@KA,

Thnx for your short reply, appreciate that. I'll also try to be brief (and you know I'll fail once more, don't you ;-):

I'm afraid you're wrong again.

[Quote:KA]
"One should not confuse Communists and the anti-racists associated with the abolitionist movement."

Exactly. So don't.

[KA]
"Proponents of revolutionary socialism tried to conceal blind ambition and hatred behind a facade of conviction."

Nice to see that you've managed to get a backstage pass behind the "facade", but until you substantiate this claim, it's nothing more than that.

[KA]
"in the West, they emphasized class rather than ethnicity, nationality, race or religion in a bid for a popular and transnational base."

Wrong again.
Adenoid Hynkel and Benzino Gasolini both were revolutionary socialists who rejected the class struggle of orthodox Marxism and emphasized either the socialist religion of race (as the vehicle for progress, hence the love of eugenics) or classless nationalism. The National Socialist Workers party in Germany emphasized both, though they were somewhat sloppy revolutionaries or perhaps the first to discover a democratic path to absolute power.
Both "modern" heterodox socialists were preceded by socialists in the US who also rejected the orthodox Marxist idea of a class struggle. They were socialist racists and nationalists, firmly believing in modern "progress", calling themselves "military socialists", "Progressives" and so on.

And to aid you in not mixing things up KA, here's a reading tip to look into the history of the leftist political movement of the US "Progressives" (about 1880-1920), before you confuse it again with the more general label.

So I repeat (with capital P):

.."the concept of racism" hasn't become "politicized", for the simple reason that racism already was a politization in and of itself: the political religion of race, and the idea that a masterrace should rule. That is the original leftist, Progressive and politicized religion of race, promoted by the likes of Marx and Engels [and Wilson], preferrably enforced by a dictatorial collectivist State.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Sag.

@ Sagunto:

Proponents of revolutionary socialism tried to conceal blind ambition and hatred behind a facade of conviction. On the one hand, in the West, they emphasized class rather than ethnicity, nationality, race or religion in a bid for a popular and transnational base. Yet, the advent of Marxism-Leninism in the Soviet Union and its allies supported nationalism where necessary to remain in power, including ethnic cleansing of various minorities, bordering on genocide. One should not confuse Communists and the anti-racists associated with the abolitionist movement.

@ Gilbert:

Your comments on arguments linking "race" and culture stand in firm opposition to the racial and cultural relativism implicit in multiculturalism, and especially to denigration of White peoples and Whiteness. If you agree with these arguments, then by contemporary popular and academic standards, you qualify as a "racist".

The first condition of understanding a foreign country is to smell it.

(Rudyard Kipling)

This morning the world awoke to the stench of death in Mumbai.

It's clever, but is it Art?

(Rudyard Kipling)

node/3651

That's an easy one, too. I simply search the net  then apply Al Gore -ithms.

"The cannibalism of America's natives only proves their isolation from the rest of the word, as civilizations in Egypt, the Middle East and CHINA*** already had given up these rituals long before".

Indeed, and I have no doubt that Mr Kip- Ling really does make exceedingly good cakes too.

***

http://heretical.com/cannibal/china.html

http://www.weirdasianews.com/2007/04/02/cannibalism-in-china-acceptable-if-for-health/

Burp!!!

@ kappert

btw: The question isn't whether or not the Mexicans would return to cannibalism if they were not guided by Rudyard Kipling, the question is why it is that the overwhelming majority of educated Mexicans today would prefer to eat tapas with their Kipling rather than the other way around.

@ kappert

The Q: Would you characterize THE AUTHOR of this book 'racist'...?

The A: I suppose the taste (of human flesh) is just the same (everywhere) and CANNIBALS WERE NO RACISTS at all".

Comment:

Your answer is 'armoronic'. Eat your lunch and try again.

History proves that in humanity many cultures are possible, each one with their own scale of values. And what a vast scale! To eat man, either to worship a great leader or simple devour the enemy, has been part of human culture for a long time and was only abandoned by enhanced communication means in the last few millenniums. The cannibalism of America's natives only proves their isolation from the rest of the world, as civilizations in Egypt, the Middle East and China already had given up these rituals long before.
Yet, 'The Blame of Those Ye Better' appears as icon of white race nationalism in the U.S., as if today Mexicans would return to cannibalism if they were not guided by Rudyard Kipling! As for the 'white man', it's the only culture who tries to establish 'races', 'Übermenschen' and 'Untermenschen' 'scientifically'. The author forgot to mention that point! I suppose the taste is just the same and cannibals were no racists at all. I'm going to prepare my lunch now ...

@kappert

Book title: Life Styles: Native and Imposed

Author: Beary, Kevin

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n3p-7_Beary.html

Q: Would you characterize the author of this book 'racist'? If so, kindly explain the 'reasoning' behind that decision.

Well @Kapitein,

..you're wrong. First and foremost about Dawkins.
One can't leave aside his zealous anti-religious rantings, and only part of his first work ("memes" excluded) has been considered noteworthy by some dedicated researchers in the field of biology (where's his body of scientific research, by the way?), but his other works are mainly considered "notorious" by his followers, not carrying a lot of scientific weight. But then again, you don't really need a genuine interest in biology as a science to have an opinion about race, do you?

Secondly, "the concept of racism" hasn't become "politicized", for the simple reason that racism already was a politization in and of itself: the political religion of race, and the idea that a masterrace should rule. That is the original leftist, progressive and politicized religion of race, promoted by the likes of Marx and Engels, preferrably enforced by a dictatorial collectivist State.

That's why Eric Zemmour doesn't promote anything "racist". He just exposes the usual PC reflexes among leftists when someone merely talks about race. Before Hitler and since Marx, many progressives, socialists and what have you, were ardent racists in the abovementioned sense. The postwar generation of leftists opted for "anti"-racism, the only racism for those elitists allowed being US campus multiculturalism, i.e. racism 'lite' by proxy.

Perhaps those indignant progressives at that French tabletalkshow are subliminally reminded by Eric Zemmour of their inter-generational collectivist guilt.

Sag.

@Sagunto:

The concept of "racism" has become politicized and biased beyond all attempts at objective or universal use. A preferable alternative is "racialism", which can indicate a fixation on race irrespective of whether that fixation is classified as pro-miscegenation, anti-racism, racial supremacism or racial preservation. Employing "racialism", one can argue that all of the participants in the interview were fixated on race.

Dawkins' atheistic ranting aside, his works on evolutionary biology are noteworthy.

@Gilbert:

The key question is whether or not physical characteristics correlate with other individual and group traits such as intelligence and behavioral patterns. F.e. why do the trains run exactly on time in Germany but not nearly so in France or Italy? What are the causes of the differences between Germanic and Romantic culture? Are they due mainly to environmental factors such as climate, etc.? Does culture correlate at all with physical characteristics?

Certainly true, according to the gene-centered view of evolution, are the facts that 1/ genes are capable of statistical influence on traits; 2/ some of those traits influence reproductive success; 3/ genes pass mostly intact through reproduction.

 Controversial is indeed the claim, that organisms, groups and species are not replicators, or at least not evolvable replicators.

Is the copying fidelity of these replicators high? Is selection acting at these levels strong enough to overcome the effects of gene selection and random drift?

It seems that groups, species, etc., are both under very weak selection pressure and very sloppy replicators. But genes are under strong selection pressure and are high-fidelity replicators; selection on genes, therefore, rules.

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/extended-phenotype

I wonder if France media would allow a discussion on the use of medicines for certain racial groups, like this one: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2005/505_BiDil.html
(In this case race seems to be a sociocultural phenomenon).

I agree that there's no racism whatsoever in the story on the part of Zemmour. It's rapidly becoming sort of an indicator of truthfulness. Best guess is that when today's political/cultural elites cry "racist!" during a debate, the accused is probably right and winning the argument.

@gilbert,

Strictly speaking, neo-Darwinism is quite old, sort of an update on Darwin's theory after the rediscovery of Mendel's Laws. Genes (more correctly: genepool) and phenotype + system (selective pressure) are just different sides of the same coin.

"Fitness" in the old neo-Darwinian sense is a way of describing a snapshot in evolutionary time, a momentary impression of the "fit" between species and environment and how that, through natural selection, affects the genepool. The amount of variation in the total genepool can tell us something about "fitness", but even more about (the absence of) selective pressure.

In other words: the "fitness of a gene" as such isn't sound biology. It must always be described in direct dynamic relation to the factor "species under (selective) pressure". 

Dawkins is a sociobiologist and somewhat of an anti-religious pamphleteer, as far as I can see.

Sag. 

traveller: I just had breakfast when I read your drivel. You are responsible for ruining a perfect good breakfast.

This comment is the high point of my day...

I am fully aware that genes control phenotype.

My argument is that the concept of race (outside of Coon's primary and subraces, which emphasized hard features over skin color) is largely based on observable characteristics, a factor that leads both to blurred lines and complete exclusion.

Neo-Darwinian fitness is defined in terms of genes, not phenotypes; that is, fitness is defined as the success of genes in being replicated, and hence passed down to future generations.

The works of Dawkins - The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, etc. - explain many of these concepts in greater detail and are highly recommended.  There is no doubt whatsoever that the ultimate biological replicator, the ultimate biological concern, is at the level of the genes.  In real-life, this manifests itself in a concern for genetically similar organisms, related by ancestry (i.e., "kin").

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Books/index.shtml

I wouldn't characterize M. Zemmour as belonging to the "white race". Certainly, M. Zemmour is Caucasian - as are the subraces Armenoid and Irano-Afghan - but he is not White.

Certainly, Southern Europeans and their descendants who believe in phenotypical and sociologial races, identify themselves as White. Under this definition of Whiteness that encompasses every indigenous European people, Swedes and Sicilians are equally White. However, so are various individuals and peoples outside of Europe i.e. in West, Central and South Asia.

Yet the definition of Whiteness promulgated by various anthropologists during the 19th and 20th centuries, associated Whiteness with Northern Europe, and excluded Southern Europe as well as parts of France and East-Central Europe. Indeed, the pre-1939 concept of Whiteness held that Sweden was White and Sicily was not.

It is somewhat disturbing to hear an Algerian Jew identify himself as White and pontificate on Whiteness. One must bear in mind, that neither Hitler, Goering nor Goebbels bore any resemblance to their ideal Aryan. In fact, racial anthropologists early on concluded that only 5% of Germans fit the description, which caused Hitler to embrace German supremacism, not that this hurtle prevented him from abducting Aryan-looking children from East-Central and Northern Europe to be raised as Germans. In examining the National Socialists' pre-war planning with regard to Eastern Europe, the Slavs were targeted not due to race - despite the propaganda for domestic consumption - but because of the intense nationalism that would make impossible any sort of Anschluss with the East.

Perhaps one day, fair, blond-haired and blue-eyed people will have their own voice, and not be drowned out by covetous admirers and jealous detractors...

Hmm...

Racism?

Small talk?

Uuh, where precisely...

Ahm, no, not there either...

Gobbledygook, indeed.

Turks. Why not? Now that we have been given a free pass. Now it can no longer be considered racist.

... are we going to discriminate?
People with spectacles, artificial teeth, aristocrats, hawked noses, red skin, green hair, fat earlobes, dirty fingernails, illiterate, bad car drivers, FOX watchers, north African immigrants from the 60s, Truganini, ..., the list will never end.

"[The] widespread shared public knowledge about race and ethnicity among writers, publicists, and scholars, [has been] driven out of the public square by Communist anthropologist Franz Boas and his associates in the 1930s, and it has been taboo ever since." - Murray N. Rothbard

The irony is that those blockheads who deny that races exist, favor "positive discrimination" (affirmative action). This policy however - to "redress the ethnic balance" - selects candidates for a position or a job on the basis of race, ethnicity or color, rather than merit alone.

Another irony is that famous fascists such as Yockey, Evola and Lawrence Brown also ignore race as a biological reality or dismiss race as a non-issue.

Kappert and Armor, Carpe Diem, your fan readership awaits you!

is for the moment probably the best and most courageous journalist in France. What is even more important, he is still getting a big forum(Le Figaro, France 2, I-tele, Laurent Ruquier).
I hope it stays that way.