This topic over at Marginal Revolution is amusing, mostly for the comments. Much of it brings to mind Steve Sailer’s bit about Occam’s Butter Knife. That is, instead of looking for the simplest answer to a modern social problem, the comments are a hunt for the most complex and least plausible explanation. There’s a healthy bit of solipsism in the post, as well as the follow on comments. They can’t figure out why tough divorce laws evolved in some societies, so they just assume there is no rational reason for it.
The English figured out before most that easy divorce is bad for human society. The people who post and comment over at that site are very bright. Yet, the idea that easy divorce is bad for society has never occurred to them. I guess they have been in a marriage negative culture for so long, they know nothing else. Of course, my taunt about monogamous heterosexual marriage being the best way to propagate the species was a turd in the punch bowl. That upset a few of them.
It also has the benefit of being true. For most of human history, people have understood that strong families make for a strong society. The definition of strong family, however, is not universal and not all people evolved culturally to the point where they can think about things. Africans did not evolve marriage customs like in the rest of the world, as monogamous pairing was never an advantage for the humans living in Africa. In Europe, monogamy is common, which is a reminder that evolution is always local.
As to marriage in the West, it was assumed to be so obvious up to about last week, so no one thought it needed to be discussed. It is like the importance of the sun or the act of breathing. One of those things everyone knows by the time they are five or six years old. Yet, we now live in a time when this has to be explained and many of our brightest cannot accept it. My guess is the typical intellectual under the age of 50 thinks marriage is about having someone to share the bills and a bed. Children are merely a lifestyle choice.
The response to my assertion about the English vexed quite a few of them. Again, a plainly true point that raises hackles. As far as human species go, the English have punched way above their weight. They settled and created five countries in addition to their own. They turned India into a modern state and rescued Hong Kong from the Chinese, which in turn may have rescued China from the Chinese. Their language is a universal tongue. I could go on, but the evidence is clear on that point.
As far as human culture goes, few can claim the same success as the English. Yet, Western intellectuals are hell bent on reversing all of it. That touches on the most taboo of subjects, so there is no point in raising it in a public forum. As soon as anyone starts talking about Jewish influence in American high culture or even something like the Frankfurt School, the pointing and sputtering starts. Even if you are ambivalent about Jews, as I am, you get called an anti-Semite and shut down for even mentioning it.
There are still ways to shine the light on the obvious though and that’s worth doing as long as their are still people worth convincing. The role of the dissident thinker these days is mostly to operate as a subversive, undermining faith in the prevailing orthodoxy. That’s the point of this blog and the point of commenting on other blogs. Throw some sand in the gears, cast doubt on deeply held beliefs, get those who can be saved questioning the dominant culture. Maybe enough break loose to form a useful counter-culture.
