George today

Makes me glad I\’m a liberal really.

Do note the little judo trick in there though. The scientific paper shows that racism and homophobia are associated with low intelligence. That these are conservative ideas is then sorta assumed (yes, there really is left wing racism, left wing homophobia). And then the leap…..thus all conservative ideas can be explained by low intelligence.

Quite fun really: the claim, an implicit one to be sure, that because racist boot boys are knuckleheads therefore the NHS must be State run, schools must be not for profit and the Laffer Curve is all poo poo.

Don\’t take my word for it. Listen to what two former Republican ideologues, David Frum and Mike Lofgren, have been saying. Frum warns that \”conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics\”. The result is a \”shift to ever more extreme, ever more fantasy-based ideology\” which has \”ominous real-world consequences for American society\”.

Translating that into the English situation who does that remind you of? Inventing their own laws of economics?

And this is without considering the most important point in British politics today. Who actually are the conservatives at present? It\’s not the Conservatives, is it?

Those with low cognitive abilities are attracted to \”rightwing ideologies that promote coherence and order\” and \”emphasise the maintenance of the status quo\”.

The Conservatives seem to want to shake up education, the health care system, the tax system, the way that councils are funded, the disability welfare system, in fact, the whole welfare state if IDS has his way.

It\’s the left in Britain performing the conservative function at present, standing in the way of change, insisting upon the preservation of the status quo. We must not change the ancient (64 years old) NHS, we must not change the 1960s educational settlement etc.

If it really is true that dimbos attempt to preserve the status quo then it ain\’t the current Conservatives who are doing that, is it?

30 comments on “George today

  1. “If it really is true that dimbos attempt to preserve the status quo then it ain’t the current Conservatives who are doing that, is it?”

    It’s amazing so few people have pointed this out.

    It applies especially strongly to George himself, frantically resisting change to state-run services. More broadly, his environmentalism is an extreme form of small-c conservatism, harking back to the economy of 200 years ago.

  2. It’s hilarious how Lefties don’t believe in IQ as a measure of intelligence, don’t believe IQ differences between people are important, except when they can show that they’re smarter than those stupid conservatives.

  3. Prejudiced article based in junk science. Just another day at the Guardian.

    Note to George: thinking you are clever because you follow the herdmind is not the same as being clever and actually thinking.

  4. I’m not sure what has happened to George recently but for someone who prides himself on footnoting all his factual claims he has recently gone completely off-piste.

    Last week he was bemoaning that boarding school for young kids was a form of child abuse widely approved of by the upper middle classes. Yet not a single piece of evidence was cited to back up any of his claims.

  5. Curious how the left seem to believe their supposed genetic endowment of superior intelligence entitles them to rule over the less well endowed. Ubermench/untermench. Good grief, it all sounds so familiar. Wonder why?

  6. More people should note how the left are happy to write about IQ when it serves their supposed propaganda purposes.

  7. You’re all being unfair. You know that George would have reported this with just as much vigour and enthusiasm if it had shown that the Left were ‘scientifically proved’ to be stupid, mean and cruel.

  8. but for someone who prides himself on footnoting all his factual claims

    Nine footnotes in the blog version of the article we are discussing.

    Fifteen in the one you are probably talking about.

    No comment on the reliability of any of those references (youtube, CiF, Guardian, as well as not-always-right-just-because-they-got-into-a-journal) but he is providing them. Illegally in a couple of cases :)

  9. It’s not just bad stats, it’s bad science in that what is being called intelligence, which implies IQ, is nothing of the sort. The study talks about innate intelligence which if you look up it’s definition in Wiki is mumbo-jumbo psuedo science.

  10. I find the idea of right-wing nut jobs like me being “social vivisectionists” quite charming. My nomination for insult of the year, in fact.
    But what does it actually mean?

  11. I would hazard a guess that if you put all the homophobes in the UK into a room and threw a rock, you’d hit a traditionalist muslim, rather than a hated conservative.

  12. …..Muslims represent arount 3% of the UK population.

    Go figure, yeah?…..

    Arnald, That was his point, they make up 3% of the population but punch way above that weight when it comes to homophobia and Misogyny. Whether that translates into a majority or not I have no idea.

  13. Do you really reckon that 96.9% of the population are ambivalent towards homosexuality?

    I knew this blog was full of delusionists, but for fhhk’s sake.

  14. Here‘s the poll I was thinking of. Nevertheless, your criticism is valid:

    4% of the UK self-identifies as Muslim. Of which 96% think homosexuality is morally wrong.

    By Bayes law, P(Muslim | Homophobe) = (P(Homophobe | Muslim) * P(Muslim)) / P(Homophobe)
    = (.96 * .04) / .34 = .113

    So take all the homophobes in the UK and put them in a room, throw a rock, and there’s only a 11.3% chance you’ll hit a muslim. :P

  15. Do you really reckon that 96.9% of the population are ambivalent towards homosexuality?

    And that’s a complete non-sequitur. For sconzy’s statement to be true, then no more than somewhat under 3% of the population (allowing for not all Muslims having the orthodox attitude to homosexuality) must be “hated conservative homophobes”. Of course, you’ll also have orthodox Christian leftist homophobes (as the Archbish of York has been accused of being), Orthodox Jewish homophobes (who aren’t known for being hugely right-wing as opposed to Zionist, no matter how these are conflated by ex-SWP academics) and I don’t think that Sikhism is entirely liberal on the matter.

    God knows where you’d get the numbers but 0.1%?

  16. “blokeinfrance // Feb 7, 2012 at 1:17 pm

    I find the idea of right-wing nut jobs like me being “social vivisectionists” quite charming. My nomination for insult of the year, in fact.
    But what does it actually mean?”

    Another one for the “social means not” list.
    “Social justice” -> not justice.
    “Socially violent” -> not violent.
    “Social vivisectionists” -> not vivisectionists.

  17. pedant, Serf.
    3% muslims means you need more than 3% non muslim homophobes for a likelihood of a rockstrike. I’ll take 0.1% as a neat increment, if you don’t fucking mind.

    Still, well done for trying to defend a nonsense statement that even the poster knows is twatsticks.

    Like most of everything that’s written here.

  18. 3% muslims means you need more than 3% non muslim homophobes for a likelihood of a rockstrike. I’ll take 0.1% as a neat increment, if you don’t fucking mind.

    That’s simple arithmetic bollocks. Which only changes it in academic discipline from your usual.

    If you have 3% non-muslim homophobes then there is a 50/50 chance, if you have “more than 3%” then there is a less than 50% chance of hitting a member of the RoP. If you have your postulated 96.9% non-homophobes, then you have a 97.8% chance of hitting an RoP homophobe.

  19. Unless, of course, you meant the outstandingly prejudiced statement that Muslims aren’t part of the population. So you have 96.9 + 3.1 + 3.

    In which case you’d be a racist, wouldn’t you?

  20. yeah so i got my non and my non-non the wrong way round, it doesn’t stop you being a wanker, hmmm. you knew what i meant.

  21. It’s not actually even worth dignifying this pish by discussing it.

    I suggest instead we just point and laugh.

  22. Arnald, of all the fine messes you’ve gotten yourself into on this blog this one just about takes the biscuit, anyway welcome back I’ve missed you.

  23. Incidentally for P(Muslim | Homophobe) > .5, you either need Muslims to be >= 17% of the population, or you need an overall 92% approval of homosexuality.

  24. Frum warns that “conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics”. The result is a “shift to ever more extreme, ever more fantasy-based ideology” which has “ominous real-world consequences for American society”.

    Frum is very much a red in tooth and claw market-liberalising, producer-capture zapping “right-winger”. The man was Bush’s script writer, for goodness sakes. What he has a problem with is the likes of Michelle Bachmann, not with neoliberal economic ideology.

    Lofgren too did not quit because of neoliberal ideology, but because the Republicans went to war in Congress rather than trying to make things work.

    And this is why terms like “conservative” and “right-wing” are so pointless in debate. Which “right-wing” are we referring to? The sort of people like Bachmann who would like a theocracy, the sort of people like Alan Duncan who think you should have the right to get baked, or the “far right” that are actually closest to the Labour party of 50 years ago?

  25. I’d have thought that Conservatives won’t mind the fact that they are more ‘stupid’. It is the left wingers who are so enamoured with their own intelligence that they think they can work out the price of things better than the market (which is just made up of millions of stupid people).

    The smart are rarely clever enough to have the humility to realise they can’t know everything, the stupid do.

  26. As others have said, the relevance of this study to British politics seems to be predicated entirely on racism and homophobia being both necessary and sufficient for being right wing. In fact they are neither, as anyone who’s ever been out can attest.

    I’m surprised at Monbiot. I don’t like him very much but he’s not normally quite this foolish.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>