Monday, 18 March 2013
As you'll know, here at Venerable Beads we like to keep you up to date with the frontiers of empirical discovery, especially when those discoveries just happen to conform to pre-determined ideological prejudices. You know, as if by magic.
There used to be a corny notion, thankfully dying out, that the real job of science is to add to our store of knowledge about the universe. If you want that sort of thing, go to some square old outlet like New Scientist. Those of us with a better grasp of such things know that the real job of science is to serve the state, by offering empirical validation of their nutball dogma.
So I'm proud to say that while those old-white coated squares were messing about trying to cure cancer and work out how the universe started, we were at the real cutting edge, reporting such life-changing discoveries as the fact that heart disease medication can 'cure racism', conservatives have lower IQs, white people find it easier to identify an ape if they've been shown a photo of a black man for a fraction of a second first, greater use of contraception can help prevent global warming, and heterosexuality is an illusion created by Walt Disney films.
In addition to whatever the issue at hand happens to be, such discoveries confirm various other things, too.
One is what I have elsewhere termed Bollock's Law, which is simply that any experiment which is set up not to test but to prove a contention, and is devised by people who want that contention to be true, will probably end up demonstrating what they want it to.
Another is Barnum's Law, also known as the universal law of eternal gullibility.
The interesting thing about this law is that it operates not only among laymen: when state power is strong and ideological conformity an essential price of getting ahead, other scientists are just as happy to be born every minute as the rest of us. Hence the fact of the identifying apes experiment, my favourite of those linked to above, being reported solemnly and without even respectful dissent in the science page of the London Times.
Yet another is the curious phenomenon we might call the Law of Intellectual Snowball Momentum.
There is no excuse - not even the wish for a quiet life, for just ten seconds of the day to be free from their endless aggrieved yapping - for giving ground on any of these issues, because it never, ever stops.
Each fresh concession only leads to louder and more insistent cries that we must then go a step further. Think of any fashionable but divisive political issue, and you will see this law operate in almost every case. No matter how much ground is given, even if far in excess of that initially requested, more will always be demanded, and the urgency and lack of compromise will only increase.
The importance of the issue somehow increases the faster and more successfully it cuts through dissent and becomes accepted in the wider culture.
Obviously, the biggest, most shining goal of the State is to obliterate the family, to have sole and unquestioned authority over your private life and reproductive rights.
An essential part of this goal is of course to take away your responsibility for your own children, with a battery of laws enabling it to remove children from the home and insist by law that any child be raised in accordance with the the elite's own prejudices and preferences, with non-compliance punishable by law. This is now entirely above board in institutions that are responsible for the well-being of children - education, fostering, adoption etc -and it will be the smallest of steps for such decrees to be applied to the family itself, with regular checks, pledges of allegiance and, for dissenters, the legal separation of parent and child.
One way science can help is by honing in on traditional elements of child-raising, where conservatives, with their sneaky ideas of personal freedom, are most likely to reveal themselves.
And thus the campaign, now more or less won, against the use of physical chastisement in child rearing. With its ideal combination of interference and compassion, it was the easiest and most successful means for the state to get a legal toehold in the institution of the family itself.
There's nothing wrong with disliking the idea of parents smacking children, and suggesting there might be a better way. But more fool anyone who thought that such concern was the real issue, or even an issue at all, with this most successful of intrusive campaigns. The point was to make an opening in the family unit - that most essentially private and unimpeachable institution - wide enough to let the state through. And the best way was by milking the compassion of child psychologists and behaviourists and liberal pundits (with their nannies and child minders).
If that were really the issue, it would stop there.
But if it were operating to a model more along the lines I have been suggesting, we should be expecting the Law of Intellectual Snowball Momentum to kick in about now, and to see the experts in child health suddenly making some new and amazing discovery that will protect the welfare of the child even more (and who but a monster could object to protecting the welfare of children?) and that will also - entirely incidentally, of course! - empower the state still further to stick its greasy face through your curtains.
And so, ladies and gentlemen, may I be the first to inform you that shouting at children gives them cancer.