Gould is considered the archetypical Kevin MacDonald Professor of Evil - a powerful conspirator against the White race. I got some books of his (the University library throws away thousands of unsolicited books every year, and I pick them up. My wife recycles them into trash as soon I am not looking, but by an Act of Gould this book escaped her kind attentions), searched them for signs of his evility and found none.
I like Gould for several reasons, firstly because he is 100% Hungarian Jew. If that was not enough, I couldnt find anything in his writing related to what he was being accused of. On the contrary. He was curator of Harvard's old bones collection and spent his life classifying snails. These people are fanatics of precision and structurally unable to call black what they see is white.
He is no liberal and he is not "green". He writes a superb article AGAINST "natural" gardens and nature reserves. Native plants are not fitter, superior, more in harmony with Earth than foreign, invasive, "immigrant" plants. Native weeds or communities developed as consequence of contingency are transient forms. He rejects the idea that Nature, evolution, reality having moral or aesthetic meaning at all.
He may caused racists to dislike him by saying that species do not replace each other, evolution works by branching out and not by fighting frontal battle-ax combats and by substituting, exterminating, the weak by the strong. He rejected the romantic idea that critters churned out by evolution can be ranked: they are all products of meaningless contingency.
He was anti "Green" and anti HDB supremacist. Why is he hated so much?
Addendum: Jensen said it best: "Gould's drawing conclusions from early intelligence research is like condemning the auto industry by criticizing the performance of the Model T." J. Philippe Rushton accused Gould of attacking dead arguments. I am always surprised by Gould's obsessive attacks on old classifications. What if two hundred years ago Linneaus, looking at the dozen different skulls he had, misclassified human races? Debunking him now smells of intellectual dishonesty, or a childish admiration for the founding giants of descriptive biology.
To whom shall I compare Gould? To our pathetic President Shimon Peres. Twenty years ago there was a civil war and famine in Ethiopia and thousands fled barefeet to Sudan. Peres was seized by a state of holy excitation, he emotionally called "to save Ethiopian Jews from Holocaust". In sacred trance he hypnotized the elderly European Jews leading this country. They ordered the Army of Saints to save the Jews, and the Israeli Air Force, now we know, occupied Addis Ababa and herded the shell-shocked, cathatonic Negritos into cargo planes. Peres was filmed dropping large, hot, sincere tears at the airport: "I failed to save my sister in Poland, but we saved our African brothers". Gould believed that early race scientists caused the Holocaust, so he set out to discredit them, to destroy them. Only that those forgotten nineteenth century race scientists were no danger to the Jews of today and he soiled himself by debunking those long dead Victorian gentlemen.
Gould should not be hated. He should be pitied.
17 comments:
"The Mismeasure of Man"
I do not care to know why the HBD or McDonald crowd dislike SJ Gould, but I have my own reasons. Firstly he wasted my time by writing all those thick books that prove only that he was a good essayist. Secondly as a conniving Marxist he would carry on about how religion and science were not incompatible yet to no one's surprise invariably came down on the side of 'science' when it came to sticking it to the religious. Dennett, the other overrated idiot was much more honest in his intentions towards the religious when he openly called for their children to be taken away from them. Thirdly his arguments are absurd. For a particularly egregious example, take the special pleading in 'The Wonderful Life' in which he tries to tackle the difficulties created for the Darwinian fable of evolution of species, through the accumulation of small differences by the intense explosion of biota during the Cambrian age as revealed in the Burgess shale. Now clearly when one has a profusion of so many phyla and what not in such a (comparatively) short time, the Darwinian narrative is reduced to peddling Goldschmidt's 'hopeful monster' theory or at best like Conway in his 'Life's Solution' grant much more creative power to the physical laws. This our friend refuses do, as that would invoke a godlike mind in the universe, who had created physical laws in the first place. Instead he asks us to imagine a Jimmy Stewart movie in reverse as though that solves anything. Did I say that he was a master of obfustication? Anyway I'll stop now as I have to go home.
Ivan
To expand on the 1st post above, Gould was zealous in arguing that there is no such thing as IQ (and therefore it is OK to grant preferential treatment to racial minorities who score worse on tests than white people). Pay no attention to those poor test scores - they are meaningless, etc. Even though Gould was a real scientist in his true specialty, as a "public intellectual" he used his scientific capital to promote his personal political beliefs in areas that had nothing to do with his expertise (and beclowned himself in the process). In this respect he reminds me of Krugman.
K
Please read the Addendum.
He was anti "Green" and anti HDB supremacist. Why is he hated so much?
Because Gould = JEW. MacDonald find JEW blank slatist to excuse Gentile blank slater.
Greatest anti-HBDer in history was Hitler, not Boas or Gould.
Btw Franz Boas was not villain.
White supremacist love Hitler even but Hitler killed more Europeans than Jews and damaged the conservatism/racism more than any Communist Jew could ever hope.
I read your addendum and it sounds like you have changed your tune - before you asked why people hate him - he is a good person? Now you say we should not hate him but rather pity him, which is something else entirely. I don't know whether the appropriate response for a dishonest "public intellectual" is hate or pity, but whatever it is , it should not be a positive response. The dishonest essayist (and he was a very skilled and entertaining essayist in the classical sense)sets up straw men and then of course proceeds to easily demolish them. We should not speak ill of the dead but he is one of the people who have, despite their supposed "good intentions" brought Western society to the verge of a precipice from which we may never recover. Once the omelet of the gene pool is scrambled, there is no easy way to unscramble it again and restore the races who (and only who) gave rise to modernity.
K
We should not speak ill of the dead but he is one of the people who have, despite their supposed "good intentions" brought Western society to the verge of a precipice
There's lots of blame to go around for that...
Once the omelet of the gene pool is scrambled,
Interracial marriage is low.
European race far from cooked...
One cannot seperate either SJ Gould's or R Lewontin's work on intelligence from the milieu they inherited. At that time the Darwinists in the US (and the UK) were largely associated with the Right, whose fantasies about breeding and Social Darwinism had a large malign influence on the Nazis. Gould and Lewontin quite rightly took up their cudgels on behalf of the progressive forces. Where they erred was in overstating their case. There are differences in IQ, but within large tolenaces, that does not matter for normal functioning in society. The breakdown of the blacks into a seething, degenerate class has more to do with the eclipse of Christian morality than anything else.
Ivan
Gould was a clever man who abused his powers to disseminate obvious nonsense about human intellect,in the interests of his leftwing politics,and so helped to create the climate in which the perfectly reasonable sentiments expressed above by K are regarded as not only unacceptable in modern society, but a thought crime.
Anon.
Gould, as far the trashed books I have read, did not deal with contemporary IQ research. He beat the dead horses of pre-Nazi race scientists.
On the other hand, those race specialists may not be as dead as we suppose. Hungarian and German nazi internet sites post complete files of race tractates of the 1920s, complete with extremely biased black and white pictures of the typical Jew, Dinaric, Alpine, Hottentot, whatever races. That material is still being used and consumed, outdated and ridiculous as it is.
Moreover, old facsimiles of the accusations of the Tiszaeszlar blood trial are available on the net and they are discussed as if they were actual. And we should not forget the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a totally absurd and incoherent falsification, yet still running. I think Gould's efforts should be understood in this framework.
Since personally am impervious and unaffected by PC nonsense, I dont feel that he contributed to its current pervasiveness. I think the PC censure existing today in the media is not a consequence of Gould or other writers, but consequence of the very real and actual social problem of accommodating a potentially violent and disruptive African minority. Everybody is telling "white lies" all the time in order to avoid offending those hypersensitive morons and make them feel well and worthy and superior, and to convince them that they are as they are because of some unspecified magical influence by evil people.
I appreciate the context and the need to mount opposition to the junk science which motivated the Nazis.
Unfortunately, there is also the need to oppose the equally junk science which motivates the modern-day practitioners of PC.
Israel is one of the least PC countries in the West; but already you are starting to see its pernicious effects. And you will see more, much more; and it will be bad, and come eventually to add to, and even to orchestrate, the many threats to your existence as a nation.
The idea that all people have an equal intellectual potential is one of the central planks of PC. It justifies, for example, large scale immigration into the West of peoples from South Asia, Africa and the Caribbean. It justifies forced integration of these people into our schools and higher centers of education. It justifies the belief that their philosophical and religious world views are equal to, and compatible with our own.
And most pernicious of all, it justifies a lack of action on the part of the Western governments to apply pro-natalist policies in Western people. If people are all the same, why bother? It is merely a detail that whites are replaced by immigrants in the West, and by extension, that Jews are replaced in the Middle East by their more prolific neighbors.
It also feeds into the current and future economic collapse of the West, which is now obviously in an advanced stage. If these immigrants are all equal to us, why should they not equally be capable of the same degree of wealth creation?
The manipulators behind PC of course understand the reality very well; but they need an army of useful idiots to carry out their plans. White people, despite their violent past, in general are susceptible to guilt, and outgroup altruism; and this is what the PC spiders are exploiting in our countries, as they set about destroying our societies. The IQ scam is central to their efforts and that is why it is so critical to get to, and disseminate the truth.
Anon.
Well said Anon. And as you say, the PC spiders have made any opinion but their own a thought crime, so the public debate is conducted on completely loaded terms which pre-determine the outcome. Anyone who deviates in the slightest from PC thought is a drooling "racist" worthy of no further consideration (while actual deviants of all sorts are praised in proportion to their degree of deviancy - true freaks are worthy of the highest praise). It is a sick, sick situation and in many formerly "liberal" countries of Northern Europe it will end with a bang once their minorities become the majority and impose Sharia law upon the populace and harsh punishments upon those who welcomed them the most.
K
In general, the Nazis gave eugenics a very bad name. So any discussion at all of "selective breeding" or discouraging the feeble minded from outbreeding the more intelligent is immediately condemned as leading directly to the chimneys of Auschwitz. If "racial science" is no science at all, why do it's enemies (such as Gould) have to resort to falsehoods and straw man attacks on 90 year old research? Two wrongs do not make a right.
K
I dont believe Gould used deliberate falsehood in his fight against "racial science". On the contrary he used new knowledge unavailable to those Victorian gentlemen to debunk their writings. In that sense he was unfair, fighting an asymmetric war against old ghosts. He did have an ethnic agenda, like everybody else, and he emphasized his Jewishness all along, but he did not employ scientific dishonesty.
I'm not so sure.
Anon.
Post a Comment