27 July 2012

Politically Incorrect Olympic Games

The Olympic Games are upon us once more! For sports enthusiasts, and casual appreciators of human potential, this will mark four weeks of the politically incorrect, in one momentous occasion. A lot has happened in my life in the four years since the last Olympics in Beijing, and one such development has been my understanding of left-wing politics. The Olympics epitomises the pickle leftist ideologues find themselves in, once ever four years.

Like Hitler in 1936, furious that a black man could ever outperform a white man, leftists find themselves in all sorts of ideological knots over the results at impartial events such as the Olympics. Usually leftists have affirmative action to try to sway outcomes in their favour, though in sports this is much harder to do. Normally PC zealots will protest loudly about alleged injustices in a particular area. A recent Cosmopolitan article, called “Where are all the women?” spouted a cacophony of PC conjecture from the rafters about female oppression in the field of technology. Anyone with social awareness can see that men are far more interested in this career than women, and though there are exceptions, they don’t amount to rules.

Trumped up claims regarding women being more interested in computer games than men (refuted here), how there’s also been a record number of women enrolling in computing in Harvard, and even how more women use gadgets than men, were all made in the Cosmopolitan propaganda piece. But as Shakespeare once wrote, “The lady doth protest too much”. PC ideologues fail to make an accurate distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, adding all sorts of embellishments via pseudo-science to make their case.

Equality of opportunity is akin to each person starting a race at the same time, and running the same distance. Equality of outcome is akin to giving a woman a head start to compensate for a natural strength disadvantage, and then stating that the reason for this is down to ‘prejudice’. By the same token women don’t enrol for computer courses to the same extent as men, and so accepting a bigger percentage of women compared to men is not an accurate way to filter through the best candidates. Society thrives when the best succeed, and equality of outcome does not create merit based parity. Sarah Kwong, writer of the Cosmopolitan piece, and boasting about the increased female numbers being accepted for computer courses, is thus bragging about male applicants that missed out for a minority of female applicants, all in the name of false ‘equality’.

Nothing exemplifies the folly of political correctness more than the Olympics, since it’s extremely difficult to manipulate the outcome of an athletic event when it’s in plain view. Beforehand it’s easy to reallocate funding, and restrict male participation, but such tactics are setting athletes up for a fall, since there are others that won’t be hampered by such denial of biological realism.

Take Keeling Pilaro, a high school hockey player who was no longer allowed to play for his team because he was too good compared to other players, typically all female. The reason is a state education law that prevents males from taking part if it has an adverse effect on female participation. You would think that if theories of gender being irrelevant were true, then females would brush aside a bit of fair competition.

The Olympics takes no prisoners when it comes to performance. A list of the world records for male and female track and field and swimming events demonstrates the large gap in performance very well. In certain events women are required to perform at a lower standard. Take the 110 metre men’s hurdles compared to the 100 metre hurdles for women, which decreases the distance of the female version of the event, as well as the height of the hurdles themselves.

The other non-PC element of the Olympics involves race. PC ideologues are cultural determinists refusing to acknowledge the genetic differences that come into play in the world of sport, choosing instead to insist upon cultural influences. Gradually this point of view is being pushed out of reputable science, but it hasn’t stopped cultural determinists of the left wreaking havoc on objective truth for decades. Many ask what a cultural Marxist is, but the answer is very simple – a Marxist ideologue obsessed with the social influence on human potential.

It is none-the-less becoming harder to suppress biological evidence related to athletic performance, thanks to the research into genetics, like the fact that 70% of Jamaicans have a relatively rare gene called ACTN3. While Usain Bolt will certainly have a good training regime, it’s hard to excel without genetic capabilities, and the ACTN3 gene gives him the genetic boost he needs.

Speaking as someone who lifts weights at the gym, it’s important to be realistic about what one can achieve, and in this sense that are limits. I don’t have the genetics to look like Charles Atlas (even if I wanted to), no matter how much I work out, at least not without enhancement drugs.

Genetic evidence for athletic performance is prevalent in a multitude of other cases, such as the ability of the Kenyan ectomorph. Short and slender, and with good natural lung capacity, along with slow twitch muscle fibres, this makes many Kenyans naturally adept at endurance sports. This is not so positive when it comes to anaerobic sprinting, which would correlate with the fact that Kenyans are low ranking soccer players worldwide, in spite of the national obsession with the sport. This shows us first-hand that culture has limited influence without biological potential as a basis.

In the swimming pool scientists have shown that white people tend to have a lower centre of gravity compared to black people, meaning that more of their upper bodies are above the waterline. White swimmers have held the 100m freestyle swimming record world record since 1922, which would demonstrate the advantage this provides. Conversely a higher centre of gravity has helped black people retain the last 25 100m sprint world records.

The cultural Marxist will vehemently oppose those who present such data, with accusations of racism and bigotry for accepting objective scientific research, not to mention repeatedly dismissing such evidence with cultural reasons. But the real bigotry is restricting the endeavour of scientific discovery. There are moral questions to be asked when it comes to what we do with any information uncovered, but restricting the truth is a dangerous path to tread, often resulting in others filling in the blanks with their own ideology. This is why affirmative action is so flawed, since it not only creates a biased impression of perceived oppression, but also provides solutions to problems that don’t exist.

No comments:

Post a Comment