaking of classified information, publicly revealing the contents of SIGINT — signals intelligence — is one of the most serious felonies. Journalists (and all other nongovernmental citizens) can be prosecuted under federal law for disclosing classified information only under the narrowest circumstances; reflecting how serious SIGINT is considered to be, one of those circumstances includes leaking the contents of intercepted communications, as defined this way by 18 § 798 of the U.S. Code:

The key will be to watch if there is any follow through on this.

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Tuesday that the most significant question posed by the resignation of national security adviser Michael Flynn is why intelligence officials eavesdropped on his calls with the Russian ambassador and later leaked information on those calls to the press.

“I expect for the FBI to tell me what is going on, and they better have a good answer,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which is conducting a review of Russian activities to influence the election. “The big problem I see here is that you have an American citizen who had his phone calls recorded.”

Given Trump’s propensity to never back down from a fight, this angle might lead to interesting results if the investigation proceeds in that direction.

The abrupt resignation Monday evening of White House national security adviser Michael Flynn is the culmination of a secret, months-long campaign by former Obama administration confidantes to handicap President Donald Trump’s national security apparatus and preserve the nuclear deal with Iran, according to multiple sources in and out of the White House who described to the Washington Free Beacon a behind-the-scenes effort by these officials to plant a series of damaging stories about Flynn in the national media.

The effort, said to include former Obama administration adviser Ben Rhodes—the architect of a separate White House effort to create what he described as a pro-Iran echo chamber—included a small task force of Obama loyalists who deluged media outlets with stories aimed at eroding Flynn’s credibility, multiple sources revealed.

Why are Ontario’s provincial conservatives so stupid?

 

It is a reasonable question. They have failed to put forward a contender for power for three or four elections now, and as a result the bad management of the Ontario economy continues. Proceeding directly from a belief in climate catastrophism, Ontario’s Liberal government has been pricing Ontario’s industry out of competition and driving it to resettle in bordering states. Ontario’s energy policy is the kind that produces energy shortages in a land of former abundance. It is to Ontarian industry as Soviet policy was to Soviet agriculture.

And what does the Ontario Conservative leader do when handed this blessing? He resolutely supports carbon taxes.

 

As Joe Oliver writes in the Financial Post:

Wynne’s approval rating is in the mid-teens. Two-thirds of Torontonians want her to resign. But there are no guarantees in politics, as the past three provincial elections dramatically demonstrated. She isn’t yet a dead premier walking.

But when a substantial portion of the province is deeply concerned about something their government is doing, the Opposition party should want to be on the side of the discontented. However, Ontario PC leader Patrick Brown supports a price on carbon, depriving his party of the opportunity to attack the Liberals on an issue of growing vulnerability.

The Leader of the Opposition in Ontario has been handed an opportunity to get out of a policy bind he has created for himself. He could cite the change in US policy on AGW, he could even say he has thought better of his previous support for carbon taxes. Politicians are expected to change policies with changed circumstances, especially as this change will lead with near certainty to electoral victory. As Joe Oliver points out, PC Leader Patrick Brown could offer tax reductions that would prove highly attractive to the stretched Ontario taxpayer.

In times previous, in far-ago decades, I was a riding association president with Ontario PCs and a volunteer. There was something about the sort of people attracted to the Ontario PCs that gave me cause for doubts, not as to their policies, but as to their capacities. To be unfair to many good people of whom I approve, a lot of them seemed dumber than they should be. I have not seen much occasion since then to revise my opinion upward. I hope they can find the talents needed to wrest power from the Liberals. I fear that they will not be able to do so.

I am a liberal, and therefore am a conservative

 

I am linking you to a long and heartfelt article by a former American Democrat who, over the course of 25 years, has become inclined to vote Republican without any change in his political views. How can this be?

I think many people who once voted liberal or for left-wing candidates have experienced the same emotions and the same evolution. They may smoke dope; they may support abortion rights, limited or not; they may even sort their garbage and take global warming seriously, but they have one thing in common with me, George Orwell, and you, dear reader. They can smell the totalitarianism emanating from the political left these days, the “smelly little orthodoxies” as Orwell called them.

In the 1930s these virulent intolerances and dreams of social control were in some fashion channelled by the Communist Party and its near equivalents. After the fall of Soviet Communism, we found that the same human impulses to control and domination were liberated from the discipline, such as it was, of Marxist thought. Thus without the discipline of Marxism and the Party, leftist totalitarian behaviour and thought spread out of its Petri dish to infect wider and wider sectors of society. The impulse to grievance and victimhood remains, even as the theory that gave it a semblance of coherence lies rotting in its grave. Which only demonstrates the truth that Leftism is an urge of the soul and ontologically prior to Marxism, which was a particular economic theory seeking to justify the Leftism.

I quote from Brad Torgerson’s article (the one I recommend you read):

 

A good friend of mine, who also happens to be an outstanding author, once quipped, “If I am forced to choose a side, I choose the side which is not forcing me to choose sides.”

Seldom have I ever encountered phrasing more apt. Because that’s precisely how I feel. I’ve been feeling that way, for years now. It was not a sudden thing. It was a gradual realization. The slow clarity of an underlying sentiment, incrementally surfacing…..

And later in his essay –

And I have been reminded every single day, just how far I’ve been pushed away — by so-called progressives in this country.

Sure, some of that is me walking my talk. I am not exactly the same guy I was 25 years ago. And not because I don’t think some of the idealism of liberal thought is not worthy, or even evocatively beautiful.

It is.

Liberalism — the kind I was attracted to in my teens, and early twenties — mostly focuses on brighter futures with better choices.

Yet at many points over the past quarter century, that shining picture of what the Left supposedly stands for, has been undermined again, and again, and again, and again, by the behavior of self-styled Leftists.

Maybe it all comes down to the fact that I decided Alinsky’s ballyhooed rules are pernicious. Not once do they involve self-reflection, nor questions of higher moral obligation to a power or a need beyond simple political expediency. Like with the 2004 Washington State governors race, the ends justify the means. If you’re a Leftist and you have to lie to get what you want, then lie. If you’re a Leftist and you have to cheat to get what you want, then cheat. If you’re a Leftist and you have to hurt people to get what you want, or if you have to frighten people into not opposing you, then hurt and frighten people.

Never doubt that everything you — the Leftist — says or does, is done justifiably.

Everyone and everything is a fair target. Lash out. Incriminate. Slander. Punish. Make them quake in their boots. They deserve it, the jerks. “If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists!” Oops, Leftists excoriated Bush 43 for saying that. Now they themselves live it every day. “If you didn’t vote for Hillary, you’re with the KKK and the Nazis!”

Torgerson’s article speaks for itself. He joins a long list of people disillusioned with Leftist totalitarianism: if you are interested in the 1930s version I recommend “The God that Failed”, written by several important former European communists, and if the 1960s is your thing, you can try David Horowitz’ “Radical Son”.

I would say that, now, more than ever, we need an Orwell,  to remind us once again that patriotism and loyalty to one’s own people trumps (yes, that word) abstract professions of loyalty to the future, the road to which is made of human skulls.

 

My idea of hell

John Lennon’s Imagine is the most perfect description of hell that I can imagine: a bland, featureless, joyless, hateless, unprincipled, undifferentiated state of blobdom. In fact, it is a remarkably accurate picture of the direction of modern society, as hoped for by people of the Left, and as feared by conservatives.

Imagine there’s no Heaven
It’s easy if you try
No Hell below us
Above us only sky

Imagine all the people
Livin’ for today
Aaa haa

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too

Imagine all the people
Livin’ life in peace
Yoo hoo

You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one

I hope someday you’ll join us

And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions

I wonder if you can

No need for greed or hunger

A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people

Sharin’ all the world

Yoo hoo

You may say I’m a dreamer

But I’m not the only one

I hope someday you’ll join us

And the world will live as one

This world would be anti-evolutionary, unfree, poor, uninteresting, murderous (more than our own), rife with socially enforced envy, and beset with suicide. Why live? Why strive? Why not tear down the achievements of the strivers, who are anti-social anyway? Why have families, when we will live as undifferentiated masses in dormitories? Why support our children, when the state will do it for us, as the state will insist upon doing it for us?

Nothing to kill or die for means nothing to live for. Hence suicide. Hence anomie. Hence random acts of violence, just to feel something.

And always, always, the unspoken truth behind all the rhetoric of peace and unity, is a Leviathan, a state so powerful it can reduce everyone to the same level because without that state, human differences would take effect. Though we may live in our equally-sized 90 square meter apartments there will be no equality of power. There is always a priesthood enforcing the equality of outcome that such a regime demands.

In this Godless universe, no crime would have meaning, in fact no act would have meaning, because meaning has been drained from it.

I am reminded of the movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), which depicts the world that “Imagine” invites us to dwell in. People without human emotion: no pride of place, of family, of accomplishment, no love, no hate, just watching the ticking clock until they head home after a day of meaningless office work to engage in meaningless interaction with their families. Of course they would soon refuse to breed, and die off from lack of self reproduction.

Kind of like what is happening right now, as birthrates tumble, religious attendance declines, and people get hysterical about any politician trying to defend their own societies from foreign invasions.

The movie ought to have been named “Invasion of the Soul Eaters”, and the title track ought to have been Lennon’s “Imagine”.

________________________________

Today’s instance of Lennonist blobism is found in the Guardian, an unfailing source of foolishness:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/06/utopian-thinking-build-truly-feminist-society

Today’s Tedious Wanker: Michael Mann, “climate scientist”, apostle of global warming fanaticism

 

 

In today’s The Hill, a newspaper directed at the Washington political class, Michael Mann, of hockey-stick fame, writes:

“The era of climate change denial is over. Rejection of the unequivocal scientific evidence that carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are warming the planet and changing our climate is no longer socially acceptable,” Professor Mann said.

“Only the most fringe of politicians now disputes the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and human-caused, and they are largely ignored.”

Not merely wrong but socially unacceptable!

When will the denial of Trump’s election be over, and be no longer socially acceptable?

When will these people admit they were beaten? When will they start to learn? Probably never.

But back to Michael Mann

“We scientists are, in general, a reticent lot who would much rather spend our time in the lab, out in the field, teaching and doing research. It is only the most unusual of circumstances that gets us marching in the streets. Trump’s assault on science is just such a circumstance. And we are seeing a rebellion continue to mount.”

Michael Mann has for decades been conducting a political campaign through assertions of climate science, the  effects of which  involve economic distress to tens of millions if not billions of people, by raising energy prices, putting us off fossil fuels,  wasting wealth on inefficient wind turbines, all on the basis of a dubious assertion that human activities are the principal cause of global warming. The Ontario government’s windmill and coal policies are direct results of the political climate of ideas created by the likes of Professor Mann.

A reticent lot, indeed. More likely, accustomed to wielding power over the fate of humanity, and now angry that the sceptre of power has been abruptly ripped from their hands by Trump and his appointees.

 

 

 

 

 

Sorting garbage for the state

 

 

Nothing, nothing, infuriates me more against the modern state than spending $6500 a year on real estate taxes and still be forced to be outdoors at -10C sorting garbage for the state. It is one of the ritual humiliations the state imposes upon us in its worship of Gaia. A state-supported religion, an official faith, complete with doctrine – anthropocentric global warming – and official rituals, mostly in the separation of garbage into various canisters. I see no reason why I should be forced into the practices of someone else’s religion.

It infuriates me precisely because of its futility. Have you ever seen what happens at the garbage dump? The paper may be removed for reprocessing but most of your garbage is bulldozed into the same landfill, indiscriminately.

I would not mind separating stuff that has some economic value, like aluminum cans, from the rest of the junk. In keeping with my principles of sustaining  incomes for the working poor, I encourage every scrounger I see to help himself to the special box filled with beer cans and wine bottles, thus sparing me the task of taking the stuff to the local recycling centre, and giving some guy a few bucks for his own drinking habit, God bless him..

But the sorting of stuff into three bins, paper, plastics and metals, and other garbage, is wholly wasted time.

Most of you are acquainted with the rituals of sorting garbage for the several bins: regular  garbage, paper, plastics. organics for compost – if you go that far – and of having to figure which garbage is being collected which days.

It is all a plot by the city to reduce services, increase regulation and interference in private lives, while enshrouding itself in the holy smoke of sanctimony.

I hate it. It is without question the most galling nonsense. It is like being sent as a cadet to clean the parade ground with a toothbrush. Here I am outside in minus 10C putting stuff into various boxes, which will be taken to the front of the driveway, taken away (if you are lucky) by snotty garbage removers  who drop stuff over the streets, removed to the dump, and mixed indiscriminately when the great bulldozers bury it  again.

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

The bulldozer on a garbage dump

 

 

Tedious Wankers 1: Michael Eric Dyson

American race hustlers abound. One can think of Al Sharpton, Van Jones, Jesse Jackson.  The new one on the block is Michael Eric Dyson. Obviously he is at least half white, and that makes him more tedious than less.  In a way the racism of Malcolm X came from a place of deep and possibly grievance. This guy is a nabob of the chattering classes, a professor of sociology at Georgetown. He appears on talk shows to denounce whiteness, white people,  and the baneful effects of both on his precious consciousness.

Let us refer to the words of Thomas Sowell, the American black intellectual, who has fought the ideas of the race hustlers all his life. Speaking in an interview in 2013 in the American Spectator, Sowell had this to say:

AmSpec: Let’s talk about the example of David Hume and the Scots and the path they followed.

Sowell: The role Hume played was one diametrically opposed by that played by most intellectuals as regards ethnic groups that are lagging behind. He wanted the Scots to master the English language. And that’s what they did. There were places all over Scotland that were giving lessons in English. The Scots learned that and it greatly expanded their cultural universe. I don’t know if there were any books in Gaelic in Scotland, and you were unlikely to learn chemistry or anything like that in Gaelic. The Scots came out of nowhere. They were very backward at one point. But from the middle of the 18th century to the middle of the 19th century many of the leading British intellectuals came from Scottish ancestry, including John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith.

It was the same with the Czechs in the Hapsburg Empire. If you were a Czech and you wanted to become a doctor or a scientist, chances are you’d find the books you needed in German, but not in Czech. And so, again, you needed to borrow from another culture.

Hume understood that. Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore understood this. The kids there learn English in addition to their native language.

But nowadays you are told to cling to your own culture and glory in its past achievements, real or fictitious. In Czechoslovakia after World War I, when they were doing they were doing the opposite of what Hume had done, intellectuals were lauding the Czech peasant as the purist expression of Czech culture. And the Czech peasant may have been the purist expression of Czech culture, but there wasn’t a damn thing he could teach you that would enable you to become a doctor or a scientist.

None of this race hustling will stop until Americans of good intentions cease to listen to the Dysons, Sharptons, and their ilk. Yet they seem addicted to self flagellation. Why? Therein lies a question whose answer runs deep into the spiritual decadence of the contemporary leftism.

Cultural appropriation is both good and necessary for cultural growth. People like Dyson are too ashamed of their “blackness” – whatever that is –  to endure comparison to real standards of accomplishment, which he labels “white”. Dyson fails to understand that  we all once to learn those standards of accomplishment ourselves, and in so doing gave up living in our little villages and knowing only our cousins and our clansmen. Charlatans like Dyson keep trying to get American blacks to revel in their cultural and economic failure, and to shift the blame for that failure onto whites. If whites were not around, he would have to shift the blame  onto whatever racial or cultural group was dominant. That is the sum and substance of sociology, a collectivist system of blame apportionment and victim worship.

A rational society would fire every sociologist from university teaching positions and send them to work making coffee and sandwiches for people who do useful things.

Michael Eric Dyson is today’s Tedious Wanker.

 

Sowell, Race Hustlers, and David Hume

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doraemon: It is big in Japan

I am taking a break this morning from massacres, deportations, Islam, Trump, mass firings, and US politics in favour of the world’s most important entertainer at the moment, Doraemon (below, left).

 

 

The Japanese capacity for cutesiness is unparalleled, and it leads to some quite bizarre forms of entertainment and pop culture. Doraemon is a robot cat from the future who has travelled back in time to help his Norman Normal human friend, Nobita Nobi. Starting as a manga cartoon in 1969, Doraemon has become huge in Japan, as well as in many Asian countries, not merely as children’s entertainment, but as a well recognized character.The Japanese treat Doraemon as real,  like Bugs Bunny, but as one who shows up at shopping centres and appears on TV to raise funds for disaster relief and children’s cancers.

Wikipedia relates:

Doraemon has become a prevalent part of popular culture in Japan. Newspapers also regularly make references to Doraemon and his pocket as something with the ability to satisfy all wishes. The series is frequently referenced in other series such as Gin Tama and Great Teacher Onizuka.[48][49]

Doraemon appears in appeals for charity. TV Asahi launched the Doraemon Fund charity fund to raise money for natural disasters.[50]

It is as if the adventures of both Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck  still occupied the entertainment pages. Homer Simpson would be the closest equivalent in terms of pop culture importance, but he is not cute, he is truly deplorable. Big Bird on Sesame Street comes close to Doraemon in recognizability and benign nature.

My step daughter was on an Antarctic cruise recently, and the ship was being used for filming part of the next Doraemon movie. The Doraemon puppet is about four feet wide and is animated by a tiny Japanese lady who steps inside the costume. However, when she does so, she is surrounded by a team of people holding up sheets to prevent anyone from filming the event, in the belief that if Doraemon were ever exposed as not being real, the magic of Doraemon would be lost. Holding sheets around the animator in high winds aboard the ship was a cause for some laughter.

The photos also illustrate what you can do with drones these days. The mountains in the background are at the southern tip of South America.

The film will be called “Kachi kochi”, which is the Japanese signifier for “brrrrrrrr”. The plot will be preposterous. It will be the biggest cartoon movie in the world, and we will probably never hear of it, but you, dear readers of Barrelstrength, heard about it here, in the obscure depths of the conservative blogosphere.

I spoke of Pokaemon to my stuffed bear, who insists he shall shortly be leaving for Japan in order to make his fortune in the children’s entertainment business.  Be careful with information about Doraemon if you have artificial and imaginary friends. They might get ideas  that they could be stars if only they could get out of your house and fly to Japan. I think my bear is right. He too could be Big in Japan. Any culture able to suspend disbelief like the Japanese would provide fertile ground for playfulness of this order.

Male genius is not a “stereotype”

This from the Groniad:

Girls as young as six years old believe that brilliance is a male trait, according research into gender stereotypes.

The US-based study also found that, unlike boys, girls do not believe that achieving good grades in school is related to innate abilities.

Andrei Cimpian, a co-author of the research from New York University, said that the work highlights how even young children can absorb and be influenced by gender stereotypes – such as the idea that brilliance or giftedness is more common in men.

“Because these ideas are present at such an early age, they have so much time to affect the educational trajectories of boys and girls,” he said.

The trouble with this view – perceptions of males being more likely to be geniuses – is that it is not a “stereotype”, a form of false idea.

Quite the contrary, it is true. There are more very smart males than very smart females. It is also true that men are more likely to be savage criminal morons. No accounting of sex differences in intelligence fails to show that the distribution of male intelligence is wider than that of the female, at both ends.

I turn to Charles Murray’s Human Accomplishment, which no person may call himself educated who has not read it. In Chapter twelve “Of dead white males”, Murray writes:

 

One aspect of this male tendency towards extremes seems to apply to cognitive ability. Although the mean IQ of men and women is apparently the same, the variability of male IQ is higher – meaning that more men than women are to be found at both the high and low extremes of IQ. Conjoined with this is evidence that men’s and women’s cognitive repertoires are somewhat different….

The existing circumstantial evidence is already strong enough to have persuaded me that disparities in accomplishment between the sexes are significantly grounded in biological differences, but nothing in this brief rehearsal of the arguments need sway readers who are confident that science will prove me wrong. I close the discussion of sex differences with the point I made at the outset: All we need is a few decades’ patience and we won’t have to argue any more. (pp.289-291)

Finally I would like to quote Charles Murray, writing in the Afterword to The Bell Curve in 1995.

 

A few weeks after the Bell Curve appeared, a reporter said to me that the real message of the book is , “Get serious”. I resisted his comment at first, but now I think he was right. We never quite say it in so many words, but the book’s subtext is that America’s discussion of social policy since the 19670s has been carried on in a never-never land where human beings are easily changed and society can eventually become a Lake Wobegon where all the children are above average. The Bell Curve does indeed imply that it is time to  get serious about how best to accommodate the huge and often intractable individual differences that shape human society. (pp. 574-575)

Today’s rubbish on stereotypes indicates that the getting serious has yet to occur.

The Guardian’s article concluded:

Dame Athene Donald, professor of experimental physics at the University of Cambridge, agreed. “If we are to facilitate a gender-balanced workforce of engineers, mathematicians and physicists in the future it is clear interventions at secondary school just aren’t going to be sufficient,” she said. “Parents, teachers and the media need to work much harder eradicating gender stereotypes in the way they talk about adults to children of all ages.”

To which I say, “Get real, snowflake”. The miracle is always that girls as young as seven see through the bullshit, and have some inkling that very smart boys are really smarter tan they are. Only by the time they have reached university have their minds been sufficiently warped to be fully ideologically ‘correct’.

Women make up about 2.2% of the most important figures in science and the arts. Read Human Accomplishment. Get the facts. It costs less than a good bottle of wine and its value is perpetual.