From Meccania to Atlantis - Part 4½: Darkness in the Cranium


This is a brief post scriptum to Part 4, warranted by a series of most interesting comments thereto by a Mr. W. Lindsay Wheeler, and counter arguments by other readers, for whose positive comments I am thankful.
It is strange indeed that the Roman Catholic faith still harbors such a high percentage of Antisemites, particularly on the periphery of Europe bracketed by Ireland on one side and Poland on the other. Part of it has to do with the limited teaching of the Bible in Catholic education – at least the kind I know from Europe. Many traditional Catholics have little idea of how very much their image of Christ is derived from a book composed in part and later redacted by the Jews’ traditional enemies, the Middle Eastern Greeks who had already invented Antisemitism in BCE Alexandria. It is also deeply ignorant about the actual man Christians would call by the Greek word, Christ, though his own disciples had called him “Rabbi.”
Lack of true knowledge of Old Testament and its inseparable connection to Jesus and to his teachings leads not only to spiritual poverty, but to an intellectual one as well. The Bible is, after all, the greatest work of literature ever written, whatever else it may be. It is too, a foundation of European civilization without which one like Mr. Wheeler is streaking naked in his bared-fang frothing through the corridors of civilized men.
Mr. Wheeler’s specific comments do not merit a reply, but the comments of his interlocutors do. For one, what ought to be important to us – as opposed to the Body Snatchers – is not whether one says something negative against Jews, blacks etc., but whether it’s true. Probably one of the most controversial things I am going to write in this series is that Antipod schools ought to restore the study of history to great prominence in the curriculum – and it ought to be true history.
True history calls for teaching about the past and present barbarity of Africa, but also about the evil of slavery, whatever pique it may cause south of the Mason-Dixon line. True history must teach about the massive Jewish complicity in the Bolshevik’s rise to power, including in the 1919 Munich Soviet Republic that may have put Hitler over the edge. But this calls for learning also why Jews had been pushed in this direction by their rejection by Christian society. It calls for acknowledging that the Catholic Church used to try cats and pigs for Satanism and burn them at the stake, in addition to the 100,000 women so dispatched – but also that it enabled the scientific revolution.
One side of these issues is verboten under the current regime. True education does not mean teaching the side now forbidden, but teaching the whole truth, including this side.
One issue in which Jew-haters reveal their prejudiced ignorance is in their treatment of Jews as a tribe with an evolutionary agenda. It is probably true with respect to very narrow, specific segments, e.g. the Syrian-Jewish community from Aleppo, or the Hasidim. But Jews as a people, particularly the Ashkenazi ones, have ceased being a tribe more than 100 years ago. In fact, there are major schisms among Jews even about such supposed issues of tribal evolutionary strategy as Zionism, the Jewish religion, homosexuality (strictly forbidden in Judaism), support for the Democratic Party and more.
The truth shall make you free; now, which Jew said that?
This business of superior–inferior is for idiots; always has been. Superior in what way, for what purpose? Truth calls for teaching about racial differences, some of which confer advantages on nonwhites, as any witness to an Olympics or to an English spelling bee will tell you.
Those who decry Jews who decry white supremacism have not ventured far from their corner pub. If Mr. Wheeler could step into the skin of a Chinese or Japanese, and look at white men through those eyes, he would find plenty to squirm about. At the time Queen Isabella was boasting of having taken only two baths in her lifetime, and the royal houses of Europe were swarming with fleas, the Japanese had been bathing daily in hot water for a thousand years. The features of the Chinese culture that propel China to run circles around the West despite of China’s various handicaps have been part of that culture for 2500 years now.
So let’s all slow down on this supremacy stuff, and go to work – something we have much to learn about from the Orientals. As it were, whites have many reasons to feel good about their culture and its achievements, but the way to build on those does not involve cock-a-doodle-doo.
Libertarianism will get a treatment in one of the next chapters, and not a very positive one. Anybody who would confuse Austrian economics with Libertarianism I’d not make my Minister of Finance. BTW, the most influential member of the nefarious Jew conspiracy Mr. Wheeler calls “libertarianism” was not a Jew, though related to one. It was Friedrich von Hayek, a gentile relative of the ¾ Jewish philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein.
To connect the unfortunate term “racialism” to the Bible, people who claim to be Christians, and who have a brain, ought to have an operative knowledge of basic statistical terms such as Gaussian Distribution, mean, and standard deviation.
Which means that whatever statements one makes about any group of people, however true, are true so only in the statistical sense. There should always be room for those removed by more than one sigma from the mean. Or, as Abraham said in Sodom to the entity channeled in our times by Mr. W. Lindsay Wheeler: “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will you then sweep away the place and not forgive it for the fifty righteous who are in it?” [Gen. 18:23-25].
Lastly, Brussels Journal’s editors may be compelled to install race idiot filters one day, because a stream of compulsive subpar postings in a righteous tone and with lots of soi-disant sensational revelations generate much wheel spinning. On the other hand, people who are “extreme right wing” – as this community is labeled by some Body Snatchers – will always have to deal with those who are even more “right wing.” The latter are, of course, so “right” that they are actually way on the left, as were Hitler and Mussolini.
Maybe some of the fruitbars are salvageable, and for that purpose maybe at least an attempt at argument is justified. Ultimately, however, one has to be aware that unalloyed racial hatred is a disease, and one that requires quarantine. It’s the evil twin of Body Snatching, after all, though manifested as counter-matter in a parallel universe.

See also:

From Meccania to Atlantis - Part 1: The March of the Body Snatchers, 28 October 2008

From Meccania to Atlantis - Part 2: From the Clenched Fist to the Raised Middle Finger, 1 November 2008

From Meccania to Atlantis - Part 3: From Encirclement to Breakout, 27 November 2008

From Meccania to Atlantis - Part 4: Tribe, 12 December 2008


No doubt the author is impressed by Japanese baths, perhaps he should visit Bath, England so he can see what the Romans built so far from home--500 years after they began building them in Rome. Before the Romans, the Greeks built baths as well.

 The Asians have nothing on the West, sir, nothing. It is we who have chosen to denigrate our past. In that, you are right. But when you can name one substantial invention by an Asian in the past or in the present, I might take some of your adopted asian supremacism seriously, but until then, you need to leave off if you wish to be taken seriously.

 And please, leave off the gunpowder (an idea whose time had come--it was in use in Europe before Marco Polo's time) and the so called "clock"--a device consisting not of gears, but of buckets of water overflowing one into another. At the time, the ancient Greeks had developed gear driven astrological computers for navigating.


Bathing 2

Epublius rex: When I read the first installment of Takuan Seiyo's current essay, I objected to the use of yin-yang medical theory as the overarching framework for an argument on how to save the West. I no longer make that objection because I now understand that everything Mr. Seiyo writes testifies to his dedication to that task. He is not an Asian supremacist by any means, but he has found a well of inspiration in Asian civilization for that task. The civilizational virtues he has discovered may be those the West has forgotten, or may be reminders of those the West has forgotten, or may be ones the West should in fact adopt. In any case, he believes they help him to help us find our way to the truth of our bad situation in the West and how to remedy it.

Succinctly, in our ideally classical-liberal civilization, the "liberal" has just about swallowed the "classical," meaning the tragic understanding of limits. Mr. Seiyo's immersion in (primarily) Japanese civilization helps us remember the non-liberal foundations of the West, which we need to remember to break out of the dead end of liberalism. (See Frederick Turner's epic poem, The New World (1985), for an image of a reborn non-liberal American civilization in the 24th century.)

Marcfrans patrolling the border

I can imagine Marcfrans if he was the chief of a border-patrol in Belgium:

Oh! a little Afghan refugee!
We must absolutely have him, he will improve our values.

Oh! a Vietnamese! How sweet he looks! I say: we don't have enough Vietnamese in Belgium. I predict that one will be our next Bobby Jindal.

Oh, an Eskimo!
Oh, a Javanese!

@ Armor

I normally don't read your ever unsubstantiated comments anymore.
Your last comments to Marcfrans are so ridiculous that my eyes hurt just watching them.
Marcfrans is intellectually far superior to your thinking capacity and is therefor probably too complicated for you. The base of his thinking about immigration is clear: good people are good people and a benefit to every society. Bad people are a nuisance in every society. Conclusion: let the good people come in after screening.
I hope it is clear now, I used a maximum short words.

Anyway, a merry and christian Christmas to everybody on this blog.


I'm afraid that Marcfrans would try to continue to build his imaginary Judeo-Christian civilization which would in fact lead to 'neoconization' of Belgium. :) He probably celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah in the same time like true ecumenical multicultural activist. :)

Nevertheless, Merry Christmas to everybody.

Moving up # 3

@ Atlanticist

I have considered your alternative "policy", but I have run into a major obstacle, which is one of KO's major 'truth's , i.e. that people have different "abilities and proclivities".  Believe me, it has nothing to do with my 'race'.   And, neither does your peculiar ability (alternative policy) have anything to do with your race.  

No Fanatic

Armor: A discussion of general principles applicable to an optimal immigration policy does not preclude discussion of the kind of emergency measures you propose for dealing with the current perilous immigration situation. Nor does classical liberalism, rightly understood, forbid strong measures to protect the nation, even if such measures conflict with the individual rights we would prefer to have prevail in a more settled situation. Classical liberalism understands that security is the precondition of rights. Thus the internment of West Coast Japanese in WWII was not an exception to classical liberalism, but an expression of its acknowedgment that the security of the nation is a higher priority than the individual rights of its citizens. The same principles apply to our immigration emergency. Your proposals would be limited by political possibility and prudence, not by an absolute prohibition on infringing individual rights when the health, life, and security of the nation demands it.

Merry Christmas to our European friends and to all readers and writers of The Brussels Journal!

Moving up (2)

@ marcfrans


Should you laugh or cry? You should do neither.What you should do is precisely what you are doing, which is to continue your civilized 'conversation' with KO and refuse to be sidetracked into defending positions falsely attributed to you. Alternatively you are free to adopt and adapt the policy I employ against kappert.   

Ad hominem

@ KO

1) Perhaps by "ad hominem comments" you are referring to someone calling me "crazy" and "dummy"?

2) "Persistance" is a moral virtue, but persistant dishonesty becomes a vice squared.

3) For the rest, you have beautifully outlined a principled immigration policy that I could subscribe to, including the need for being a "race realist".  At the same time, I am reasonably sure that Thomas Sowell would ascribe existing "different abilities and proclivities of ethnic GROUPS" to (temporary) cultural differences rather than to genes.  Individuals are directly affected by genes AND by the physical and cultural environment, groups are only indirectly affected by genes (in as much as they are a collection of individuals). Moreover, within any given group, at any particular time, there is still a wide range of differences (in terms of abilities and proclivities) so that sensibly-regulated limited immigration could still improve the 'quality' of the host society.  I am NOT arguing for immigration. That is up to the host society, and will depend on its circumstances of the moment and on the prospective immigrants.   

4) Finally, every generational turnover leads to "population replacement".  It is infinitely more important that the proper values get transmitted through the ages rather than particular physical appearances.   I know that I would be much better off with Bobby Jindal as my 'leader', rather than living under Hitler, Schroeder, Chirac, Putin, Mugabe, or many others. Apparently not everybody seems to agree, which is amazing, but not really 'surprising'.

immigration fanatic

Marcfrans: " someone calling me "crazy" and "dummy"

If you take offense at being called crazy or dumb, how about "immigration fanatic" ?

" sensibly-regulated limited immigration could still improve the 'quality' of the host society. I am NOT arguing for immigration."

The idea that limited immigration could still improve the quality of the host society is still what I call arguing for immigration. In order to remedy the mass immigration policy of the past 40 years, the solution is not to bring the immigration down to a trickle, since any additional immigration simply adds itself to the previous millions. It doesn't cure anything, it only advances the replacement a little more. The only sensible policy is to reverse the immigration of the past 40 years and to prevent the birth of non-whites in white countries. The way to do that is to stop immigration, stop giving any money to immigrants, enforce a repatriation policy.
The non-white population has very high birth-rates and we know that the effects of the past 40 years of mass immigration are going to be felt more and more painfully. In spite of that, immigration is probably now at a record level. So, our future is bleak. At the very least, Marcfrans should argue for a restriction in the numbers, even if he refuses any expulsions. Instead, he insists that we need to maintain, in small quantities, a permanent injection of non-whites among (what's left of) the whites. He says he doesn't support mass immigration...., but instead of arguing against mass immigration, he argues for SOME limited immigration, even though we already have mass immigration. Does that make sense? It seems to me Marcfrans is not interested in issues, but only in arguing.

" Finally, every generational turnover leads to "population replacement".

Individuals are replaced, but the population globally remains the same if there is no immigration. I agree with a slogan I read today on another website: "genes are us". When I look at myself in the mirror, what I see is me, and I am the expression of my genes. Members of my family are not very different from other white people and I see them and myself as part of a larger white family. So, when I die, it will not be the end of everything. But I don't have that kind of sympathy for non-whites. The idea that there is some kind of continuity between myself and the Arabs that the government brings here to replace us strikes me as ridiculous.

" It is infinitely more important that the proper values get transmitted through the ages rather than particular physical appearances. I know that I would be much better off with Bobby Jindal as my 'leader', rather than living under Hitler, Schroeder, Chirac, Putin, Mugabe, or many others."

Parents have children who usually ressemble them, but they don't need to do anything special in order to pass on physical appearance. As for values, we simply watch the children grow, we observe how they behave, and if they do not seem to have exactly the right values, there is nothing we can do about it.

The Marcfrans solution: put all the good people in the West, and all the refuse in the third-world !

Ad hominem 2

1) Terms of endearment, so obviously inapplicable.

3) You are probably right about Sowell. A favorite example of his is the success of West Indian blacks in the U.S.A. It appears to disprove the white racism explanation for the failure of American blacks, but it also appears to disprove the genetic theory.

Moving up

@ Atlanticist

I have moved up in the world, from "crazy" to "dummies". Clearly that is an improvement.  One is better off dum than crazy.

Should I laugh or cry?  I have just advocated STRICT immigration controls (with emphasis on an educational achievement criterion), and now a Breton (with French nationality) is claiming that I would be in favor of bringing millions of third-world immigrants to European cities. Go figure!

I wonder how long it will take for KO to 'catch on'.  Perhaps, reading that Armor wants the "Russkies" to invade France, perhaps that might do the trick?

In any case, your "re USSticks" was very funny.  All that is missing now is Herr K's views on 'race and culture', and we would be definitely sunk.

Belgian 4

Hopefully I will resist being drawn into making ad hominem comments, Marcfrans, but I will give Armor credit for persistence, however frustrating that may be for his interlocutors. I agree with Armor that substantial immigration effects population replacement through the mechanisms discussed below. I don't agree that zero immigration is always ideal, because federation is an essential part of nation-building. However, immigration has to be carried out with due regard for the well-being and continuity of the native people. A government that cannot show such regard is not fit to govern and had better permit no immigration at all.

Your emphasis on compatible--i.e., traditional liberal--culture and educational qualifications, and most importantly, on close individual scrutiny and small numbers, lead me to believe that government by Marcfrans would show due regard for the well-being and continuity of the native people. That is, if you mean to favor the immigration of high-performing individuals to benefit the native peoples and not merely to gratify the "human rights" demands of foreigners to live wherever they please.

However, a classical liberal should also be a race realist who is aware of the different abilities and proclivities of ethnic groups, which our friend Thomas Sowell has spent a lifetime documenting (Ethnic America, Race and Culture, Migration and Culture, Conquest and Culture). That does not mean becoming an abject materialist who thinks of nothing but gene transmission, but recognizing that bringing in foreign groups can destroy the subtle balances that allow the native people to flourish, whether those foreign groups coalesce around race, religion, ideology, or mere shared resentment of the natives (cf. the destructive Irish and Jewish resentments of American WASPs).

A classical or traditional liberal therefore must take race into account in building and maintaining the nation, even while treating individuals as individuals within the nation.

re USStics

Thanks fo the ps. Sadly, the e a e  mo e impo tant things  missing f om you answe  than a single lette  f om the  oman alphabet.

RUSStic vitues

@ Armor

If it was "easier to keep to traditional, natural values when society was less centralized", I'd be interested to know why you feel a victory for the soviets would have made that less of a problem, or easier to reverse.



The main reason I wish the Soviets had invaded Western Europe is so as to avoid the immigration disaster. Besides, the Breton language would still be alive if france had been invaded by the Russkies. At least, it seems the Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian languages still exist today.
If today's Russians are less crazy than Western Europeans (even though Russia is still a centralized country), I agree it may contradict the generalization I proposed earlier. I suggest you ask a specialist of Russia.

ps: an 'r' is missing in your title

rustic virtues

KO: "The Founders knew that no structure could protect a people that had lost the virtues of its inherited culture."

First, there is something wrong with the western governments and media. Normal white people are not like that. They have not lost all their virtues. So, instead of trying to change people, it will go faster to do something about the media, the education establishment, and how things are organized.
Another problem we have is that our social and economic organization has become more centralized. Even if it has happened naturally, we should try to reverse part of that (easy to say!). It was certainly easier to keep to traditional, natural values when society was less centralized.

Population Replacement for Dummies

Marcfrans: "The truth is that the 'crazy Belgian' has never advocated the "replacement" of anyone by anyone else. To make such claims is indicative of an extraordinary degree of dishonesty (...). And it is even more remarkable to read the claim that the immigration of a person, any person, would lead to "fewer white babies in the future".

You are playing dumb. The population replacement is not a one-for-one replacement. When the Belgian government brings a couple of Arabs to a Belgian city, it does not ask a young white couple to move out simultaneously.

Here is how you can tell that a population replacement is occurring:
Fifty years ago, you would visit a large European city and see only white people. Now, you go visit the same city, and you will find 10% of non-whites, or maybe 30%, or even more, and the numbers keep climbing. If you can't see that, I think you are the one being dishonest. When you start seeing fewer whites among your colleagues at work, among your neighbors, in your children's school, maybe even in your own home, it means that a population replacement is occurring in your country.

When you bring 1 million third-world immigrants to a European city, not only will the white birth rate go down as a result, but white people will try to move out to another part of the country. And on average, every additional immigrant you bring to the country will put additional downward pressure on the birth rate of the local population, even if you only bring a few (how many more of them do you want by the way?). Conversely, birth rates in the white population will bounce back as soon as you ship the third-world immigrants back to their homelands.

How can you not understand something so basic if you claim to know something about economics?

Marcfrans assumes if he adds 1 million immigrants to a country of 1 million Europeans, the final number will remain 2 million for eternity. In fact, there must be a reason why the population was only 1 million in the first place.
What will actually happen is that the whites will wait until the number settles back down to 1 million, while the non-whites will keep reproducing until their final number reaches 10 million or whatever number they are comfortable with.

And how can anyone claim that our lives are improved when we get replaced by more efficient people? It is the most absurd part of Marcfrans' position.

Crazy Belgian # 2

Armor raises a couple of interesting questions, and provides the usual sort of distortions as well.

1) Indeed, most immigrants are not Thomas Sowells. Sensible conclusion: immigration should be quantitatively and qualitatively limited, and controlled in accordance with strict specific criteria.

2) There is no evidence that Jindal wants "to facilitate immigration from India to the USA".  He is certainly strongly opposed to illegal immigration in general, and it is a reasonable assumption that he would not be interested at all in re-creating "Indian conditions" in his state.  In fact, over a relatively short period of time he has already dramatically improved 'governance' in the (relatively poor) state of Louisiana, and the break with the corruption that was rampant under his 'white' predecessors is remarkable.  In a similar vein, any serious observer of that particular state cannot deny that the arrival of a significant Vietnamese minority (after the war in Vietnam) led to improvement in the overall 'cajun' culture of that state.  The fact that, last week, a manifest corrupt black (federal) Congressman from New Orleans lost an election to the first Vietnamese-American Congressman is just one significant sign of that. And, by the way, (Asian) Indian Americans are the most succesful single ethnic group in the US today.  They are overrepresented in science PH.D. programs and virtually absent from Hollywood and the unemployment rolls. 

3) The truth is that the 'crazy Belgian' has never advocated the "replacement" of anyone by anyone else.  To make such claims is indicative of an extraordinary degree of dishonesty (which makes one fear for the 'culture' of Bretagne and its future).  And it is even more remarkable to read the claim that the immigration of a person, any person, would lead to "fewer white babies in the future".  The implication is that 'whites' are no longer considered responsible for the culture in which they live, and 'having babies' is an important aspect of culture!  Can't white parents decide for themselves on the number of their babies?  Have they adopted China's 1-child policy, or is it that they prefer watching television and aborting babies to making babies?  So, yes, values matter.   

4) I don't think that IQ tests would be a good idea, even though Jindal (a Rodes scholar) would do well on them.  So would Bill Clinton, of course, and that would not be good for the culture, would it?  But, indirect IQ tests, like for example attaching great weight to the criterion of 'educational achievements' would be a good idea for devising a sensible immigration policy. 

5)  No, one cannot send Cohn-Bendit "back to Africa".  He did not come from there in any case, and I am afraid that Germany/France remain morally and legally responsible for their own sons and daughters.  Moreover, any sensible African government would refuse that kind of an immigrant.  That is why past behavior (including a criminal record) provides another good criterion for a sensible immigration policy.

6) Indeed, how to prevent "leftist tendencies" to develop in the culture?  That is the fifty million dollar/euro question.  The 'crazy Belgian' recognises that it is a very serious problem.  But, it has almost nothing to do with a sensible immigration policy.  In fact, over the past half century in Europe and America, the one preceeded the other.  It is the rise of naive-leftism among WHITES (coupled with moral relativism overall and with libertarian tendencies on the 'capitalist' right) which have led to the problems of mass immigration.   As always, it is values that matter, not skin color.

Belgian 3

Armor's idea that excessive immigration affects native birthrates is not far-fetched. A population accustomed to assuming that it owns the territory it occupies undergoes a shock when it finds itself sharing territory, and the future, with other groups. See Lawrence Auster's pathbreaking The Path To National Suicide. Designers of immigration policy need to take into account the effect of the policy on the hopefulness and confidence of the natives.

The $50 mm question involves the boundary of classical liberalism with left (universal, egalitarian) liberalism. Classical liberalism regards expansion of the political community as a mean to optimizing government, not as the progress of human rights. It does not posit a universal right to vote, but a reference of political decision-making to those who are capable of discerning and choosing the good. Hence representative government with property qualifications and gender qualifications in the early American republic. That was a means of protecting all of society from the creation of a system aimed to redistribute wealth.

We also depended on a Supreme Court to protect the underlying social structure from being perverted by the political branches.

The Founders knew that no structure could protect a people that had lost the virtues of its inherited culture. Therefore reference to past limitations on political participation may seem irrelevant, espcially where our main problem is the imposition of leftist policies against the popular will. However, it is imporrtant to realize that political participation is not an end in itself but a means to an end.

There is also a limit under classical liberalism on political activity that is inimical to the health of the society. Socialism used to be suppressed, but has wriggled its way to the heart of the political and cultural systems of the West.

The health of the society: classical liberalism recognized that its reforms were improvements of traditional culture, not substitutes for it.

Crazy Belgian

I think the debate between Marcfrans and other commentators is drawing to a close. It is now time to draw our conclusions. What have we learned from the debate? Obviously, we have learned that Marcfrans is still as crazy as ever!

Marcfrans: "Any society would be better off if it had more people like the black Thomas Sowell or the brown Bobby Jindal, compared with more people like the white Cohn-Bendit or the white Nancy Pelosi. It is my opinion, and it is a much better one than Armor's love for 'identical people' or look-alike people"

It may have escaped your attention that most immigrants to the West are no Thomas Sowells.

What Jindal would probably try to do if he was the new Potus would be to facilitate immigration from India to the USA. Practically, how do you suggest we go about replacing white people with Sowells and Jindals? I hope you realize that immigration is equivalent to population replacement. Any entry of third-world immigrants results in fewer white babies in the future. In the end you will get a population that will have nothing to do with you at all. It is impossible to guess what their civilization will be like. Now, how do you suggest the replacement should be organized?

If you want immigration to provide the West with people like Thomas Sowell, you will have to use IQ tests to decide who is accepted or not. I wonder how you plan to test immigrants for their western values, though. Should we allow immigrants to live ten years in the West and then expel them all, except for the 10% who display the best "values" ?

And what do you suggest we should do with leftists like Cohn-Bendit and Nancy Pelosi? Send them back to Africa? If one of your children starts to display leftist tendencies at an early age, should you ask your government to provide you with a Chinese replacement? If not, it means that you value family and lineage. Lineage is the same thing as race. So, it means you are a racist.

Marcfrans: "I say that it is culture that ultimately matters, not race."

You may say it doesn't matter TO YOU, but there is no question that race matters to normal people. As for the idea that race doesn't have an influence over culture, civilization, values, behavior, political inclination, it is pure rubbish! You should read a few scientific books on the subject.

Race # 8

@ KO

While there is much agreement, I will focus on the disagreement between us.

- NO, we cannot "program GM babies" if we want to "project values in the future". I hate to have to say it again, but Nancy Pelosi and Bill Moyers (or was it Phil Donahue?) illustrate my point. 

- I do not "exalt" culture over race.  I say that it is  culture that ultimately matters, not race. (I am reminded that a common ideological opponent of ours, the black Cornell West wrote a famous litle book called "Race matters".  You honor him to much by superficially seeming to agree with him on that point.)   

-  I am sure that the smarter ones among the Founding Fathers were well aware that the ethnic/racial composition of Britain in say 1750 had evolved significantly from what it was in say 'Roman times'.  

- The "massive importation of Mexicans to... swell welfare rolls and union rolls" is indicative of a loss of proper values among the 'natives'.  The focus should be on that value loss, not on the 'race' of Mexicans.

We agree that the "implicit assumptions of classical liberalism have to become (made) more explicit".   

Race 9

Marcfrans: Thanks for your prompt reply. I am willing to dispense with race entirely, except as it is subsumed under the proper governance and cultivation of real peoples. That includes protecting white Europeans and Americans from diminution by racial and left liberal enemies.

Race # 6

First, for the record, I will repeat for the umpteenth time that I do NOT (a) support any "race-replacement policy", nor (b) do I justify "the use of coercion to enforce the replacement".  Second, "replacing people with identical people" would be an impossibility, but that doesn't stop Armor from ending his series of strawmen with such a nonsensical rethorical question.  Third, given that Armor continues to consciously misrepresent my views (because it is easier for him to deal with strawmen than with reality) I feel no obligation to respond further to his statements.

@ Olejorgen

Indeed, I suspect that, as a practical matter, our disagreement is minor or perhaps nonexistant.  And, obviously, human culture and values cannot exist independently of human nature.  But, that simply means that many facets of human nature (virtues versus vices) can be found everywhere where there are humans. 

We agree that any possible linkage between "biodiversity" and the prevalence of particular human values is a very complex issue.  I am also convinced (or I believe strongly) that answers to that issue will always remain highly speculative, and not definitive, but I certainly will always remain open to further empirical evidence.   In any case, morality dictates that we deal with persons as individuals, not as race-symbols or race-representatives of some sort.

I posit or believe in the human value of self-determination, both for individuals and for 'nations' (although I recognise that these two can come into conflict at times).  I certainly recognise that, say, Norwegians or Swedes have a natural 'right' to determine their own immigration policy, in accordance with their own (hopefully) 'democratic' values. And, if they would democratically decide to make 'race' a relevant criterion in their immigration policy, that would be their business and nobody else's.  So, I would have no problem with that.  The only major point I want to make is simply as follows: what matters for a society is the maintenance or achievement of broad adherence to a specific set of human values, not to biodiversity nor to any particular 'race'.  Any society would be better off if it had more people like the black Thomas Sowell or the brown Bobby Jindal, compared with more people like the white Cohn-Bendit or the white Nancy Pelosi.  It is my opinion, and it is a much better one than Armor's love for 'identical people' or look-alike people

@ KO

I suspect that our practical policies might not differ very much, but the fundamental underlying reason for these policies would be very different. It is values that matter, not bio-diversity, nor bio-uniformity.  Nancy Pelosi is a much bigger threat to the 'good society' than are most nonwhite Americans.  While immigration policy is definitely important, education policy is even more so.

I am fully aware that many of those who want to destroy 'traditional' American culture, or its common civic culture, are using "race wars" and undermine immigration policy enforcement for such nefarious ends.  It's part of the leftist plan to undermine "traditional liberalism" by a very different intolerant worldview.  In a similar vein, in Belgium socialist and francophone politicians have been importing more muslims and other foreigners in order to contain Flemish nationalism. But none of this justifies confusing human values with 'races'.  And, while it is an historically-observable fact that "traditional liberal values" came only to fruition in culturally-judeo-Christian societies, there is nothing "Christian" about judging a person by physical criteria over which he/she has no control.  On the contrary, the Christian's duty is to judge any person in society by his behavior and opinions. And whether it is Christian, or not, it is common sense. One is better off, as an individual, in a "biodiverse" free society like (say) Minnesota, than in almost-'white' nazi-Germany or contemporary Belarus. Admittedly, one can find better examples of 'white' countries, but would they be served with more Nancy Pelosi's in their midst? They would not! The focus has to be on values, i.e. on culture, not race.

Race 7

Thanks for your reply, Marcfrans. I am not arguing for biodiversity or biouniformity, but for protecting and fostering real people, real nations. Life is not about projecting values into the future any more than it is about projecting genes into the future. If it were only about values, we could program cyborgs to replace us, or GM babies. No, life is about, to borrow Voegelin's language, seeking order in attunement with the divine, and that means fostering the spiritual and material life of nations. Nations are part of the order of being and must be properly nurtured, not abandoned. When you recognize national self-determination as a value, you recognize the existence of nations, but when you exalt culture over race you turn the nation into an abstraction. Let's try setting the race-culture dichotomy aside and talk about people. Let's take America in 1965 and say that this is the nation. It comes from the past and will continue into the future. Everyone in proportion to his powers has a responsibility towards this real collection of people that constitutes the nation, not just towards its values or preferred genetic communities. And part of that responsibility is to ensure that the people can hand the country on to their own descendants, not the descendants of foreigners, though there is some room for new admissions to the nation.

The classical liberalism of the founders recognized the existence of nations and peoples as inherent to human existence and codified in natural law. That is part of their Judeo-Christian-Classical heritage. People and nations are cultural and genetic communities, open to new accessions but identifiable and fundamental to the order of being. Christian Scripture acknowledges the nations as part of the order of being. Christ himself differentiated between the children of Israel he came to save and the Samaritan woman who demanded and received his blessing.

Not race, not culture, but people, of whom race and culture are attributes.

Race 7 (cont.)

Classical liberalism needs to recover the common sense of past generations and the ancient world regarding the concrete existence of peoples in contrast with their reduction to values or genes. No one in the founding generation would have accepted the idea that the nation could be a multi-racial community of values with no British-American majority leadership in culture and race. They believed their God-given responsibility was to nurture the actual nation, and in the circumstances to secure its political independence and identity. They certainly would not have countenanced attacks on the nation in the form of racial set-asides for blacks and Mexicans, or in the form of massive importation of Mexicans to swell payrolls, voter rolls, welfare rolls, and union rolls. Classical liberalism acknowledges and defends the nation as the necessary environment of the individual who is a part of the nation. No indivuals without nations.

I don't think you were invoking the aesthetic preference of individuals for multicultural environments as a basis for sound policy. The criterion of political good is not individual preference, especially not aesthetic preference, but the life of the nation in all its facets: moral, spiritual, cultural, economic, and biological. I belive that the highest civilization is classical liberal in nature, but that classical liberalism includes acknowledgment and nurturing of the nation in all its dimensions.

The true classical liberalism will thus be nationalist based on the same natural law that leads it to prefer liberty, where feasible, in economic and cultural life. Yet classical liberalism is not a suicide pact: it does not require sacrificing the life to ensure that Mexican and Salvadoran gangsters, Moslem warriors, and savage criminals enjoy fine medical care and three square meals a day!

As Sagunto points out, we are in a time when the implicit assuumptions of classical liberalism have to become explcit.

Race without culture vs. Culture without race

Talking about race is still 'not done' [with gusto] in various, and often very diverse, sections of society in different European nations. Of course there's the haunting memory of Progressive/Socialist racism of the century before 1945, though alas, mainstream distortion of history has convinced many into believing this was somehow "extreme-right" ideology at work.

Besides that, a widely shared feeling (at least in Holland) still exists that native tradition is indeed about culture, custom, ancestry (Chesterton called it "democracy of the dead", i.e. past generations also have rights), a shared history and language and so on. The uneasy feeling when race is made explicit seems to reflect still how much most of us here are used to the fact that not long ago, there was no multicultural society, - and there still is no MCS in many parts of the Netherlands. Even avowed multiculturalists display this uneasyness, not because of multiculturalism itself, but i.m.o. mainly because they live in more or less "gated communities" that are strikingly native in outlook. In other words, they can afford their feel-good multiculturalism like the Progressive masters in the old colonies when we still had them, while in their day to day lives they don't need to live by it.
The people in old inner city neighborhoods do, and they would share the same traditional sentiment, i.e. that race is "implicit", i.e. not a thing to think/talk about [because society was inherently native, without the need to emphasize it], but for the reason that US-style multiculturalism reached these shores and was forced upon them with increasing political pressure. Since the mid-seventies and eighties, the voices that have been predicting race riots, came from people living or working in these neighborhoods. Through mass immigration, condensing in these old neighborhoods, the Dutch aboriginals were forced to deal with it on their very doorsteps, either by defending nativity rights (or is that native rights? Anyway. ..always derided by white collar/white neighborhood/white progressive ideologues as racism-in-the-making), or by submitting to the growing influence of US-style multiculturalism and trying to deal with it hands on (e.g. housewive's attempts at teaching the Dutch language to Muslim women, mostly to no avail).

So the explicit race-talk these days (apart from the old-school socialist racism) i.m.o. largely stems from an ongoing discussion, among liberals (right-wing/left-wing) against a multicultural background, imported from the US where multiculturalism is much older than over here in the Lowlands (forget the rosy stories about "melting pots"). Thnx to our political elites that bowed down to Arab pressure, our society has been forced to make race more or less explicit in policy talk, and that still goes with understandable reluctance.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Somehow I feel reluctant to have the epithet "faceless bureaucrat" stamped on my forehead or anywhere else for that matter ;-)

Marcfrans and "values"

Even if Marcfrans thinks culture has nothing to do with intelligence, biology and genes, it doesn't explain why he would support the race-replacement policy. Let's say that the reason why black men between 15 and 35 commit more crime and refuse to read books is entirely cultural. Maybe they were read the wrong kind of bedtime stories when they were small children, or something like that. The thing is: their behavior is still not the same as ours, even after several generations. By and large, black Americans do not behave like white Americans even if exceptions can be found. I suppose Marcfrans would say that their values are different. So, since Marcfrans says that western values must have supremacy in the West, he should support, for different reasons, the same policy as the racists. If Marcfrans thinks he can change the values of non-whites into "western values", at least he should give us a time scale: how many centuries will it take? He should also try to describe the process by which western values are transfered into the heads of non-whites. How does it happen? What keeps African values from being transferred into European heads?
Another thing: Let's admit for a second that Blacks and Whites have the same culture, the same behavior and the same values, but Whites still do not want to be replaced by Blacks, because of some fetishist, moronic attachment to blue eyes and light hair color. How does Marcfrans justify the use of coercion to enforce the replacement? Coerced replacement is what is taking place now. By the way, what is the use of replacing people with identical people?

Race # 3


@ KO

1) I agree that there has to be a "realist interpretation" of abstract principle.

2) The historical "majority" whiteness of Western nations is a fact.  But, these nations are not 'Western' (in their values) because of any particular dominant 'color' of their populations in the past.  At the same time, I agree that the "concrete people" in America should not be assaulted in their (common civic) identity, their confidence, and in their culture, by any "strangers".   I furher agree that this requires strict limits on immigration in order to preserve the principle of self-determination for the existing US population.  However, the "continuity" that is required is continuity with the values embodied in the American Constitution, not with the skin color (nor genes) of Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd or Nancy Pelosi (random sample).  And one certainly should not want continuity of everything that was in the past.

3) I agree that the American Revolution was largely the product of "white British Americans", although there was considerable cross-fertilisation involved in terms of ideas (and of some specific individuals) from other cultures. And I am convinced that the Revolution only succeeded, when it did, because of active military support from Britain's enemies abroad at the time. 

4)  Thomas Sowell himself would be the first to admit that he is "the product of the open flexible American culture", and he would certainly recognise that it has been historically "majority white" for obvious historical reasons.  However, numerous others have shared that common "American culture" and have turned out like Jesse Jackson, or Harry Reid, or Jimmy Carter, or the editor of the New York Times, or the Presidents of Columbia university and of Harvard University, or Phil Donahue and Katie Couric, or Ted Turner, etc....all (formally 'educated' and talented) people who have NO clue what American patriotism is about.   If Thomas Sowell turned out diffferently it is first and foremost because of his own individual efforts and choices.  Any sensible immigration policy would never address 'peoples' but would be geared towards specific individuals.  And the country would be much better off if it had more (imported) individuals like Bobby (Piush) Jindal and Elaine Chao, while at the same time having fewer "white" nutcases like Britney Spears or the present crop of "white" BBC commentators and Financial Times reporters in America.

Race 4

Marcfrans: As a practical matter, we could probably agree that an immigration policy should be sufficiently restrictive in total numbers to prevent the undermining of mutual trust and identification in a nation by bringing in people of foreign race, even if they are desirable in terms of culture. I.e., even if we could find 1 million Bobby Jindals who wanted to come to the USA, we should only admit 100,000 and they should be spread around. Otherwise they will form a foreign body that will assert its own interests against the interests of the native population, or form alliances with sections of the native population altering the balance of power.

What I am trying to persuade you of, however, is that race and genes are part of who a concrete people is, just as they are part of who a family is. Thus if you want to further the existence of a people, you do not assault it in its race and genes any more than in its culture and you permit it to protect itself in its race and genes as well as in its culture. I apologize if I am grappling with something inarticulately, but maybe it comes down to this: the principle of national self-determination is inherently color conscious, because race and genes are an inherent part of the nation. Color blindness therefore (like religious tolerance, political tolerance in the form of broad suffrage, and tolerance of free speech) should not be treated as an ultimate value in itself, but as a desirable policy in a society in which the more fundamental requirements of nationhood are met--i.e., existing groups are compatible and desirous of living together. If the possibility of cohabitation and the will to cooperate are absent, classical liberal values become a suicide pact, a form of unilateral disarmament. They are only functional where a certain kind of culture predominates, which, concretely, is the culture (but only at certain times and places) of white Western Christendom.

Race 5

Classical liberals, therefore, must not be seduced into permitting race war to be waged against the white majority through the pursuit of "equality" by means of distorted history teaching, racial set-asides in educational resources and government contracting and employment, racial gerrymandering, permissiveness towards anti-white crimes, third-world immigration, and all the means the socialist multicultural left has found to destroy the white majority that we haven't even identified yet. To counter the race war being waged against them, whites need to see that they are a target because of race and recognize that their race and culture are both targeted. They thus need to defend themselves on both fronts.

If we say we want both Christian and classical liberal values to prevail, and the descendants of our ancestors to occupy this soil, we are not nazis and racists but reasonable human beings trying to combine the highest values we have inherited and fulfil our divinely ordained duties .

We should respect our own and others cultural and genetic endowments, and recognize that racial kinship is one reality among others that must be taken into account in formulating policy and strategy. That does not mean we don't try to win allies in Thomas Sowell and Bobby Jindal and try to suppress Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Ted Kennedy. I have said I see classical liberals as leading the renewal of the West, but that can only occur if they see that the war being waged against classical liberalism is also a race war against the white West.

See Fred Turner's The New World for an image of an America in the 24th century in which heritage and classical liberal values are integrated.


@ Olejorgen

I am not contesting "biodiversity", nor statistically measurable group differences (about intelligence or whatever) among various existing populations. The subject of the quote was "human values".   It is values that make and reflect cultures, not races.  

In explaining this, we can take the difficult way or the easy way. I will choose the easy one, by using Brussels Journal-related examples.

-- Monarchist is a WHITE nondemocrat who hates 'democracy' and who wants to return to authoritarian aristocratic political governance.  I don't know his IQ, but I do know that he has learned nothing from history.  Kappert is a WHITE confused 'pacifist' who cannot reason, but who loves to make shocking statements.

-- By contrast, Thomas Sowell is a BLACK social sciences Prof at Stanford University who has written a number of superb books on culture and race etc...and who seems to be appreciated by even Takuan Seiyo.

Now, what is it that you want to achieve or preserve, a society in which the (conflicting) values of Monarchist and Kappert prevail, or one in which the values of Sowell prevail?  If you are properly informed about these 3 persons, the answer should be obvious, and you should be able to distinguish the real barbarians (**)  from the civilized person.

** I am reminded of one of Sowell's books, "Barbarians Inside the Gates" (1999), but the (short) books that really left the deepest impression on me were his "The Vision of the Anointed" and "The Quest for Cosmic Justice".  Using Sowell's terminology, I would say that Monarchist suffers from "the tyranny of Visions" whereas Kappert is drowning in "the mirage of equality".  But, both are undermining the great achievements of Western civilisation and doing their bit in repealing the gains from the American Revolution, which was a landmark in the history of the evolution of free and democratic societies.   

More on race

@ marcfrans

Thanks for your reply, and sorry for taking so long to respond. In my first posting I took issue with the following statement of yours:

“Obviously many of us are aware that there are ‘giant differences’ in terms of human values between different populations in the world, but these have nothing to do with race or with physical differences among individuals and/or groups.”

And your reply contained this paragraph:

“I am not contesting ‘biodiversity’, nor statistically measurable group differences (about intelligence or whatever) among various existing populations. The subject of the quote was ‘human values’. It is values that make and reflect cultures, not races.”

While our disagreement appears to be smaller than I initially thought, I still beg to differ; for the simple reason that there is no such thing as human culture or human values existing independently of human nature. Thus, biology and various biology-related disciplines (e.g. evolutionary psychology) are necessarily relevant to the questions you raise. It follows as a corollary that race is relevant, too.

This of course brings us to the empirical question of how important issues having to do with race and biodiversity are in relation to the human values and cultures that shape our societies. That is obviously a complex issue, but there are indeed strong reasons to believe that the role of biology is significant in this context. I refer to the books and articles mentioned in my previous posting for some good places to start learning more.

In particular I would like to recommend Chapter 6, Race and Values (pages 163 – 202) of Levin’s book Why Race Matters.

Race 2

Marcfrans: Your studied classical liberalism is a noble philosophy, and you generally have the best of the arguments between race-consciousness and classical liberalism. It is also gratifying for an American to read your well-informed praise for the American founders and your well-informed defense of American policy. (Have you read Ron Chernow's biography of Alexander Hamilton? John Marshall's of George Washington?) However, there is a "realist" qualification to abstract principle that I think should be added to your classical liberalism. Perhaps it is implicitly or expressly present and I have missed it.

It is this. Because Western nations are historically majority white, it is impossible to separate the continuity of their culture and values from the continuity of their majority white racial composition. That is because at bottom culture and race are both abstractions that refer to real people who have both race and culture. For example, America has been a white majority people. For the concrete people to flourish, it must not be assaulted in its identity, confidence, culture, and race by strangers with whom it cannot deeply and readily identify. That means restricting immigration to preserve the unity of the people and their continuity with their past. Continuity with the past includes racial continuity.

The American revolution was a British-American revolution by white British-Americans and their allies. You have expressed justifiable skepticism regarding the identification of today's Americans with the generations of the founders. However, to protect the continuity of today's Americans with the last two or three generations, we should not interject people whose culture and genes are inimical to such continuity.

On a related note, I share your admiration of Thomas Sowell, but would add that he is a great product of the open, flexible, majority white American culture.

@Takuan Seiyo RE: 4 1/2

I.  One can hardly hold Greeks responsible for anti-semitism. Negative perceptions of the "other" are universal in inter-group relations.


II.  The Catholic Church as an institution did not perpetrate the superstitious cruelty mentioned. The number of executed witches - some 20% of which were men - is now accepted to fall well below the 100,000 figure or the nearly 10 million cited by radical feminists and Wicca practitioners. Moreover, these superstitious activities occurred in rural areas distant from the centers of ecclesiastical power. Lastly, you might note that the notorious Spanish Inquisition was in effect an agency of the monarchy not of the Church, and tasked with neutralizing religious conditions for secular strife i.e. mainly the Muslims.


III.  China has stagnated for centuries, and Japan only became a major power out of fear and respect for "White" (i.e. Europe, the United States and the British Empire) strength. Indeed, Japan copied White industrial processes and military systems. Chinese spies continue to engage in an unprecedented amount of industrial espionage in the West, alongside their acquisition of American military technology secrets. Lastly, East Asian cultural industries cannot compete with the West, especially the United States.

When we look....# 2

@ fcal

I agree with your first paragraph, which also suggests that many western governments today are exactly on the wrong track by pursuing policies of 'positive discrimination'.   But then, broader acceptance of strong government interference in many areas of life is bound to lead to de facto discrimination 'from above' (if not in law).  

Concerning your second paragraph, besides the central importance of individuals' exertions, perhaps one could also point to the importance of cultural (or sub-cultural) behavior patterns that were characteristic for many jewish minorities, such as emphasis on education for children, a strong debate-culture and tolerance of opinion diversity, etc... As to reasonable hypotheses or 'explanations' for the presence or absence of such behavior patterns, that would be a very difficult and highly speculative subject.

True history, part V (for the wife)



"The wife will not be thanking you."

I know @Capo, and that's all right. I also know that apologies won't work in that department, so I hereby extend the heartfelt sympathies from the wife over here to the wife outside your garage.

Small sidenote on the true historian of the decade contest. I would always choose a panel instead of just one, dead or alive wouldn't matter. For the necessary angle on "political religions" and their history, I'd vote Michael Burleigh on the team. History of Western science, ehmmm.. probably David Lindberg; History of Islam, up 'till the present: Prof. Hans Jansen (not the one I mentioned before, but the arabist) and of course for A History of the Protestant Reformation: William Cobbett ;-)

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

True History, Part VI


Great candidates for TS' Ministry of History, or maybe it should be more a collegium of historians. Walter McDougall is also someone who would fit nicely the type of historian TS described was needed. Now that you have proven your ability to screen candidates, you should be stamped on the forehead "official faceless bureaucrat" to run TS' ministry or collegium of History. Now where is that forehead?

Sowell Quote

"People sometimes ask if I have tried to convince black 'leaders' to take a different view on racial issues. Of course not, I wouldn't spend my time trying to persuade the mafia to give up crime. Why should I spend time trying to convince race hustlers to give up victimhood? It's their bread and butter".


Indeed, Thomas Sowell is an excellent example to illustrate that value differences are rooted in culture, and not in race.

What Christians should know

...people who claim to be Christians, and who have a brain, ought to have
an operative knowledge of basic statistical terms such as Gaussian
Distribution, mean, and standard deviation.


As an artist, I think that those who profess to be Christians should know how to see and mix color; stretch, rabbit skin glue, and prime their own canvases; should know how to create perspective; and finally, should know how to glaze oil layers.

Now, there are heretical Christians who think a Cristian should be able to trim a trout line, hunt and field dress a buck; and finally, should be able to skin a rabbit. The more radical of these heretics are known to ritually wear strange costumes done up in arcane woodlands designs.

Zen and Statistics do mix ;-)

But is the brew drinkable?
Some more cold drops, upon remarks about statistics and religion by Seiyo:


"..people who claim to be Christians, and who have a brain, ought to have an operative knowledge of basic statistical terms such as Gaussian Distribution, mean, and standard deviation. [..] There should always be room for those removed by more than one sigma from the mean. Or, as Abraham said.." cetera.

I suppose the aside on statistics is with good intentions in mind, but calling for knowledge of basic high school statistics and actually displaying that knowledge, appear to be two seperate things.
So on the one hand, there's the warm invitation for the "deviants", i.e. "room for those removed by more than one sigma from the mean" as Seiyo professes. Apply that to, say, IQ-scores. The implication of Seiyo's magnanimousness would be that he'd generously invite the other 2 x 15.87% of the distribution, which would include both the very intelligent and the very stup.. eh mentally less fortunate; or when applied to e.g. some distribution on agressiveness: both the very meek and the very agressive would be welcomed by the author. And so on.

Of course he didn't mean to say that, if only he'd understood what basic statistical terms entail in vivo.
When the author transfers his knowledge of elementary statistics to a "real life" Biblical situation in Sodom, then the preceding remarks just don't connect, i.e. in scientific terms they're nonsensical. The statistical prelude would have made at least some sense, if Abraham had mentioned something about both "fifty extremely righteous and fifty extremely wicked within the city" (ok, we make it 2 sigmas). But if he did, it didn't enter the Bible, perhaps because the editor in chief at the time thought it best to leave out statistics and go for "meaning" instead of the "mean".

On a further note, there's also another nasty term connected to figures and statistics, and that concerns the presentation and interpretation of findings. When there's a story to be told, one can always find the figures to match it. But also other stats that might just tell another story. Leaving those out is called bias, and in previous installments of this series there have been instances that perhaps inspire to less confidence than is exhibited in the above quote. That in itself wouldn't present the author with any serious problems, as long as he'd stick to essayism or polemics, but it would make it somewhat more difficult to speak of "truth" in the traditional, non-Zensical way. Call it somewhat nit-pickish, but when Religion and Statistics are concerned, the devil really is in the detail ;-)


What White supremacism?

Are the Japanese and Koreans Asian supremacists because the make up 99% of their countries' population and don't want ANY group to immigrate in high numbers?

Are there only left-wing Jews who are for internationalism and immigrationism and right-wing Jews who are for internationalism and immigrationism minus Islamic anti-semitism?

How many Jews would NOT hate France to be 99% French, Germany to be 99% German and so on?

Cold Shower # 2

@ Takuan Seiyo

1) Obviously many of us are aware that there are "giant differences" in terms of human values between different populations in the world, but these have nothing to do with race or with physical differences among individuals and/or groups.  Group value differences are cultural in nature, and largely rooted in history (or historical experiences) and perhaps to a lesser degree in geography (i.e. geographical conditions).

2) For the record, I have never believed (past the age of perhaps 30) that "all people yearn for democracy".   Indeed, I doubt very much that even most 'white people' today are yearning for democracy, as there is ample evidence that many of them are not prepared to make the necessary personal effort and sacrifices to maintain democracy in Western civilisation itself.  The West today is living on borrowed time, in the sense that it is still living off a lot of 'cultural capital' that was accumulated by previous generations. I consider your references to  "Dubya" and to "a bridge in Fallujah" on a par with earlier cheaps shots at "capitalism" and at (simplistic notions of) "democracy".  They are unnecessary diversions that are immaterial to the great issue at hand which is: how to stop and reverse the ongoing rot in  a number of major Western cultures.   To that end, it cannot possibly be sensible for rational conservatives to 'exile' themselves in 'white tribal homelands'.  That would be tantamount to moral abdication and surrender to the forces of cultural degeneration among us. 

3) I am certainly not "accepting reality without acknowledging its true nature".  Societies and cultures change over time, and every new generation has to fight anew age-old human battles between good and evil.  There is no doubt that this is much easier for some than for others, given different starting points of accumulated cultural capital and thus very different perceptions of concepts of justice and of a just society.  And all generations, just like all individuals, can either fail or improve on that score.  If our generation wants to do the latter, it has to engage itself in the ongoing culture wars in Western civilisation.  It cannot afford the luxury of retreating behind 'gloom and doom' pessimism.    

Nothing to do with race?

@ marcfrans

You wrote:

Obviously many of us are aware that there are "giant differences" in terms of human values between different populations in the world, but these have nothing to do with race or with physical differences among individuals and/or groups.

This is a claim that cannot be adequately backed up. While you may be able to enumerate a number of non-biological factors that contribute to the observed differences between human populations, this is clearly insufficient grounds for concluding that those differences have nothing to do with the biodiversity present in the human species.

Making these kinds of patently false claims is in my opinion a very serious business indeed. Whether one has an evolutionary or creationist outlook on the history of life on earth it should be obvious that there is just no way a species (in this case Homo sapiens) could spread across the globe, form a number of populations with a considerable degree of genetic isolation between them, and not have this result in the forming of races (containing subraces, which in turn contain further subraces, and so on) with differences in disease resistance, physical abilities, temperament, emotions, intelligence, and more.

Here's a relevant 1976 statement by Bernard Davis:

Let me further emphasize that, even if no one had ever devised a test for measuring IQ, we could still be confident, on grounds of evolutionary theory, that our species contains wide genetic variance in intelligence. The reason is that natural selection cannot proceed unless it has genetic diversity, within a species, to act on; and when our species is compared with its nearest primate relatives, it is obvious that our main selection pressure has been for an increase in intelligence. Indeed, this change proceeded at an unprecedented rate (on an evolutionary time scale): in the past three million years the brain size of the hominid line increased threefold.... Such rapid selection for increased intelligence could not have occurred unless the selection pressure had a large substrate of genetic variation to act on.

Since virtually all creationists are strong believers in micro-evolution, this evolutionary statement by Davis can easily be rephrased in such a way as to avoid any false stumbling blocks for anti-evolutionists. Selection pressures relevant for intelligence cannot possibly have been identical in all environments on earth, and thus not for all human populations. Therefore statistically significant differences in intelligence and other mental traits will necessarily have been produced. This kind of reasoning is confirmed by empirical evidence.

People who are serious about discussing these kinds of issues, will have to familiarize themselves with the basic science and philosophy in the field. Some good books to start with (easily located e.g. at Amazon), could be:

  • Race: The Reality of Human Differences, by Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele.
  • On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration, by Frank Salter.
  • Why Race Matters: Race Differences and What They Mean, by Michael Levin.

Two relevant articles that I’d like to recommend:

  • James Watson’s most inconvenient truth: Race realism and the moralistic fallacy, by by J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur R. Jensen, published by Medical Hypotheses, Volume 71, Issue 5, November 2008, Pages 629-640.
  • James Watson tells the inconvenient truth: Faces the consequences, by Jason Malloy, published by Medical Hypotheses, Volume 70, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 1081-1091.

Excerpts from both articles are available from

European anti-Semitism was

European anti-Semitism was 10% cultural/religious and 90% economic envy.

Both (national)-socialists and communists emphasized the latter. See also Marx and Engels, they considered capitalism to be a Jewish disease afflicting society. Only after WW2 it became communist and socialist doctrine that the cultural/religious and the racial aspects were paramount.

A medieval chronicle from Strassburg quoted the following:
“If Jews were poor and our lords and masters were not in their debt, one would not send them to the stake.”


I'd reverse these percentages. Contrary to popular opinion, the overwhelming majority of Eastern Europe's Jews was dirt-poor, and that was the center of gravity of Europe'ss Jews since at least 1500. Look at the pictures in Roman Wisniak's photo-book, "Polish Jews." These were pix from the early 30s; imagine how it must have been in the 19th century or before. The situation may have been different in Benelux, Switzerland etc.

@ Takuan SeiyoIn 1500 there

@ Takuan Seiyo

In 1500 there were circa 30 000 Jews in Poland, but by 1575 they were 150 000. The rapid Jewish population growth was fed by a major migration of German Jews, which continued far into the 17th century (30 years war in Germany). This is also the reason why these Eastern Europe Jews spoke Yiddish, a Germanic dialect. They settled mostly in the less developed poorer eastern regions of the country. A far wider range of occupations was open to them. Jews were among other things soap boilers, glaziers, distillers, clothiers, middlemen in agricultural produce and estate managers of noblemen. The jewellery business in Poland was almost exclusively Jewish. In the newly conquered Polish Ukraine they also settled massively and worked as peddlers, small tradesmen or craftsmen. Compared to most of the indigenous population, such as small farmers and serfs, they could be considered wealthy.

After the division of Poland between Russia, Prussia and Austria in 1795 there were about 800 000 Jews in the enlarged Russia. The Russian government confined the Jewish population to former Polish territory and only allowed settlement in the less developed Southern part of the Empire such as the Black Sea coast. The Jews were particularly successful in Odessa, which became the major Russian port. Mid 19th century they constituted 50 % of the trade in the city.

Another major boost to Jewish prosperity in Europe, except in Russia, was the emancipation or civic equality policies in line with the Enlightenment, which were commonly applied during the 19th century.

In Vienna in 1890 the Jews constituted 12 % of the population however 33 % of all university students. Most of the leading newspapers were owned by them and they dominated Viennese cultural life.

In Hungary at the same period 60 % of all merchants were Jews. In Budapest Jews were 40 % of the journalist, 45 % of the lawyers and about 50 % of the doctors.

End of the 19th century there were approximately 600 000 Jews in Germany, generally prosperous, German speaking, of whom more than 50 % in commerce, 20 % in industry and crafts and about 10 % in liberal professions and government. In the first decade of the 20th century 25 % of all law and all medical students were Jews. For Germany as a whole, Jewish income was more than 3 x the national average and they paid a corresponding amount of taxes.

In the newly reconstituted Poland after WW1 11 % of the population was Jewish, they accounted for about 60 % of all commerce and more than 50 % of the doctors. As before the Jewish working class tended to be the majority of all craftsmen but were not active in large factories or mines.

Economic envy was and still is a major weapon to manipulate the population by immoral and unscrupulous politicians to inflict injurious and often lethal damages to more or less prosperous individuals or groups. Look at what happened over and again to the Overseas Chinese in South-East Asia.


You have the facts right. BTW, Thomas Sowell wrote a wonderful book pertaining to your last paragraph, which I agree with in principle. And Thomas Sowell is the answer to some of the other posts here.

When we look at the 19th and

When we look at the 19th and early 20th century situation of the Jews in Europe, a religious and cultural minority, and the manner by which they attained societal success, without any Government organizing positive discrimination, one can only wonder how this was possible.

The only reason why this was achieved IMHO was the prevalence of the Enlightenment inspired classical liberal philosophy of equal opportunities. The results being the fruit of the endeavour and exertion of the individual concerned.

To the history-lovers

I don’t know if you gentlemen are pros in this field. I am a dilettante dabbler. My expertise is only in truth, but that has to do with Zen and I don’t want to get off the rails here.

The problem we have is that so few of the well-known historians nowadays seem to be interested in truth. And we need to find those who are, because love of truth and deep knowledge and love of history have to come together.


So, if we are ever going to have a cabinet position for Minister of History, who would be your choice? Mine would be Paul Johnson, but we better form that cabinet soon, because he is getting old.


The orientation I refer to calls for total impartiality. I am not looking for someone who’ll whitewash the West, or accept the version written by the winners. I have enough confidence in the West to believe that its history will withstand any scrutiny, and compared to other peoples’ histories it will still merit love and respect.


But watch out. Monarchist, for instance, is cherry-picking history to bolster his point of view. He cites true reasons why traditional Poles may still have a reason to feel animus toward Jews. However, the same reasons exist in the West. I am not very happy with Jews, as a group, for the same reason. But all that does not justify the Kielce Pogrom, and a series of similar post-war incidents, not to speak of the pre-war ones.


Similarly, to be a monarchist, one has to lay out the worst-case against monarchy first. To stay with Poland, after Sobieski it all went downhill. Polish 18 century monarchs included outright traitors, fops and fools. And I don’t see much better in the post-medieval history of Spain, France etc. Flanders, on the other hand, got along very well without monarchs.





1. Kielce pogrom was a communist orchestrated event, this is commonly accepted view among Polish conservatives. If you read Polish, you could buy proper books online.

2. Polish 18 century monarchs have very little to say. Monarchy was infected by deadly virus of 'noble's democracy' which lead our country to disaster.


Your attachment of skin color to these things is trivializing the issue. I have remarked on this before. And I know better than most how human values are similar, given my personal history, a sufficient disclosure of which I have made on these pages.


But there are giants differences as well. Among others, if you think, a la Dubya, that all people yearn for the democracy, I have a bridge in Fallujah I’d like to sell you.


The solution that I have only begun delineating will not appeal to you, and that’s fine. But the alternative picture implied in your post is grounded in denial of reality. The difference between us is that you accept that reality without acknowledging its true nature, while I acknowledge its true nature and reject it. You and I see the world differently, and we will not convince each other.


Cold Shower

1) I certainly appreciate Takuan Seiyo's comments concerning the idiocy of antisemitism and the need for the teaching of "true history" (as opposed to the distortions of PC history).  He also makes a useful point about understanding basic statistical terms, although I would put that differently by stressing the moral duty to judge individuals as individuals (and not as members of some 'tribal' group).  One can hardly advocate "cultural christianity" (elsewhere in part 3, I believe) and do otherwise, unless one thinks that term could somehow be rationally divorced from the contents of the bible.

2)  Looking back on the 4 articles+postcript, there is much for reasonable conservatives to agree with: such as the attachment to cultural identity (but not to anything called "racial identity"), the resistance to mass immigration (especially immigration of "people so dissimilar"), the refusal to accept "PC's veil of silence", the need for a "conservative Burkian disposition", opposition to supranational bodies (but not voluntary international cooperation), etc...  At the same time, I see little empirical evidence of "whites' disfranchisement" in Western democratic societies (unless this is meant to refer to legislated attacks on freedom of political speech in certain European countries).  

3) As to the proposed remedy of an "exodus", or the formation of "anti-pod communities", it would seem  unwordly, impractical, defeatist, and counterproductive.  A retreat into something akin to 'white tribal homelands' is certainly not the way to safeguard presumed 'white values'.  'Amish communities' can survive in America, because the USA still has a democratic civic culture (which developed out of judeo-christian values and) which tolerates such diversity.  A retreat of conservatives into 'white' tribal homelands can only undermine that civic culture further and strengthen its enemies.   Separation from the muslims and, more importantly, from the (majority?) "white dhimmis", is the equivalent of 'giving up', of abandoning the culture war that is raging in most Western societies and surrendering to its enemies.  Neither the Amish, nor "cultural christianity" (in conservative 'white enclaves') would then be able to survive.   

4) Of course, I do not believe that there is such a thing as "white values".  There are values which empirically and currently can be seen to survive and thrive better in white or European societies for a whole host of reasons, but values have no 'color'.  Values make or determine culture, and it is culture that conservatives should focus on.   If they want to preserve judeo-christian values, which historically have enabled the emergence of 'democracy' and of meaningful individual freedom, they must engage in the ongoing culture wars within western civilisation, and not retreat into 'tribal' homelands.  Clearly, great practitioners and advocates of "true history", like Madden and Hanson are actively engaged in that unavoidable and necessary 'fight' for our culture.             

True history, part III

:) Capodistrias,


I'd like to check out that garage of yours some day! The book by Dahlin enjoys the good company here of two large volumes by Prof. Hans Jansen (not the arabist) on the subject of Pius XII. He and rabbi Dahlin have met several times. The excellent studies are written in Dutch, regrettably. One of them consists of a minutely detailed chronological account of the continuous protests by the Vatican, on multiple levels (the chronology extends from 1938 into 2001), and the praise of the Jewish community showered on Pius XII during his pontificate.

Well, since we've started a little shop of books on true history here, I imagine you also keep a Duffy handy in your toolbox ;-)

[Prof. Eamon Duffy (1992/2005). The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England 1400-1580.]

Kind regs from Amsterdam forever city of Theo van Gogh,


True History, part IV


Welkom to my bibliotek , of course, you'll have to sign a waiver not to hold me liable for any injuries from falling tomes and whatever is in some of these boxes.

Thank you for the Jansen reference, I'll have to take a look at it. Maybe we should suggest an english trans to Ignatius or Tan publishers?

I remember Duffy's book when it came out, I should have a copy. Thanks for the reminder. The wife will not be thanking you.


Paul Johnson is good. I prefer Christopher Dawson. Or is being alive a prerequisite for the position?

The Pope, the Jews, etc.

Thank you for the comments.  I agree with those who say that the Catholic Church deserves a lot more credit v. the Jews than it is given. To the erudite evidentiary chain presented by you I’d like to add one piece you’ll find fascinating. It’s a long-ago National Review article by General Ion Pacepa, a defector from Commieland who had been one of the top men in the Romanian Securitate. He had been personally involved in a plot orchestrated by the KGB (maybe NKVD then) to malign and distort Pope Pius XII wartime record.



Remember too who it is that’s writing. I already identified myself as a Pole born in the Catholic faith. Though my DNA is half Jewish, when I write something about the Roman Catholic Church or Polish Antisemitism I do so with an inside view. That Antisemitism exist, and it’s not related to Rome at all, but to some ethnic factors that are too many to discuss now.



For instance, I’ve spent considerable time in Switzerland and Italy, and I’ve never met a Swiss or Italian Antisemite. I wonder if there are any such in Denmark. But go to a countryside pub in the Ukraine, Poland, Austria, Croatia, Spain or Ireland, scratch the superficial façade off your local oldtimer drinking companion, and the Antisemite will show. But not if he is Protestant.



Monarchist makes an interesting point. Of course Poland doesn’t have many Antisemites these days. It’s a miracle it has any at all, for it hardly has any Jews. And the number of the Antisemites exceeds the number of Jews many times over.



Actually, when I go to Poland these days what irritates me is the Philosemites. I meet constantly upper middle class Poles who melt in adoration of the shetls, of Jewish klezmer music, of the Hasidim etc. But I tell them it’s ridiculous. First of all, it’s too late. Where were you when the Jews were actually here? Second, there is nothing I find adorable about the Jewish lifestyle in pre-1920s Eastern Europe. As a Pole, I would have resented them too – a majority of them, that is.



What the diehard racist doesn’t get is that it’s a game of statistics. You can have a prejudice against a group, but you cannot relate to each individual as though he embodied that group.



You are a Pole but don't claim to be an insider if you spend your life outside of Poland. There are anti-Jewish sentiments in Poland because of two major factors.

1. Older people still remember communism and collaboration of many Jews with the regime. What is more so called 'laic left', a part of Solidarity movement which communists allowed to compromise with them (round table) gained the power and mainstream media after 1989. Their leaders were mostly former Jewish Trockites, highly anti-conservative elements supported by euro-American left. For example Adam Michnik ( I will just add that his brother was a communist judge, granted few death penalties) became Goebbels of Polish euro-left.

2. Different Jewish groups (like World Jewish Committee) arrogantly demand huge compensations from Polish government. Compensations not for any individuals victims but for themselves who are supposed to represent "world's Jewry".

Of course this is not any reason to hate the Jews, however people are less or more unreasonable. Otherwise I would not be a monarchist!

True history, part II

I reckon you will @Monarchist.


I have two histories by Th. F. Madden, i.e. "The new concise History" (updated 2005 edition) and "The illustrated History" (2004). Enjoyed both.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,



True history indeed

For all those who are interested in "true history" (indeed) instead of perpetuating old myths about the so-called "Dark Ages", here's some info:



Jewish historian Rabbi David G. Dahlin states unequivocally that papal-Jewish relations are far better than most people think. Also a telling quote from historian Thomas Madden: "..Of all medieval institutions, the [Catholic] Church stood alone in Europe in its consistent condemnation of Jewish persecutions."
Prof. Madden adds to this: "the only safe place in Europe to be a Jew was in the lands of the pope."
Renowned scholar in Jewish history Cecil Roth, editor in chief of the Encyclopedia Judaica. Roth was the most the most prolific Jewish historian and 20th C's preeminent Jewish scholar of papal-Jewish relations. And what was his verdict?

"Of all the dynasties in Europe, the papacy not only refused to persecute the Jews.. but through the ages popes were protectors of the Jews. The truth is that the popes and the Catholic Church from the earliest days of the Church were never responsible for physical persecution of Jews and only Rome, among the capitals of the world, is free from having been a place of Jewish tragedy. For this we Jews must have gratitude." Note that this highly esteemed scholar also speaks about 'the truth', but my guess is that he has put reason before anger in his scientific effort the get close to it.

To keep things short: a list of popes who protected the Jews, starting with the one who started this catholic tradition:

Pope Gregory I (590-604), a.k.a. 'the Great', praised by Jewish 14th C philosopher Judah Mosconi as "a great philosopher who delved into Hebrew books.. and loved Jews very much and made for them great deliverances [from harm] in his days." He wrote the historic decree Sicut Judaeis, which introduced all subsequent papal edicts defending the Jews. He affirmed that the Jews "should have no infringement of their rights.. We forbid to vilify the Jews. We allow them to live as Romans and to have full authority over their possessions."

Pope Calixtus II (1119-1124): this pope's promised defense of the Jews (in urgent need of reinforcement after Crusade I) was reissued at least twenty-two times by successive popes between the twelfth and fifteenth centuries (apparently this was needed. If only some people in that period had been more "papist" ;-)

Pope Gregory X (1271-1276)
Pope Clement VI (1342-1352)
Pope Boniface IX (1389-1403)
Pope Martin V (1417-1431)

Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484): deeply interested in Hebrew literature. One of the most philo-Semitic Renaissance popes.

Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503)
Pope Julius II (1503-1513)

Pope Leo X (1513-1521): Roth has pointed out that Leo X was so well regarded by the Jews of his day that it was said that the Jews of Rome considered his pontificate "a presage of messianic times."

Pope Clement VII (1523-1534)
Pope Paul III (1534-1549)

Pope Benedict XIV: produced an official report, known as "one of the most remarkable, broad-minded and humane documents in the history of the Catholic Church -a document which will always cause his memory to be cherished in gratitude and affection by the Jewish people." [Roth] It was a scholarly investigation of all reported cases of Jewish ritual murder in history. It established the complete lack of any basis for the accusation.

Pope Clement XIV
Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903)
Pope Pius X (1903-1914)
Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922)
Pope Pius XI (1922-1939)

Pope Pius XII (1939-1958): this pope and his "papist organization" managed (according to Israeli historian Pinchas Lapide in his meticulously researched 1967 book Three Popes and the Jews) "to save at least 700,000 but probably as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands." It is now certain that he personally managed to hide many Jews in his papal residence at Castel Gandolfo. Of course some 'thinkers' would rather listen to the accusations and myths of non-historians like Mr. Goldhagen or German playwrite and friend of Holocaust-denier Irving, Herr Rolf Hochhuth. I'd only say to such people "think again", probably to no avail though.

Pope John XXIII (1958-1963)

Pope Paul VI (1963-1978): refused to accept award for his rescue work on behalf of Jews during the Holocaust. He declined, saying, "All I did was ny duty, and besides I only acted upon orders from the Holy Father [Pius XII]."
Pope John Paul II (1978-2005)
Pope Benedict XVI (2005- )



This time you beat me to the punch :)

Great post, great history. Rabbi Dalin's The Myth of Hitler's Pope I keep by my desk. I've met Italian Jews who were saved by Pius XII.The attacks on him were obviously orchestrated by the Chekists as part of the Soviet strategy in the Cold War, that would be the aspect of the Cold War the Soviets did win, the war to undermine, infiltrate, and corrupt our institutions.

Wheeler's sad diatribes against the Jews are unfortunate on many levels. I noticed, as you so stunningly hammer home, Wheeler avoided citing Papal authority in his post, a rather glaring oversight for someone professing to be championing traditional,conservative Catholicism.

Kind regards,
From my garage ;)

I don't think that Poland

I don't think that Poland have much of anti-Jewish people these days. If not the Holocaust Industry scam  they would be a marginal force. Before the war there was plenty of Jews in Poland, thus they were not favourites of the natives. The Jews were awful tribalists themselves, mostly unwilling to learn local language. Especially in this website you should not be surprised that multiculturalism doesn't work. You cannot compare those few Jews living today  in the west to massive population in pre-WWII Poland. Ethnic minorities behave differently when stronger and they are perceived differently by locals as well.

Second issue that I need to raise is the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps author should show here such document where Vatican says that Jews should be burned or killed in different way? This is nonsense. Perhaps Calvin and Luther behaved in similar manner but their activity on this ground have nothing to do with the RCC.


"Probably one of the most

"Probably one of the most controversial things I am going to write in this series is that Antipod schools ought to restore the study of history to great prominence in the curriculum – and it ought to be true history."

As an historian working out of his garage I look forward to the upcoming pieces...

Your writing is extraordinary, the fact that you are not a native speaker of English bogles my mind. Conrad would be proud.