I’m in a History of Evolution course because it fits my schedule to only have class two days per week. It’s, of course, anti HBD and mono-speciest, but gotta know my enemy. My struggle for survival aloft the ivory tower isn’t the point of this post, though.
Whenever our NRx rivals worship at the totem of science it unnerves me. We may use that totem for our benefit but it is by no means saviour. The disaster of positivism proved that decisively in the nineteenth century.
Anyways, the prof mentioned Darwin was a great celebrity during his Victorian life- so it dawned on me he must’ve personally known Carlyle. A quick goog revealed this incredibly interesting segment from the naturalist’s posthumous published autobiography.
“His [Carlyle’s] talk was very racy and interesting, just like his writings, but he sometimes went on too long on the same subject. I remember a funny dinner at my brother’s, where, amongst a few others, were Babbage and Lyell, both of whom liked to talk. Carlyle, however, silenced every one by haranguing during the whole dinner on the advantages of silence. After dinner Babbage, in his grimmest manner, thanked Carlyle for his very interesting lecture on silence.
Carlyle sneered at almost every one: one day in my house he called Grote’s ‘History’ “a fetid quagmire, with nothing spiritual about it.” I always thought, until his ‘Reminiscences’ appeared, that his sneers were partly jokes, but this now seems rather doubtful. His expression was that of a depressed, almost despondent yet benevolent man; and it is notorious how heartily he laughed. I believe that his benevolence was real, though stained by not a little jealousy. No one can doubt about his extraordinary power of drawing pictures of things and men—far more vivid, as it appears to me, than any drawn by Macaulay. Whether his pictures of men were true ones is another question.
He has been all-powerful in impressing some grand moral truths on the minds of men. On the other hand, his views about slavery were revolting. In his eyes might was right. His mind seemed to me a very narrow one; even if all branches of science, which he despised, are excluded. It is astonishing to me that Kingsley should have spoken of him as a man well fitted to advance science. He laughed to scorn the idea that a mathematician, such as Whewell, could judge, as I maintained he could, of Goethe’s views on light. He thought it a most ridiculous thing that any one should care whether a glacier moved a little quicker or a little slower, or moved at all. As far as I could judge, I never met a man with a mind so ill adapted for scientific research.”
That statement isn’t negative enough to declare the evolutionist an enemy by any means, nor are his theories particularly incorrect. Rather, we must not fear the insult “anti-science”, as that form of inquiry has largely been opposed to our designs besides some glorious exceptions like Newton and Leibniz. Whatever the “scientific worldview” may be, it is not the HRx one, or any ideology we may find acceptable for that matter.
STEMers may build our missiles or manufacture our pharmaceuticals, but they must not be allowed any power and even less sovereignty. The Rightist Brahminate must work tirelessly to avoid rule devolving to “the telescopes and microscopes of committees and parties” as Lippman wished. Technocratic bureaucracy ends in a singularity much like the modern PRC, to avoid this hellish post-human life, we must take a stand here now.