about the Preserving Western Civilization conference is still going on. Someone named George Hess, claiming to be an academic, wrote a hilariously illiterate attack on the academic credentials and character of Michael Hart, and Nicholas Stix really lets him have it.
Nicholas Stix said,
ON MARCH 20TH, 2009 AT 5:54 PM
Wm George Hess said,
on March 18th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
“I am appalled by the comments of Professor Hart beliefs regarding intelligence are appalling [sic].”
And what comments might those be? You have no idea what Michael Hart has written, because you were too lazy to bother reading his work.
You say you’re a professor of literacy, Mr. Hess. How can that be, when you are yourself not literate? If, however, you told me that you were a professor in a Department of Redundancy Department, I could get my mind around that. You really should take your irony supplement; your posts are full of iron!
“As a Jew and academician, I know the arguments he puts forth about the various levels of intelligence are very old and worn out assertions as mythical and biased as the canard that African Americans are better suited to athletics because they have longer arms, looser joints, larger muscles, et al. The truth is intelligence as marked by IQ is in itself a misnomer because the equation of chronological age divided by mental age (CA/MA = IQ) does not take into account the many factors that contribute to a person [sic] intellectual capacity and a person’s response to her environment and within the context of her cultural experiences.”
Why do you claim to be a Jew? It’s one thing for you to claim to be an academic; it’s impossible, at this stage in the game, to libel the professoriate, but please do not embarrass Jews, by insisting on your membership among them.
By the way, the routine socialist/communist/black supremacist/whatever talking point against the science of intelligence is that it is somehow “culturally biased.” You now suggest that it is insufficiently “culturally biased.” Where, pray tell, did you get your talking point? I know that it isn’t your own thought, because you have none.
Was the following bombast supposed to cow people? “[T]he many factors that contribute to a person [sic] intellectual capacity and a person’s response to her environment and within the context of her cultural experiences.” How the hell is that supposed to be a criticism of IQ? (Relax; the question was rhetorical. I know you were just trying to sound smart.)
“His assertion does not include the many ways by which we are intelligent and talented.”
What assertion?
“Hart’s thesis is no better then [sic] Hitler’s theory of the Arian [sic] Race.”
What thesis? And what theory might that be? You’ve never read Hitler, either!
“As Hitler did, Hart disgraces humanity and academic pursuits by the drivel he espouses and bases on inaccurate data, inaccurate assumptions, and biased data.”
What thesis? What “inaccurate data, inaccurate assumptions, and biased data”?
“I have neither time nor inclination to debunk his thesis.”
Of course, not. How can you debunk someone who writes on fields about which you know nothing, and whose work you’ve never read?
“He would not be able to complete his doctorate at my institution because he works from faulty assumption [sic] to which is he too blinded by his hatred and biases to see.”
What “assumption”? And what institution would award a doctorate to an intellectual fraud like you? As for “hatred and biases,” pot, kettle, Mr. Hess, pot, kettle.
“Next he will want the enactment of laws limiting public access and privilege based on racist ‘intelligence’. Wasn’t that the Third Reich’s reasoning in the enactment of the Nuremberg Laws. [sic]
Actually, no.
“Professor Hart does not belong in the same academy as I and my other colleagues who have a clearer understanding of what it means to be human.”
So, you question Michael Hart’s humanity, too, do you? Well, why not? Why not go for the trifecta, while you’re at it, eh, “Professor” Hess?
Here’s what I know about Michael Hart. (We’ve met three times, are cordial, and have mutual friends, but do not know each other well.)
1. He’s a polymath, and one of the towering intellects of his generation;
2. Morally, he’s about as close to fearless as a man can be, without being a danger to those around him. He stood up to David Duke, who is at least one foot taller than him, in a room containing many of Duke’s friends;
3. When it comes to arguing his beliefs, he is willing to put his own time, money, and reputation on the table, whether it is writing and publishing his work, or producing a conference.
Here’s what I know about “Wm George Hess.”
1. Intellectual fraud: Claims to be a professor of literacy, while himself being of dubious literacy. Claims expertise in fields which he has never studied, and about writers whom he has never read. Calls world-class scholars frauds, based on the authority of an academic hoax (Stephen Jay Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man);
2. Moral fraud: Condemns the humanity of one of the most courageous intellectuals of his day. Jumps on the bandwagon with other liars, morons, and cowards to persecute their betters. Demands that other critics sign their real names, so that he and his comrades can destroy their lives.
Were my Hungarian-born Nana (1893?-1976) still alive, she would call you a liar, Hess. She’d say that it’s impossible for a man so lacking in intelligence and literacy to be both a Jew and a professor. And indeed, in her day, it was impossible. Unfortunately, I know that we live in an age of Jewish mediocrity. But that is the fault of you and your ilk, Hess, not Michael Hart. It is Michael Hart whom my Nana would have recognized, for in his intellectual and moral excellence, he is a throwback to her age.
To impale you on your own words, Hess, you and your colleagues do “not belong in the same academy” as Michael Hart.