Fags! Freaks! Lefties! Who needs them? Actually, a big world needs practically everybody.
Yesterday a Reuters article caught my ire of the moment. Clown economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, complaining that some Harvard guy had dared to discuss science abilities in relation to gender, declared that "scientists are made, not born." Sure: by magic, by fiat. State institutions can stamp anything out like cookies: money, doctors, teachers, experts ... "scientists."
I shared a quote from that article with bk who responded, "Ass holes and idiots ... Egalitarianism makes differences seem like barriers rather than guides and opportunities."
The whole shmear reminds me of some Leonard Shlain hypotheses that I was celebrating at Knatz.com while reading his book on Sex, Women, and Power. Today though I come in on a different angle, parallel to the angle I started with above:
Even enemies. Alan Watts said that societies should pay their enemies: they couldn't define themselves without them.
Clever. But Shlain is onto the nitty gritty. Shlain finds statistical correlations among some classes of genetic difference. Among males, any population will yield about 8% homosexuals. same number as people who are left-handed. same number as people who are colorblind. That means that in a small band of humans – our very background after all – there will be on average one lefty among many a rough dozen of righties. The lefty's arrow might hit the one bird the righties all missed. The one colorblind guy on patrol might see the enemy's camouflaged position that all those with "better" sight missed. Usually an embarrassment, the queer might save the day: some weird day, when normalcy won't do.
Any type of talent may have a blindspot. Team complementary talents so they overlap and the blindspot may be penetrated.
Pierre Curie was a smart physicist, could do all sorts of heavy mental lifting. But who discovered radium? Not Pierre. And not Fritz. No, it was Marie.
Was she a dummy? Was she as smart as Pierre? It doesn't matter. No doubt it was part luck: any discovery is at least part luck, any hit, any good stroke to the green; but don't discount advantages that can accompany some deficiencies. Maybe she was twice as smart as Pierre. Point is, we need more than one type of mentality, more than two.
Leonardo was weird. Leonardo would be weird if he were alive today: wouldn't fit into any group. Community Colleges, don't even bother to think of him on your faculty: and Harvard qualifies no better. Leonardo could screw the King of France, Leonardo could screw anybody. If you lend him money, don't expect it back. Thank god for Leonardo.
Emily Dickinson was short. Maybe she had bad breath. Thank the void for Emily Dickinson.
But those are acknowledged geniuses: what about the turd who can't button his shirt, has pee on his shoe tops? Could he save the day?
I don't see how, but that shouldn't matter. I don't see everything. Don't count anybody out.
The wino, drunk in the gutter that you kick as you go by, could be Jesus, remembering you.
PS
Can this be the same pk who says he wishes he could wake up and find everybody else dead? the same pk who'd push the button and get rid of most of us? Yes. But that's purely a question of population size in relation to resources; not of population content. Too big a world may not be too good.
Then again, if I could tailor the button, make destruction selective, I would be tempted to exercise extreme prejudice not against kikes or gooks, Philistines or Ruskies, but against civilized people: people who think that kleptocracy is normal.
No comments:
Post a Comment