It’s interesting to wonder what’s going on with Bonald on CAGW, race realism, and now missile defense. Perhaps it is what he says above, that he thinks they are distractions from the important issues we should be paying attention to. Perhaps it is what “Anonymous at 69″ is saying, that he has been socialized into these opinions and has not yet gotten around to evaluating them critically. Perhaps it is what I said in an earlier post, that he is, though habit or worry about being eventually unmasked, respecting taboos whose violation he knows carries real consequences, especially for the untenured. My theory, while tempting, has the problem that he has described himself as moderately anti-semitic (in those or almost those words), which would seem to be a third rail as problematic as the others.
How indeed to explain me? I’m sure that what I find plausible is socially constructed, because that’s true of everybody. I tend to be extremely suspicious of expert opinion only when it contradicts my core beliefs. In other areas, I put the burden of proof on the dissenters. On the other hand, it’s not likely that I’m peppering in a few PC beliefs thinking that they’ll protect me if I get exposed. Bill himself points out problems with this theory, but let me spell them out further. The one topic on which the elite will really brook no dissent is sodomy, and I’ve pretty definitely taken the most unacceptable view possible on that. No amount of support for carbon taxes could save a man with my stated views on homosexuality, abortion, divorce, and censorship.
I really do think that we should avoid putting non-core issues on the same level as core issues. Lydia’s feelings reflect my own:
Social conservatives, those of us on the unabashed American right, are tired of being told to go to the back of the bus by our supposed “own” party.
I’m tired of being told that I should just shut up and vote for tax cuts for the upper classes so that maybe, someday in the unspecified future, my social betters will repay me with a parental notice for abortions law. Let’s face it: it wasn’t love for the rich that protected them from getting strung up by the communists. People only risked their fortunes, reputations, and lives fighting the Reds for two reasons: love of God and love of country. And how do the rich repay us? What causes do they support with their billions? Buggery and mass immigration. I admit that taxing those little homos into the poorhouse does hold a certain appeal to me.
So there’s the social conditioning and the irrational spite. I also have some reasons for my beliefs. I’m not sure what Bill is referring to on race realism. It’s true that I regard negro IQ as a distraction. What really matters is that blacks are a distinct subculture and that they’re being used as a wedge minority. On strategic missile defense, I think it’s a stupid idea because if I were going to attack the U.S., I certainly wouldn’t do it by shooting one nuke at us. I’d either shoot a shitload of missiles at once, if I had them, or, if I didn’t, I would sneak in pieces of the bombs, assemble them in the States, and have local spies set them off. It’s a lot easier to make bombs than missles. SMD is easy to evade. I’m also convinced that no technologically advanced country would want to commit suicide by attacking us. We’re always being told that some of these countries–Iran in particular–are “crazy” and will do suicidal things just for the hell of it. I don’t buy it anymore. We say a lot more menacingly crazy things about them than they say about us. Do they go on and on about changing our “regime”?
I was a hawk during the Cold War because I’m in favor of killing communists–anytime, anywhere. I’ve got no heart for killing God-fearing Muslims.
Filed under: My Life |