Thursday, June 02, 2011
On Steven Jay Gould
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.