Untruthful pity

How Islamism burrowed almost unopposed into Europe’s fabric.

Theodore Dalrymple

October 29, 2020

[Taken from here]

The night before the latest Islamist outrage in France, in which a terrorist killed three people in the Basilica of Notre-Dame de Nice, I was reading a short book about Islamist terrorism in Europe, preparatory to writing an article about the beheading by a Chechen refugee of Samuel Paty, the teacher who had used the cartoons of Muhammad in his civics class to teach about freedom of expression, two weeks ago.

The book was by Hamid Zanaz. The author is of Algerian origin, a philosopher who has not only abandoned his ancestral religion but is now opposed to it in all its guises. His book relates a story which goes far to explain how Islamism has been able to burrow, almost unopposed, into the fabric of Europe. The story relates to Norway, but something similar could be told of many, if not all, Western European countries. I will quote in extenso:

Karsten Nordal Hauken, a politician raped by a Somalian [refugee in Norway], opposed the deportation of his aggressor: “I lost years due to depression and cannabis. . . . I have learned that the rapist’s culture of origin is completely different from ours. In his culture, sexual abuse is above all a matter of taking power and not the result of sexual desire: it is not considered a homosexual act. To understand how it could occur, one has to overcome one’s prejudices. . . .”

He continued:

“I don’t feel any anger towards my aggressor, because I seem him more as the product of an unjust world. The product of an upbringing marked by war and privations. . . . I want us to continue to help the refugees despite such a context. . . . I am first a human being and not a Norwegian. No, I am part of the world, and unfortunately the world is unjust.”

In other words, it was really his fault, as an inhabitant of an unjustly privileged country, that the Somalian raped him. He got what he deserved: just as, by the same logic, the woman in the Basilica of Notre-Dame de Nice deserved her decapitation.

Some version of this peculiar state of mind is widespread in Europe (and probably in America, too), especially among the intelligentsia. Needless to say, it is hardly a state of mind propitious to countering a vicious and dangerous ideology. To understand the mentality, two texts spring to mind: one by G.K. Chesterton and one by Max Frisch.

In Orthodoxy, Chesterton wrote that the modern world “is full of wild and wasted virtues.” He continued:

When a religious scheme is shattered . . . it is not merely the vices that are less loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. . . . some humanitarians care only for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful.

What pithier way to characterize Hauken’s egotistical state of mind than untruthful pity? And what terrible damage his untruthful pity, or something like it, has done.

The second text, that of Max Frisch’s great play The Fire Raisers, captures the sheer cowardice of Nordal Hauken’s state of mind, and that of the many like him. In the play, a businessman called Biedermann admits a poor itinerant arsonist into his house, partly from charity and partly from a pusillanimous inability to say no (it is difficult to disentangle the two). The arsonist gives ever-clearer indications that he intends to burn the house down, but Biedermann, again partly from blindness and social embarrassment but mostly from cowardice, refuses to recognize it and expel the arsonist. The latter burns the house down, killing Biedermann and his wife, who then go to hell.

Frisch’s play, published in 1953, is an allegory of the takeover of societies by Nazi and Communist totalitarianism, but it is of much wider application to that of any society or organization that faces destruction by those who insinuate themselves into it with the intention or desire to destroy it.

Of course, neither text gives precise guidance as to what practical steps France and other countries in a similar situation should take.

Por qué creo que va a ganar Trump

Quizás me voy a comer mis palabras en menos de una semana, pero estas son las razones por las que creo que va a ganar Trump.

Primero, las razones por las que las encuestas no son fiables:

a) Estados Unidos no tiene una elección nacional sino una elección por cada Estado. Hillary Clinton ganó los votos a nivel nacional con holgura mientras que Trump le dio una paliza en el colegio electoral.

b) El porcentaje de votantes que contestan las encuestas ha bajado desde el 50% hace unos años al 2% actual. Es lógico esperar que sean los republicanos los que no contestan las encuestas, pues ya habido gente que ha tenido que soportar vandalismos en sus casas o que se les despida del trabajo por ser republicanos.

c) Además de este error de origen, los encuestadores son de izquierda y trabajan para medios de comunicación de izquierda. Como en otras elecciones, es lógico pensar que manipularán los resultados de las encuestas para desanimar al oponente.

Esto último explica porque no creo que haya que confiar demasiado en las encuestas, pero no explica porque creo que va a ganar Trump. Estas son las razones por las que creo que va a ganar Trump:

1. La aprobación de Trump está en 51% (muy alta).

2. Una mayoría de americanos (56%) creen que su situación económica es mayor que hace 4 años (altísimo). En circunstancias normales, esto sería definitivo, pero no son circunstancias normales.

3. Por primera vez en la historia, el registro de nuevos votantes republicanos supera el registro de nuevos votantes demócratas.

4. Parece que los vecindarios republicanos están votando más que los vecindarios demócratas.

6. Los demócratas han sacado un anuncio diciendo a la gente que voten, aunque no les guste Biden. https://twitter.com/i/status/1316771214778601473 (“Look, maybe you don’t like the other guy running for president,” dice una mujer en el video. But «fucking vote.» )

7. Los mitines de Trump están llenos. Los mitines de Biden están vacíos.

8. Los (pocos) profesionales estadísticos que tuvieron éxito prediciendo las últimas elecciones dicen que Trump va a ganar.

9. A cuatro días de las elecciones, Biden gasta su poca energía visitando el estado de Minnesota que nadie pensaba que estuviera en juego: ha sido demócrata desde hace 50 años.

 

Citas sobre virtud como necesaria para el buen gobierno

QUOTES ON LIBERTY AND VIRTUE
Compiled and Edited by J. David Gowdy, President
The Washington, Jefferson & Madison Institute

lib-er-ty\ ‘lib-er-te` \ n [ME, fr. MF liberte’, fr. L libertat, libertas, fr. liber free]
1. FREEDOM 2. POWER 3. CHOICE 4. RIGHT 5. PRIVILEGE 6. DUTY 7. STANDARD

vir-tue\ ‘ver-(,)chu: \ n [ME virtu, fr. OF, L virtut-, virtus strength, virtue]
1. MORALITY 2. POWER 3. VALOR 4. MERIT 5. CHASTITY 6. FORCE 7. AUTHORITY

«[V]irtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.»
George Washington

«Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? »
George Washington

«[T]here is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists . . . an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness.»
George Washington

«Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness — these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.»
George Washington

«The aggregate happiness of the society, which is best promoted by the practice of a virtuous policy, is, or ought to be, the end of all government . . . .»
George Washington

«Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people. The general government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any despotic or oppresive form so long as there is any virtue in the body of the people.»
George Washington

«Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.»
Benjamin Franklin

«Laws without morals are in vain.»
Benjamin Franklin (Motto of the University of Pennsylvania)

«Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.»
Benjamin Franklin

«A nation as a society forms a moral person, and every member of it is personally responsible for his society.»
Thomas Jefferson

«No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and . . . . their minds are to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and to be deterred from those of vice . . . . These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure and order of government.»
Thomas Jefferson

«It is in the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigour. . . . degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats into the heart of its laws and constitution.»
Thomas Jefferson

«[In a republic, according to Montesquieu in Spirit of the Laws, IV,ch.5,] ‘virtue may be defined as the love of the laws and of our country. As such love requires a constant preference of public to private interest, it is the source of all private virtue; for they are nothing more than this very preference itself… Now a government is like everything else: to preserve it we must love it . . . Everything, therefore, depends on establishing this love in a republic; and to inspire it ought to be the principal business of education; but the surest way of instilling it into children is for parents to set them an example.'»
Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace Book.

«When virtue is banished, ambition invades the minds of those who are disposed to receive it, and avarice possesses the whole community.»
Montesquieu (written by Thomas Jefferson in his Common Place Book).

«Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.»
Thomas Jefferson

«Liberty . . . is the great parent of science and of virtue; and . . . a nation will be great in both always in proportion as it is free.»
Thomas Jefferson

«The order of nature [is] that individual happiness shall be inseparable from the practice of virtue.»
Thomas Jefferson

«Without virtue, happiness cannot be.»
Thomas Jefferson

«The institution of delegated power implies that there is a portion of virtue and honor among mankind which may be a reasonable foundation of confidence.»
Alexander Hamilton

«To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.»
James Madison

«The aim of every political Constitution, is or ought to be first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.»
James Madison

«. . . Virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should study. If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed . . . so long as our manners and principles remain sound, there is no danger.»
Patrick Henry

«Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.»
Patrick Henry

«The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now. They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty.
John Adams

«We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net.»
John Adams

«Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.»
John Adams

«Liberty can no more exist without virtue and independence than the body can live and move without a soul.»
John Adams

«Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics.»
John Adams

«[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.»
John Adams

«The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy.»
John Adams

«Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty.»
John Adams

«Honor is truly sacred, but holds a lower rank in the scale of moral excellence than virtue. Indeed the former is part of the latter, and consequently has not equal pretensions to support a frame of government productive of human happiness.»
John Adams

«Human nature itself is evermore an advocate for liberty. There is also in human nature a resentment of injury, and indignation against wrong. A love of truth and a veneration of virtue. These amiable passions, are the «latent spark»… If the people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling the differences between true and false, right and wrong, virtue and vice, to what better principle can the friends of mankind apply than to the sense of this difference?»
John Adams

«Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers.»
Fisher Ames

«It is certainly true that a popular government cannot flourish without virtue in the people.»
Richard Henry Lee

«Whenever we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.»
Thomas Paine

«[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend of the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen onto any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man.»
Samuel Adams

«The diminution of public virtue is usually attended with that of public happiness, and the public liberty will not long survive the total extinction of morals.»
Samuel Adams

«[M]en will be free no longer then while they remain virtuous.»
Samuel Adams

«If virtue & knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslav’d. This will be their great security.»
Samuel Adams

«No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.»
Samuel Adams

«A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy…. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader…. If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security.»
Samuel Adams

«No people can be great who have ceased to be virtuous.»
Samuel Johnson

«No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.»
George Mason

«[A] free government . . . cannot be supported without Virtue.»
Samuel Williams

«In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate — look at his character. It is alleged by men of loose principles, or defective views of the subject, that religion and morality are not necessary or important qualifications for political stations. But the scriptures teach a different doctrine. They direct that rulers should be men who rule in the fear of God, men of truth, hating covetousness. It is to the neglect of this rule that we must ascribe the multiplied frauds, breaches of trust, speculations and embezzlements of public property which astonish even ourselves; which tarnish the character of our country and which disgrace our government. When a citizen gives his vote to a man of known immorality, he abuses his civic responsibility; he not only sacrifices his own responsibility; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor; he betrays the interest of his country.»
Noah Webster

«…if the citizens neglect their Duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the Laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizen will be violated or disregarded.»
Noah Webster

«Let a man’s zeal, profession, or even principles as to political measures be what they will, if he is without personal integrity and private virtue, as a man he is not to be trusted.»
John Witherspoon

«… the manners of the people in general are of the utmost moment to the stability of any civil society. When the body of a people are altogether corrupt in their manners, the government is ripe for dissolution.»
John Witherspoon

«So true is this, that civil liberty cannot be long preserved without virtue.»
John Witherspoon

«… but a republic once equally poised, must either preserve its virtue or lose its liberty, and by some tumultuous revolution, either return to its first principles, or assume a more unhappy form.»
John Witherspoon

«A country cannot subsist well without liberty, nor liberty without virtue.»
Jean Jacques Rousseau

«Machiavel, discoursing on these matters, finds virtue to be so essentially necessary to the establishment and preservation of liberty, that he thinks it impossible for a corrupted people to set up a good government, or for a tyranny to be introduced if they be virtuous; and makes this conclusion, ‘That where the matter (that is, the body of the people) is not corrupted, tumults and disorders do not hurt; and where it is corrupted, good laws do no good:’ which being confirmed by reason and experience, I think no wise man has ever contradicted him.»
Algernon Sidney

«[L]iberty cannot be preserved, if the manners of the people are corrupted . . .»
Algernon Sidney

«[A]ll popular and well-mixed governments [republics] . . . are ever established by wise and good men, and can never be upheld otherwise than by virtue: The worst men always conspiring against them, they must fall, if the best have not power to preserve them. . . . [and] unless they be preserved in a great measure free from vices . . . .»
Algernon Sidney

«Fruits are always of the same nature with the seeds and roots from which they come, and trees are known by the fruits they bear: as a man begets a man, and a beast a beast, that society of men which constitutes a government upon the foundation of justice, virtue, and the common good, will always have men to promote those ends; and that which intends the advancement of one man’s desire and vanity, will abound in those that will foment them.»
Algernon Sidney

«[I]f vice and corruption prevail, liberty cannot subsist; but if virtue have the advantage, arbitrary power cannot be established.»
Algernon Sidney

«If the public safety be provided, liberty and propriety secured, justice administered, virtue encouraged, vice suppressed, and the true interest of the nation advanced, the ends of government are accomplished . . .»
Algernon Sidney

«[L]iberty without virtue would be no blessing to us.»
Benjamin Rush

«Without virtue there can be no liberty.»
Benjamin Rush

«The only foundation for… a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.»
Benjamin Rush

«No free government can stand without virtue in the people, and a lofty spirit of partiotism.»
Andrew Jackson

«Lastly, our ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits, they believed, cannot safely be on any other foundation than religious principle, nor any government be secure which is not supported by moral habits.»
Daniel Webster

«[I]f we and our posterity reject religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us, that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity.»
Daniel Webster

«Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.»
Horace Greely

«What is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint.»
Edmund Burke

«Among a people generally corrupt liberty cannot long exist.»
Edmund Burke

«Manners are of more importance than laws. Upon them in great measure the laws depend. The law touches us but here and there, and now and then. Manners are what vex and smooth, corrupt or purify, exalt or debase, barbarize or refine us, by a constant, steady, uniform, insensible operation, like that of the air we breathe in. They give their whole form and color to our lives. According to their quality, they aid morals, they support them, or they totally destroy them.»
Edmund Burke

«It is better to cherish virtue and humanity, by leaving much to free will, even with some loss of the object , than to attempt to make men mere machines and instruments of political benevolence. The world on the whole will gain by a liberty, without which virtue cannot exist.»
Edmund Burke

«Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their appetites; in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsel of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.»
Edmund Burke

«Among a people generally corrupt liberty cannot long exist.»
Edmund Burke

«[T]he very best forms of government are vain without public virtue . . . .»
William A. Cocke

«No polity can be devised which shall perpetuate freedom among a people that are dead to honor and integrity. Liberty and virtue are twin sisters, and the best fabric in the world . . . .»
James H. Thornwell

«[P]erfect freedom consists in obeying the dictates of right reason, and submitting to natural law. When a man goes beyond or contrary to the law of nature and reason, he . . . introduces confusion and disorder into society . . . [thus] where licentiousness begins, liberty ends.»
Samuel West

«When was public virtue to be found when private was not?»
William Cowper

«The laws by which the Divine Ruler of the universe has decreed an indissoluble connection between public happiness and private virtue, whatever apparent exceptions may delude our short-sighted judgments, never fail to vindicate their supremacy and immutability.»
William Cabell Rives

«Unless virtue guide us our choice must be wrong.»
William Penn

«If men be good, government cannot be bad.»
William Penn

«Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them.»
Joseph Story

«The life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful and virtuous.»
Frederick Douglas

«[R]eligion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged.»
Northwest Ordinance of 1787

«I consider the domestic virtue of the Americans as the principle source of all their other qualities. It acts as a promoter of industry, as a stimulus to enterprise and as the most powerful restraint of public vice. . . . No government could be established on the same principle as that of the United States with a different code of morals.»
Francis Grund

«The American Constitution is remarkable for its simplicity; but it can only suffice a people habitually correct in their actions, and would be utterly inadequate to the wants of a different nation. Change the domestic habits of the Americans, their religious devotion, and their high respect for morality, and it will not be necessary to change a single letter in the Constitution in order to vary the whole form of their government.»
Francis Grund

«History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline. There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse, or a progressive deterioration leading to ultimate national disaster.»
Douglas MacArthur

«[Liberty] considers religion as the safeguard of morality, and morality as the best security of law and the surest pledge of the duration of freedom.»
Alexis de Tocqueville

«I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her comodious harbors and her ample rivers, and it was not there; in her fertile fields and boundless prairies; and it was not there; in her rich mines and her vast commerce, and it was not there. Not until I visited the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.»
An old adage attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville

«Somehow strangely the vice of men gets well represented and protected but their virtue has none to plead its cause — nor any charter of immunities and rights.»
Henry David Thoreau

«To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society.»
Theodore Roosevelt

«We have never stopped sin by passing laws; and in the same way, we are not going to take a great moral ideal and achieve it merely by law.»
Dwight D. Eisenhower

«No government at any level, or at any price, can afford, on the crime side, the police necessary to assure our safety unless the overwhelming majority of us are guided by an inner, personal code of morality. And you will not get that inner, personal code of morality unless children are brought up in a family — a family that gives them the affection they seek, that makes them feel they belong, that guides them to the future, and that will build continuity in future generations. . . . the greatest inequality today is not inequality of wealth or income. It is the inequality between the child brought up in a loving, supportive family and one who has been denied that birthright.»
Lady Margaret Thatcher

«A state is nothing more than a reflection of its citizens; the more decent the citizens, the more decent the state.»
Ronald Reagan

«Today it would be progress if everyone would stop talking about values. Instead, let us talk, as the Founders did, about virtues.»
George Will

«The ultimate success of this government and the stability of its institutions, its progress in all that can make a nation honored, depend upon its adherence to the principles of truth and righteousness.»
John Lord

«Righteousness exalteth a nation.»
Proverbs 14:34


Misquoting Our Founding Fathers

  • TOTHESOURCE

How many times have your heard that «Our founding fathers were not Christians! They were deists!»? It is an absurd assertion.

 

aamountain

It conjures up images of clandestine gatherings in Philadelphia’s Independence Hall where one by one Washington and Jefferson and Adams et al swear allegiance to some obscure deist creed and pledge to set America on the course of eradicating Biblical belief from all corners of the land.

Sure some of our nation’s founders were deists. Consider the grumpy pamphleteer Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason:

«I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of…Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.»

But Paine was in the minority of founders that had a genuine antipathy to organized religion. The vast majority went on record to declare that religious faith is essential to the formation of a self-sustaining democracy.

adams_x.jpg

John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating,

«We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.»

benjaminrush_x.jpg

Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence said.

«[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind.»

webster_x1.jpg

Noah Webster, author of the first American Speller and the first Dictionary said,

«[T]he Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence.»

MorrisGoverneur_x.jpg

Gouverneur Morris, Penman and Signer of the Constitution.

«[F]or avoiding the extremes of despotism or anarchy . . . the only ground of hope must be on the morals of the people. I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments. [T]herefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God.»

fisher_x.jpg

Fisher Ames author of the final wording for the First Amendment wrote,

«[Why] should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for the Sacred Book that is thus early impressed lasts long; and probably if not impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of the mind.»

john_jay_x.jpg

John Jay, Original Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court,

«The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts.»

wilson_x.jpg

James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice,

«Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.»

webster_x1.jpg

Noah Webster, author of the first American Speller and the first Dictionary stated,

«The moral principles and precepts contained in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. . . All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.»

winthrop_x.jpg

Robert Winthrop, Speaker of the U. S. House,

«Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.»

washington_x.jpg

George Washington, General of the Revolutionary Army, president of the Constitutional Convention, First President of the United States of America, Father of our nation,

«Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society.»

franklin2_x.jpg

Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration of Independence

«[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.»

Yet the radical secularists are at it again! Their new strategy is to misrepresent the founders by misquoting them or taking quotes out of context to intentionally distort their original meaning. A good example is this oft cited quote by John Adams:

Twenty times, in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, «This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!»

adams_letter.JPG

But this quote fragment distorts the main point Adams was making. Quoting from Adam’s letter (shown below) he actually said:

Twenty times, in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, «This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!» But in this exclamatic I should have been as fanatical as (Parson) Bryant or (Pedagogue) Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell. (emphasis added)

The founders did not want an established national religion. That’s it. They allowed for state established religions. They encouraged the expression of religious faith. And they almost universally sought to encourage religious belief as essential for good governance and citizenship.

Madison sums it up nicely. In his letter to Rev. Jasper Adams in the spring of 1832, Madison once again makes his position regarding the government’s proper role quite clear:

«(I)t may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov’t from interfering in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others.»

The founding fathers opposed both government suppression and government establishment of religion. Radical secularists who seek to drive all religious expression from the public square join the ranks of the radical sectarians that our founders sought to declaw.

On this Father’s Day we should thank God that our founding fathers had the foresight and courage to promote the expression of religious faith in the foundation and maintenance of our nation.

«Las Charos» – el artículo que definió el concepto

«Las Charos».

Esas tipas de 40 años en adelante, tintes caoba, voz cazallera, y chapas propalestinas y del «No a la Guerra».

Esas que son acérrimas seguidoras de IU, o del PSOE en cualquir lugar de provincias y que buscan mantener su chiringuito.

Las Charos, como las visilleras, siempre tienen razón , y no es que ellas sean incoherentes, o unas aprovechadas. No. La causa de sus desgracias es siempre el machismo patriarcal, la incomprensión, y todas esas cosas.

Las charos son la versión moderna de las «Teresas» de la Sección Femenina de Falange Española en la época de Franco. Las charos existen, no son un mito.

Habitan en la administración local, comarcal,y nacional y en la enseñanza, y como los gorilas de lomo plateado, quieren siempre más, controlar a la manada, y no consienten ni que les mires a los ojos, ni que pongas en duda su capacidad en ningún ámbito. Ni se te ocurra, porque descargarán contra ti toda su ira.

España es, de hecho, en muchos aspectos, el Estado Charo por antonomasia: La Charocracia.

Ellas saben, ellas conocen, ellas son titanas de la ética y la moral.

Ellas si. Tu no. Y punto.

Son las matriarcas supremas, la esencia española.

Son el «porqueyolovalgo», son la risita estúpida en la despedida de soltera, son las que se mean de la risa con un monólogo de Carmen Machi en el que compara la picha de su marido con un chipirón, son las que controlan el club de lectura de tu bliblioteca municipal, son tus tías progres del pueblo, y en ciertos casos hasta tus madres.

Las charos son las que te pedían que te hipotecases, y que te casases, y ahora te acompañan dichosas a protestar en la plaza «contra los banqueros», y «El capital». (Lo ha dicho El País, y la Sexta). Y punto.

Las charos son las que compran los libros de Elvira Lindo, áman a Lucía Etxebarria, y matarían por tener como amiga íntima a Maruja Torres.

Las charos son las que han dicho «si» a la Transición sin concesiones. Son las viejas del futuro que jalearán a Letizia Ortíz y al Principe porque «son muy guapos, y muy demócratas».

Las charos son tus compañeras de trabajo, esas a las que no les puedes pedir un favor, porque tienen trienios y puntos, y tu no. «Tú trabaja, y cállate. Yo me voy a desayunar»

Son las que preguntan con cara de acelga y a gritos «Puri, ¿ya estás buena?». Son las que dicen «Me voy a coger una baja…porque sí».

Son las que afirman vehementes que el ser administrativas, o el estar en una ventanilla atendiendo a la gente, es algo tan infame, terrible, inhumano, y sacrificado como estar en una galera romana remando 15 horas seguidas. Y punto.

Las charos son las que te piden que no les digas a tu jefa que han perdido un informe, un papel, o un archivo, pero son las mismas que, si tu eres la que pierdes un papel, o cometes un error, te lo recordarán mientras vivas. Ellas nunca fallan. Nunca se equivocan. Eso es así. Apréndelo, y grábatelo a fuego.

Las charos son las que tienen todos los cursos y puntos posibles que otorgan Comisiones y UGT. Se creen revolucionarias como el Ché Guevara, y Alexandra Kollontai, pero ven «Salvame» y compran salsa barbacoa del Mercadona. Y punnnntoo.

Las charos son las que casi «te obligan» a ir a una manifestación a favor del Sahara, en contra de Israel, o para protestar contra la violencia de género en horas de trabajo, aunque a tí no te de la real gana.

Ojo con dudar de la efectividad de tales protestas: Serás crucificado, o asaeteado como San Sebastián. Y si eres mujer, prepárate para lo peor: Serás ignorada, insultada, y maltratada, y posteriormente quemada como una bruja en una hoguera eterna de calumnias y dolor, por los siglos de los siglos. ¡Y punnntoo!

Las charos controlan el lenguaje, y como si fueran las profesoras de un cruel parvulario de la era nazi, prentenden que tu, hombre o mujer, te pliegues a sus designios siempre, y sin poner en duda (jamas) sus razones. Aunque estas «razones» sean inhumanas, absurdas, o dañinas.

Algunas visten batas blancas, y su voz cazallera les delata «Ayyy Puri, bonita, cuídame el puesto que me voy a fumar, que estoy muyyyy estresada, ¿Vale?».

Son las que, cuando tu planteas una duda razonable, o pones en liza sus métodos, se revuelven como animales heridos y te contestan gritando «¿¿PERRDONAA??», meneando la cabeza, y fulminándote con la mirada, como si fueran madres negras del Bronx, antiguas arroceras romanas, o prostitutas ciegas de Hong-Kong. Pero con TDT, Wi-Fi y un marido que trabaja en Telefónica.

Las charos son quienes ponen o quitan un presidente. Son la fuerza bruta con olor de colonia imitación a Channel, y el «Semana» siempre en el bolso.

Son las que se tocan el potorro, dia si, y día también en su trabajo, y estudian poco o nada, para tratar de ganar una plaza, es decir, un estatus. Son las que tienen pleitos constantes con la administración, y con todo dios.

Son esas a las que, bajo pena de desprecio eterno, habrás de sonreir siempre. ¡¡Y punntoo!!

Las charos son Mercedes Milá. Son Jorge Javier Vazquez. Son Lidia Falcón, y Leire Pajín.

Las charos son destructoras de mundos. Las enemigas de la lógica. Asesinas de la verdad, y de la paz.

Ellas, aunque no lo creais, han sido el combustible esencial de la locura absurda en la que nos encontramos todos y todas. El catalizador. La madre. La Prima. La sobrina. Carmen Polo de Franco. Que guapas todas, y que listas. Qué independientes. Hay que ser como ellas. Si. Siempre.

Las charos son, en definitiva, el cáncer de España. El caciquismo supremo. La muerte del escepticismo coherente, de la lógica, de la modernidad y, sobre todo, de la razón.

«Y punnnnntooooo».

El concepto charo no lo lo inventé yo, ni mucho menos, si no un buen amigo mío hace ya años, que, como no, bregaba con estos especímenes en la administración. Poco a poco el concepto fue calando entre un reducido grupo de amigos (como el termino carapadre, que servidor también lanzó por aquí, con gran éxito).

Luego yo mismo también tuve la ocasión de trabajar mano a mano con auténticas charos del más alto nivel, y comprobar, y corroborar lo que decían mis amigos y amigas.

Obviamente no todas las mujeres son así pero si existe un enorme porcentaje de ellas que, con las características antes descritas, suponen (siendo objetivos) una auténtica lacra social a medio camino entre lo trágico, lo asquerosamente corrupto, y lo risible.

Se sacarán espadas para demostrar que las hojas son verdes en verano (Chesterton)

Las verdades se convierten en dogmas en el instante en que se disputan. Así, todo hombre que expresa una duda define una religión. Y el escepticismo de nuestro tiempo no destruye realmente las creencias, sino que las crea; les da sus límites y su forma sencilla y desafiante.

Nosotros, los liberales, en el pasado tomamos el liberalismo a la ligera, como una obviedad. Ahora ha sido disputado, y lo sostenemos ferozmente como una fe. Los que creemos en el patriotismo alguna vez pensamos que el patriotismo era razonable, y pensamos poco más sobre él. Ahora sabemos que no es razonable y sabemos que es correcto. Nosotros que somos cristianos nunca conocimos el gran sentido común filosófico inherente a ese misterio hasta que los escritores anticristianos nos lo señalaron.

Continuará la gran marcha de la destrucción mental. Todo será negado. Todo se convertirá en un credo. Es una posición razonable negar que hay piedras en la calle; será un dogma religioso afirmar que las hay. Es una tesis racional que todos estamos en un sueño; será una cordura mística decir que todos estamos despiertos. Se encenderán fuegos para testificar que dos y dos son cuatro. Se sacarán espadas para demostrar que las hojas son verdes en verano. Nos quedaremos defendiendo, no solo las increíbles virtudes y la cordura de la vida humana, sino algo más increíble aún, este inmenso universo imposible que nos mira a la cara. Lucharemos por los prodigios visibles como si fueran invisibles. Miraremos la hierba imposible y los cielos con un coraje extraño. Seremos de los que vieron y creyeron ”.

– G K. Chesterton, Herejes

Ganar, ganar y volver a ganar

Vicente Vallés.

Tomado de aquí

Cuenta la cultura popular que más sabe el perro por viejo que por perro. Eso, la experiencia, es lo que cautivaba de Luis Aragonés a los jugadores que habían servido a sus órdenes, ya fuera en los equipos a los que entrenó o en la selección nacional. Sus frases son legendarias, y sirven igual para el fútbol, que para la vida o la política. “Hay que meter la pierna larga”: dícese de estirar bien la extremidad, casi más lejos de lo que físicamente puede alcanzar, para robar el balón al rival. “Yo aquí no me trago un amago”: dícese de evitar que te regateen (o engañen). Y la más conocida: “el fútbol es ganar, ganar, ganar, ganar y volver a ganar”.

Las mentes que piensan para el presidente del Gobierno han mostrado en estos años una formidable capacidad para ‘meter pierna larga’ a los adversarios, evitar los amagos del contrario, y ganar, ganar y volver a ganar batallas políticas. Quien haya tenido la posibilidad de conocer en primera persona las tácticas que se manejan en los despachos del poder, habrá escuchado de boca de sus creadores la expresión inglesa ‘win-win’ (‘ganar-ganar’). En realidad, esta no es una conducta inventada para la política sino para los negocios, y consiste en realizar una transacción cuyo resultado sea que ambas partes salgan ganando con el acuerdo.

Se prevé un gasto público que alcanzará la no despreciable suma de 200 mil millones de euros, de la que, obviamente, algún día habrá que dar cuenta

Pero cuando el ‘win-win’ se ha trasladado a la política, quienes lo ejecutan han optado prioritariamente por utilizarlo en el sentido al que se refería Luis Aragonés: ganar, ganar y volver a ganar. Por supuesto, en ningún caso se ha aplicado con la intención de alcanzar pactos que beneficien a todas las partes sino que, ocurra lo que ocurra, siempre gana el mismo.

Llegados al décimo mes de legislatura, Pedro Sánchez gestiona un desastre sanitario con decenas de miles de muertos y centenares de miles de enfermos, al tiempo que una catástrofe económica con varios millones de parados e innumerables negocios destruidos. Sin embargo, enfila un futuro político en el que no aparecen sombras amenazadoras para su poder. Hasta ahora, ha conseguido establecer en el imaginario de los entusiastas del gobierno PSOE-Podemos que la responsabilidad principal de que España haya liderado los datos de la pandemia en el mundo es de la Comunidad de Madrid. Y la culpa de que tengamos los peores datos económicos de toda Europa es de la pandemia, no de la gestión política que el Gobierno ha hecho de ella. Por tanto, según esta tesis, el Gobierno Sánchez-Iglesias hace todo lo que puede, da todo lo que tiene y no podría haberlo hecho mejor.

Ahora, Moncloa espera con impaciencia la llegada de los fondos europeos. Se prevé un gasto público que alcanzará la no despreciable suma de 200 mil millones de euros, que pretende relanzar nuestra economía y de la que, obviamente, algún día habrá que dar cuenta. Este es el supuesto ‘win-win’ económico aunque, como bien recuerdan siempre los economistas, nada es gratis.

En el ámbito político, Sánchez ha sabido mantener atenazados a sus adversarios. El PP apenas levanta la cabeza episódicamente en batallas insustanciales, para tener que bajarla de nuevo ante la dura certeza de su debilidad. Hacer oposición nunca ha sido fácil.

Pero, aún más importante para el presidente: Sánchez tiene a Podemos y a su líder Pablo Iglesias ocupados en acometidas contra los jueces. Es una realidad que estamos ante la primera y, desde luego, la más intensa presión que la Justicia haya tenido que sufrir desde el Gobierno de la nación. Un vicepresidente dice, anclado en las alturas de su responsabilidad como miembro del Poder Ejecutivo, que es “inconcebible” que el Tribunal Supremo, el Poder Judicial, investigue si ha podido cometer algún delito. Y el presidente del Gobierno asegura que Iglesias cuenta con “todo mi apoyo”. Sin duda que será así. Porque nada interesa más a Sánchez que una situación como la actual: que el líder de Podemos esté en el Gobierno, pero maniatado.

Se cumple esa máxima del presidente americano Lyndon B. Johnson (también atribuida a su secretario de Defensa, Robert McNamara) de que es mejor tener al enemigo dentro meando hacia fuera, que fuera meando hacia dentro. Pablo Iglesias ya ha elevado el tono de sus declaraciones para amedrentar a los jueces, y sus colaboradores más estrechos lanzan invectivas campanudas contra la extrema derecha que nos invade por tierra, mar y aire, así en lo político, como en lo económico, en lo mediático y en lo judicial. Se entretienen.

Pero mientras el líder de Podemos se enreda en ese laberinto, Sánchez tratará de sacar adelante sus presupuestos para así asegurarse lo mucho que todavía puede quedar de legislatura. Porque, incluso si las cosas le fueran tan mal a Iglesias como para verse obligado a dimitir improbable— o para ser destituido y que Podemos rompiera la coalición —igual de improbable—, el presidente se podría dar el gusto de volver a gobernar en solitario hasta el final de este mandato porque seguiría sin haber, como no hay ahora, una mayoría alternativa real que pudiera reunirse en una moción de censura. ‘Win-win’.

Richard Lynn’s MEMOIRS of A DISSIDENT PSYCHOLOGIST: Life Story of A Genuine Scientist

Taken from here

Everyone with an interest in why our world is the way it is owes a debt of gratitude to Richard Lynn, the indefatigable psychometrician best known for his studies of how human intelligence various by country, race, and sex, as well as over time. He has provided ironclad documentation of the differences themselves, theorized about their evolutionary origins, and (with some help from his late Finnish colleague Tatu Vanhanen) demonstrated their explanatory value in relation to economics and politics. Lynn has now written an account of his life, Memoirs of a Dissident Psychologist.

Lynn’s work has made him many enemies, and as science seems to be moving into anew Dark Age, things seem to be getting worse. Two years ago, long after Lynn’s retirement he was formally stripped of his (purely honorific) emeritus status at the University of Ulster where he had created a psychology department from scratch and taught for twenty-three years. This was in response to a students’ union resolution accusing Lynn of advocating “racist and sexist” views. Of course, Lynn never simply “advocated views,” but rather published findings: a distinction apparently lost on both students and university authorities.

He writes of a lifelong attraction to “big ideas.” In his youth, this meant joining the Young Communist League. There he learned that capitalist countries needed two parties, one to represent the capitalists and one the workers—but that the Soviet Union, having overcome class conflict, only required one. Within about a year, he began developing doubts about Communism, but he remained a socialist for some time.

While Lynn was still a schoolboy, his father—a scientist and world expert on the genetics of cotton—gave him Wilfred Trotter’s Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War, a study of the human tendency to identify with groups, and suggested he consider studying psychology. The young Lynn had been attracted to history, but eventually he became dissatisfied with the discipline “because it was impossible to find the patterns that can be found in the sciences.” He was drawn to psychology as a way of getting at the ultimate wellsprings of such human behavior as warfare.

During a stint of Army service before he went to Cambridge, Lynn also found time to read Francis Galton’s Hereditary Genius(1869). Galton believed, and subsequent research has verified, that intelligence is a single entity and largely hereditary. He observed that in advanced civilizations the more intelligent individuals tend to have fewer children, with the result that the intelligence of the population declines. Lynn writes: “I found all this very interesting and it confirmed my intention to take psychology when I went up to Cambridge.”

He was to be disappointed. The intellectual heirs of Galton at this time were known as the “London School” of experimental psychology, led by Sir Cyril Burt and Hans Eysenck, but the entire psychology faculty at King’s College, Cambridge, where Lynn studied, detested them:

They never tired of deriding this group. My father told me that Sir Cyril Burt was nominated for fellowship of the Royal Society from time to time, but Bartlett [chairman of the King’s College Psychology Department] invariably blackballed him.

Lynn’s mentors favored environmental explanations, and their intelligence specialist told him that the low IQ of blacks in the US was attributable to discrimination.

Lynn’s introduction to hereditarianism came when his father introduced him to the botanist and geneticist Reginald R. Gates, who said the lower IQ of blacks was due to genetics:

This was the first time I had heard this view and as Gates was a Fellow of the Royal Society and a distinguished geneticist I took it seriously. Gates also asked me my opinion about eugenics and I told him I had read the studies by Burt and Cattell showing that intelligence was declining and I agreed with Cattell that eugenic measures were needed to correct this. He told me that he took the same view.

Adam Smith, whom Lynn read as a Cambridge undergrad, proved too much for hissocialist convictions. Nor did British workers appeared more satisfied under Attlee’s Labour government than they had been before. And, Lynn writes,

I was also concerned about the Commonwealth Citizens Act of 1948 which gave all Commonwealth citizens the right to come and live in Britain. As there were about a billion of these I doubted whether this was sensible. When the wisdom of this was questioned in the House of Commons by a conservative, a Labour minister assured him that very few would actually come. A week or two after the act was passed the first immigrants from Jamaica arrived on the Empire Windrush.

In 1959, for the first time, Lynn voted for the governing Conservative Party because they

…pledged to restrict the immigration from our colonies. I thought this was sensible because I believed it could be anticipated from Herbert Spencer’s in-group-amity out-group enmity principle, rebranded as ethnocentrism by William Sumner in his 1906 book Folkways, that there would be tension and conflict between the immigrants and the indigenous population.

In the 1960s, Lynn joined the British Eugenics Society in an effort to find independent-minded people like himself, but this proved a disappointment. By this time, the Society was running scared. Within a few years they removed the word “eugenics” from their name and that of their journal, and took to limiting their focus to such bland subject matter as contraception in Third World countries.

Between 1967 and 1972, Lynn was employed by Ireland’s Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI). The purpose of this body

…was to carry out research on the economic and social problems of Ireland. Foremost among these was that Ireland was quite economically backward compared with Britain, and I researched the literature to see what contribution I could make. It was not long before I discovered a study that reported that the IQ of Irish 12-year-olds was 90 compared with 100 in Britain.

Lynn independently confirmed this, but with uncharacteristic caution decided not to publish on the subject at that point.

It was also at ESRI that he met the son of John C. Raven, developer of one of the world’s most widely used intelligence tests, Raven’s Progressive Matrices:

Raven junior had a large collection of results from a number of countries but it apparently never occurred to him to calculate national IQs from these. He made these available to me and later I used many of them to calculate IQs for a number of countries and show that these are a major determinant of national differences in per capita incomes.

These were the seeds from which Lynn’s later book IQ and the Wealth of Nations(2002) would grow.

Lynn went on to establish a new Psychology Department at the University of Ulster and taught there for twenty-three years. In 1991 he published a theory that the Ice Age had increased European and Northeast Asian IQ by applying selective pressure for intelligence. In response,

two coaches of people from the Anti-Nazi League came to the university and disrupted my lecture and put up posters demanding “Sack racist Lynn”. The university administrators did not call the police or make any attempt to stop them.

Emphasis added. The current crisis in the West’s universities has been thirty years in the making.

A slightly less uncivilized incident involved Lynn’s attendance at an academic conference where he was outnumbered by colleagues who favored environmental explanations of human behavior. One of these asked him whether he felt he was among enemies:

I said I didn’t because I have never thought of these environmentalists as enemies and it is difficult for me to understand that this is how many of them regard me and others who regard genetic factors as important. Work on race differences excites a huge hostile emotional reaction in many people. This has always been difficult for me to understand, since for me race differences are simply a matter of scientific interest and I have never felt any emotion about the question.

Indeed, Lynn once pointed to his demonstration that Northeast Asians had higher average IQs than Europeans as one of his three most significant scientific achievements. (The other two items were 1) discovering that the black African IQ was about 70 rather than similar to the Black American average of 85; and 2) his compilation of studies on race and IQ around the world along with the “cold winters” theory of their origin.) [Race, Dysgenics, And The Survival Of The West, The Occidental Quarterly, Fall 2007] Yet this disinterested approach to knowledge appears unintelligible to Lynn’s critics, who continue to accuse him of “trying to prove” the superiority of his own race.

Fanatical egalitarians have not been the only force working against Lynn’s ideas. Another challenge has been the intellectual inertia and small-mindedness of most academics. In 1998, Lynn delivered a paper on dysgenic fertility. He recalls:

None of the audience expressed any interest. I had expected someone would say: “You mean the national intelligence is deteriorating genetically? Wow! This sounds really serious. What could be done about this?” But I did not get a single question. My paper was greeted with total indifference. This confirmed my previous experience that one of the strange things about psychology is that there are a few really interesting and important questions but hardly anyone is interested in them. I have always found that at psychology conferences virtually all the papers are concerned with trivia.

This academic mentality goes far to explain such anomalies as Hans Eysenck’s failure to be elected a fellow of the British Psychological Society, or Arthur Jensen’s never receiving “any of the many medals that the American Psychological Association hands out each year to nonentities.”

Lynn once asked Jensen about his willingness to dissent from popular orthodoxies:

He replied that he thought the explanation was that he didn’t mind being disliked by a lot of people. Most people, he said, have a dread of being disliked, but this was not something that bothered him. On another occasion, he told me that he had never had any interest in team sports. This is likely attributable to Jensen’s lack of identification with groups and is a further expression of his independence of mind.

Lynn reports a similar indifference in his own youth as to whether his school won or lost athletic matches. He contrasts this with the behavior he observed in many graduates of English “public” (i.e. elite private) schools, where boys were beatenfor even trivial breaches of the rules:

The objective was to instill a respect for authority and fear of stepping out of line. This was frequently effective and perhaps a good discipline for those who would later enter the armed services, civil service or the church and generally stood them in good stead in their subsequent careers.

Of course, it is notably fair of Lynn to point this out. But, as he goes on,

It was not so good for the few who became academics who have to be breakers of the conventional consensus if they are to do good original work. I have noticed that several of those who attended one of these public schools retained a lifelong fear of breaking the conventional consensus and have a strong aversion to others who do so.

Our universities are increasingly authoritarian institutions designed for conformists. It is hard to see that a young Richard Lynn would succeed in academe today.

In this age of academic corruption and cowardice, it is a joy to read the life story of a genuine scientist. Don’t miss Memoirs of a Dissident Psychologist.

Martin Witkerk [Email him] is an independent philosopher.

Juramento de Park Place Elementary School

Original en inglés más abajo. Sigue traducción.

¡Soy un éxito!

Creo en mí y en mi capacidad de hacerlo lo mejor que pueda

Soy positivo, seguro de mí mismo y amable con los demás

Tengo el control en todo momento y

acepto la responsabilidad por mis actos.

Tengo el valor de perdurar y persistir.

Sé que puedo tener éxito en mi escuela y en mi comunidad.

¡Soy un éxito de [la escuela] Park Place!

Original en inglés:

I am a success!

I believe in myself and my ability to do my best.

I am positive, confident and kind to others.

I am in control at all times and

Take responsibility for my actions.

I have the courage to endure and persist.

I know I can succeed at school and in my community.

I am a Park Place success!

¿Qué es lo que debe cambiar para que el mundo cambie?

Traducción de una respuesta a este párrafo de Internet. Original en inglés aquí.

Su nombre es la ideología que se ha convertido en una caja negra, una prisión mental, en la que nos hemos vuelto incapaces de imaginar otra forma de organizar nuestra vida, cualquier otro futuro que el que estamos destinados en este momento. El nombre de esa ideología es capitalismo.

No, el nombre de esa ideología es la llamada «Ilustración». El capitalismo es solo una de sus manifestaciones . El autor ha rechazado el capitalismo sin rechazar la Ilustración. No es consciente de la forma en que le han lavado el cerebro. […]

La Ilustración afirmó que el hombre es naturalmente bueno (Rousseau) por lo que el mal es causado por los sistemas políticos, económicos o culturales. En realidad, el mal es intrínseco a la naturaleza humana (lo que los cristianos llamamos «pecado original»).

Los últimos siglos (y especialmente, las últimas décadas) han tenido las siguientes características:

1. La búsqueda de la «libertad», que es una bonita forma de decir «egoísmo» (el cual tradicionalmente se llamaba «pecado»). La gente se considera buena, así que no quiere estar sujeta a su conciencia, al qué dirán o a las reglas sociales. Haz lo que quieras, todo vale, ves donde tu corazón te lleve… Lo único que quieren es hacer su propia voluntad. Luego, hacen postureo moral con la causa progresista de moda para no sentirse egoístas sino virtuosos.

2. Esto produce una anarquía creciente (ved la [ridícula] tasa de criminalidad en Londres a principios del siglo XX), que se administra mediante la tecnología y la riqueza que produce la tecnología. Es decir, hay un ejército de burócratas (trabajadores sociales, funcionarios públicos, etc.) que intentan manejar la disfunción de nuestra sociedad.

Los resultados son malos, por lo que la gente busca una solución. Pero la ideología de la Ilustración, que funciona como una religión laica, le ha lavado el cerebro a la gente, por lo que la única salida que ven es cambiar el sistema (en este caso, el capitalismo). Hemos visto lo bien que ha funcionado esto.

La gente no cree que tenga que cambiar porque se ve a sí misma como buena, aunque es más egoísta que cualquier otra generación de la historia. Piensa que lo que tiene que cambiar es el sistema, es decir, las demás personas. Pero no se puede hacer un buen edificio (sistema) con defectuosos ladrillos (personas), no importa cómo coloques estos ladrillos.

About the real problem of our society

Reply to this

Its name is the ideology that has become a black box, a mental prison, in which we have become incapable of imagining any other way of organising our lives, any other future than the one we are destined for at the moment. That ideology’s name is capitalism.

No, that ideology’s name is the so-called «Enlightenment». Capitalism is only a manifestation of it. The author has rejected capitalism without rejecting the Enlightenment. He is unaware of the way he has been brainwashed. He thinks he is outside the matrix but he is inside it.

The Enlightenment stated that the man is naturally good (Rousseau) so evil is caused by the political, economical or cultural systems. In fact, evil is intrinsic to human nature (what Christians call «original sin»).

The last centuries (and especially, the last decades) have had the following characteristics:

1. The search for «freedom», which is a fancy word for «selfishness» (which was traditionally called «sin»). People consider themselves as good so don’t want to be subjected to their conscience, stigma, social rules. Nothing but «do what you will» will do. Then, they virtual signal with a fashionable progressive cause to feel that they are virtuous and not selfish.

2. This produces an increasing anarchy (please see the crime rate in London at the beginning of the XX century), which is managed by technology and the wealth that technology produces. So there is an army of bureaucrats (social workers, civil servants, etc.) that try to manage the dysfunction of our society.

The outcomes are bad so people look for a solution. But the people have been brainwashed by the Enlightenment ideology, which works as a secular religion, so the only way out they see is to change the system (in this case, capitalism). We have seen how well this has worked.

People don’t think they have to change themselves because they see themselves as good, although they are more selfish than any other generation in history. The thing that has to change is the system, that is, the other people. But you can’t make a good building (system) with defective bricks (people), no matter how you arrange these bricks.