Students Attack Intelligent Inquiry

Posted by Amalek on March 05, 2006, 04:54 PM | #

Stating the bleedin’ obvious about sex—sorry, ‘gender’—differences helped do for Larry Summers at Harvard, Jewish genius or not. The harpies of America’s finest campus (TM) reacted like professors of Feminist Studies at Hicksville State. Glad to hear that Mr Ellis, who has been forthright before, has so far escaped burning at the stake.

Whether they succeed or not, it is always depressing to hear the young raising a clamour for monolithic conformity to received ideas. It appears that universities have fallen into the same sort of curricular torpor that disheartened Gibbon at Magdalen College, Oxford in the mid-18th century.

Perhaps a new breed of privately financed institution teaching race and sex realism, adherence to forensic standards of proof in historical inquiry and the limitations of post-1789 thought will now spring up. It might reinvigorate the intellectual landscape as the Dissenting Academies and provincial redbricks shamed Oxford and Cambridge out of their sloth.

Who knows, such a school might even train the rising generation how to spell, choose the mot juste, write grammatically, read accurately and do sums in their heads;-)

We can but dream.

Posted by Guessedworker on March 05, 2006, 05:05 PM | #

From the Guardian article: Robert McHenry, chairman of the psychology consultancy OPP, said: ‘It was developed by white researchers and tested on white populations, so is not suitable for measuring other cultures.’ He said the Bell Curve theory was out of date and showed lower achievements among the black population because they were economically worse off.

John,

Here is McHenry’s OPP website, complete with psychometric tools - presumably the ones that have left TBC far behind in their capacity to equalise the output of a small, light African brain.

Do you fancy taking a look at them?  It would be interesting to have a professional opinion.

Posted by Zach on March 05, 2006, 06:01 PM | #

I agree with the need to create new institutions to develop these ideas, if the current institutions are too dead to do so. However I would take it even further: not only do we need to develop new political and intellectual institutions, but also cultural ones—art, film, fashion, etc. I think that it is easy to underestimate the degree to which these things can capture the imagination of the public far more so than mere theory. In a sense, we are facing a new frontier, one not of a physical dimension, but of a need to recreate civilization from the ashes of degeneracy.

Posted by Søren Renner on March 05, 2006, 06:20 PM | #

a need to recreate civilization from the ashes of degeneracy

You mean like palinigenetic ultranationalist populism?

Posted by Zach on March 05, 2006, 07:12 PM | #

No Søren, I really didn’t have anything quite like that in mind. I was thinking more in terms of a Julius Evola “Ride the Tiger” sort of way.

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 05, 2006, 07:27 PM | #

“palinigenetic ultranationalist populism”

That is exactly what is needed.  In the AR debate on Christianity, one of the Christian skeptics noted that whites need a new legitimizing creed for the struggles ahead.

To put things in Yockey/Spengler terms, we’ve already reached cultural collapse, whites are as much a “fellah” people as any I’ve seen.

It is high time to regenerate the civilization.  Yes, I know the conservatives here will denounce that idea as another form of “liberalism.”

I could care less.  The West is dead; long live the West.

Posted by Zach on March 05, 2006, 08:02 PM | #

I think that economic self-interest and genetic aspects of race and ethnicity are incredibly important, but they do have their limitations. Though I am not interested in some of the more occult elements of Evola’s work, his work is profoundly interesting and insightful, especially in the more spiritual aspects of our struggle. For example, a symbol, which is something which reflect or mirrors something from the higher dimension into the temporal and mortal realm, can provide a basis on which traditionalists can build a sustainable and desirable order. The case of why we might disallow members of certain ethnic groups into certain institutions, clubs, parts of society, or even the nation becomes not an act of “hate” or “discrimination”, but a symbol which reflects our difference and separation from these less transcendent, less noble, or even degenerate societies and groups, even though the individuals may not always reflect these characteristics. The goal of such a symbol, however, is not self-glorification, but a constant reminder of the need to press upward, to live true to the best of our nature, and to always press forward.

I don’t think that this view is incompatible with Christianity.

Posted by Amalek on March 05, 2006, 08:32 PM | #

I sometimes toy wih the idea of an academic equivalent of the mediaeval Feast of Misrule.

For one week in the middle of each term, non-conventional and provoking views about history, genetics, politics, sociology, legal philosophy and the like would be aired freely—perhaps by visiting professors whose outlook was less hermetic than that of the typical lefty don. Discussion would be likewise untrammelled by fears of contravening laws or social conventions governing ‘hate speech’. Students would be encouraged to question their preceptors’ orthodoxies instead of dutifully regugitating them in term papers and examination answers, or (as I am told is customary nowadays) cribbing the politically correct line from model answers or plagiarising from the internet.

Although this interregnum of iconoclasm would not count towards the evaluation of the students, it might stir a few to rebellion against the consensus, and deposit a smidgin of uneasiness in the psyches of the sheeplish majority.

Sometimes a sowing of doubt germinates years later, when the hitherto unreceptive peer-group member is on his own in the big bad world and heresy suddenly chimes with his experience: the mugged liberal, the new father, the employee victimised by affirmative action may recall objections to the egalitarian consensus aired long ago. The purpose of slotting this interlude of mischief into the middle of the term would be to throw into a different light what had already been taught, and to make it a bit harder to swallow later bromides.

Posted by Al Ross on March 05, 2006, 09:01 PM | #

If, as I suspect, true intelligence, in practical terms, is simply the ability to survive, then given our race’s recent record in this field, Frank Ellis’s enemies may be corect.

Posted by jonjayray on March 05, 2006, 09:06 PM | #

“McHenry’s OPP website” shows that he uses conventional psychometric instruments, though not particularly good ones.

Few academics, for instance, would use the MBTI

Posted by metzger on March 05, 2006, 09:29 PM | #

If, as I suspect, true intelligence, in practical terms, is simply the ability to survive, then given our race’s recent record in this field, Frank Ellis’s enemies may be corect.

  You would be mistaken in thinking this. Whites, at this point, are still the most “successful” race on the planet.

Posted by Arwen on May 01, 2007, 07:26 AM | #

What we humans call “success” is not what nature calls “success”. Human advancement & technology are destroying the world. “Whites”/“European” colonization has done the most damage to this earth. “White Culture” attempts to defy nature. In order to keep the “white” race strong, they have to weaken/manipulate other races. That’s why they call it the white man’s world.