The revolt against civilization; the menace of the "underman".

submitted by HugodeCrevellier from self.history

'Many a promising civilization has been ravaged and ruined by barbarians without the wit to rebuild what they had destroyed. Today, the progress of science may have freed our own civilization from the peril of armed conquest by barbarian hordes; nevertheless, these peoples still threaten us with the subtler menace of "pacific penetration." Usually highly prolific, often endowed with extraordinary physical vigor, and able to migrate easily, owing to modern facilities of transportation, the more backward peoples of the earth tend increasingly to seek the centres of civilization, attracted thither by the high wages and easier living conditions which there prevail. The influx of such lower elements into civilized societies is an unmitigated disaster. It upsets living standards, socially sterilizes the higher native stocks, and if (as usually happens in the long run) interbreeding occurs, the racial foundations of civilization are undermined, and the mongrelized population, unable to bear the burden, sinks to a lower plane.'

Stoddard, Lothrop, 1922

all 24 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Hematomato 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (60 children)

Yeah, that definitely sounds like 102 year old thinking.

[–]HugodeCrevellier[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (59 children)

The older a prediction, the more prescient it is.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (58 children)

Alternatively, it might be the kind of batshit pseudointellectualism that would only be acceptable at one very specific cultural moment.

Heraclitus predicted that if he smeared himself in cow shit, it would cure his edema. Instead, he died on a hillside smeared in cow shit.

[–]HugodeCrevellier[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (45 children)

So, according to Diogenes Laertius, Heraclitus as an old man tried to cure his oedema with dung, ostensibly as an attempt to counteract the build-up of fluids in his limbs.

This is likely apocryphal, i.e. false, but even if it had been true, that was not just centuries but millennia ago, at the very dawn of rational scientific experimentation.

Now, currently, in many parts of the world, Chinese, voodoo/African and other assorted weird cures thrive ... today ... at this very current specific cultural moment.

And who knows (if civilisation survives) how future generations will look at our current attempts at cures, even those prescribed by the scientific medical systems of the European tradition?

And, speaking of the kind of pseudointellectualism that could only be acceptable at one very specific cultural moment, here is our very specific cultural moment:

Human gender differentiation is either denied or multiplied into absurdity, and/or our species (which is demonstrably polytypic) is being defined, inaccurately, as monotypic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings), etc...

So, even if a dying old man had experimented with something seemingly absurd to cure his oedema, millennia ago, this would pale compared to the current absurdity, millennia later, with societies, today(!), having devolved into e.g. castrating/mutilating depressed/confused/body-dysmorphic children,'as a cure(!!), forcing them into certain, irreversible, and monstrous unhappiness.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (44 children)

And who knows (if civilisation survives) how future generations will look at our current attempts at cures, even those prescribed by the scientific medical systems of the European tradition?

In the 102 years since Lothrop Stoddard wrote his racist screed, we've had several future generations who could look back at how our doctors were doing.

The answer is: not so great. In Lothrop Stoddard's time, if you complained to a doctor of fatigue, he'd likely prescribe cocaine. In the ensuing decades, we tried lobotomies as a cure for depression; electrocution as a cure for erectile dysfunction; arsenic and mercury as a cure for syphilis; radium as a cure for anemia. All of these things were the height of the scientific medical systems of the European tradition. They were often much worse than trying to treat edema with dung.

Lothrop Stoddard died in 1950. He lived long enough to read in the newspaper that our cells contained something called DNA that was shaped like a double-helix. He did not live long enough to Barbara McClintock to explain how it worked or for Cary Mullis to explain how to do much of anything useful with it.

Human gender differentiation is either denied or multiplied into absurdity

We are struggling terribly with the concept of gender right now. I think it's leading to both some long-overdue reforms and some dangerous absurdities. Future generations will tell us which ones were which. And their future generations will double-check their work.

or our species (which is demonstrably polytypic) is being defined, inaccurately, as monotypic

It is most certainly not "demonstrably polytypic." No one has ever been able to objectively classify a "race" or to count the number of "races." It has been socially constructed the whole time.

[–]HugodeCrevellier[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (41 children)

Lothrop Stoddard died in 1950. He lived long enough to read in the newspaper that our cells contained something called DNA that was shaped like a double-helix.

Interestingly, DNA's discoverer has himself been attacked/cancelled by the truth-hating woke stasi:

'James Watson, the Nobel Prize-winning DNA scientist who lost his job in 2007 for expressing racist views, was stripped of several honorary titles Friday by the New York lab he once headed.

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said it was reacting to Watson’s remarks in a television documentary aired earlier this month.

In the film, Watson said his views about intelligence and race had not changed since 2007, when he told a magazine that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — where all the testing says not really.”

In the 2007 interview, Watson said that while he hopes everyone is equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true.”

In this month’s documentary, he said genes cause a difference on average between blacks and whites on IQ tests.

https://apnews.com/article/5b40e363ddc54d3c96f520fd52345917

We are struggling terribly with the concept of gender right now. I think it's leading to both some long-overdue reforms and some dangerous absurdities. Future generations will tell us which ones were which. And their future generations will double-check their work.

There's no actual struggle, not really. If one is reasonably intelligent and both sincere and courageous enough to tell the truth, things are rather straightforward: A man is defined as an adult human male and a woman as an adult human female. The only struggle is in coming up with the mental gymnastics required to try to pretend that an adult human male can (actually/really/in truth) be a woman and vice versa, a necessary absurdity as it fails the definitions of both man and woman.

It is most certainly not "demonstrably polytypic." No one has ever been able to objectively classify a "race" or to count the number of "races." It has been socially constructed the whole time.

That's simply incorrect. One can recognise major phenotypic differences between e.g. a Japanese homo sapiens, a Swedish one and/or a Congolese one. You've told the above lie/falsity as part of an ideological agenda.

[–]Hematomato 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (40 children)

Interestingly, DNA's discoverer has himself been attacked/cancelled by the truth-hating woke stasi:

Yes, I'm aware. Of course, Watson never really understood DNA. His co-discovery was pretty much limited to: it exists, and it's a double helix.

There's no actual struggle, not really. If one is reasonably intelligent and both sincere and courageous enough to tell the truth, things are rather straightforward: A man is defined as an adult human male and a woman as an adult human female. The only struggle is in coming up with the mental gymnastics required to try to pretend that an adult human male can (actually/really/in truth) be a woman and vice versa, a necessary absurdity as it fails the definitions of both man and woman.

Of course there's a struggle.

"Man" has never really meant "adult male human." Our language is full of sentences like "Stand up and be a man" or "I'm more of a man than you" that make no sense when you replace the word "man" with "adult male human." Stand up and be an adult male human? It makes no sense. If you're an adult male human when you're sitting, you're an adult male human when you're standing.

Same thing for woman. Whitney Houston's "I'm Every Woman" cannot be properly expressed "I'm Every Adult Female Human."

The words "man" and "woman" have always, for many centuries, meant "one who embodies the cultural expectations of an adult male/female human." It's how Shakespeare used the words. There's nothing new about it.

That's simply incorrect. One can recognise major phenotypic differences between e.g. a Japanese homo sapiens, a Swedish one and/or a Congolese one. So, whoever convinced you of the above lie/falsity, almost certainly did so to further an ideological agenda

There's a reason we use color as a metaphor for race. We can all tell the difference been purple and yellow, but there is no "true purple," and there is no "true yellow." There are no finite or bounded number of colors, and many people can look at the same color and have different opinions about what to call it.

Yes, you can look at people's faces and think "I'm probably somewhere in Asia" or "I'm probably somewhere in Africa" or "I'm probably somewhere in Europe." But that doesn't lead to a conclusion like "There are fifteen races" any more than your ability to distinguish purple from yellow leads to a conclusion like "There are fifteen colors."

[–]HugodeCrevellier[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (38 children)

Of course, Watson never really understood DNA.

Of course.

"Man" has never really meant "adult male human."

Seriously? That's the actual and literal definition, ... and certainly the one relevant to a discussion about genders. For fuck's sake!

There's a reason we use color as a metaphor for race. We can all tell the difference been purple and yellow, but there is no "true purple," and there is no "true yellow."

The edges between types are more gradual than sharp, but what's the point of your colour analogy, that yellow is not a thing, that it does not exist, and so neither do subspecies?

[–]Hematomato 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (37 children)

Seriously? That's the actual, literal ... and relevant to a discussion about genders ... definition. For fuck's sake!

You apparently believe in something called "the actual, literal definition."

Just consider that belief for a moment. Where does "the actual, literal definition" come from? Does it come from Jacqui Safra, the Swiss owner of Merriam-Webster? Does it come straight down from God?

Linguists would say that words intrinsically have two meanings: what's being communicated, and what's being received. And when a communication and a reception are congruent, you have a definition.

Naturally, congruence happens in different ways at different times, giving us many different definitions.

But in the case of "man," well, there are thousands of examples of "man" referring to the cultural expectations placed on an adult male human. "When the time comes, a real man knows that he must shoot his own dog." Nobody thinks that sentence is referring to XY chromosomes. Or, if they do, they're failing to understand the authorial intent.

The edges are of course gradually not sharp but what the point of your colour analogy, that yellow is not a thing, that it does not exist?

So you have a massive color wheel. Where does yellow start? Where does yellow end? What's "true yellow"? How do you know when what you're looking at is no longer yellow?

But here's one difference: color is permanent. What you call "race" is not. All of world history is a story of migrations, conquests, slaves. You know what "race" Julius Caesar and Yeshua "Jesus" of Nazareth were? Ones that we wouldn't recognize as ones that exist anymore. Because we keep recombining, remixing, our genes, and we always will.

But the pseudoscience is that the races of 1600 are like the colors - permanent and physical - because 1600 is when humans invented the idea of race.

[–]HugodeCrevellier[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (35 children)

You apparently believe in something called "the actual, literal definition."

Are you trolling? A definition is what a word actually means. Understanding the meaning of a term is important. Otherwise, you might end up concluding that e.g. 2+2=5.

Where does yellow start? Where does yellow end?

So, yellow doesn't exist?

1600 is when humans invented the idea of race.

Race is merely another word for breed or subspecies, all of which (together with colours) you're apparently unable to differentiate.

In your world, man=woman, yellow=blue, Rottweiler=Chihuahua, Japanese=Congolese and 2+2=5.

...

Remember:

Certainement qui est en droit de vous rendre absurde, est en droit de vous rendre injuste

If you give someone the right to make you accept absurdity, you're also giving them the right to make you accept injustice.

Voltaire