Archive for July 26th, 2009


When Political Correctness loses an argument hopelessly, its response is to pretend it never happened.

The argument over Communists infesting the State Department in the 1950s is simply not discussed any more. Even the word McCarthyism is very rare now since somebody will always use the label to point to the now undisputed fact that he was right.

The battle to suppress racial IQ differences is to gone that top psychological journals are happy to get lead articles from Jensen and Rushton. Otherwise, it is not mentioned, nor is the earlier repression.

Political Correctness is no more inventive than any other established religion.
All of them used their established power to force forgetfulness on any issue they have lost. The Catholic Church “forgot” Galileo for centuries. It is standard admission that The Infallible Was Wrong.

“The Myth of Race” is another standard tactic.
When J. Edgar Hoover recognized that he was not smart enough to fight real organized crime, he declared, “The Mafia is a Myth.”

Predictably, faced with defeat on all fronts, the establishment has declared that the whole subject of race is a myth.

The myth of the Mafia was destroyed when its leaders were caught in a national meeting in upstate New York, no thanks to the FBI. “Race is a myth” is dealt with by the Mantra, where Political Correctness is exposed as aiming all its fire on countries that are white. They are themselves proving than race is very, very real TO THEM.


1 Comment



Horus has done excellent work on practical politics, but these posts on “An Example of Missing the Point” and “Near Misses” are the real lesson of practical politics.

We are NOT faced with any task that requires us to be intelligent. Nor do we need to be equipped with any deep insights. We don’t even need to apprehend the situational logic we find ourselves in. And we don’t need to concern ourselves with our opponents’ motives.

That’s because believing we have to be smart gives an opening to our opponents, unintentional concessions that allow us to slip into the “near misses” Bob is talking about. These “near misses” are unintentional concessions that say, “I have to be full of true information and deep insights to oppose you”. The mistake is in believing there is something to be argued when the truth is far simpler. The mistake is giving an opening to our opponents they don’t deserve.

Semmelweis had nothing to argue. Actually, he didn’t have to know anything. The results of his method (washing his hands) spoke for itself.

Understanding how the example of Semmelweis relates to the Mantra allows us to shed a lot of baggage.

It is great guidance on how not to stray, on how to avoid getting mired in argument, and on how to avoid making concessions, however unintentional they may be.


No Comments