In the New York Times, Olivier Roy denounces the ascendant European Right for becoming the chief defender of Europe’s traditional liberalism. In fact, those vicious anti-Semites are even for gay rights. And that’s bad because … well, because they are the Right.
The Closing of the Right’s Mind
By OLIVIER ROY JUNE 4, 2014FLORENCE, Italy — The longstanding link between the political right and various Christian churches is breaking down across Europe. This is largely because the right, like much of European society, has become more secular. Yet this hardly indicates progress: Animated by an anti-Islamic sentiment, the right’s position is endangering freedom of religion, as well as secularism and basic democratic traditions.
… Even the populist parties — which often challenge mainstream conservative ones on issues like immigration and the European Union — follow the same trend. The Progress Party in Norway and the Freedom Party in the Netherlands explicitly defend gay rights. In France, the National Front has softened its stance on abortion. The U.K. Independence Party has declared that it favors broadening the civil partnership, “awarding it equal status to marriage and enabling it to be available to all.”
All this might look like evidence of a general march toward liberalism, only there’s a twist: Even as the right moves away from the basic values of the Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations, it clamors that Europe is fundamentally Christian. In 2003 many members of the European People’s Party, the center-right coalition in the European Parliament, lobbied for amending the preamble of the European Constitution so that it would say as much. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany has referred to Europe’s Christianness. And at the same time that Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain has argued “I believe we should be more confident about our status as a Christian country,” he has backed holding same-sex weddings in places of worship.
Such positions would seem to expose a curious contradiction — but only until one considers these parties’ purpose: The European right is advocating a Christian identity for Europe not because it wants to promote Christianity but because it wants to push back against Islam and the integration of Muslims — or what the National Front calls “the Islamization of Europe.” …
Notably, these measures are being advocated in the name of protecting not Christianity but liberal secularism. The hijab is said to offend women’s rights; circumcision, children’s rights; ritual slaughter, animal rights. Oriana Fallaci and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, two radical spokespersons for the feminist resistance to Islam, became darlings of the conservative right in Italy (Fallaci) and the Netherlands and America (Hirsi Ali).
This anti-Islam rhetoric is spreading to the mainstream. The coalition government of the Netherlands requires would-be immigrants to accept progressive values before they are given a residency visa. Applicants are asked whether they tolerate the mixing of boys and girls in school, gender equality, nudity in public and gay rights. Although all applicants must take these tests, given the concerns revealed in these questions and the demographics of migration into Europe, there can be little doubt that the exams are designed to challenge adherents to Islam. Such measures are unfair to Muslims, and they violate European states’ professed commitment to multiculturalism and the separation of church and state.
What’s more, prohibitions like those on circumcision and the ritual slaughter of cattle also amount to attacks on Judaism. In France Marine Le Pen of the National Front has called for banning both the hijab and the kippah (but not the priest’s cassock) in public places. In this respect, the defense of Europe’s Christian identity is taking on an especially ugly quality: It echoes the anti-Semitic regulations of Nazi Germany and other European countries in the 1930s. So much for the Judeo-Christian roots of European culture; once again, the Jews of Europe are made to feel like foreigners. …
The case for freedom of religion is but one aspect of the classic case for democratic freedom for all, believers and nonbelievers alike — thus, even secularists should subscribe to it. The abuse of secularism by the right-wing parties of Europe to exclude Muslims is fundamentally undemocratic. It is an attack not just on Islam, and all religions, but also on freedom itself.
Nobody cares about disinterested principles anymore. They are just too disinteresting.
RSS












The longstanding link between the political right and various Christian churches is breaking down across Europe. This is largely because the right, like much of European society, has become more secular.
It’s also because the established national churches of Europe, at least the Protestant ones, have, in the last few decades, ceased to be right-wing or conservative or national in any meaningful sense.
Such measures are unfair to Muslims, and they violate European states’ professed commitment to multiculturalism and the separation of church and state.
Don’t know about multiculturalism, but there’s no separation of church and state in all European countries.
In France Marine Le Pen of the National Front has called for banning both the hijab and the kippah (but not the priest’s cassock) in public places.
Apples and oranges. The hijab and the kippah are worn by laypeople, the priest’s cassock isn’t. Such a ban seems pretty consistent with the aggressive secularism of the French state. The National Front aren’t calling for restrictions on the dress of Muslim and Jewish religious functionaries, are they?
http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-closing-of-the-rights-mind/#comment-565723
Love your comment at the end: the decline of (actual) disinterestedness is one of the most obvious manifestations of the West’s decline, but it’s not quite at the heart of the matter.
We’ve undermined the culture in which Enlightenment-style disinterestedness took root and grew by debunking Christianity. The right-wing European groups in question are doing just this: they’re willing to sacrifice religious beliefs in order to cleave to deracinated Enlightenment principles. But no matter how hard they try, this means nothing to the leftists, as Olivier Roy’s incoherent yet dismissive article shows. He’s mocking their earnest appeals to be accepted into the nice liberals’ club by taking one of their disinterested principles — freedom of religion — and throwing it back into their faces. He doesn’t need to make sense — his argument is utterly circular and vacuous if you think about it for even a moment — because it’s not an argument; it’s just a weapon. Who, whom . . . .
What this means for Europe, and eventually for the USA, it’s not pleasant to think about.
It’s interesting that the further the leftists drift from their roots (and I believe that all of western leftism is ultimately one form or another of Christian heresy) the less they seem to care about converting others to their cause.
The original Marxist vision was universalist; all would flock to the banner of the working classes, sooner or later, albeit given a few unfortunate casualties along the way. Even in anti-communist books such as 1984 and Darkness at Noon, one of the key themes is conversion: Winston must love Big Brother; Rubashov must confess . . . .
These days, do leftists even try to carry out their version of the Great Commission anymore? They seem to have no interest in winning over us recalcitrant holdouts; now they just want their tribe to smash our tribe.
The decay is deep, indeed.
What does Olivier Roy think of right wingers like the Iranian communist Marayam Namazie? Or the French socialist Fadela Amara?
“In France Marine Le Pen of the National Front has called for banning both the hijab and the kippah (but not the priest’s cassock) in public places. In this respect, the defense of Europe’s Christian identity is taking on an especially ugly quality: It echoes the anti-Semitic regulations of Nazi Germany and other European countries in the 1930s.”
The Nazis forced Jews to wear distinctive yellow stars, so that everyone else would be made loudly aware of who was and wasn’t a Jew. Banning the hijab is the antimatter of that approach.
hastings / bergdahl connection
https://news.vice.com/article/why-was-the-fbi-investigating-michael-hastings-reporting-on-bowe-bergdahl
“This is largely because the right, like much of European society, has become more secular. Yet this hardly indicates progress:”
Nice “yet”.
“they violate European states’ professed commitment to multiculturalism and the separation of church and state”
That’s funny – the European Left view now is that defending the separation of church and state (by eg opposing Sharia law) “violates the separation of church and state”.
Incidentally most European nations have no such separation in the first place; they’re Christian states. Exceptions include France and the EU, which is modelled on France.
“chief defender of Europe’s traditional liberalism”: that’s the job of the conservative side of politics – conserve what you feel defines your country. So in much of Europe that would be liberalism; in the US it would be some amalgam of God, Thos Jefferson, and the ready recourse to violence.
“In France Marine Le Pen of the National Front has called for banning both the hijab and the kippah”
Well, if that’s true, I’m not in favour of it, regulating what people can wear in public to such a degree seems rather authoritarian to me. And I’d even agree that some of the people who make a big fuss about circumcision probably have rather dubious motives.
But apart from that, this Olivier Roy guy seems like a real clown, though probably one that appeals to a part of the American Right with its constant whining about “religious freedom”. Frankly, my sympathy for this religious narcissism has become rather limited, given how Bergoglio with his Lampedusa stunt and numerous other church leaders constantly promote mass immigration to Europe and engage in all manner of political meddling. These people with their petty concerns over sexual matters and their thinly-veiled sympathies for deranged Islamic God-mongers aren’t allies of European nationalists, but are actually rather harmful. I have little sympathy for the gay movement in general, but if it angers the Catholic Church, gay marriage can’t be all bad.
They want nothing hindering their policy of population replacement. Anti-Goyism aside,
they want dumb people who don’t expect a high standard of living for the new era of permanent economic retreat. A lot of them are already only nominally religious and are essentially hip-hop ghetto hedonists. But then religion typically becomes resurgent as life becomes harder and all dreams of affluence disappear.
“So much for the Judeo-Christian roots of European culture; once again, the Jews of Europe are made to feel like foreigners. …”
Lol, this is bloody ridiculous coming from a Frenchman. Yeah, there probably are quite a few old-style antisemites in the FN. But the worst antisemitism, with lethal consequences, nowadays comes from Muslims in France. The vicious torture-murder of Ilan Halimi in 2006, Mohammed Merah’s rampage in 2012 and now the Brussels jihadist shooter – these weren’t the deeds of nasty European nationalists, but of those ever so poor, marginalized Muslims. But I guess European racism made them do it.
I thought much of the anti-circumcision anti ritual slaughtering efforts came from the left.
Just wait till Belgium becomes majority islamic. Holocaust will look silly in comparison.
Finally, a clear answer to the question troubling thoughtful persons throughout the West: can a right-wing secular xenophobe bombinating in a halal vacuum devour a fascist cultural Christian’s second intentions?
Bravo, M. Roy, for so succinct an exposition of the confusion and divorce from reality that has come to characterize the mind of the Western establishment. I salute the lucidity of your incoherence.
The vicious torture-murder of Ilan Halimi in 2006, Mohammed Merah’s rampage in 2012 and now the Brussels jihadist shooter – these weren’t the deeds of nasty European nationalists, but of those ever so poor, marginalized Muslims.
Those were the deeds of Frenchmen you hateful bigot.
“The European right is advocating a Christian identity for Europe not because it wants to promote Christianity but because it wants to push back against Islam and the integration of Muslims”
Yeah, that’s the problem with the Right: they want to STOP Muslims from integrating, as if Muslims ever had the intention of doing so.
Muslims are so opposed to integration that they deliberately acquire their spouses from the old country – Pakistan, Turkey, etc. – so that their children WON’T assimilate. Right-wing parties have tried to stop this, in an effort to encourage assimilation. Whether the Right opposes assimilation or tries to promote it, they’re wrong.
Assimilation is an effort by people to adopt the customs of their new community because they respect that community and its culture. Refusal to assimilate shows that the new arrivals despise the community they have migrated to and have moved for purely materialistic motives.
That is not always bad. Europeans came to the Americas for materialistic reasons. They had no interest in adopting the culture of the Amerindians, and one can hardly blame them. That Muslims and various other immigrant groups think of Europeans the way our ancestors thought of Amerindians and Australian Aborigines should tell us all we need to know.
Shorter version of this: NYT upset that the Euro nationalist right is dropping ten ton wedges between doctrinaire white liberals and their pet causes and Muslim immigration/Islam. Carlos Slim gets on the phone and orders someone to denounce this hellfire and brimstone before Americans get the idea to do the same and end up deporting Hispanics.
dearieme:”“chief defender of Europe’s traditional liberalism”: that’s the job of the conservative side of politics – conserve what you feel defines your country. So in much of Europe that would be liberalism;”
How much of Europe?
dearieme:”in the US it would be some amalgam of God, Thos Jefferson, and the ready recourse to violence.”
Dear me, dearieme. You’re not even trying to be clever these days, are you?
Hell no Larry, the anti-circumcision and anti-ritual-slaughter efforts come from humane decent people disgusted and angered by cruelty.
Yup. And the recent bombing of Brussels’ Jewish museum was perpetrated by Europe’s ‘right’.
It must be realised that as Europe’s burgeoning muslim population eventually eclipses Europe’s indigenous christian population, then the position of Jews in the ‘new’ Europe will be very tenuous indeed. It also must be realised that by mid-century, (which isn’t too far off now), a muslim plurality will be essentially running such states as France and Britain. States with nuclear weapons.
It’s funny how that ‘animal rights’, traditionally respected in northern Europe – but nowhere else, (including the good ol’ USA), are disregarded in the need to suck up to ‘minorities’.
Believe it or not, the nutty left and in particular philosopher Peter Singer, are making a great big deal about extending so-called ‘human rights’ to animals, and I mean all animals, including invertebrates. Such over-the-top leftery, to go with veganism, knitted ties, sandals etc must be ‘thrown to the wolves’, so to speak, in the cause of coddling ‘minorities’.
It’s about alliances as about ‘ideology’.
If the elites can form an alliance with homos to attack nationalists, it’s wonderful.
But if the right tries to form an alliance with homos to halt multi-culti immigration, that is bad.
So, homo or anti-homo is less relevant than the nature of the alliance with the homo.
After all, the Lib elites would hardly endorse the kind of homo-fascist alliance that had existed during the days of the Nazi SA.
The issue of Islamism also depends on alliances. If globalist elites can join with Muslim immigrants against European nationalism that is good. But if Christian Conservatives join with Muslims to oppose ‘gay marriage’, that is bad, bad, and bad.
But then, look at the issue of China. It was a communist nation, but alliance with it against the USSR was seen as good. It wasn’t because Americans endorsed Maoism per se but endorsed using Maoism against the Soviet bear.
But then in the Ukraine, the likes of Nuland will even forge ties with neo-Nazi types while branding Putin as the ‘new Hitler’.
“Nobody cares about disinterested principles anymore.”
Nobody ever cared about disinterested principles. The word “anymore” in the above sentence is silly. It tells us that Steve still sees the time when he grew up through the eyes of a naive, nerdy young man, i.e. the old him. He hasn’t retroactively applied his current skepticism to the time before this skepticism was born.
Ukrainian nationalism is great and progressive against Russia!
But…
Ukrainian nationalism is awful and reactionary against the EU!
I thought his critique of the inconsistencies on the populist right were spot on, actually. Groups like the National Front claim Europe to be Christian, but they refuse to promote traditional Christian values. Apparently, a “Christian” Europe for them just means a liberal, secular one. Where he lost me was when he argued that legislation should not specifically favor Christianity or Christian symbols, which strikes me as not the logical inference a traditional conservative would draw from his critique. Rather, if you happen to believe that your nation is and ought to remain Christian, you should start promoting traditional Christian values at the same time as you discourage immigration from Islam and the public expression of specifically Islamic values.
His article really just illustrates the way in which political correctness continues to stifle authentic freedom of expression for European conservatives. Apparently for anti-immigration and anti-Islam movements to be taken seriously, right-wing parties have to sell out on a whole range of other traditional conservative values, like support for marriage and family and the unborn.
Steve,
Speaking of the closing of the Right…
Do you have any thoughts on the “top-two” primary system that California now uses? (In every race, the top-two vote-getters in the primaries face off in the general election, even if they’re from the same party.)
This piece in the San Jose Mercury News argues that it’s good for the GOP, because it eliminates conservatives from contention:
‘Top-two’ primary helps California GOP
http://www.mercurynews.com/elections/ci_25900406?source=blurb
I’m pretty sure the quickest way to make the Jews of Europe feel like foreigners would be to let in as many Muslims/Arabs/Persians as possible…which is exactly what Europe’s right is working to prevent.
But, you know, Le Pen is a Nazi because racism.
“Exceptions include France and the EU, which is modelled on France.”
Anything that’s run by a parliament and a cabinet of ministers is in some sense modeled on Britain.
NYT upset that the Euro nationalist right is dropping ten ton wedges between doctrinaire white liberals and their pet causes and Muslim immigration/Islam. Carlos Slim gets on the phone and orders someone to denounce this hellfire and brimstone before Americans get the idea to do the same and end up deporting Hispanics.
Why, that’s just silly! That would suggest that Hispanics might not, as a rule, be huge fans of grrrrlll power feminism and gay everything. It suggests that Hispanics might not worship a pristine natural environment; like they’d, I dunno, treat their neighborhoods like garbage dumps or something and exploit any resource they can get their hands on no matter the impact. And surely — surely! — you don’t dare imply that Hispanics might not treat animals like little members of the family; as if they would be fans of cock fights and dog fights!
Really, I just don’t see the comparison.
Hmmmm, previous comment was blocked for some inscrutable reason. Let’s try again.
European vs American Conservatism:
Two very different beasts. From the European perspective, there is no such thing as American Conservatism. In Europe, conservatism began as a defense of the pre-modern order. Its enemy was liberalism. America, in contrast, was born Modern. Hence, American conservatism is an attempt to preserve Classical Liberalism.
Now, to be sure, Euro conservatism has adapted with the times. The Tories of today are not the Tories of Churchill’s day (or even Anthony, “Benzedrine,” Eden’s). But the pre-modern element remains a fact of life in Euro politics.
Doggies coat anfd bag:”It’s funny how that ‘animal rights’, traditionally respected in northern Europe – but nowhere else, (including the good ol’ USA),”
Really? George Orwell (cf his essay on Jack London) thought that “the worship of animals” (his phrase) was an exclusively Anglo trait. Orwell was rather opposed to it himself, calling it “silly” and noting how many people (presumably the better ones) in England and America were ashamed of it.
Left-secularists attacking Christian belief against gay rights: good!
Right-secularists attacking Muslim belief against gay rights: double plus ungood!
Why all this reparations stuff promoted by the media?
Is it because the Liberal coalition is weak? After all, Jews, homo elites, and white Liberals(and some Asians)are doing a helluva better than blacks and browns.
So, how to keep the coalition together through means other than KKKrazy Glue? After all, crying wolf gets tiresome after awhile.
Bribery to browns in the form of amnesty.
And bribery to blacks in the form of reparations.
Fed will be printing a lot of money.
But how will reparations work? Will every new black child born receive reparations? After all, if every black person deserves it, then reparations will have to go on forever. Why should only blacks who are alive now get it? What if you’re a black person born 50 yrs from now?
If reparations had been done when the black population was only 10 million, then all the blacks that came later wouldn’t have gotten it. Unfair, right?
So, for it to be fair, every newborn black kid will have to get it, which means forever and ever and ever.
Since Libs don’t want to admit that blacks fail in school and work because of their lower IQ and behavioral problems, they’re gonna blame white ‘racist’ history and appease blacks for eternal bribery. Every newborn black kid is assured $150,000 or something like that.
And like aff-action, it will never end.
As the economic gulf between the super-have Libs and super-have-not blacks and browns keeps growing larger and larger–and since all the educational programs aren’t doing any good to bridge the gap–, the only way to maintain the coalition is through outright bribery.
I guess companies don’t really mind since they know that blacks tend to be spendthrift. Most blacks won’t save that money or invest it in anything long-term but just buy fancy cars and bling. Just consider Jesse Jackson Jr.’s spending habits. He should have defended himself by saying that the money he spent illegally was really a form of reparations.
Or go to Las Vegas and gamble.
Mainstream right is dead, with gutless ‘conservatives’ caving into and bending over for ‘gay marriage’. Any conservatism that does that is NOT conservative. It’s prostitution to rich globo-elites.
But the left is dead too. What kind of ‘leftism’ is it where the agendas are set forth by Wall Street and Silicon Valley elites? The elites love the homo agenda since it’s not about economics and class warfare. If anything, homo narcissism aids and abets the greed and narcissism of the globo-elite rich.
The left used to have a humanist element. It’s been replaced by the fancy-pants homonist lunacy.
“George Orwell (cf his essay on Jack London) thought that “the worship of animals” (his phrase) was an exclusively Anglo trait.”
How old is it? What’s the earliest literary reference that any of you can think of to the unusually strong (by continental standards) love for animals in England?
At least the NYT commenters are smart enough to reject the Op-Ed author’s point. They’re much too liberal to take him seriously.
How old is it? What's the earliest literary reference that any of you can think of to the unusually strong (by continental standards) love for animals in England?
“What’s the earliest literary reference that any of you can think of to the unusually strong (by continental standards) love for animals in England?”
At least judging from the imagery in “King Lear,” Shakespeare despised dogs.
Europeans are always creating a Maginot line to prevent the previous war. All their non-discrimination and anti-racism is designed to prevent the rise of the nazis. The current threats however are nothing like the last war.
Homos were good enough for the best of the Greeks. Apparently not good enough for – who exactly? Who said “religion=Christianity.” Who really thinks Jesus is coming back, ever? Raise hands, please.
Who really thinks someone hears you when you say a prayer before bed – other than Interpol, Mossad, and Rupert Merdoch?
Christianity is alive in the third world and the USA. It’s a sick joke for most Europeans as far as I can tell. Most homos are idiotic hedonists living selfish lives while the Titanic sinks. Most heteros are the same. So what?
Does homosexuality occur in nature? Non breeding individuals are a sign of a higher and more evolved altruistic / eusocial society. Self sacrifice is actually personal fulfillment through contributing to the total collective of related organisms, far more than a few first degree relatives. Seems odd from am atomistic / moralistic point of view. Makes perfect sense from a kin selection / sociobiological point of view.
Anon:”How old is it?”
Don’t have the exact date on hand, but Orwell’s Jack London essay was done for his radio broadcast work during WW2. Int it, he makes a point of denigrating the animal stories (WHITE-FANG, CALL OF THE WILD, etc) that are usually associated with London while praising things like THE PEOPLE OF THE ABYSS (a brutally vivid non-fiction account of life in London’s slums), THE ROAD (a collection of stories about London’s time as a drifter), “To Build a Fire,” etc.
“Homos were good enough for the best of the Greeks.”
I have no beef with homos in the arts, sciences, professions, and etc. I understand that homos are born homos. And if they wanna do the homo thing to be happy, that is okay by me. I always felt that way, and I never liked the religious right’s bashing of homos in the past.
But ‘gay marriage’? No, homosexuality is not biologically nor morally of same value as real sexuality.
Today, thanks to globo-elite and homo pressure, you will be destroyed even if you PERSONALLY state what I stated above. Even if you bend over to ‘gay marriage’ legally, that’s not enough. You must ‘spiritually’ convert to the faith of homo worship. You must publicly wave the ‘gay rainbow’ banner and tell the world that you believe homosexuality is, in every way, the biological and moral equivalent of real sexuality.
We are NO LONGER talking about letting homos be homos. We are talking about a situation where the very premise and rules of marriage have been degraded simply to appease homos who are protected by the globo-elites.
Homos are acting like the Jewish elites. Rick Sanchez didn’t badmouth Jews. He said they are prominent in the media and hardly victims in today’s America. THAT was enough for him to be blacklisted.
Today, you will be destroyed by law, media, and brainwashed mass pressure by simply saying homosexuality is sexually perverted EVEN IF you support ‘gay marriage’.
The Greek world was nothing like this. Well, maybe Spartans were just as bad as every boy was required to be a homo lover of some warrior.
Well, Olivier Roy is a French orientalist. IMHO, many French academics view all history through the lens of the Sacred Colonial Legacy ®. There is no escape. I’ve only met real Maoists in France. And where did Pol Pot study? Just sayin’.
But the mention of English love of animals gives me an excuse to mention Chesterton’s essay “On Pigs as Pets.”
A DREAM of my pure and aspiring boyhood has been realized in the following paragraph, which I quote exactly as it stands:
A complaint by the Epping Rural District Council against a spinster keeping a pig in her house has evoked the following reply: “I received your letter, and felt very much cut up, as I am laying in the pig’s room. I have not been able to stand up or get on my legs; when I can, I will get him in his own room, that was built for him. As to getting him off the premises, I shall do no such thing, as he is no nuisance to anyone. We have had to be in the pig’s room now for three years. I am not going to get rid of my pet. We must all live together. I will move him as soon as God gives me strength to do so.”
The Rev. T. C. Spurgin observed: “The lady will require a good deal of strength to move her pet, which weighs forty stone.”
Kin Selection:”Homos were good enough for the best of the Greeks. ”
Well, a certain kind of homosexuality was good enough. Let’s just say that it was not exactly good for your reputation to be known as a “bottom.” Oh, and you’ll probably want to look into the preferred age range for the eromenos. Hint, there’s a reason why pederasty has a Greek etymology.
Kin Selection:”Does homosexuality occur in nature? Non breeding individuals are a sign of a higher and more evolved altruistic / eusocial society. Self sacrifice is actually personal fulfillment through contributing to the total collective of related organisms, far more than a few first degree relatives. Seems odd from am atomistic / moralistic point of view. Makes perfect sense from a kin selection / sociobiological point of view.”
You seem to have some odd notions about reproduction. Go over to WEST HUNTER; Cochran has some postings that should set you straight (so to speak).
Fair enough. Just sayin, homosexuality seems to be part of the deal for white people. Not sure why. The German anthropologists used to say inter sexuality was more of a Jewish thing: less defined biological gender characteristics of all kinds.
Who knows. If it’s a Jewish thing, then it is related to a superior evolutionary strategy somehow. It confuses the third world types, that’s for sure. Gives unclear signals for social roles. I get that.
The West is having an identity crisis. Big time. I think we collectively need to find a “way out” of anti-Semitism, or we are finished. Give Jewish people a chance to rejoin our collective. They are high quality people. We need them and they need us. After that, what rules we come up with together in our hive has little to do with the unwashed global masses.
We need to evolve a bit. We need to become more eusocial. Stop reading the Bible and Buckley. Read E.O. Wilson “Sociobiology.” We need to evolve on our own terms, not third world terms, which are just copies of copies of something our people came up with long ago. Let them turn against us. We have ourselves.
“Groups like the National Front claim Europe to be Christian, but they refuse to promote traditional Christian values.”
Yeah but the Churches also refuse to promote traditional Christian values.
@syon: Yes, I have extremely odd notions of reproduction. I believe in reproduction of the ethnos, of the group and favored types. Reproduction of individuals means little except in that context of collective survival.
Personal defects and shortcomings make sense in how much they hinder participation in the collective evolutionary strategy. Sometimes flawed or defective types contribute the most because they have more to prove. That’s ok in my book.
I also favor biological reintegration of divergent subtypes who split from Europeans and have maintained reproductive isolation since then. I favor opening that evolutionary door, for those willing to rejoin Europeans.
Yes, I have very odd ideas. Probably very different from Cochran. Whether some people live a biologically myopic life propagating their personal “selfish genes” with no regard to the evolutionary strategy of a larger biological collective means little to me. Nationalism means little to me, because it can involve unrelated groups and parasitism by non-kin who happen to fly the same flag.
I believe in Darwin, and I especially believe in EO Wilson. But I think evolutionary strategy is a choice. A choice with big consequences down the line.
“Christianity is alive in the third world and the USA. It’s a sick joke for most Europeans as far as I can tell.”
Yes, but civilization can’t survive without many of the values upheld by traditional Christianity: the kind that discourage sex as mere recreational activity, discourage illegitimacy, and encourage fecundity and better socialization; and that encourage a vigorous defense of one’s culture.
Christianity has not managed to adapt to modern life, science, and technology, but Western civilization desperately needs it to, because nations tend to insist on a state religion of some kind. The multicultural state religion the Left is successfully replacing it with is suicidal.
Wilkey: True religion means being bound to something. Also implies striving for something beyond the self, beyond the ego. I don’t think we as Western people can believe in any gods.
We need to believe in ourselves: as a kinship based collective. Like Steve Sailer’s idea: an extended family. We don’t need unscientific morals and rules. We need a techno saavy evolutionary strategy.
We need to self organize as a collective, for our collective future. We need our own set of protocols and entry criteria and kin recognition – not just genetic kin, but kin who believe in a shared future.
Kin Selection:
We need to…
We need to…
We need to…
We need to…
If you’re going to keep trashing religion, you might want to ease up on the sermonizing, padre.
Or better yet, go part the Red Sea, or raise a few people from the dead or something.
Because notwithstanding the E.O. Wilson blurbs and the “techno-savvy…evolutionary…protocols…criteria” self-actualization buzzwords you’re stringing together, what you are spouting is just another round of the same “Imagine all the people…” mush that wasn’t that convincing the first time around, once the weed wore off.
The record of self-made religions and their self-appointed prophets is a long and checkered one, but far more fraught than the Biblically based ones you dismiss. In light of that, consider adding something about humility to your new and improved list of commandments.
“Christianity is alive in the third world and the USA. It’s a sick joke for most Europeans as far as I can tell.”
The “Christianity” that’s “alive” in the USA is a branch of the left’s multicult religion-it is feminist and it insists that white racism (broadly construed) is the greatest sin. The “right” faction of this religion worships the American flag and Israel.
Kin Selection:”We don’t need unscientific morals and rules.”
All morals and rules are unscientific.
Kin Selection:”Fair enough. Just sayin, homosexuality seems to be part of the deal for white people.”
You really need to ground yourself in the science. Try reading this:
“You can imagine situations in which natural selection would favor an increase in frequency for a trait that aided group survival while hurting individual reproductive success – but it’s not all that easy. Here’s the problem: imagine a situation in which some individuals in the group have an allele that causes them to fight in a way that saves the collective – the catch is that some get killed in the process. Members of the tribe that don’t have this allele are saved as well, but they don’t pay the price. At the end of this fight, the frequency of the self-sacrificing allele has gone down, not up. So how can the altruistic allele hang around? How would it ever have become common in the first place?
If the altruistic act (defined as one that increases the fitness of another individuals while reducing personal fitness) is aimed at close relatives, an altruistic allele can succeed. As Haldane once said, “I would lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins”. It’s called kin selection. Close relatives are more likely to carry a copy of that same altruistic allele than the average bear, so altruistic acts focused on close relatives can pay off – can cause the causal alleles to increase in frequency. This is particularly so if circumstances allow very big payoff from altruistic acts, for example, species that nest in cavities. Successful defense of a breach in the nest is tactically easy, rather like Horatius at the bridge, and greatly increases the fitness of many relatives.
You also see a kind of altruism among some infectious organisms. Some bacteria make a toxin that furthers the infection process. Each individual bacterium would be better off if he stopped making that toxin and relied on all the other bacteria to do it – it would save energy – but if the infection starts with a single organism, the descendants are all closely related and kin selection can favor expensive cooperation. In some cases, like cholera or diphtheria, phages carry genes that code for the production of toxins. You can think of this as a method of forcing high relatedness.
Some people have suggested that human homosexuality is an adaptation produced by group selection. I can’t see how this could possibly work. They would have to do stuff for close relatives – lots of stuff. This is a quantitative question: if they concentrated on the closest possible relatives, nephews and nieces, they’d have to cause four more to survive than would otherwise. We’re talking a behavior stronger and more effective than mother love. It doesn’t exist. And how would being homosexual help?
In some other loony scenarios, homosexuality was favored by benefits to the group as a whole. Disregarding the fact that this kind of selection is almost impossible in the first place, and that we don’t even find homosexuality in most hunter-gatherer populations, what is it they are supposed to have done to save or aid the tribe?” (http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/group-selection-and-homosexuality/)
“Give Jewish people a chance to rejoin our collective.”
What? If most Jews were like Paul Gottfried and Robert Weissberg, who among us would tell them to get lost?
It’s because most Jews tend to agree with George Soros and Tim Wise–or two-faced neocons–that we have a problem.
Skyislander: I mean biologically join. Marriage and offspring. For those who want to remain biologically separate – fine, mutual recognition between their ethno state and ours.
Some of us might want to join them: they don’t make it easy, and neither should we. Reciprocity.
[…] Sailer: Race of the Amish; “The Closing of the Right’s Mind”; Have There Been Any New Recreational Drugs?; Freshman Year […]
“American conservatism is an attempt to preserve Classical Liberalism.”
Yeah, but Classical Liberalism is less a “thing” than a collection of mutually antagonistic things. The modern left and right are both descended from classical liberalism.