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.

Zalig Kerstfeest, Merry Christmas.

Sag.

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!

Merry Christmas to all. And while Armor is drinking 'black russians' and dreaming of a white Kwanzaa, there's probably even something in here for Kappert's pussy, too.

http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/809/30/

@ 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.  

@ 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.   

@ 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'.

@ 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.

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.

@ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@ 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".   

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.

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,
Sag.

N.b.:
@Capo,
Somehow I feel reluctant to have the epithet "faceless bureaucrat" stamped on my forehead or anywhere else for that matter ;-)

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?

@ 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.

@ 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.   

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.

@ 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.

[capodistrias]

"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,
Sag.

"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.

...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.

Silly.

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.

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

[Quote]
"..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.." ..et 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 ;-)

Sag.

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?

@ 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.    

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 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.

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.

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.             

:) 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,

Sag.
 

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.

Readers might care to check out some of his articles, here, at his official website.

www.thomasmadden.org/

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,

Sag

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?

Roth:
"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- )

Sag.

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 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."

TS,
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.