by Martin Harris
For decades, your Humble Scribe has considered the language deployed by disappointed spend-more-on-schools advocates, after local school budget or bonding voter-defeats, as evidence of their Progressive conviction that they are the smarter 10%, those genetically endowed with intellect and understanding far superior to the facilities of the dumber 90%. That’s us, (or we?) whom they are therefore obligated to govern, as un-appreciated and resented as their noble efforts (to take up “the white man’s burden, in English Progressive Rudyard Kipling’s poetic words) may be. “If only we’d better explained all the wonderful things we are trying to do for the children,” they remorsefully declare to the nearest reporter, “these under-informed locals would have understood and not mindlessly resisted. We’ll just have to do it all over again, this time with no words over two syllables, until these people finally grasp our enlightened concepts.” But now, in the context of the recent gun-control debate, far better evidence has surfaced: it comes from the loftier reaches of academia itself, its assertions backed with chart pictures that even we on the wrong side of the IQ bell curve can understand. Irony of history: the original late-19th century Progressive Movement, launched in the US by Wisconsin-then-Guv (and Republican!) Robert LaFollette, was likewise academia-based; indeed, its slogan “the Wisconsin Idea”, specifically referred to the “application of the expertise of the State’s University system to legislation…” and for years the Party located its legislative-drafting offices within the State-wide campus system.
Now, its academic base is global, not merely US-national or -State, and its latest voice for Progressive genetic superiority is one Satoshi Kanazawa at the London School of Economics. The professor writes that “liberalism is evolutionarily novel” and “liberals are on average more intelligent than conservatives and thus they are more likely to attain the highest status in any area of (evolutionarily novel) modern life” because “more intelligent individuals are more likely than less intelligent individuals to espouse liberalism as a value”. In a chart in Psychology Today (posted on the Web) he shows, with bars even we can comprehend, that “very conservative” humans have the lowest mean IQ at 94.8 while the “very liberal” post the highest mean IQ of 106.4. That inherited sense of genetic superiority recalls another bit of history: that the late 19th century birth of the Progressive Movement coincided with the birth of “eugenics”, the concept of selective breeding to improve the human race by selecting only the best-and-brightest (another Progressive slogan) for the privilege of reproduction. By 1927 that inherited wisdom enabled high-IQ SCOTUS Justice (and Progressive) Oliver Wendell Holmes to declare, in support of government-enforced sterilization for those on the wrong side of the IQ bell curve, that “three generations of imbeciles is enough.” Now their superior genetic endowment enables our leaders to explain to us, in terms we can understand, how we have failed to grasp the privilege of gun ownership. Cases in point: Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. In recent comments, the superior-side-of-the-IQ-curve VT Guv re-states the former movie-based you-don’t need-a-semi-automatic-to-kill-Bambi theme in more scientific and species-specific terms, explaining that we-don’t-need an-assault-rifle-to-hunt-white-tail-deer.
Further to his Left, geographically and politically, NY Guv Andrew Cuomo last week explained to his own inferior-IQ subjects that they “misunderstand gun law reform” and, similarly, don’t need and therefore shouldn’t want assault rifles, or high-capacity magazines, for hunting, just as they don’t need small-arms for self-defense (they can always call a government peace officer) and that, therefore, fire-arms ownership should be rare, registered, and (unspoken) recorded for the purposes of the soon-to-arrive day-of confiscation. Both Progressive/Liberal Governors have thereby (just ask them) proffered a more intelligence-based explication of the purpose of the Second Amendment than such questionable-IQ political-theory incompetents as New-England-born Noah Webster, who presumed to opine (ill-advisedly, of course) that “the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed” and Samuel Adams, who (incorrectly, as it turned out, see Shumlin and Cuomo quotes above) predicted that “the Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” Both dumb Yankees couldn’t quite get it: the Second Amendment is actually a government-bestowed privilege for pre-approved duck-hunters, target-plinkers, and maybe even home-owners. as the higher-IQ Progressive folks have patiently been explaining recently.
If these three are arguably the smartest people in the room, it’s shown by the evidence that (Humble Scribe theory) they have already correctly perceived two critical aspects of representational politics. One is that you can now build a near-permanent voting majority by appealing precisely to the chosen demographic and socio-economic cohorts which will eagerly trade votes-for-“stuff”, as has been well-illustrated in the last two elections. The other is that success at such vote-buying inevitably triggers (forgive the pun) a negative reaction from the targets of the essential re-distribution, precisely the ordinarily-law-abiding heartland citizenry who own precisely the long guns now deemed most important to confiscate and are precisely the cohort least guilty of the “gun crime” for which they –we– are now being blamed. The smarter 10% know their history, which is precisely why they have been purposefully attempting to re-define gun ownership as a government-bestowed-privilege, so that the original Second Amendment purpose –not duck-hunting or skeet-shooting or self-defense but resistance to tyranny–won’t arise in the minds and hearts of us the dumber 90% once again. They also know their gun-crime stats, wherein the vast majority of shootings are small-arms in hardware and inner-city in location, precisely because street-corner hoodlums aren’t a political challenge (indeed, they’re reliable “votes-for-stuff” supporters) and precisely because the more suburban and rural long-rifle owners (with the lowest gun-crime rates) are their major political-resistance concern as their Progressive ideology produces governance results which, to be blunt, heartland traditionalists don’t like and might at some point not peacefully accept. In their advanced-intellect P-calculus, it’s better to control the long-rifles before the voter/owners decide to control the P-ideology.