The Nature of the Liberal ScientistÉmile Durand
It has baffled me for a long time why scientists, among all people, are among the most fervent proponents of egalitarianism and race denialism. This phenomenon is more salient in the humanities and social sciences, on which many would have a second thought before qualifying them as “science.” Nevertheless, the same is true for the hard sciences as well. Especially mind-boggling has been the denial of the biological underpinnings and heritability of race and sex differences in intelligence and behavior. After all, if one accepts the central tenets of evolutionary biology and population genetics and regards the brain as just another organ subject to the laws of biology, it shouldn’t be so difficult to figure out that since different human population groups inhabited different environments and hence were subjected to different evolutionary pressures for tens of thousands of years, their brains should also have evolved differently, leading to genetically-determined differences in intelligence and other behavioral traits best adapted to their ancestral environments.
Jewish subversion of academia is of course a salient issue which played a crucial role in race, and more recently sex, denialism. However, Jews are not as vastly overrepresented in biological science faculties as they are in the humanities. Had there been enough will on the part of gentile biologists, they would have easily countered and smashed the flimsy race-denialist sophistry of the likes of Steven Jay Gould or Richard Lewontin. This therefore indicates a willing acceptance of the egalitarian worldview by most white biologists and geneticists, in spite of all the data at their disposal arguing otherwise.
In order to understand this baffling phenomenon of race and sex denialism by scientists, we should search for clues in the subconscious domain – i.e., why it is that most of them are instinctively inclined to deny these uncomfortable truths.
In spite of all that Enlightenment philosophy might allege, decision-making and adherence to a certain worldview primarily involve subconscious urges rather than objective evaluation of evidence. Humans therefore do not principally differ on this essential point from other animals. In most cases, our knowledge and rational argumentation primarily serve to affirm our pre-existing beliefs, which in turn are formed by our subconscious urges and proclivities, rather than to change them or replace them with new ones.
In order to figure out the nature of race denialism among scientists, we have to understand what kind of subconscious urges correlate with the desire to study science and/or follow an academic career.
Nietzsche can offer us a glimpse into the roots of this problem. He states that those who tend to systematize and try to understand natural phenomena have difficulties in partaking in them themselves, especially with regards to human nature. He claims that those who try to understand it systematically are driven to do it because they lack that natural, instinctual virility in the first place.
It follows, then, at least in modern times, that those who are inclined to choose scientific disciplines are also instinctively inclined to reject natural hierarchy and inequality, and the overwhelming objective evidence and rational considerations, which they are expected to uphold, are not enough to influence them.
This presumes low average testosterone levels among scientists, and given that the liberal mindset correlates with a more feminine brain, this can explain why most scientists lean liberal in spite of all the contrary evidence which should be enough to debunk their worldview.
More is needed to explain this phenomenon, however. After all, until very recently (and even now in some cases), there have been scientists exploring and systematically affirming inherent race and sex differences in intelligence as well as in other behavioral traits. Even if we assume lower than average testosterone levels among academics, they are still high enough to permit the objective affirmation of the natural order and the hereditarian worldview.
Until very recently, it was hard to become a scientist and the decision to pursue a scientific career involved a willing renunciation of many worldly comforts for the sake of the quest for the truth and explaining the mysteries of the universe, including those of the human brain. People choosing an academic career were therefore highly dedicated individuals undaunted by the prospects of low living standards and hardship. Their main guiding force was finding the objective truth. Such character traits presuppose decent amounts of testosterone in the body and a sufficiently masculine brain.
Things began to change as education became more and more accessible and began to be regarded both as a “right” and a symbol of higher status. More and more people started choosing science not primarily because they were interested in understanding human nature, but because this offered them a sense of superiority over their less educated peers and the opportunity to flaunt their academic degrees. Soon, in academia, those genuinely seeking knowledge were numerically overwhelmed by those who saw it as an opportunity to affirm their self-worth. Education was easy to obtain, and with ample amounts of funding and scholarships available, being a scientist did not involve material hardships anymore.
This inevitably led to the feminization of the average scientist’s brain, with concomitant liberalization of the academic environment. Exacerbating this trend was increasing female involvement in science faculties through affirmative action quotas.
Nietzsche’s assessment of the scientist’s psyche is far more apt today than during his age, although the same trends were already present even then. The average scientist today is a spiteful creature, teeming with hatred against the common folk, against whom he feels entitled to feel superior simply by virtue of him possessing certain credentials and being “educated.” This brings with it the desire to deprecate long-held beliefs and customs on the grounds that they are irrational and allegedly not supported by facts.
Low testosterone level and the inferiority complex and spitefulness brought about by it give rise to the desire to deconstruct the belief system, worldview, and customs of the common folk. Until recently, this has been subserved by the absence of data affirming the soundness and evolutionary importance of common prejudices, which have been propagated from generation to generation at an instinctual level, without their validity being questioned.
In essence, the Enlightenment attempt to reject long-established customs was driven not by the objective realization that they do not conform to rational thinking, but rather by the instinctive, subconscious urge to simply deny and deconstruct what was held dear by the common folk, because those attempting to deconstruct those customs were themselves not able to successfully partake in them. The pretension of rationality and adherence to hard facts are in reality only a cloak used to subconsciously justify this attempt, which in turn arises from deep-held hatred against tradition and the common man upholding it.
Until recently, this did not lead to any dissonance or hypocrisy due to a lack of data affirming the validity of those long-held prejudices and customs. In recent decades, however, biology began to explain and, to the horror of Leftist academics, rationally affirm what was deemed irrational. Today we know, for example, that prejudice has a strong evolutionary utility guarding an individual or the whole group from making hasty decisions that may be detrimental to their survival. We know that marriage, family, and traditional sex roles are not arbitrary systems wantonly imposed upon the society in order to oppress the weak, but rather have a strong, biologically-justified utility, and are optimally suited to ensure societal stability and continuation of a population group. We know that the reasons for differential success between different racial/ethnic groups lie not in some of them being arbitrarily oppressed by others, but in differences in average levels of robustly quantifiable cognitive and behavioral traits inherent to those groups.
Of course, those embarking on the attack against the common folk and deconstructing their ways of life did not expect that their declared ideals, in other words rationality and objective evidence, would end up affirming the prejudices of “Deplorables.” Herein lies the root of the hypocrisy of the liberal scientist. Those who proclaim rationality as their cherished ideal, who “march for science” and “fucking love science,” do not really search for the truth, but rather use science for moral preening, the need for which arises from their own inferiority complex. And they are more than ready to dispense with the hard facts once they happen to justify the long-held traditions and prejudices of society.
A real scientist, however, is not the one who despises the common folk and his own roots, but rather the one who cherishes and rationally affirms them through his own deep understanding of human nature. And all the recent developments in the biological sciences do indeed augur the rise of this type of scientist in the future. We are approaching a saturation point where pretense of rationality and adherence to evidence cannot coexist with the liberal egalitarian worldview. In the process, this will gradually see the exit of the spiteful, low testosterone types from science, since the latter will not serve to caress their ego and feed into their wish to feel superior anymore.
The Alt Right will stand at the junction of this transformation, with its rise and eventual triumph in the West commencing a new understanding of human nature which is hitherto unparalleled in history.
First, customs were instinctively followed without being questioned. Then, with the Enlightenment, rational dissection kicked in, but since there was not enough data at the time to affirm those customs, they were rejected. Now we are reaching a completely novel plane of existence where we return to cherishing those customs and prejudices, but this time through knowledge and rational understanding of their utility. And in the process, all the above-mentioned liberal academics who refuse to accept these facts and change their worldview accordingly will be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Institutional Racism Explained
A “Novel” Approach to the Understanding of Evil
Forgotten Roots of the Left: Fichte’s Moral & Political Philosophy, Part II
Faustovská civilizace a nový patriarchát
A Woman’s Guide to Identifying Psychopaths, Part 8 Religion & Virtue
The Populist Moment, Chapter 10, Part 1: The Ambiguity of “Communitarianism”
Blacks Will Be Blacks
The Populist Moment, Chapter 9, Part 1: “Conservatives of the Left” & the Critique of Value
“Low testosterone level and the inferiority complex and spitefulness brought about by it give rise to the desire to deconstruct the belief system, worldview, and customs of the common folk.”
Fair enough. I see enough of those types among my “colleagues.” But also keep in mind that the scientific enterprise in America is:
1. saturated with Jews and Asians. This should not have been allowed to happen. Direct complaints, re: this to the HBDers and other who fetishize “Jewish and Asian IQ”
2. overseen by administrators, enriched in non-Whites and SJW Whites, many of whom have no scientific background
3. dependent to a large extent by “grant money” that’s not going to be given to projects of a “race realist” nature (see points 1 and 2 above)
4. not understood or respected (in its objective sense – I’m not talking about the perversion it has become) by racial activists
How are racial activist scientists treated by “movement” activists? People who relentlessly question and probe – the heart of scientific skepticism and empiricism?
Thinking more about the association of scientists with the Left, one must consider the aspect of human nature that people tend to cluster with “like” and where they feel most comfortable – and this includes ideology/worldview as well as more demographic considerations.
Once Jews, Asians, and SJW Whites established a foothold in American science, it became more difficult for Rightists to work there, establish a career, feel comfortable, or be accepted. Academia as a whole is Leftist (for reasons that will be discussed more specifically for science), and the Left guards its prerogatives and weeds out “dissidents” (“Watsoned”).
And how did Jews, Asians, and the White Left become entrenched to begin with? There are many reasons, but on major one is discussed below. Keep in mind – once entrenched, ethnic nepotism and discrimination against Rightist White men can very well maintain the entrenchment.
The Right is perceived as being close-minded, religious, anti-science – all the “traditionalist” tropes that would tend to turn off the empirical and science-minded. The Left traditionally has been perceived as open-minded and progressive and science-friendly (of course this is not true, particularly today, but I am talking about perceptions). Thus, one would expect science, over time, to drift Left, to weed out Rightists, and tend to attract leftists, creating a “society” congenial to a Left attitude and one distinctly unfriendly to Right-Wing attitudes.
Further, even the Right types in science tend to be aracial “cognitive elitists” who have aracial solidarity to “high IQ Jews and Asians” (who themselves of course practice ruthless ethnic nepotism, further weeding out dissident White men).
Now, there is some truth to the stereotypes. While the Left today is also close-minded and dogmatic, the Right continues to be as rigid as ever. And don’t give me HBD and secular racialism – to me, those are just as much religions as, say, evangelical Christianity. HBD is pseudoscience and “movement” dogma is as much based on blind faith as any traditional religion. To those who say “science is a religion” I say that true science is not. If religion is based on faith that is impervious to contrary facts, then true science is such that questions even itself and is ready to abandon ideas if they are contrary to facts. Consider that science takes seriously even critiques of the scientific method itself – for example, Kuhn’s attack on Popperian epistemology. Kuhn may be right or wrong, but he’s given a hearing. I don’t remember when HBDers or “movement” activists truly questioned any of their core beliefs. It’s religious faith for them. Thus, science as such is not always compatible with the Old Movement.
In Europe, even in nations where the scientific endeavor is more ethnically homogenous, there is still the prejudice against the Right as close-minded, anti-scientific, and religious, and the Left being more in tune with “scientific progress.” Over time, these perceptions become self-perpetuating as individuals cluster like-minded among like-minded. Again, consider that academia as a whole is Leftist, not just science.
However, Jews are not as vastly overrepresented in biological science faculties as they are in the humanities.
Is there a decent central source for the percentage of jewish practitioners in various fields?
Don’t have a specific number at hand, but I know for a fact that (medical) genetics is ridiculously, overwhelmingly Jewish. Has to do with the large number of Jew-specific diseases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_genetics_of_Jews
Also a heads-up: all the large commercial ancestry/haplogroup analyzers like 23andme are owned by Jews. Not only do they sample goy genes for their own ends, I also heard quite a few believable anecdotes that they sometimes like to mess with customers, reporting e.g. Jewish or black traces were really none should be present, i.e. in Danes or Germans with well-researched family trees going back 300 years or more.
“…why it is that most of them are instinctively inclined to deny these uncomfortable truths?”
The answer is simple. Fear of ostracism. I am convinced that 99% of these “scientists” know in the depths of their souls the obvious truths about race. But, they are scared shitless about being labeled racist or losing their vaunted positions. The Jews instinctively KNOW this achilles heel of the Western mind and use their total control over the dissemination of ideas, opinions as well as the suppression of facts to herd us into their world of lies. But, optimist that I am… I see an inevitable rubber band whiplash of truth coming soon. You can’t thwart a law of nature forever… she will ALWAYS win in the end.
What role is played by simple cowardice?
VERY important article, well done. Unfortunately, I met loads of IQ130+ science dudes in uni denying the anthropological consequences of the very subjects they were studying. Perhaps we should return to a monastic and sex-separated model of doing science, all those young females lead to endless amounts of whiteknighting and intellect-denying virtue-signalling.
Truth-seeking Enneagram 5 types have been thinned out by other types who as you say are seeking status and money and who if not for these things may not be in the profession. Scientists have always wanted to help people, but now that impulse seems to be overriding the impulse to search for truth. There is probably relatively more applied science today than there was in the days of Darwin, and much of this science is oriented toward helping people. In and of itself this isn’t bad but when it starts to overshadow and crowd out less practical science, which in the long run may help people even more, then it becomes a problem.
You know the Japanese are famous for making slight modifications to White Man’s inventions that enhance them a lot, but they’re not as famous for coming up with new things, and I think as more Asians get into science in America that trend will increase.
Regarding the ifuckinglovescience Facebook page, it is really just a bunch of stupid kids that want to seem high status but really didn’t fucking like their high school physics or chemistry classes.
Always hated that I f***ing love science stuff. So f***cking immature.
Interesting post. I can report from the field as a medical doctor. Not quite a scientist, but the science of the human body forms the basis of what we do.
I would add that in the real world there are too many conflicting interests. Rare is the intellectual who has both the genius, the funding, and the individuality to pursue a project to its ultimate end. Politics dominates everything.
In our modern world, one is supposed to believe in infinite progress, which must include infinite life and racial harmony. Physicians are actually supposed to extend life forever!
This has led to backlash among the healthy. Not because we don’t help them as well, but because they correctly perceive that we are overcharging them and making them wait, just to keep the elderly on vents in the hospital. They can’t quite articulate it, but the rage is there. And hence the complete failure of healthcare policy in America.
Don’t count on the present right wing to be of any use. After all, talk of human mortality is “death panels”.
I am increasingly convinced that the perennial phenomena of right versus left politics is best explained by the evolutionary psychology of predator versus prey type character traits, or the r/K selection theory of traits. Oswald Spengler was prescient on this, emphasizing the forward-focusing, object-targeting eyes of a predator species, combined and coordinated with the human hand, to explain human domination of the earth. For Spengler, the ascent to this human dominance has been led by the few, those most creative at shaping and exploiting human social organization for productive ends. In biology, K-selected traits of predator species include a discriminating mate preference and high-investment parenting, preferring few offspring but of high quality; in contrast, r-selected traits include more indiscriminate sexual reproduction, resulting in a high quantity of offspring, where the quantity serves to increase the chances of some offspring surviving, despite low parental investment and high mortality environments. The denial of racial differences for the sake of egalitarian politics, even among scientists who should know better, may be explained as a subconscious, primordial urge to hide oneself among an indiscriminate herd, among individuals who fear becoming the prey of superiors.
and life-strategies are still behavioral possibilities, especially where environment or circumstances favor the latter.
” its rise and eventual triumph in the West commencing a new understanding of human nature which is hitherto unparalleled in history.”. Otherwise known as: Imperium!
Groundbreaking scientists, in order to succeed, have to believe in the impossible. And yet, from the mid 19th century into the 20th century, much of the ‘impossible’ did in fact become reality. Who in the 19th century could have even conceived of the airplane, the telephone, the automobile, not to speak of antibiotics, organ transplants and the computer? None of these things existed at the time my own grandparents were born, yet by the time they died, men had landed on the moon. Is it not only natural that people who had witnessed the exterior material world being conquered with such seeming ease would also assume, or at least hope, that the interior world, the world of the spirit, could likewise be so mastered? Of course, we now know otherwise. As if to prove that God does indeed have a wicked sense of humor to surpass all, we now know that it is easier to reconfigure chemical elements to create entirely new compounds heretofore unknown to man, to construct massive structures that can be hurled zillions of miles into space to perform inconceivably complex operations on our behalf, to create an entire alternative universe of cyberspace to enable instantaneous communication between every person on earth, than it is to get black people to live like white people. So our white ancestors, along with their scientists, were wrong. But let us acknowledge that their idealism was but part and parcel of our greater white inheritance, both blessing and curse. We should learn from their mistakes, and redirect our idealism.
Are you able to provide reference to the Nietzsche quote mentioned above?
He touches upon this in “On The Genealogy of Morals”.
I am a young man currently studying to be a scientist and I agree with this article. Scientists generally follow what is socially acceptable to say, but eventually, the shit will hit the fan and their unempirical fantasy land of egalitarianism will collapse.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment