Our Cultural Taboos

We are living in an era of mass insanity.
A good friend of the Gates of Vienna  has found himself unable to publish a lengthy piece of writing because it touches on a certain taboo topic that even conservative web outlets are reluctant to discuss.
No matter how disappointing their behavior, such fastidiousness on the part of online magazines cannot in any way be considered “censorship”. No law restrains our friend from publishing his views. If he is unable to find another publisher, he is quite free to amass the necessary capital and start his own publishing house or website, from which platform he could write and publish whatever he wished.

Yet, although they lack the force of law, our cultural taboos are nonetheless quite real. They make it all but impossible to engage in public discussion of forbidden topics, which means that such debate is confined to the lunatic fringe, where it may be safely ignored by the broad mainstream of political thought, both liberal and conservative. The unwillingness to broach these subjects — which are backed by scientific data and reliable sociological statistics — is itself a sign of collective lunacy on the part of the “mainstream”.

In other words, we are living in an era of mass insanity.

What other explanation can be adduced for the seemingly suicidal urges that drive Western Civilization towards its imminent destruction?

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The forbidden topic is, of course, race, along with a constellation of related issues.The primal horror evoked in the minds of urban literati by the dread word “racism” is enough to strangle any discussion of these ideas before it can begin. To broach the topic in polite society is to risk an ostracism fiercer than was once directed at serial adulterers and public atheists — back when both behaviors still evoked strong public disapproval.

One can’t say certain things. Everyone knows it, and few people are willing to break the taboo, regardless of what the law ostensibly allows. Anyone who values his job, his pension, and the approval of his peers simply avoids the issue.

Yet everybody also understands the nature of the official lies about race. No one believes that “affirmative action” mandates that more Norwegian men be placed on the first string of major basketball teams. None of us thinks that Jewish women are under-represented as housekeepers, or that there are too many men of Chinese descent earning PhDs in particle physics.

No, the issue is about sticking it to the white man. Everyone knows it, but almost no one is willing to discuss it.The conceit is that Europeans and their descendants, in creating Western Civilization, have somehow attained an unfair dominance over other races. The doctrine further maintains that the European ascendancy was made possible only through the “racism” of white people.

These assertions are the cornerstone of what is generally referred to as Politically Correct Multiculturalism. They are assumed as premises, yet they do not admit of any testing to establish their accuracy. The basis of the reigning PCMC doctrine thus becomes unassailable and unquestionable. It possesses an absolute truth that can only be conferred by rigid orthodoxy.

Yet other reasonable and scientifically sound explanations exist for the success of the white race. We already accept genetically based distinctions between groups of people involving any number of characteristics, including the capacity to digest certain foods, resistance to or predisposition towards common diseases, and the ability to withstand extreme cold.

We are even willing to examine differences that correlate with what is commonly known as “race”. The descendants of West Africans make better sprinters. Peruvian Indians are genetically adapted to low-oxygen conditions at high altitudes. Central Asians possess a gene that enables them to survive and flourish on a diet that consists almost entirely of milk products. And so on.

Yet the overwhelming evidence that human intelligence has a significant genetic component is disregarded. We are required to ignore the fact that variation in IQ strongly correlates with the distribution of physical characteristics that are generally associated with “race”. Anyone who wishes to discuss these facts — and their implications for public policy — is shunned. This is true even in “conservative” venues, as our friend discovered. Unless one is willing to keep company with dedicated Jew-haters, it’s virtually impossible to write of these matters and expect to be read by a significant audience.

This blind devotion to multicultural doctrine is understandable, in a way.