It's OK to Generalize

by Alex Torus

One often hears Cultural Marxists (i.e., the politically correct) say that it is wrong to make generalizations. This is a foolish, hypocritical claim, because:

  1. Making generalizations is indispensable to the advancement of knowledge. If you stop and think about it, science wouldn't exist if it refused to make generalizations, as would many other fields, such as history. Should we throw out scientific laws that have proven valid in the vast majority of cases because exceptions can be found? Should historians stop naming periods after their dominant ideas or trends (e.g. the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution) because other ideas or trends also existed at the time? As the saying goes, the exception proves the rule.
  2. Cultural Marxists only oppose generalizations that are made about the groups they are sympathetic to — namely, women and certain racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities (e.g. blacks, jews, and homosexuals). And while they condemn generalizations made about these groups, I have repeatedly heard them make the most vituperative blanket statements about men, whites, heterosexuals, Christians, white Southerners, Germans, and rightists. "Men," one hears them say, "are rapists, Catholics hate homosexuals, Southerners are inbred cross-burners, and Germans still want to conquer the world." I was going to include "the poor" among the groups they are sympathetic to, but thought about it a second and realized it wouldn't be true: Cultural Marxists are sympathetic to the poor when those poor are dark skinned, but when they're white, they call them rednecks, hillbillies, and trailer trash and subject them to a barrage of insults and demeaning jokes about their intelligence, education, genetics, and hygiene.

    More often than not, generalizations made about the Cultural Marxists' pet groups are truer than those Cultural Marxists make about heterosexual white males. It is far truer to say, for example, that women have contributed virtually nothing to the advancement of science and technology than it is to say that the average man is a rapist. It would be truer to say that a black man is likelier to be a rapist than a white man. It would be truer to say that a homosexual is likelier to be murdered by another homosexual than by a Catholic.

    Most hypocritical is when a Cultural Marxist asks you not to make an unflattering generalization about, say, women, then in the same breath proceeds to tell you that legal discrimination against white men in the form of quotas and preferential hiring of women is necessary to make up for supposed past injustices. That line of thinking sounds an awful lot like what leftists condemn as "collective punishment" when the Israelis bulldoze the homes of Palestinians who had nothing to do with terrorist attacks. White men — all of them — must be punished for the alleged sins of a small minority of their forefathers (until the 20th Century, most men weren't allowed to vote, either, and so had no more control over policy than did women). They are collectively guilty, even if none of them did anything in their lifetimes to "oppress" women, and must all pay. Is this rationale not based on generalizations? Yet a Cultural Marxist will say it to you with a straight face while trying to forbid you from making much truer generalizations about one of his pet groups. He would never accept the equivalent proposition that blacks should be discriminated against on the grounds that they commit far more violent crimes against whites than whites do against them and hence deserve punishment. When it comes to darkies, fags, and skirts, we must always regard them as individuals, never collectively. Only with straight white males does it become acceptable and even commendable to judge them on the color of their skin or configuration of their genitals rather than on character.

The admonition not to generalize is probably the strongest weapon in the Cultural Marxist's arsenal. If a person can be persuaded not to generalize, he will fail to identify a competing group and to notice patterns of behavior among its constituents that point to a common agenda. He will be at a disadvantage. Asking someone not to generalize is literally asking him not to see the forest for the trees.

Now you are equipped to not only see through this faulty argument but to dismiss it as silly and hypocritical should it be used to try to silence you.


Posted July 19, 2018. Updated July 21, 2018.

Home