Science, Pseudoscience, and Science Fiction

Another “movement” fail.  Emphasis added.

Maybe Johnson should read more Wolfe and Vance, and watch less Star Trek, if he’s going to propose that science fiction is always promoting liberal globalist utopias.

My first premise is: No form of government is fully compatible with scientific and technological progress if it is founded on dogmas that are contrary to fact. For instance, the republic of Oceania might have a population of intelligent and industrious people, an excellent educational system, first rate infrastructure, and a booming economy. But if the state religion of Oceania mandates that the Earth is flat and lies at the center of the universe, Oceania is not going to take us to the stars.

That’s true.  Therefore any government led by Der Movement, with its nonfactual, failed dogmas is not “going to take us to the stars.”  Der Movement, as chronicled here, openly lies about, for example, genetics studies on Ancient Egypt.  It lies about almost everything.  They do so repeatedly. You can’t “go to the stars” based on a foundation of lies.  Yes, the Nazis built V2 rockets and that’s great.  They also dismissed Relativity as “Jewish science.”  You’re not “going to the stars” with Type I stupidity.

My second premise is: The advocacy of racially and ethnically diverse societies—regardless of whether they have liberal or conservative regimes—is premised on the denial of political experience and the science of human biological diversity.

Case in point.  Here Johnson promotes a key feature of “movement” pseudoscientific lying – HBD – and classifies it as a “science.”  This is proof positive that “traditionalist” “snug in your hobbit hole” Type I “traditionalists” know nothing about science – real science, the Popperian science that Harpending talked about.  Endless lies and hand-waving spin to prop up failed hypotheses, coupled to an aversion to true hypothesis testing, is not science.  It is a fraud. Look at Dutton’s book on Rushton – it revealed Rushton as a fraud, but the fanboys and fangirls still rally around their HBD cult figure, and then they have the nerve to accuse “Jewish intellectual movements” of being cult-like.  On the other hand, HBD can itself be considered a Jewish intellectual movement, so there’s that.

My third premise is: Ethnonationalism is based on both political experience and the science of human biological diversity—and does not deny any other facts. Therefore, ethnonationalism is more compatible with scientific and technological progress than are racially and ethnically diverse societies—other things being equal.

Well, HBD is a fraud, and so, yes, I can agree that ethnonationalism is based on a fraud.  Agreement!  Agreement!

In short, if liberal democracy and global capitalism are returning us to the mud, it is ethnonationalism that will take us to the stars.

Rewritten:

In short, if liberal democracy and global capitalism are returning us to the mud, and if ethnonationalism will lead us to murderous intra-European warfare and ethnic cleansing (advocated by its followers), it is pan-Europeanism that will take us to the stars.

Any serious major political movement needs people with serious science backgrounds.  In particular, any movement centered around a biological concept such as race absolutely needs scientists, especially those with a biological specialty that would be helpful in interpreting race-related matters.  Having “traditionalists” and “metapolitical philosophers,” or the typical Type I bully boys and juvenile Beavis-and-Butthead Alt Righters rambling incoherently about science won’t cut it.  STEM folks associated with the Left – and there are plenty – will carve up those folks like a dinner roast.  The Right – especially the Far Right – needs its own STEM heavy artillery, and such is in short supply.  Harpending and Whitney were examples of appropriate individuals; Cochran, Lynn, and Rushton are/were laughable popguns. The latter are what Harpending dismissed as “true believers” – not real scientists (although Harpending tragically wasted his time taking the likes of Cochran seriously).

As I’ve written here before, the problem is that the Right seems inherently hostile to genuine science; thus, it has problems attracting STEM people to begin with and, then, if any are attracted, it has even more trouble retaining them.  Now, it would seem like the Left would have the same problem; after all, the Left is even more pseudoscientific than is the Right.  But the Left has certain advantages: it’s superficially anti-religious, rational, secular, and materialist nature is more compatible with the scientific mind, and, paradoxically, the Left’s reality as a faux religion, full of irrational dogma (albeit masquerading as secular rationalism), provides the motive force for fanatical adherence.  Thus, the Left attracts scientists with its secular and rational veneer, and then holds on to them by infecting them with the religious fervor of SJWism.  The Right on the other hand, with its irrational, mystical, non-materialist, religious veneer of “traditionalist” nonsense is not attractive to the scientific mind, and then the weakness and bourgeoisie values of the Right cannot even keep those scientists who are attracted, cannot retain them as solid adherents because there is no attractive ideological base to form the basis of fanatical adherence.  The Right is a two-time loser in this regard.

Also, of course, the Left has the System behind it, in fact it IS the System, and as such has all sorts of goodies to bestow on scientists who toe the line.  On the other hand, the Far Right has what to offer?  Ridicule?  Social pricing? Colleagues who are semi-retarded nitwits and purveyors of pseudoscientific garbage?

Advertisements