Monday, 11 October 2010

Minority conservative..... an oxymoron? For a long time (well, the last 2-3 years) I find the most stimulating blogs and fora to be those leaning towards the right wing of the political divide. Current favourites are Taki's magazine , Steve Sailer's blog and the incomparable John Derbyshire (who has also authored two excellent pop-math books). I've been a fan of Takis' ever since my time at Oxford when I discovered his column in the Sunday Times and discovered the others more or less at random. What I find most appealing about these sites is their utter lack of and contempt of political correctness which comes as a welcome breath of fresh air compared to the mainstream media. I really hate the way that PC (and self-proclaimed racial champions i.e. professional grievance-mongers) has retarded progress on the study of racial characteristics. Clearly there are differences in abilities between different racial groups in athleticism, intelligence, character etc. but most liberals even try to deny that there is any such thing as a genetic basis to racial groupings despite the manifest evidence of ones senses. I feel that the few scientists that try to carve a niche out in this field, despite the overwhelming disapproval of the liberal brigade and academic establishment (same thing really:-)), deserve commendation as being true scientific martyrs of our time. So if I had to pitch my flag it would be firmly in the HBD, nature-predominating-over-nurture-in-intelligence camp of the debate.

On the political side of the question, I am left-wing in being anti-war, suspicious of the motives behind seemingly benign western intentions towards the developing world, in favour of an independent Palestinian homeland, pro-choice and generally anti-American (the US government, I should qualify. I never have any beef with most individuals whatever their race or nationality). All of which sounds disturbingly wooly and liberal.

But on the other hand, I back the death penalty for certain crimes (but only when guilt is overwhelmingly certain), support gay marriage but not the right to adopt children (childrens' rights trumps that of adults making lifestyle choices, and I'm sorry, but a gay partnership is not the societal default - read normal - of any family unit in any culture in the entire history of the human race), that most feminists and minorities are hyper-sensitive and complain too damn much, think that global warming is a con based on bad science, Muslims need to be monitored (but only for the present given the current Mid-East situation, which to be fair is not entirely their fault), that one should think long and hard before deferring to and ceding public space to Islamic religious scruples (I was raised for the first quarter century of my life in an Islamic country, believe me, you will be glad for doing so). All of which would make me a red-neck if my skin wasn't so brown ;-)

I hang my head in shame, after it's a well known liberal chestnut that only white-males can be racist, antediluvian, reactionaries.

Given the present situation where even a scientist as eminent as Jim Watson could be steam-rollered for espousing a view that was "hurtful" to certain groups (none of his detractors actually tried to refute his claims as far as I am aware, just mentioning the "hurt" was enough to place his statements beyond the pale), it does seem too much to ask for freedom in conducting research into contentious fields. The problem is we all pay the price whenever free inquiry is curtailed.

No comments:

Post a Comment