A Christian Background for Political Correctness?

As a non-Christian, I have been complimenting Christianity for contributing immensely to many of the positive aspects of our culture. But precisely because Christianity has so profoundly shaped our culture, isn’t it plausible that it may also, at least indirectly, have contributed to some of the flaws that currently ail us as well?

According to the blogger Conservative Swede, whom I have debated this issue with at some length, Christian ethics is more unfettered in modern liberalism than it is in Christianity itself. The West, and Europe in particular, is sometimes labeled as “post-Christian,” but this is only partly true. We have scrapped the Christian religion, but we have still retained some of the moral restraints associated with it, which have been so mired into our cultural DNA that we probably don’t even think about them as Christian anymore. Yet our humanitarian ideas are secular versions of Christian compassion, and it is Christian or post-Christian compassion that compels us to keep feeding and funding the unsustainable birth rates in other cultures, even actively hostile ones. Likewise, there are elements of Christian thought, such as universalism, that could be seen as the inspiration behind our one-world Multiculturalists.

MachiavelliItalian Renaissance philosopher Machiavelli was more attached to Roman than Christian culture, and held the view that Christianity was totally unsuited as the basis for any empire. His ideas were echoed by the 18th century English historian Edward Gibbon, who stated in his work The History of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire that Christianity was responsible for the downfall of the Roman Empire, because it made the Romans too soft.. But the eastern half of the Empire, centered around Constantinople, was just as much Christian, and yet survived for another thousand years after the fall of Rome in the West.

I have touched upon this issue before:

Our Western “moral and ethical values” are profoundly influenced by Judeo-Christian thinking. Will our openness to outsiders, our democratic system and our Christian compassion, precisely the values that we cherish the most, render the West incapable of withstanding Jihad? A good Christian has to turn the other cheek and love his enemies. How are we to reconcile this with the reality that Muslims regard this as a sign of weakness? And how can we fight sharia when bishops and church leaders are the first to call for a “compassionate” immigration policy that allows masses of Muslims to settle here? Christians argue that Europe’s problem is a cultural vacuum created by the retreat of church attendance and Christianity as a religion, which has paved the way for Islam to enter. They have a point, as I have shown before. But some Christian groups are opening the West to Islam, too, and the secular state doesn’t have to be insipid and toothless. The non-religious authorities in China are far more ruthless in crushing any Islamic aggression than most Christian countries are. Of course, the downside is that they are far more ruthless in crushing anything deemed to be a potential challenge to their power.

Thomas MoreI have debated the thesis forwarded by Max Weber, that Christianity, or at least Protestant Christianity, formed the basis of capitalism, which could explain the hostility many Marxist display towards the religion. However, as always reality is more complex than this. First of all, Socialists are hostile to the traditional culture also in non-Western, non-Christian countries such as India and China, mainly because they need to break down the past in order to successfully mold the future. And second of all: Christian Socialists do exist. They tend to focus on the radical egalitarianism and the suspicion of wealth that can be found within the Gospels, and view Jesus as a revolutionary hero standing up for the poor and the oppressed. In fact, Marxists have seen an early Communist society described in the work Utopia from 1516, by English writer Thomas More. More’s work is open to several interpretations and some has viewed it as satirical, but he does describe a radically egalitarian society where private property doesn’t exist. More was a devout Catholic, and may have been inspired by the communal life of the monastic movement.

We tend to view the divisions within the West today as left-right, but the truth is that the Christian world has always been rather divided in the face of Islamic aggression, which has repeatedly been an important cause behind Muslim advances. The Catholic-Protestant divide is just the most recent of these. Author Karen Armstrong is a senior apologist for Islam who calls herself a “freelance monotheist” and is a leading proponent of the idea of a shared “Abrahamic” legacy, that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are “saying the same thing in much the same way, despite their surface differences.” Ms. Armstrong is a former Catholic nun, and when reading her book A History of God, I detected stronger hostility towards Protestant leaders such as Martin Luther than towards Muslims.

Still, by far the oldest intra-Christian divide is the Great Schism between the Eastern and the Western churches, formalized in 1054 but a physical reality long before this. The split of the Roman Empire in two also created a split between two branches of Christianity: The Roman Church in the West replaced the Roman state, unified by the common literary use of the Latin language, while the churches in the East continued with Greek, a linguistic divide that slowly cemented the theological divide. Is the internal, Western bickering today a legacy from the long-established bickering between Christians? When the Ottoman Muslims attacked the Byzantine Empire, some Byzantines even said that it was better to be ruled by Muslims than by the Pope. Has this deep suspicion between Western and Orthodox Christians been retained in Russia, the successor to the Byzantine Empire?

Manuel II PalaiologosThomas E. Woods Jr writes in his book How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization that the Catholic Church played an indispensable role in essential developments in the West: the creation of the first universities in Europe, and before this upholding the classical heritage through its network of monasteries during much of the Middle Ages. If so, we should remember that the monastic movement was a gift from the Eastern churches.

It was born in the Egyptian desert among Coptic Orthodox Christians, and spread throughout the Roman Empire before is partition, even beyond. It has been claimed that Coptic monks brought their ideas to Ireland at about the time of the fall of Rome and deeply influenced Celtic Irish art, which can arguably be seen in works such as the beautiful Book of Kells on display in Trinity College in Dublin. It is hard to verify whether these stories are accurate, but the similarities between the art of the Copts and of the Celts are indeed striking.

One major component of Western self-loathing is the idea that we should we be punished for crimes, perceived or real, committed by our ancestors before we were even born. It could be argued that this idea has its roots in Christian thinking, in the concept of original sin, committed by Adam and Eve, but where all their descendants are subject to its effects. Christian ethics have proved more durable than Christian beliefs. Even when we have supposedly left the religion behind, we still believe we have to make atonement for the sins of our forefathers, but since we no longer believe that Christ has made that sacrifice for us and washed away our sins, we end up sacrificing ourselves instead.

This proves that unbalanced Christian ethics without Christian beliefs can be unhealthy, especially if combined with a high degree of cultural feminization and a focus on the feminine aspects of the divine, the self-sacrificing. Too much of anything will kill you. Christianity does make up a huge component of what Western civilization is, but not everything, since many countries that are Christian are not Western. Underneath a veneer of Christianity has always been the older and more brutal traditions of our Germanic or Roman past. Perhaps Christianity, despite its many great qualities, needs to be balanced out by other more worldly elements, such as attachment to nation states.

India's democracy is a farce as it an anarchic failed state

I dont accept that India is a democracy at all. It is a totalitarian despotism that prevails over there now. Even mild dissent is met with brutal police brutality. When student doctors rallied against religion and caste-based quota for admission and jobs, they were badly beaten up. Same is the case on any right wing protesters who are beaten up by the government that is for muslims, by muslims and of muslims. Neo-mogul rule by neo-colonialism is what goes on.

Brits left after their rule. The islamic mob didnt leave. There was no de-bathification nor Nuremburg type trial for the holocaust on Hindu victims of whom more than 60 mil had perished no any compensation has been paid, nor compensation for the victims of the hate crimes or reparations for the pakki wars.

Riots occur frequently on trivial pretexts for
* Saddams hanging
* Bush visit
* Danish cartoon
* Falwell remarks against their prophet
* temporarily missing Kashmir relics
with no provocation nor revenge nor link/connexion to any Hindu of leftist or rightist type but for all events that happened outside her borders!!

More than 110 million islamic sectarian gangsters were dumped on the Hindus despite two separate homelands called 'fakistan' and bangla desh were given to islamofascists carving out the best river deltas of the undivided India. Yet, pakkis keep waging war and running killing fields on BOTH sides the borders like Charles Taylor did to the African masses.

Who will throw the Taylors of fakistan into the jails of the Hague?

Wonder of wonders: kosovars got jailed today for terror plot but their cousins in KOSOVO are getting comlete control all the Kosovo land essentially kicking out the Serb minority, thanks to the U.N. Will EU act to oppose this absurdity?!

Race observations

1)  Religions are not a race and in my opinion do not deserve special protection.

2)  True racism is based on genetic not cultural identity.

3)  Race is very poorly understood but sociolologists throw it around like it is a absolute science.



We are back in the '30s again. With persecution and harassment of the Jews. Jews fleeing our countries. And with the parliament of the street by stormtroopers, back then in brown shirts, while today with black clothes and ski-masks. Most people didn't notice, or cared to notice, that this was going on back in the '30s. They were simply to comfortable, cowardly and irresponsible. Likewise, most people don't notice, or care to notice, today."


I otherwise like your comments but you are very gullible here.  It has been widely shown that the "huge increase" in anti-semitism reporting in europe has been largely due to a propaganda campaign to 1) keep disgruntled jews in Israel from leaving 2)  encourage any jews left in europe to move to Israel.  I don't doubt that muslim immigration is going to increase anti-jewish/israeli sentiment in europe but this is largely due to the very actions of jews/israelis in former Palestine.


You all took this bait hook, line and sinker.


I'm "very gullible", and it has been "widely shown"...
Well then, give me a reference or two, that is not to some crackpot stormfront place.

I follow news of this kind widely, and I never seen any suggestion that there would be a Jewish conspiracy behind it (but then again, I never read the crackpot places). So merely your selection of words, "very gullible" and "widely shown", indicates to me that your position is based on emotions rather than facts.

I don't doubt that muslim immigration is going to increase anti-jewish/israeli sentiment in europe but this is largely due to the very actions of jews/israelis in former Palestine.

Yet another leftist, without knowledge about the nature and history of Islam...
The typical Judeo-Christian ethics of seeing the strong as evil, and protecting the Other...

Dishonest Swede?

@ Conservative Swede


If you are going to cite other people, you should at least try to do it in an honest way, i.e. place citations in a proper context.  

You juxtapose two sentences of mine against a particular sentence of 'Armor' which has nothing to do with what I said.  If you want to understand Armor's racism you have to read the full text of his contributions under this thread (and other threads as well).  Moreover, I largely agree (and have stated this clearly!) with Armor that the immigration policies pursued by his government (France) in recent decades will prove very destructive for France, and its democracy, in the medium-term.    

 I certainly do NOT suffer from "Caucasophobia", and hopefully from no other phobia as well.  I have repeatedly stated my support for 2 fundamental principles.  (1) First, that people should govern themselves by 'democratic means'.  In practice (and to simplify) that means genuine preservation of freedom of political speech for all citizens of the polity, and de facto alternation of political power at regular intervals between genuinely different ideologies.  And (2) second, that any people (that are manifestly culturally and geographically distinct) should have the fundamental right to self-determination.  Just like individuals in a true democracy should have a right to self-determination in a 'reasonable' fashion.

If these statements are too abstract or too general in nature for you, I will try to be very specific to help you understand.  It is my contention that the Swedes, as a people, should be able to control totally (without outside 'imposition' of any kind) as to who they will allow to become a member of their polity, i.e. the Swedish people should 'democratically' determine what their immigration policy is.  But, as 'democrats', they should never make distinctions between themselves, i.e. among Swedes themselves, on the basis of physical features over which individuals have no control.  Democrats judge fellow citizens only on the basis of their ideas and behavior, not on the basis of their nose, skin color, or whatever.  That would be 'primitive' and certainly undemocratic.  The law should be blind as to people's looks and ideas, i.e. it should apply equally to all citizens.  However, the law should not be blind to people's behavior.  In fact, it got to ensure that they all obey the law (including immigration law). 


@ pvdh


Individuals and cultures (peoples)  change over time.  It would be pretty sad if they didn't, because change is necessary for 'improvement'.  But, sovereign peoples and adult individuals should be able to determine for themselves this change, i.e. they should self-govern.  It is certainly deplorable when individuals' and peoples' fates are determined by others. 

Therefore, in the matter of immigration policies in Europe, three things stand out as particularly offensive.  First, the perverse self-hatred for their own existing culture among a sizable segment of the ruling naive-left orthodoxy. Second, the undermining of genuine democracy, particularly by violating constitutional free-speech rights, particularly in the context of religions, immigration, etc... Third, the scapegoating of legal immigrants by some for the actions of their own democratic polities.   If Armor and Conservative Swede have problems with current immigration policies (as I do), they should take it up with their politicians and opinion makers, not with fellow citizens on the basis of 'looks'.

Your last comment on the "neocons" is silly.  The removal of Saddam's regime, and the 'war on terror', have nothing to do with wanting to impose one's world view.   They are defensive in nature, and they are indeed reactions against genuine threats.  They are attempts to help shape the 'environment' to ensure survival for democracy and freedom.  History clearly teaches that 'gathering threats' must be confronted IN TIME, or the consequences can be catastrophic.  While it is easy for people to disagree in genuine democracies about the specific nature of needed actions, it is imperative to at least be able to recognise gathering threats, rather than keep ones' head in the sand a bit longer.  And it is utterly foolish (as the European public at large is doing today under the impact of recent very poor leadership) to confuse ones' friends with ones' genuine enemies, simply because one disagrees with specific actions of friends.     



Your last reply verifies what I already said.

Once again you show your dishonesty, and unwillingness for proper debate, by once again pulling the race card against someone who is obviously not a racist: "If you want to understand Armor's racism...". Already that tells us a lot about who you are. Who you "understand", and who you would fiercefully fight against.

Moreover, you appear to be a democratist, i.e. an adherent to the dogma of democracy as the only way. To clarify what you mean by democracy you write: "But, as 'democrats', they should never make distinctions between themselves, i.e. among Swedes themselves, on the basis of physical features over which individuals have no control. Democrats judge fellow citizens only on the basis of their ideas and behavior, not on the basis of their nose, skin color, or whatever. The law should be blind as to people's looks and ideas, i.e. it should apply equally to all citizens."

Let me reconnect you to reality: The modern democracies of the West has turned into soft-totalitarian rule by a chattering elite, which no other group has the political power to change, least of all the people. And these elites have come very far in their policy of replacing the original European population with people of the third-world (you have to take in account the number of children of each category to see where we are already at).

The original democratic contract between the ruling elites and the people of the nation has been completely broken and perverted. So everything you say are essentially empty words. Except for the quote above. This tells us that you are fiercefully against stopping and reversing the mass influx of third-world people into the West. And this since you would perceive it as being based on their "noses" and "skin colour". The position of Armor is considered the worst possible one by you. A taboo, that goes completely against your dogma of democratism, and other fairy tale dreams of yours. Your position is clear: better to be replaced by third-worlders, than risk being a racist in the eyes of people such as Peter Vanderheyden and Bart Vanhauwaert.

I know your type. The interesting thing with your kind is that while you, as shown above, consider it completely verboten for white people to protect the ethnicity of their nation. You measure it with a completely different scale, when third-world countries self-assert their ethnicity. And that is Caucasophobia, my dear.

You are an irresponsible coward who's got nothing else but empty words to say in defense of a system of modern democracy of which nothing is left but an empty shell. In effect you support multiculturalism and its disastrous effects, and the only thing you consider completely verboten is to reverse its effects. When you are old an look back, will you feel the shame for being complicit in this monstrous transformation, for failing to protect your women from violence and rape? Or are you too much of an irresponsible person to even being able to feel such shame?

Back in the '30s again

We are back in the '30s again. With persecution and harassment of the Jews. Jews fleeing our countries. And with the parliament of the street by stormtroopers, back then in brown shirts, while today with black clothes and ski-masks. Most people didn't notice, or cared to notice, that this was going on back in the '30s. They were simply to comfortable, cowardly and irresponsible. Likewise, most people don't notice, or care to notice, today.

Let's send Marcfrans back to the '30s. A Jew comes running down the street, having just escaped a rain of stones of a nearby pogrom. He turns to Marcfrans for help, and Marcfrans tells him that there is nothing to worry about, because throwing stones like that in the streets is illegal. Then he lectures the Jew about how we live in a democracy, and that if he is not fully content with the situation of the country he lives in, he should just turn to his member of parliament, so that his issues can be dealt with in a democratic way. Giving people lectures in this way gives Marcfrans a high sensation of self-righteousness. I doesn't worry him the least that his words are empty and have no connection to reality. But is Marcfrans merely innocently naive or is he also complicit in the atrocities?

Back to the 21st century. The mob rule of the stormtroopers is again like it was in the '30s, only under different symbols. It's a rule of political correctness (originally a Stalinist invention). The keyword for the veritable lynch mob to set after someone is today "racist!". 'Racist' a word that effectively has the same ostracizing function as 'kafir' has among the Muslims. Or as calling out "contra-revolutionary" or "capitalist pig" after someone under Maoism or Stalinism. So is Marcfrans innocent here? Is he just neutral in the situation, defending his Panglossian dream? I think not. He has clearly sided with political correctness. He is eager to call out "racist" against anyone who is not staying within the pole marks of multiculturalism. Well aware of that this is the call for projecting the collective hate of the mob against that person. Quite as all other PCs, Marcfrans takes pride in using "racist" as carelessly as possible. It is seen as a way of showing that you are faithful to the cause.

Dear Marcfrans, it is not possible to take a middle position regarding Nazism, Maoism, Stalinism or multiculturalism. These ideologies are so extreme that a middle position effectively means supporting it. Don't support something that you will deeply regret when you get older!

connected to reality

Tel me oh, Conservative Swede, How should we change our non-democracy so that it will become democratic again? Each time I go voting (and that's a lot in Belgium!) I've this apparently flawed feeling that I’m a free man voting for freely formed parties. Yet there is a kind of Hitler down there who controls the parties and myself, and forces us to replace the genuine population with monsters from the east. Help me Oh, Conservative Swede, to understand and to change, for I’m week and confused.



I recommend you to read my article The power configuration of the Wilsonian West:

It’s a Wilsonian delusion that political change happens through voting. Real political change never does. Real political power is not represented by a plurality of votes. It’s represented by having the greatest means to apply violence.

Ask the average European voter if it feels to him as he's got the power to change things by voting? Except for a few idealists, people have a very resigned view about this, especially since the introduction of the EU. But they all know equally well that they had better shut up about criticism of the mass immigration, or say anything that goes outside of the pole marks of multiculturalism. And according to my description above, this is the real political power, since this is backed by real means to apply violence. Violence in form of stormtrooper mobs, but also by losing your job, or by social bullying and ostracism. And since a few years ago you would also go to prison. Western people know this very well--if not explicitly, then intuitively--and stay put, quite as the Muslims submit to their social cohesion in order to avoid the 'kafir'-stigamtization.

Regarding monsters. A simple thing as protection of the orginal population of a country, which is considered completely normal for any country, except if it is a country of white people. Then the racially obsessed PCs, such as Vanderhayden, conider this taboo and verboten. The simple argument that this is the natural thing to do, for any country in any time, doesn't bite, because Vanderhayden suffers from Caucasophobia. He cannot see that its natural and reasonable, because he's stuck in racial thiking, and the original population white. So the whole idea of this as a simple argument is unthinkable to him. He can only see things in dramatic extremes, so the immigrants have to be made into monsters in his mind. This is the only way he can understand it. So regardless of what you tell him, he cannot see or hear anything else. I think that its this kind of extremist and volatile kind of mind that has the highest risk of flipping into Nazism (except for the fact that these leftists are already collaborators of the Jihad of Arabic Nazism spreading around the West).

Regarding Hitler. Well, Muhammad was a successful Hitler, and worse in some respects. If you invite Arabic Nazism into the West en masse you will get your Hitler, sure. But unlike in the '30s it's a two-step process: the political elites of Europe invite the Arabic Nazism, while stifling any disconsent to this policy by PC bullying and mind control.

PC bullying is the only experience modern Westerners have of real political power.

@conservative swede

The simple argument that this [protection of the original population of a country], is the natural thing to do..

I must say I’m pleasantly surprised. It’s the first time a racist gives me something that looks like an argument. As a true believer in the scientific method, I think we should encounter it in an open mind and examine it thoroughly. Let’s first try to get the definitions right.

1) What could possibly be mend by “natural”. (Or “normal”, the word used a bit higher up, apparently as a synonym). I know, this seems a philosophical question, but I insist. If it’s the main argument to call for violence and hate against the perceived invaders, we should be certain we understand it right. Some people (mostly fundy greens) consider “natural” everything what is not influenced by men. I’m certainly not one of them. I consider everything (including men) as part of nature, and thus natural. As such the above becomes a non-argument, because it’s also natural to feel compassion with the other, and helping himby allowing him to share in our wealth. (Of course, I use the word natural also as a reference to personal believes: I find it natural to act in this or that way. But here “Natural” is used as a an absolute thing, something valid for everybody.) Hence my question: What proves something to be more natural then something else?
2) What is the “original population” ? Looking at history, You should at least agree, that this is not always an easy question. Or Jews or gypsies somewhere the original population? Are the Indians the original population of the states? Do the Swedish speaking people in Finland belong to the “original population?” As the (rightfully ) defender of the Jewish population in our countries that you are, Why do you consider them part of the “original population” and not the Muslims?
3) Further more we could ask questions about the words “country” and “protection” but lets start with he two above.
I’m eagerly awaiting your answers.



You use words to confuse both others as well as yourself--this is shown for example in the way you use the word 'racist'. And you get lost in details. So I will answer by giving you a simple hypothetical situation:
The government as well as the opposition parties in Belgium are in the process of replacing the Belgian population with Germans. The situation is already far gone, and some cities are already dominated by Germans. The Germans who are implanted are farmers and simple people who breed faster, so by demographic effect and continued mass immigration of Germans, Belgium will become majority German in just four decades.

Would you object to this? Or will your answer be like before: that anyone how is not fully complacent with these dictates of the ruling elite is a racist. And that any opposition to such policy literally means "[calling] for violence and hate against the perceived invaders".

Even if you wanted to object, would you dare to do it? Considering that being labeled as contra-revolutionary/racist/kafir (or the kind) means that you are stigmatized as a rebel to the ruling elite. You might not want to lose your job, become socially dead, or end up in jail?

Your two questions now appear in a different light.

1) The way you use the word 'natural', suicide is natural. So in your case you should replace the word 'natural' with 'non-suicidal' and read my text again.

2) Would you seriously claim that the replacement of Belgians with Germans is unobjectionable, based on the technicality that it is unclear to you whether Jews and gypsies are part of the original Belgian population?

I'm also concerned about the violent nature of your thinking. So far you have been unable to conceive other than extreme positions. The opposition to the current extreme politics you can only perceive as being based on the sort of racism that "call[s] for violence and hate against the perceived invaders". Let's say in five years that multiculturalism, mass immigration and demographic Jihad has evolved so far that even you see that it has to be opposed. Since the only way to oppose it, that you can imagine, is to become a racist and to call for violence and hate against the "invaders", this is what you would end up doing, right?

@Conservative Swede

“protection of the original population of a country is the natural thing to do”

OK, let me first state the points were you are right:

1. I should refrain from using the term “racist” as this is indeed a not well defined and very pejorative term. For, me everybody who believes that the race or (the looks) of somebody makes any difference what so ever, is a racist. The term however is not understood as such by everybody.
2. And perhaps I should refrain from saying that you are calling for violence and hate. But explain me then. You say that the democracy makes no difference, That the government is selling us out, and that letting the invaders in, is equal to suicide. Suppose I would believe all this. What other reaction then hate and violence against them and the leftist in our country is left?

Your answer to my first question: what is “natural” is interesting:
Natural is “non suicidal” in this context. Further more I should replace “Muslims” by “Germans”. (You seem to live with the funny idea that we hate Germans so much, that the thought of being invaded by them is more unbearable then being invaded by Muslims.)
Now, why would the massif import of better breeding Germans mean suicide to me?
In my point of view I would have to adapt to a few aspects of their culture, find ways to live together, learn their language to win economically from the new situation and so on. But why on earth would it be the end of my life? I guess you’ll have to answer this question first, before I would accept this part of your argument.

For my second question, you’re avoiding somewhat to give an answer. From that, I conclude that the answer is not so easy to give. You say, although that in this particular event, “Belgians being replaced by Germans” the answer to the question is of no importance. By leaving the question open however, you risk that a Muslim claim to be the original population of the suburbs around Paris, Brussels and Antwerp. But OK, for the sake of the argument, lets assume you are right. Lets replace original population by Belgians.

So let me rephrase your argument:
“It would be suicidal to let better breeding Germans settle in massive numbers in Belgium, because….?”

If you please could finish the sentence.

Exit Belgium

So let me rephrase your argument:
“It would be suicidal to let better breeding Germans settle in massive numbers in Belgium, because….?”

it would then become Germany, and Belgium will cease to exist.

Suppose I would believe all this. What other reaction then hate and violence against them and the leftist in our country is left?

As I said. This is the violent nature of your reasoning, where there are only dangerous extremes.

@conservative swede

“It would be suicidal to let better breeding Germans settle in massive numbers in Belgium, because….?”
CS: it would then become Germany, and Belgium will cease to exist…
My addition: And my offspring would, overtime merge within the German culture. So “suicide” shouldn’t be seen as a physical me being killed, but a culture disappearing over time.
If we could however, convert the Germans to our culture, there wouldn’t be no problem. Me, my offspring and my culture would survive. You’re totally on the line of Marcfrans then.

C.S.: This is the violent nature of your reasoning, where there are only dangerous extremes.

This could be true. But for the sake of countering my violent nature, it would be interesting if you gave a few other non-violent solutions, so that I can learn…


"Marcfrans' point seems to be, that since third-world people cannot help what they look like, then we must accept that our governments in the West are in the process of replacing us with these people."

You should make up your mind. What exactly do you want to conserve, the culture or the genes?
For Marcfrans it's clear. He is a defender of the culture, and to some extend I can follow that position. But in your case, it seems that genes matter more. That makes you definitely a racist. Not that you are not entitled to be one, but we should never be afraid to use the right term.

Mind you, conservatism is at the end always a lost cause. Culture or genes, neither of them is conservable, as they are both under constant alteration.
(If you met one, you would probably deny any acquaintance to a Swede how lived a few hundred years ago.)
We might try to push it a bit in the right direction, but we shouldn’t overestimate our influence. It’s like Vanhauwaert says: It’s the people that define culture, religion and –in our western countries- governments. History is full of people how tried to model the world to their vews. It’s a long list of failure, misery and blood spilling. The last ones who believed they could do it, were the neo-cons. And we haven’t seen the end of that yet.

Racial obsession

There's no limit to the obsession with race coming from Peter Vanderheyden and Marcfrans. They are unable to deal with the issue at hand, otherwise than in a hysterical way, only because the people involved have a darker skin colour. As Armor pointed out the issue is about the people from the West being replaced by people from elsewhere. The issue goes through twisted loops in the minds of Vanderheyden and Marcfrans, and ends up not being addressed at all by either of them. Vanderheyden and Marcfrans are so stuck in racist thinking that they are 110% blind to the fact that this is not an issue of race. Would the two of you be equally hostile to objections, in a scenario where the Belgian and Dutch government where in the process of replacing their populations with Germans? Or the replacement of Estonians with Russians? I think not, and this illustrates well how stuck they are in racial thinking. That they both suffer from what Fjordman has labelled as Caucasophobia.

It's a lunatic religion of self-hate and self-destruction. I find Marcfrans being the most interesting specimen here. Since he shows the ability to think on other issues. He appears to be pro-Christian and right-wing. And this is exactly one of my major points. Even so, he completely shares this extremist positions with the loony leftists here, a position far more extreme than communism ever was.

This is symptomatic of the mob mentality Utopianism at display here. These gentlemen are only able to reason in terms of absolute extremes. If someone claims that Paul Belien never sleeps, the sensible response to this is not the complete reversion of that statement, to claim that Paul Belien always sleeps. But this is exactly the way that Vanderheyden and Marcfrans reacts as soon as an issue involves race (or they perceive it as doing so). Unlike myself, Vanderheyden and Marcfrans do not have a relaxed relation to the race of different people. Instead any such issue strike the fear center of their reptile brain part. And any thinking is blocked out.

City after city is in the process of replacing it's original population with people from elsewhere: Rotterdam, Antwerpen, Brussels, Malmö, Marseille, etc., etc. This is real. But in the extremist, and racially obsessed, mindsets of Vanderheyden and Marcfrans this issue does not even exist. To them there only exist the two absolute extremes: i) that we welcome that the original European population is completely replaced by people from the third-world, or ii) that nobody from the third-world is accepted. And since they can not conceive of anything in between the two, and they consider the second as completely forbidden and taboo. They avoid to discuss the whole issue, and instead their reptile brain go through fits of Tourette's syndrome spurting out "racist!" to anyone who is not in 110% agreement with the first point.

Furthermore, a abhorrent and sick kind of cultural imperialism is at display here, where both Vanderheyden and Marcfrans fantasize about separating culture from genes, and inducing their culture into people of darker skin (both ideas make me associate to the laboratories of Mengele). Of course, the people of the third-world (including those coming here to replace us) are not generally interested in this.

In effect, by their extremist position, Vanderheyden and Marcfrans are supporting and collaborating in the current spread of Arabic Nazism around Europe. In the history books, Vanderheyden and Marcfrans will be described as being among the ones responsible for the rape epidemic of European girls as a result of the mass immigration. But the dusk of the freedom and safety of the women that they are supposed to protect, does not bother them the least. Not more than their "soul mates" bothered about protecting the freedom and safety of the Jews, back in the '30s and '40s. We find them being just as naive and irresponsible, as too many people were, the first time Jihadism struck in the center of Europe, in the name of Adolf Hitler and German Nazism.

Such irresponsible extremist fantasies, as Vanderheyden's and Marcfrans', will always pave the way for death and horror.


Armor wrote: "Our governments want to replace us with third-world immigrants."

Marcfrans reacted: "But, as to your 'racism'.  Yes, I truly find that abhorrent.  I do not judge people on the basis of physical characteristics that are God-given, i.e. over which they have no control themselves as individuals."

Marcfrans' point seems to be, that since third-world people cannot help what they look like, then we must accept that our governments in the West are in the process of replacing us with these people.

Why must we accept this, Marcfrans? And why are we "racists" if we oppose it? Are you sure you do not suffer from Caucasophobia?

Marcfrans wrote to Armor: You asked me why I would want to "transplant the European soul into third world bodies"? Did I declare such a wish? Did I say anywhere that I wanted to go to the "Third World" and turn the people there into "Europeans"?

No, the effect of what you have been saying is: that once they have come here to replace us, you want to turn them into Europeans. I know, it's an even more twisted idea... No wonder you missed that this was what Armor referred to. Still, this is the twisted idea that you promote, even though you are obviously at the same time in denial about it.

A real specimen

We are lucky to have Bart Vanhauwaert among us. He's a living example of what I and Fjordman talk about. A real specimen, showing us how the self-hate becomes totally unrestrained, and completely blinding, in the secularized Christianity he represents. Thank you for your performance, Bart!

We see how Christian ethics started with eating its own God, and then continues to eat its own honour as well as all of its historical memory--all while hysterically screaming to the world "We are the first sinners!". Continuing to eating its own civilization, its own people, and eventually itself. End of story. No more Christian ethics. (Never again.)

Discussion continued at my blog

For those of you who found this article interesting, as well as the BJ entry The Crux of the Matter: Is America the EU’s Enforcer?, they both stem from discussions Fjordman and Lawrence Auster had with me. So far this has taken place as private discussions, but since two weeks go I have started blogging about it. You are welcome to take part in the discussion at my blog: Conservative Swede.

I have criticized the Wilsonian world order, as well as Christian ethics. Both are areas in which we need to reevaluate and change. I have barely started. There will come much more.

Warmly welcome!


big intellectuals

marcfrans says: "But, as to your 'racism'. Yes, I truly find that abhorrent. I do not judge people on the basis of physical characteristics that are God-given, i.e. over which they have no control themselves as individuals. "

It doesn't matter whether the immigrants' skin color and crime rate can be explained by genetics, by free will, or by God's intervention. Unlike you, I am not judging anyone. I just think that Europeans should have their own life. I don't think that some third-world people deserve to be inserted among us, while others do not. I don't care whether immigrants are worthy people or not. Our lives belong to us, and immigrants do not need us to exist.

If you are looking for deserving immigrants, then what you need is Chinese immigrants. They work the hardest, are clever, and more law-abiding than Europeans. According to your crazy reasoning, you should ask them to come over and replace us.

You said you'd like Europe to remain European, but not necessarily with people who look European. That declaration makes you a leftist ! The leftists are people who would rather ignore the real world. In the real world, only a European can be European. As every good leftist, you lack a consistent point of view. It isn't clear what your criteria are for allowing immigrants to stay. Is it hard work and law-abidance, or is it cultural proximity ?

Third-world immigrants differ from Europeans by more than their looks. They behave differently. This is why European jails are full of muslims. Immigrants also have a stronger ethnic conscience than Europeans. They know that their history and their ancestors are not the same as ours. Even the law-abiding Chinese behave differently from Europeans. So, I do not really need to bring up the question of the physical differences in order to oppose immigration, and your opinion that skin color should not be considered has no practical consequence.

However, there is nothing wrong with having a policy of white immigration only (or no immigration at all). It is a good way to prevent racial violence and to maintain some cohesion and meaning to our life. The leftists who say that any discrimination is morally wrong suffer mental confusion. If we are comfortable living with white folks, there is no reason we should bring immigrants to Europe. Besides, the reality of immigration to the West is not just that we have to rub shoulders with people we would rather avoid. Immigrants are quickly replacing us, with the help of big intellectuals like Marcfrans.

Truly pathetic

@ Yitzak

I know that Vanhauwaert and pvdh cannot read well (what is in front of them), as illustrated again by their latest responses (to their own invented strawmen), but does this apply to you as well?

How can you possibly claim that under my "logic" countries like "Turkey, Malaysia, Venezuela..." would be "genuine democratic nations"?   I agree with you that these are NOT "genuine" democratic nations, but how can you possibly claim that they are under my "logic"?!  

There are only 2 possible explanations for this absurdity.  Either you did not read my expositions on "democracy", or you don't know the crucial empirically-observable facts about "Turkey, Malaysia, Venezuela".  

Once more, "genuine" democracy requires among other things: freedom of political speech, regular power alternation between different ideologies, constitutional safeguards of fundamental INDIVIDUAL rights, equality before the law, etc...  These attributes do not prevail in the current political systems of Turkey, Malaysia, Venezuela, although they are not totally absent either in some of them.  

There certainly is not freedom of political speech in Turkey and Malaysia.  There is not freedom of religion for 'muslims' (and others) in those countries either, because 'islam' is beyond public criticism in both these places, and a muslim cannot openly change religion without severe judicial consequences.  In Malaysia, the constitution itself explicitly discriminates among the 3 major ethnic and religious groups, and the Executive actively implements this discrimination.  And in Venezuela today virtually all power is now concentrated in one man, presumably for a very long time in the future (without external intervention).  There is still a 'formal' machinery with the trappings of democracy, but there is no longer "genuine democracy" in Venezuela.  Parliament was 'elected' under an electoral boycot of the opposition.   All major 'independent' media have now been 'closed', etc...and the judiciary is no longer 'independent' from the executive.  

Now, can you explain to me why my "logic" would turn those 3 specific countries into "genuine" democracies?  


@ Armor

You asked me why I would want to "transplant the European soul into third world bodies"?  Did I declare such a wish?  Did I say anywhere that I wanted to go to the "Third World" and turn the people there into "Europeans"?  Moreover, the concept of "soul" is way beyond 'my paygrade' and 'belongs' to the Deity.  I would not have a clue about how to "transplant" that. 

But, as to your 'racism'.  Yes, I truly find that abhorrent.  I do not judge people on the basis of physical characteristics that are God-given, i.e. over which they have no control themselves as individuals.  I only judge them by their opinions, and above all by their behavior or actions (e.g., like for instance breaking immigration laws or other laws of their 'host' countries).   

Your 'racism', if widespread, is truly a frightful indication of Europe's future.  Just as much as the blind perverse cultural selfhatred of much of the 'left' in western civilisation is today.



Alright Freedom of Speech A.K.A Independent media that’s first qualification as you described it. Now India is ranked no 105 on Media freedom Index prepared by Reporters without Borders Malaysia and Turkey are 92 and 98. There are restrictions on media in India just like in Turkey, Malaysia etc. Now the point is do you accept the evidence documented on these countries by reporters without borders or not? Or you just accept their reports on Turkey and Malaysia and not on India?

marcfrans wrote: " If the

marcfrans wrote: " If the immigration issue does not effectively gets tackled, it is because it does not rank suffciently high in most people's minds as important enough to get tackled. In most western countries the democratic tools are available for effecting change.

Immigration continues because the democratic tools have been broken. One of the worst problems is that the media are under the control of a small far left minority. I think that a change of policy is more likely to be brought about by violence than by the normal political process. Anyway, immigration will have to stop at some point for mechanical reasons.

" the ridiculous claim that the Soviet Union in the 1970's was more of a "democratic country" than "Western Europe"

My comparison is between Russia in the 1970's and the West now. There were problems in Russia at the time: human rights violations, little freedom of speech, economic hardship, an inefficient administration... What I say is that the aspirations of ordinary Russians were probably not very far from the aspirations of Gromyko and Brezhnev.

" I certainly do NOT share your 'racism' (not meant as an insult) in wanting "European children who look like us". I agree with the 'European' part, but not with the look-alike part. "

1) It is natural to like the way our own people look like, and it is a perfectly good reason to refuse immigration from Africa.
2) I don't understand why you would want to transplant the European soul in third-world bodies. I think you watch too much TV.

The chicken or the egg?

Our Western “moral and ethical values” are profoundly influenced by Judeo-Christian thinking.

Strange that people can state sentences like this all on itself as being the absolute truth that doesn’t need any further clarification.
Like Vanhauwaert points out so justly, it could well be just the opposite. It’s our moral and ethical values that might influence, or even define Christianity. After all, Christianity came from a people living in a dessert-like country, that had very little to do with the culture in Rome or Athens. Hence it took a few centuries after the death of Jesus, before the first Evangels were fully written. That there has been a lot of "hindsight interpretation" is sugested by the difference between the old and the new testament. In fact it's so high, that the term “Judeo-Christian” as a sugested unity in a religious context, sounds very artificial. Even after the recording of the vast amounts of evangels, it took an other century to distinguish the real ones from the apocrypha. This suggest a long adaptation period, in which the moral and ethical values of Christianity were defined. From a cultural DNA or “meme” point of view this makes sense. The christian Religion, as a meme has a strong survival potential. Yet a lot of it's originaly associated mem's had no meaning within the western world. Other meme’s that by slight alteration succeed to connect to the religious core, augment their survival chances.
All this seem to support Vanhauwaert vision, rather then Fjordman’s.
'quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est' may be a famous quote of Augustinus (Just as Tertulianus, a Berber, by the way), that doesn’t mean it was true from the beginning.
Afterwards The dogmatization of the Roman Catholic Church, had of course a big “conservative” influence in the west. This resulted in bitter crimes against the never the less evolving ethics. (Think of the Magdalens in Ireland.) luckily, the influence of the church has faded away in recent years. As a result, Catholic dogma’s often read as anachronisms that makes one laugh. It sounds incredible, but it is true: Only recently the pope abolished “officially” the limbo.


I absolutely agree with Armor what is wrong with having children who look like us? Preserving our race and culture, disliking multiculturalism is not racism.


@ Armor

 I DO share your frustration about the apparent 'intractability' of the immigration issue, and the selfdestructive behavior of the political extreme left in many western countries.  But you have a big problem with accepting the reality of "democracy".   If the immigraton issue does not effectively gets tackled, it is because it does not rank suffciently high in most people's minds as important enough to get tackled.  In most western countries the democratic tools are available for effecting change.  If it does not happen, do not blame the presumed absence of "democracy" - that is nonsense - but, rather, blame the people, and especially the misnamed 'elites' in media and education systems.  They too will have to live with the consequences of their own 'shallowness', shortsightedness and stupidity. 

I certainly do NOT share your 'racism' (not meant as an insult) in wanting "European children who look like us".   I agree with the 'European' part, but not with the look-alike part.  Like Kapitein Andre, you have to try to make an effort to make the proper distinction between 'culture' and 'race'.  The first is man-made, the second is God-given.   And, since you dare to make the ridiculous claim that the Soviet Union in the 1970's was more of a "democratic country" than "Western Europe", I fear that understanding of the essence of democracy will continue to escape you, so that discussing it further between us would be ...pointless. 


@ Perfktm


It is not reasonable to aim for a "perfect" democracy, so it would also not be reasonable for anyone to blame India for failing "to be a perfect democracy".  I also suspect that your blaming of "Ghandi" for India's ills is excessive and too one-sided.  

I largely agree with your opinion about Islam's destructive impact on India's past history in terms of political development.  Unlike British colonialism, islam's colonialism did not advance the cause of 'democracy' at all in India, nor anywhere else for that matter.   It did help create 'art', though, like the Taj Mahal for instance.  But that is a very different kind of issue.     


So you accept amnesty’s and human rights watch reports on China and reject their reports on India right?
Anyway the logic you are giving us here of “genuine democracy” would make so many countries a genuine democratic nations…countries as Turkey, Malaysia, Venezuela etc…that’s absurd…

Popular Sovereignty

Marcfrans wrote: "What could "popular sovereignty" possibly mean in practice in the absence of freedom of speech?!"

I didn't criticize what you said about democracy. You gave a list of requirements for democracy to work. I think your list is correct. But if we look for a simple, short definition, it should be: popular sovereignty !
We do not have sovereignty of the people in the USA and Western Europe at the moment. Most people still think that they live in a democracy because they do not know the correct definition of democracy. They tend to associate the idea of democracy with things like wealth, the absence of violence, the presence of competent technicians in the administration...
A low level of governmental violence does not ensure democracy. Conversely, I think that a government who killed a few political dissidents once in a while could easily be more democratic than the USA and Western Europe. Here is an example: in the 1970's, the Russian part of the Soviet Union was not exactly a democratic country. But it was more democratic than current Western Europe because the government and the population had similar aspirations for their country. Popular sovereignty was not that far. On the contrary, there is presently a huge gap in the West between popular aspirations and government policy. We want to have European children who look like us. Our governments want to replace us with third-world immigrants. We are asked to choose between Bush and Kerry, Gordon Brown and Cameron, Royal and Sarkozy, but the result is always the same: more immigration. What prevents democracy is the dominance of the extreme left. Instead of carrying out our will, our governments are implementing the immigration and culture agenda of the extreme left. Instead of democracy, we have soft dictatorship, with the trappings of democracy. In the USA and some European countries (not france!) people still try to make democracy work at the local level, but I think what they achieve for their local community is compromised at the government level by the immigration policy.

In the end, respecting human individual rights is not what makes a country democratic. It is easy to imagine a violent democracy, or a humane dictatorship that allows some freedom of expression outside the main stream media.

In order to bring back democracy, we need to end the dominance of the far left in public life. I don't know how... Plato and Montequieu didn't say anything about that. I don't think the answer lies in the American bill of rights either.


@ Yitzak


- reread my earlier exposition on democracy;

- try to put (and keep) things in a proper perspective;

- do take 'opinions' with a deep grain of salt, especially if they originate from organisations like "Amnesty International" and "Human Rights Watch". These are organisations that started with very good intentions, but that have to a large extent been taken over by people with 'bad' ideological agendas.  They are not yet as bad as the absurd UN Human Rights Commission (both the old and the new one), but in some respects they have lost all credibility with me, especially because of their inability to keep a proper perspective.   They do good work at times, but they also often make matters 'worse'. 


India is not a country like a typical European country.  It is a continent, with many cultures and ethnicities, with many 'states', and a federal system.   It is still very poor in terms of per capita income.  How could it be otherwise?  After 50 years of soviet-type central planning and socialism, and surrounded by islamist cultures to its west, muslim Bangladesh and the extremely cruel Burmese dictatorship to its east, and totalitarian China to its north.  But.....it has freedom of political speech, it has effective power alternation between different ideologies at the federal (central) level, it tolerates a wide variety of political philosophies of governments at the state level (from 'communist' state governments to extrem-rightwing 'nationalist' state governments, etc....) .   In India, power is effectively limited and 'distributed', there is effective power alternation and their is freedom of political speech (so that matters can be constantly 'corrected' and change remains possible). 


You should NOT judge such a 'continental' political system of over a billion people on the basis of specific incidents, or details, or individual cases!   There are "human rights abuses" in EVERY country.  And particularly in 'democracies' the wheels of justice can work extremely slowly, especially in federal systems where federal and local/state competencies overlap and compete, and where the judicial process will normally be very lengthy.  The main issue is not whether there are human rights violations, but whether there are effective avenues in place that make it possible to address them in a 'fair' and impartial way. 


On the specific point of the "anti-conversion law" I would like to know more about it before saying much.   But I advise you to rely on serious sources before you do also.  Is this a 'state law' or a 'federal law'?     It is not surprising that in a complex society like India's that there will be a legal framework in place that governs "conversions" and "proselytising".  That exists in European countries' like France and Germany as well.    But the Indian constitution does guarantee freedom of religion, and the facts of religious diversity and of "conversions" all over India prove the point.  

India is today, the largest genuine "democracy" in the world, and it is certainly not a perfect democracy.  But, as far as I know, the Indian parliament is not passing legislation that criminalises certain forms of political speech, nor are they trying to ban political parties on the basis of their 'programs' or ideas, as they are doing in several west-European countries today!

Conversion in India and other soft states..

As a Jewish person of the mid-western USA, I recall how we were forced to adopt xianity by southern baptists. We rejected that. But guess who were the victims in Chicago area? The Hindus were the victims as they are indeed the soft targets! Same is true citizens of soft states like Thailand, Sri Lanka, Mongolia, Vietnam, to a lesser extent China.

None of the islamic states are ever targeted! Not even the afghans and pakkis who get billions from us for extra help and pretending to help us Karadic/Milosovic of Waziristan, west fakistan, the dreaded osama binLaden - obl. If we could squeeze the Serbs, why couldnt we pressurize the pakkis either to accept the gospel or the concrete results on turning in the war criminals like obl?

My Indian friends view conversion as
* religious colonialism
* cultural genocide
* cultural imperialism
* invasion of privacy and sovereignty
etc etc

They may be right or wrong. I am not sure. It is open to debate. But they have the right to choose or reject. One girl told me: WE ALREADY HAVE TOO MANY GODS. WHY DO WE NEED ONE MORE FROM ALIEN LANDS?!! IT IS DIVISIVE AS FAMILY IS TORN APART. THE CONVERTS ACT AGAINST THE STATE - [like all Catholics do!!] THEY TAKE LAND FOR BURIAL WHILE WE CREMATE..etc

I was stunned by her logical defense against the offense of the Christian West. Should we again colonize?!


Great views... but what you failed to analyse is a small thing. why india failed to be perfect democracy ?... democracy was a dream Indians always dreamed... it has taken almost 1300 yrs for us to achieve democracy back.. but it got distorted somewhere, and the distortion was Gandhi. and Gandhis support to Radical Islamic movements....

anyways, indians try to go up with new democratic structures... they tried to improve it... but a nation cannot be built on a foundation of half truths and outright lies about its own history. It leads to mistrust among its own people, as is very evident today. People refer that hindus hate Muslims, but they never want to see the negation of horrible masscare occured in past. the figure from islamic sources says that the massacre costed about more then 60 million to 80 million... infact the word "Hindu kush" means Hindu slaughter... anyways the sanskrit name of hindukush is Pāriyatra Parvat

In fact, There’s nothing shameful in admitting Islam’s destructive role in medieval India. On the contrary, it should, like the Holocaust museum, serve as a reminder of what should not be repeated. Ever. but perhaps things have to move towards the side of negation... and the game of blaming had to come up in democratic India... where left blame all on Hindus, and Right(if exist any) blame on Muslims.......

You can do better

@ Van Hauwaert

Understanding requires an 'open mind' and the ability to resist setting up 'strawmen'. At least, you got to try to read what is written, and not to respond to imaginary writings.


1)  I doubt that slavery disappeared in Europe "first", and certainly if you include (the European part of) Russia in Europe.  Indeed the 'gulag archipelago' was a manifest form of "slavery", and lasted well into the second half of the 20th century.

2) Yes, slavery existed in countries with a judeo-christian heritage, but it existed in virtually every civilisation.  It was part of the human condition, and was certainly not specific to the judeo-christian tradition.   What you ignore is that the resistance to "slavery" also originated in the 'christian' west, and that the success in abolishing it from most of the world is almost exclusively due to the efforts of 'christian' countries.   In this context, the actions of the British parliament and of many individuals and groups in western countries in the 19th century, had nothing to do with "technological and economic progress", but everything with their christian 'sensibilities'.  

Moreover, if slavery existed in the west with its judeo-christian heritage, it also existed in the west with its Greek-Roman tradition.  Why single out the 'christian' aspect of western 'tradition' and blame that for "slavery".   It would be equally ridiculous to blame the Greek-Roman tradition for slavery, but I would not to do such a ridiculous thing, unlike you with your singling out the 'judeo-christian' aspect.  

3)  Like most western lefties and relativists, including many 'christian' priests and bishops, you have this mistaken notion that "the bible" is about societal political arrangements.  It is not!   The original Christian 'message' was about the individual's relationship with God.  It was about the individual 'virtuous' life.  It was about saving one's soul in whatever political and social environment one had to live.  I repeat, the bible was written by people 2000 years ago, for people of 2000 years ago.  It was not a political tract or 'manifesto' like that of Marx for instance.  The bible only "recognises" slavery, in the specific sense that its authors obviously were aware of its existence.  How could they not be?  Slavery was a societal phenomenon that was all around them 2000 years ago.  The bible certainly did not 'approve' of it, it simply did not address such political societal matters.   The bible did not approve of the Roman occupation of Judea either, etc... It simply did not address such questions.    

4)  Who claimed that "real democracy" is a "christian invention"?  Did I?  Did Fjordman?   I certainly did not.   So, why set up such a ridiculous strawman? 

I simply made the observation that, historically, real democracy was effectively 'realised' first in SOME christian western nations.   That is an observable fact.  You can now develop many theories about the why of that phenomenon, but you should not deny the observable fact itself.  There have been many other non-western nations with 'advanced technology' and 'economic wealth', relatively speaking in the same time periods, but with no.....democracy! 


You actually confirm my points

1&2 : so Christianity makes no difference on how we saw slavery. It existed in non-Christian society and it existed in Christian society. Exactly my point : our Judeo-Christian heritage apparantly was not defining enough to have a real impact on one of the most basic human rights imagineable.

3 : So you engage in a personal reading of the bible. Great. Exactly my point : we adapt (our reading of) the bible to conform to our views rather than adapting our views to conform to the bible. Again this proves how our Christian heritage bows to better, more modern ideas...

4: I used it as an example of how the Judeo-Christian influence on current society is overvalued. One of our (certainly mine) most cherished ideas (democracy and what not) is not rooted in Christianity. Again what has brought Christianity to the table in terms of values and ideas that we currently uphold? Less than is generally claimed, especially on this blog.

Phoney #3

@ Armor

There is still a lot of misunderstanding.

1) Fjordman was talking about the role of "christian ethics" and I certainly was talking about opinionmakers in western society (like the educational system and media).  So, we are NOT talking about social misfits, violent youth and the like.  We are talking about politicians, professors, bishops, newspaper editorialists, TV commentators and the like, and the ideas and attitudes which they propagate.  At the same time, there is no doubt that "self-loathing" or "perverse (cultural) selfhatred" among the 'educated classes' and 'talking heads' does contribute to a certain degree of societal 'acceptance' of anti-social behavior among violent 'youth' and others.  The whole concept of societal 'elites' promoting mass (low-skilled) immigration and multiculturalism clearly goes along with cultural/civilisational self-loathing.  It is a way of destroying the 'old' own-culture, or a failure to appreciate its value. 


2) Vanhauwaert did indeed downplay his/our "christian roots" and seemed to prefer our Greek/Roman ones.  But, in the context of his topic of "moral DNA", that seems very far-fetched.  Morality is a question of personal 'virtues'.  The concepts that typical westerners today hold w.r.t. virtues are clearly in large measure rooted in judeo-christian beliefs, not in ancient Grecko-Roman beliefs.  It suffices to read a bit about the actual behavior of Greeks and Romans 2000 years ago to recognise that their behavior was very different from modern Europeans in almost every respect.  The ancients were certainly not constantly 'appologising' like modern Europeans are, and definitely not about their ancestors.  And they certainly did not show any 'compassion' for non-Greeks or non-Romans.   

Vanhauwaert, and the typical postmodern western relativist as well, makes the mistake of judging people in the distant past by 'standards' of the current ruling orthodoxy in his own culture of today.  That is absurd behavior.  He complains about the presumed acceptance of a 'societal institution', like slavery, in the bible.  But the christian gospels were mostly written almost 2000 years ago, by people of 2000 years ago, who were addressing other people of 2000 years ago!   And "slavery" was virtually a universal societal institution then.   One should not expect these 'authors' of 2000 years ago to use language, examples, and metaphores of today!  One should not compare individual people like that accross the centuries!  However, by contrast, one can judge different 'cultural traditions' by their practical results today in different and differing empirically-observable societies across the world.    That requires more empirical observation and historical knowledge, and less "self-loathing" based on abstract ideological precepts. 


3) Your concept of "democracy" is much too simplistic.  We both know where the etymological roots lie of the word "democracy", but surely our modern understanding that we give to the concept is a bit more complex than "popular sovereignty".   If 90 percent of Iranians or Saudis say that they would like 'sharia law', does that make it "democratic"?  Of course, not!  What could "popular sovereignty" possibly mean in practice in the absence of freedom of speech?!  If the average person does not even have access to 'alternative worldviews', how could he or she exercise "sovereignty"?  One cannot exhaust a complex concept like "democracy" in a few paragraphs, but my previous posting should have put you on the 'right path'.  At least, one hopes....


marcfrans said: "You seem to misunderstand. Fjordman's expression of "self-loathing", and mine of "perverse selfhatred", are not meant in a personal or individual sense."

I don't think the self-loathing theory makes much sense. What I see is antisocial behavior by the extreme left. When a teenager destroys a phone booth, no one will suggest this is because he hates the West. When a left-wing nut supports mass immigration, it doesn't mean that he hates Western civilization either. He will just damage anything he can. In fact, many leftists now want Japan to start accepting mass immigration. Maybe their real problem is rich-country-loathing ? What part of western society do the self-loathing westerners hate? They hate the police, and "bourgeois society". They like criminals, and heroin addicts, because it is so romantic! They like disorder, and hate authority... And they probably see the West as a source of authority in the world...
A good question: Do they like third-world immigrants? Of course not. For example, they encourage immigrant teenagers to defy authority and imitate the African-American thug culture. Not very good advice. I think they just like to destroy other people's lives.

"Witness the first reaction of Mr Vanhauwaert to the article, in which he clearly expressed a low opinion of the 'christian roots' of his own culture and civilization."

He only said that christian roots are overrated. He likes Greek and Roman roots better. Why not !

Phoney #2

@ Armor


You seem to misunderstand.  Fjordman's expression of "self-loathing", and mine of "perverse selfhatred", are not meant in a personal or individual sense.  They refer to "loathing" or "hating" of one's own culture and/or society.  Indeed, as individuals most people (also lefties) tend to have a 'good opinion' of themselves.


The loathing of own society is certainly very widespread in the West.  There is nothing like that to be found in similar degree in other civilisations.  It is in a sense an 'aberration', deriving from the high degree of freedom of expression realised in western society, and the failure of many to link duties (of effort and of responsibility)with that 'right' (of freedom-of-speech).   It is definitely widespread in Western civilization today. Witness the first reaction of Mr Vanhauwaert to the article, in which he clearly expressed a low opinion of the 'christian roots' of his own culture and civilization.   It is an opinion without sensible context and proper empirical observation.   He did not seem to realise that in order to properly judge the results of his own 'roots', one should look around the world and look at the 'results' of different 'roots'.   Where do you think this comes from?  From the ideological bias in the educational system and, thus also, the media.


First I am not Christian, secondly I contest that the influence of Christian society on my personal self has been very big. I also contest the influence of Christianity on the ethics and morality of the society I live in. So I don't see how I engage in self hatred when I criticize something that I consider as seperate from myself.

Phony compassion

The compassion of the extreme left is fake. The leftists are more selfish than most of us. Because we trust human nature too much, we tend to give leftists the benefit of the doubt. We would like to think that they are kind and generous in a stupid way. But then, how come they are so violently hostile to their political opponents, and to any conservative traditional institution? I think the truth is that leftist extremists enjoy committing vandalism against society. Their behavior evokes not so much christian compassion as juvenile delinquency. And I think much of their stupidity is fake too. They choose to be stupid, irresponsible and destructive.

Fjordman wrote: " One major component of Western self-loathing is the idea that we should we be punished for crimes, perceived or real, committed by our ancestors "

I don't believe that Western self-loathing is widespread. Mass immigration is imposed on us by a small minority of people who enjoy harming European society, but do not wish to harm themselves. At the same time, most Europeans still oppose the population replacement policy, in spite of all the brainwashing. I think what prevents a European popular rebellion is mainly intimidation by the administration and the left-wing media. They try to make us think that straight-thinking Europeans are a minority.


@ Doney

1) By "In historical terms...until very recently" I meant approximately "until World War 2".  I doubt that you could name 1 'non-western' country that could be reasonably declared a "democracy" before the middle of the last century.  Except perhaps a few countries in South America at the time (for limited time periods, alternating with autocratic periods).  In this context it should be recognized that South America is a special case, in the sense of having some legitimate claims of being 'associated' with Western civilisation, but not really being part of it.  Most of South America was a mixture of native-Indian cultures with European colonialism super-imposed.  Today the 'native' component is increasingly asserting itself and 'democracy' is hanging by a thread in some countries, and lost in others. 

2) While there is no such thing as a 'perfect' democracy, there are reasonable criteria by which one should measure the 'beast'.   Perhaps the most important ones are the effective implementation and respect for fundamental individual rights, such as 'habeas corpus' and freedom of political speech, association, etc....The presence of a 'formal' machinery of elections, and of merely 'formal' separation of powers between executive, legislative and judiciary branches is not 'proof' of democracy.    What is required is actual regular power alternation between different ideologies (or parties) and of political personel, as well as de facto preservation of fundamental (constitutional) individual rights.   By those measures the number of 'former European colonies' that have been able to retain genuine democracy is a small minority.  The largest exception, and a major one (!), is India.  There are very few others like that today.    In order to give some weight to empirical observations of this kind, one also has to take into account  the length of time of the current political regimes in countries.  The presence of 'democratic' attributes must have gone through several electoral cycles before one can say with confidence that they have taken hold and can survive political 'crises'.   Most ex-colonies of former European colonial powers have had elections of the 'one-man-one-vote-one-time' variety, followed by chaos and then by a variety of Potemkin-democracies.         


India is not genuine democracy and that’s according to your own reasonable criteria to measure the “ beast” India is ranking 105 on the media freedom index prepared by Reporters without Borders. There are serious human rights abuses in that country according to Amnesty International and Human rights watch. Christians are getting persecuted under so called The Anti-Conversion law. Just last year nuns from Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of charity were arrested after offering to pray for AIDS patients in hospitals they had visited weekly for 20 years.


Marfrans: "there are reasonable criteria by which one should measure the 'beast'. Perhaps the most important ones are the effective implementation and respect for fundamental individual rights, such as 'habeas corpus' and freedom of political speech, association, etc...."

Democracy means popular sovereignty.
(mass immigration is proof that we do not have democracy).


marcfrans: "In historical terms, it [democracy] remained exclusively limited to parts of the western world until very recently, and it certainly has been lost again in most of the former colonies where it was bequeathed at independence."

Most of the former colonies of European powers, both in numbers of countries and in numbers of people, are now democracies. 

Germanic origin of modern democracy?

This is the most stimulating article by Fjordman that I remember, and congratulations to marcfrans for the most informative comment that I remember from him!

While it is true that democracy as we know it was born very recently, I believe (but I am not sure) that European democracy originates from the assemblies of the Germanic tribes, which gave rise to the parliaments of the Nordic countries and of England. If anybody knows better, please correct me.

It has been said that Western civilization was born from the merging of Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian, and Germanic traditions. The Germanic tradition has received relatively little attention, partly because the ancient Germans did not write much, but also to avoid associations with a certain political movement of the 1930s.

Perverse selfhatred

@ Vanhauwaert

You are mistaken.

1) "Slavery" is a big word that can cover many different phenomena.   Historically, it has existed in almost every civilisation in one form or another, and was a 'normal' part of the human condition.  It certainly was preferable to the 'alternative' practice of annihilating other tribes rather than enslaving them.   It exists even today in 'milder' (?) forms, for instance in the form of 'indentured' labor in some societies, or in the abject powerless position of women in certain (stress on "certain") muslim societies.

In modern times slavery disappeared in most of the world largely because of the actions of western ('christian') nations, and  - ironically - as a byproduct of European colonialism in Africa, Asia, and the Americas.   Particularly, the actions of the British navy (after the formal ban declared by the British parliament) in mid-19th century were noteworthy in this respect, although slave-trading over land continued in parts of the Middle East (and central Asia) until deep in the 20th century.

2) Ideas of "democracy and citizenship" definitely do have important roots in ancient Greece and Rome, but they were certainly NOT implemented in those societies in any way that would be recognisable to modern westerners.   The famous Athenian 'democracy' was limited to a very small segment of the population and co-existed with formal slavery (just like in the southern US in the 18th and early 19th century). It is noteworthy that Athen's 'limited democracy' did not survive long against the onslaught of other Greek and non-Greek 'tyrannies'.

Actual 'democracy' and full citizenship for all members of a 'polity' was first actually realised in western 'Christian' nations, and nowhere else on the planet.  In historical terms, it remained exclusively limited to parts of the western world until very recently, and it certainly has been lost again in most of the former colonies where it was bequeathed at independence.  

Moreover, the growing trend of 'criminalisation' of political speech in western European countries suggests that democracy is on the decline today in Europe as well.  

You don't disprove my claim

1. Yes, slavery disappeared first in Europe, that does not mean that it disappeared because of the Judeo-Christian heritage in these countries. I'd say slavery was abolished here first _despite_ our Judeo-Christian heritage. To support that claim I brought up two arguments which you did not address so let me re-iterate them
a. Slavery (and I use the term very broadly here) co-existed for over 1800 years in different forms in nations that had a Judeo-Christian heritage. Whatever the reason for abolishing slavery I think technological and economical progress are much more likely candidates when looking at the historical record.
b. The bible explicitly recognizes slavery, so the practice was know. But somehow it was not worthy enough to add it to the 10 commandments while the rule that you should not make images of living things somehow is? Talking about having your priorities wrong...

2. Again the same conclusion : real democracy is only a very recent evolution, despite us having the benefit of 2000 years of christianity. Claiming it as a Christian invention is therefore ridiculous. Especially when the earliest traces of citizenship, representative government etc... are found in cultures that existed a good bit before Christianity.

Influence of Judeo-Christian heritage overstated

Judeo-Christianity is regularly given credit for forming our so called moral DNA, like in this article. I don't think there is a historical basis for that attribution though.

Look at the timeline. It took nearly 1900 years of Judeo-Christian heritage to abolish all forms of slavery throughout the Judeo-Christian world. (Maybe because in that pinnacle of Judeo-Christian morality, the 10 commandments slavery is explicitly acknowledged!) Democracy and citizenship have demonstratable non-Christian roots in the Greek and Roman culture. And even now, the only way society can accept both the old and new testament as a moral guiding book is by engaging in a selective and creative revisionist reading by skipping the more egregious parts.