@ Di Montani

Dear Sir.....Thank you for your further clarifications.  I agreed with most of your original text, although you too fail to make the proper distinction between culture and race, as many other commentators do. 

Where did you say "that"?  Well, you talk about veneration of "white people".   From a moral perspective, people should never be "venerated" for skin color, or any other physical attribute. They may be venerated because they are 'good' (assuming they are or were).   This is clearly an example of "morality descending into personal tastes and manifest racism".

Also, I agree with you that any people have a (moral) 'right' to cultural self-determination, and that certainly includes control of their own immigration policy.  But they do not "deserve" any particular color or looks.  So Europe does not deserve to be white, Africa to be black, etc... Dominant physical traits in particular settings are all 'accidents' of history and geography.  These traits have no moral connotation in and of themselves and people do not "deserve" them.  I can imagine numerous examples of 'deviations' from dominant physical traits (which would be in accordance with the criterion of cultural self-determination), and these 'deviant' individuals would be just as "deserving" of Europe, Africa, or anywhere else.   It would certainly be immoral to treat them as if they were not "deserving" on the basis of physical looks.  You should make moral distinctions between people on the basis of behavior, not looks. And one should never victimise individuals because of mistakes made by others elsewhere or in the past. 

Rest assured, America is NOT "a unique and special case", and America will NOT cease to exist if it stopped "veneration of white people".

Re: "Tabla Rasa".

Well spotted... and to rework an old Dick Emery catchphrase,"U are awful but I like U".

PS Fingers crossed,I feel sure Mr Harvey is big enough to see the funny side.

Whether Marc Frans is right or not does not matter to me. I have not read TD's book and most probably won't. However, and it's not the first time this has happened, Mr Havey's posting is written in an awful, hardly comprehensible style. Sorry, I am not part of the (pseudo?) intellctual elite and never will be. However, I like reading articles in which the essential message is not taken for granted. 

Then Mr Havey adds this: "Written with his customary clarity of thought and marshalling a heavy barrage of language his thoughts are compelling and persuasive". I think EH should use TD as editor then, because he's just the opposite of what he has described here.

Please forgive my crass ignorance.

Marcfrans is absolutely (?!) right. And, after reading Dalrymple's "confutation" of JS Mill, the thought strikes me (not for the first time) that often a conservative is just a Leninist manqué.

Dear sir...I nowhere state, imply, or approve in the accusation that "human morality should descend into personal tastes, racism, etc."  This, in fact is precisely the opposite of what I was, indeed, trying to say.  Please note, that I made it VERY clear that it was our duty to transmit "enlightenment" values, which could have only emerged from a Western Christian Culture...to other peoples, races, and religions...THEN RACE MATTERS hardly at all.  In other words, in the end...our brother and sisters are those who share our values, racial and ethnic origin is not relevant.  What's wrong with that?  In association with this, I allow that all peoples should be permitted racial continuance in their ancestral homelands...even European whites.  What's wrong with that? With respect to morals and moral certainty...no rational person would ever simplify such to the extent that you would suggest...not even the traditional Roman Church.  We are long past the age of inquisitions, yet the relevance of morality and heresy will never cease to be paramount.  DONT be like the Eastern Europeans and the Russians...when they finally achieved freedom, all they did was fornicate, steal, do drugs, and engage in all manners of corruption and thievery...fully embracing those famous "Western" Enlightenment values.  Get-a-grip.  Good and evil are not that difficult to separate.  In fact...use Good and evil as one's "litmus" test for all things.  That is, if one can still identify them after reading the likes of Mill.  One would do better by reading the "Fathers."  

I think that Mr Harvey is skating on very thin ice, when he confuses normal human doubt with a "tabla rasa". It is certainly true that not all 'prejudices' are wrong, but Dalrymple can NOT know with certainty that his particular prejudices are right.  For him to know that, he would have to be 'God', and we know (with certainty) that he is not God.  So, since he is not God, and IF he were to hold his beliefs with absolute certainty, that would merely make him a (human) 'fundamentalist'. 

Human belief requires always a degree of uncertainty.  That is precisely what makes it 'human'.   If there is no doubt, then there is no belief.  Doubt is what distinguishes belief from certainty or full knowledge.  It is doubt that makes any leap into 'faith' so difficult for humans, and it is doubt that distinguishes any adult faith from 'brainwashing, childish beliefs, and fundamentalism'.

While religious fundamentalism has become rather the exception in modern western society - not least because of exceptional people over the ages, from Socrates to.....J.S.Mill - its secular equivalent is thriving again.  Hence, we can see today that in many places in Europe selected individuals are AGAIN being persecuted for their beliefs, or at least for expressing their beliefs or opinions.  This shows that moral relativists of the ruling naive-left also hold some of their beliefs with certainty, to the point that they are willing to deny freedom of speech to others, i.e. they want to put Socrates on trial again......(even two and a half millenia later). What does that tell us about human 'progress'? Secular fundamentalists can be just as unpleasant and wrong as religious fundamentalists. 

It would be truly tragic if some people would want to reverse the 'European Enlightenment' in order to fight rampant moral relativism today.  They should read J.S.Mill again in order to understand better the repression of the mind that people like Mill were reacting against.  And it is truly tragic if they can lead some of their followers to make statements, like the one from Di Montani here, where human morality (from a judeo-christian perspective) descends into simple personal 'tastes' and manifest racism. 

Indeed, to quote Di Montani, "moral equivicacy is not (in and of itself) a sign of intellectual rigor", BUT the denial of the existence of genuine moral dilemmas and of uncertainty is a clear sign of human arrogance ('sinful' arrogance in Christian parlance), for it is the equivalent of arrogating to oneself a degree of certainty and of knowledge which is super-human or, if you will, God-like. Fundamentalism or belief-with-absolute certainty (i.e. unquestioned belief), is immoral for humans. Why? Precisely because it is inhuman, it is not human-like, and (human) morality is being true to your (human) nature.

"tabla rasa"

Beating the drum, eh?

"...but when SHE looses her veneration of "White-People," she will cease to exist but to be Dhimmitized to Islam and the leftist PC."

I think you mean if America loses her Western values, especially those of Judeo Christian morals and ethics - which are NOT about "whiteness" - indeed, they are "catholic".

It is really way-past-time to put a damper on "relativistic" thought...especially that "particular-thought" which TD attempts to tackle.  We know "their legacy"...those French, English, Danes, Dutch, Germans, and Americans who challenged the Roman Church and its assumption of moral supremacy.  We know about Byzantine and the fall of the Eastern Orthodox/Oriental Christians to Islam.  We know about Russia...and we know about America.  SO...
As the old-adage goes, " if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."  So, STAND, you!  Moral equivicacy is not a sign of intellectual rigor, but of intellectual and moral vapidity. Moral lassitude reveals only stupidity, in-articulateness, and hedonistic heathenism..and worse! In our zeal to destroy the Church, which IS our Culture, we effectively and intentionally indulge in both cultural, spiritual, and individual euthanasia and suicide...which Islam, the Left, and the Atheistic/Socialistic/Humanists are all-too-ready to dutifully and eagerly oblige.  NOW, with respect to CJ at LGF...Europe deserves to be White, every bit as much as Africa deserves to Black, China Yellow, and Mexico Mexican.  America is a unique and special case...but when SHE looses her veneration of "White-People," she will cease to exist but to be Dhimmitized to Islam and the leftist PC.  The idea is to CONVERT them...and not to be converted by them.  Then...race will hardly matter, at all.