Cybernethics / Cybernéthique

Absurdists, relativists, multiculturalists, leftists, anti-racists, socialists, etc., like to say that all human civilizations are equal. Well, if they are, either THIS is not civilization at all, or it is quite a dreadful civilization (Cám ơn Kae, Razib). As usual, the actual consequences of the absurdists' utterances is either to decree as civilization what is actually barbarianism, and thus institute the subjection of millions of the (more) civilized to the (relatively) barbarians; or it is to deny their humanity to the barbarians, and lead to the subjection and massacre of millions of innocents because they were born in the wrong families.

One of my favorite self-quotes is:

Racism consists in attributing to genetics what is due to memetics.

By denying the relevance of memetics, by claiming the collective right of populations to preserve their culture that deserves respect by imposing it on their individual members, so-called anti-racists are eminently racists, so-called liberals oppose basic individual liberties, and so-called progressists advocate the most abject regress to barbarianism.

Those who advocate barbarianism are criminals, who should be repressed without mercy. And I don't mean only those who act, but also those who sponsor crime and give instructions. Those who laud barbarianism and help it progress, who breed it with subsidies, who silence the defenders of civilization with censorship, are the complicits of barbaric crimes and the enemies of civilization; they also deserve to be repressed without mercy. And in neither case is this a matter of what family you were born in. It's a matter of individual choice between good and evil.

Civilization is universal. It is for everyone. So is barbarianism. Individual responsible choice of life despite collective oppression is not just the path to progress and civilization; it is progress and civilization. Let each individual choose, and enjoy or suffer the legitimate consequences. And let these consequences be the extirpation of the enemies of civilization.

As a follow-up to my short post The ideology spread by Stalin's agents, see this very good analysis by ESR, Suicidalism. (Cám ơn, Kae.)

In Ontology is Overrated: Categories, Links, and Tags, Clay Shirky clearly explains the issue of a posteriori knowledge versus a priori knowledge -- the essential theme of austrian economics and libertarian politics. However, in the end, he not only fails to conceptualize the issue, he also steps into the trap laid by relativists: he confuses reality with knowledge about reality (a clear case of insanity, as defined by general semantics), and implies that we create meaning rather than discover it.

The nuance is tiny, but as Aristotle said, the least deviation from truth will be multiplied later. Human creation of meaning entails that meaning is an arbitrary product of human will, and that any disputes arising from divergent opinions cannot be solved by reason but only by brute force. Discovery of meaning entails that meaning is objective, and that disputes can be resolved by reason and other peaceful means. Thus, what appears as a mere detail in something as fundamental as metaphysics and epistemology has dramatic consequences when you later study ethics and politics!

Of course, Clay doesn't explore the political consequences of this tiny detail in his essay. His mistake is benign, and I'm sure he himself would be prone to dampen the mistake rather than amplify it, if he were to be taken in a more political discussion. Still, by admitting such wrong premises, Clay abandons all possibility of arguing back against those people who preach Evil. If he's not doing a disservice to himself, he is doing one to his readers. He is both a victim and a disseminator of one of the fundamental memes by which Evil disarms good people.

College Profs Denounce Western Culture, Move to Caves. (Cám ơn, GNXP).

At long last some coherence! Integrity, the cardinal virtue of a philosopher, is for the philosopher to live according to his philosophy. Not just talk the talk, but also walk the walk -- and precisely the walk that he talks about. Of course, walking the walk is more important; it's just that without the talk, you're not a philosopher; and what I meant above was that being a philosopher is less important than being a successful human being; but of course, being a philosopher can be a powerful means to the end of being a successful human being.

I had read other articles by Theodore Dalrymple before (thanks to MiF), and they were all good. So when GNXP announced this one, I read it at once, and I relished: An imaginary scandal.

... is exactly what dominates the Intelligentsia in France and other countries.

You do not endorse Stalin. You do not call yourself a communist. You do not declare your love for the regime. You do not call on people to support the Soviets. Ever. Under any circumstances. You claim to be an independent-minded idealist. You don't understand politics, but you think the little guy is getting a lousy break. You believe in open-mindedness. You are shocked, frightened by what is going on right here in our own country. You are frightened by the racism, by the oppression of the working man. You think that the Russians are trying a great human experiment, and you hope it works. You believe in peace. You yearn for international understanding. You hate fascism. You think the capitalist system is corrupt. You say it over and over again and you say nothing, nothing more.

Double Lives: Spies and Writers in the Secret Soviet War of Ideas against the West by Stephen Koch

Of course, Stalin also had more obvious agents.

While in the States, I had an argument with, of all persons, a French man. He argued for relativism, that true and false do not matter, and might not exist at all, that every situation is unique, etc. Yeah sure! His example went that everytime he heard that same Opera was unique. And my reply was that everytime he'd have to listen to the noise of a jackhammer for two uninterrupted hours would be just as unique. He was an extreme example of what Ayn Rand called the anti-conceptual mentality.

Jeudi 20 janvier 2005, j'étais de par ma réputation de libertarien invité de Henri de Lesquen dans son émission Le Libre Journal des idées politiques sur Radio-Courtoisie, face à André Bonnet dans le rôle du catholique-traditionnaliste et à Henri de Lesquen lui-même (en l'absence du troisième invité initialement prévu) dans le rôle du libéral-conservateur. Henri de Lesquen avait articulé son émission en trois partie, définies par les questions suivantes: Un état laïque peut-il avoir une morale?, les droits de l'homme peuvent-ils tenir lieu de morale?, Faut-il avoir peur de l'ordre moral?. J'ai été je l'avoue très mauvais: j'ai tenté sans cesse et trop rigidement de revenir au plan que j'avais établi, au lieu de m'adapter aux interruptions et digressions de l'animateur; aussi, j'ai trouvé les bonnes répliques après l'émission plutôt que pendant, et c'est vous qui devez subir maintenant ce que je n'ai pas su dire alors.

So as to defend against Evil, it is necessary, foremost, to be able to recognize good from evil. Just like in any war, it is necessary first of all to be able to distinguish friend and foe. In a domain as abstract as Law, this implies being able to manipulate abstract concepts, examine justifications and consequences, and reach moral statements. And this is why the first target of the servants of Evil is men's ability of abstract reasoning. Everything is true, everything is false, they go, nothing is worth more than anything else. Nothing is really truer, nothing is really better. Everything is a matter of feeling, everything is a social construct. Such are the precepts told by the priests of Evil. And what should this social construct consist in? Well, once reason has been evicted from it, the only means available to replace it is clear: sheer brute force. And who is to hold the big stick? An Establishment, under any palatable name, or even without a name that could help focus attention against it, will develop to ensure that dissident opinions will be contained. And those very priests of Evil who explain to you that no opinions are worth better than any other opinions, will be very active at becoming and remaining the ones who establish the orthodox opinions backed up by force, through forcefully levied taxes, censorship, government-controlled education, subsidized media, tax-funded "associations", etc.

Selon les néo-classiques, keynésiens et autres marxistes, une redistribution pure n'altérerait pas les processus créatifs, tout en permettant de s'approcher de leur pseudo-idéal égalitariste matérialiste de richesse également répartie. Or, il n'y a de redistribution pure que dans leurs modèles déconnectés des réalités humaines les plus élémentaires. Dans la pratique, ces slogans servent à justifier des interventions arbitraires, en faveur des causes défendues par l'intelligentsia (ipso facto sélectionnée par l'adéquation de ces causes à ses intérêts), et au détriment de toutes les autres, à commencer par celles dénoncées par cette même intelligentsia (avec là encore une pression de sélection correspondante).

Bien sûr, même quand par quelque miraculeuse sainteté, les décisionnaires sont intéressés par la satisfaction des membres du public, toute intervention empêchera les calculs économétriques ou les rendra non pertinents à mesure même de son ampleur, privant ainsi ces décisionnaires de tout moyen de décision rationnelle. Non seulement la politisation détruit les moyens d'expression par les individus de leurs préférences réelles (la liberté du choix), mais elle corrompt ces préférences mêmes, en détruisant les moyens d'apprentissage de ces préférences (la responsabilité du choix). En fin de compte, les détenteurs du pouvoir argueront que tous les choix se valent, -- entendu pourvu que ce soit les leurs, -- et le seul argument qu'ils pourront en fin de compte faire valoir sera: la force brute. La dynamique ainsi mise en place dans le peuple sera que chacun fera des efforts dans le sens de moins de spoliation à son détriment, et davantage de spoliation à son profit, -- tous efforts qui seront autant de richesse détruite, autant de soumission à un ordre extérieur imposé contre la volonté des individus concernés, autant de souffrances. -- et un peuple de tricheurs, de menteurs, d'hypocrites, de voleurs et d'assassins professant l'altruisme, pratiquant l'égotisme le plus étriqué.

Ceci est une réponse à un message point-godwin reçu sur la mailing-list rationalistes-autrichiens, en réaction à une intervention aussi enflammée qu'argumentatoire dans laquelle je démontrais par l'exemple que toutes les règles de comportements ne se valent pas à un jeune relativiste qui niait le processus de découverte du Droit. J'y discute les notions de courtoisie, de règles de comportement, de tradition, d'innovation, de Droit, de Libéralisme, etc.

With Dubya promising to spend zillions of dollars to send a few privileged civil servants to Mars, I am irresistibly reminded of this quote from one of my favorite books, Teaching as a Subversive Activity, by Neil Postman (RIP) and Charles Weingartner:

Consider this: The first hole ever dug on the moon by a man-made machine is now done. It is the most expensive hole in the history of the human race. Now what does that mean? How do we know whether this is one of man's noblest achievements or if it is a game being played by a small group of lunatics for their own amusement -- at our expense?

Postman hits the nerve, he knows what questions to ask, what assumptions to question. But being a depraved leftist, he can provide no justifiable criterion to answer. Ayn Rand does, in her essay Collectivized Ethics, as included in her essay collection The Virtue of Selfishness. Too bad it's not on the web yet, but here's a purchase well worth it: concise, compelling, to the point. And no, I prefer not to retranslate to English the relevant excerpt back from the French translation on my laps.