There has been a marked decline in the power of the Western mind. The late 19th century imperialists were self-satisfied high racialists. Moderns are Boasian antiracists seemingly committed to universal human rights etc. But how do the two compare in their powers of comprehension?
Take the problem of understanding the power of the Houthis. A British imperialist from 1890 would have no trouble at all classifying them as 'a martial race'. Even if coded in racialist terms, there was a clear *recognition* of the anthropological variation in the world. They understood that the Gurkhas and the Pathans were not like the Baniyas and the Brahmins. That something distinguished the former from the latter. And that this anthropological variation had *operational significance* to the running of the empire. You could not get the Brahmin to hold the front any more than you get the Gurkha to understand Shakespeare.
Modern Westerners reject out of hand the very idea of systematic anthropological variation. Populations are only distinguished, if they are distinguished at all, by how free (Westernized) and unfree (traditional) they are. You have either thrown off the yoke of tradition and embraced the ideas of the Enlightenment. Or you live under the oppressive weight of misguided traditional ideas like not wanting your daughter to have the right to fuck whoever she wants, whenever she wants.
I do not mean here to suggest that the turn-of-the-century imperialists intuited the discoveries of midcentury social anthropology. Evans-Pritchard only wrote about the Nuer in 1940. I mean instead that the European imperialists *paid attention to the world*, instead of being lost in their own internal world. No doubt they had their own discourse of self-congratulation. But they knew that the world was strange and worthy of attention. That there was something about the world that they did not teach you at Eaton and Harrow, and that you had to learn in the field, so to speak. There was a certain empiricism in their attitude. A curiosity about the world.
To the modern West, there is no outside world worth paying attention to. All that exists is conformity or incongruence with Boasian antiracist universalism, ie the modern Enlightenment. The peoples of the world cannot be distinguished in any interesting way at all. The world is flat in an essential sense.
The Moderns are, strictly speaking, morons by the standards of the late 19th century.
@Polydamas@Fabien_Mikol Les mathématiques ne visent pas essentiellement à résoudre des problèmes mais à produire de la compréhension.
Or, l’automatisation massive de la résolution de problème peut nuire à la compréhension globale de l’humanité.
Alla luce di quello che da una settimana sta succedendo in Francia, la relazione dell'ex capo dei servizi segreti francesi Pierre Brochand dovrebbe essere imparata a memoria dalle cancellerie europee. Dice Brochand: "Non accetterò mai di dire che è notte in pieno giorno. Ci troviamo di fronte a una triforcazione. 1) Lasciamo che tutto scivoli via, rotolando verso l'abisso e premendo l'acceleratore. 2) Ci limitiamo ad accompagnare il fenomeno, votando, ogni 3 o 4 anni, leggi che fingono di occuparsi dell'immigrazione, ma che, di fatto, rientrano nella sua gestione amministrativa. È solo fare un passo indietro per saltare meglio. 3) Riusciamo a toglierci la camicia di forza e a riprendere il volante del camion impazzito che da 50 anni guida da solo. Avete indovinato che la mia scelta è l'ultima. Che fare? 4) Lanciare, urbi et orbi, il messaggio che la marea è cambiata di 180 gradi: l'immigrazione legale deve essere divisa per dieci. L'accesso alla nazionalità deve cessare di essere automatico. 5) Contenere l'immigrazione irregolare, dividendo per 20 o 30 i visti, compresi gli studenti, concessi ai Paesi a rischio. 6) Attenuare l'attrattiva sociale, eliminando tutte le prestazioni non contributive per gli stranieri. 7) Sgonfiare le diaspore, riducendo tipologie, durate e numeri dei permessi di soggiorno. 8) Rafforzare la nostra laicità cristiana per adattarla alla ben diversa sfida dell'Islam. Se queste proposte rientrano nel quadro del diritto esistente, tanto meglio, altrimenti dovrà essere modificato a qualunque costo. Se persistiamo nella nostra cecità, andremo verso un paese dove, al minimo, la vita non sarà più degna di essere vissuta, o, al massimo, in un paese dove, a forza di esplosioni, non saremo più in grado di vivere affatto". https://t.co/EEJ4AHemHn
Open AI vient d'annoncer la résolution de centaines de nouveaux problèmes de mathématiques par des agents IA. Il y a quelques semaines, j'écrivais ceci dans Le Figaro :
Là on n’est plus sur quelques jeunes qui veulent provoquer en rigolant sur des trucs bordelines. On parle d’un gros syndicat historique français. Une sacrée digue vient de péter.
C’est énervant d’entendre tous ces politiciens et commentateurs de plateaux télés faire comme si le bordel des lycées était causé par de réels griefs et revendications et pouvait se régler en en débattant ou en concédant je ne sais quoi
“If there is a single most deplorable intellectual failing on the conservative side, it lies in reducing every question of law, constitution, culture and society to a question of economics.”
Sir Roger Scruton
"Tant que le signalement vertueux rapportera davantage socialement que la description du réel, le réel restera mal décrit. Et ce qu'on décrit mal, on le résout mal." (@EmmanuelRuimy)
Les émeutes se succèdent, les violences se banalisent, et rien ne semble jamais bouger. Pourquoi ? Il y a plusieurs raisons à cela. En voici une.
Dans une partie des cercles parisiens où se fabrique le discours public, certaines phrases coûtent encore trop cher. Dire que ces violences relèvent souvent moins de la révolte sociale que du pillage et de la haine des institutions. Que des décennies de milliards investis dans les "quartiers" n'ont pas suffi, parce que tout ne relève pas des moyens mais aussi du culturel et de l'anthropologique. Que la violence d'un mineur tient souvent moins à la fameuse « société » qu'à une socialisation primaire défaillante, où l'autorité n'est pas transmise et la violence pas réprouvée, et qu'il faut donc engager la responsabilité des parents, y compris par la sanction. Que si l'assimilation a échoué pour certains, ce n'est pas faute d'avoir été proposée, mais parce qu'elle a été refusée. Dire tout cela, c'est s'exposer à la réprobation de son milieu et à une perte de statut. Fin des invitations, fin des tribunes, regards gênés au dîner, etc.
Personne n'est vraiment dans le déni. C'est un calcul social parfaitement rationnel. Tant que le signalement vertueux rapportera davantage socialement que la description du réel, le réel restera mal décrit. Et ce qu'on décrit mal, on le résout mal.
@RageCultureMag@visitor_xyz La citation est pertinente.
Il faut marteler à ceux qui nous caricaturent en haineux que nous sommes des identitaires par amour de notre peuple et de notre culture. Nous sommes animés par ce sentiment de tendressse poignante pour une chose belle fragile et périssable.
Habillez ça comme vous voulez, continuez de faire les autruches et de nous accuser d'être "racistes" ou "haineux", la réalité est celle-là : ce n'est plus du tout le même peuple. Et c'est absolument effroyable.
Arthur Jensen's take on ethics of group difference research (1973).
If people believe that gaps are due to environmental factors but actually due to genetics, this generates an endless search for those supposed causes and all the blame for those causing it. This leads to "a kind of social paranoia, a belief that mysterious, hostile forces are operating to cause inequalities in educational and occupational performance, despite all apparent efforts to eliminate prejudice and discrimination - a fertile ground for the generation of frustrations, suspicions and hates".
This is exactly what we see.
https://t.co/dQ70H9exZh