The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPeter Frost Archive
The White Man's Burden
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
From the Cape to Cairo, Puck, 1902. Source: Library of Congress, public domain The White Man's burden has been turned against itself.

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Growing up in rural Ontario, I would talk with older folks about politics. A favorite topic was Quebec, and how those selfish French Canadians wouldn’t fight in the Boer War, the First World War, and the Second World War. Later, as a student in Quebec City, I would hear the other side. French Canadians saw those wars as foreign entanglements of no concern to them. They were willing to fight and die, yes, but only for their own soil. That may seem selfish, but so were we with our slavish loyalty to the British Empire.

The folks back home would have disagreed. The Empire wasn’t just for the British or even for Europeans in general. It was for people of all races and religions. It was an instrument for raising everyone up to British standards of fair play, morality, and civilization. In short, for making the world a better place. Take up the White Man’s burden …

Such talk puzzled me, even as a kid. The sun had long ago set on the British Empire. There was the Commonwealth, but why would its leaders defend our imperial heritage? Most of them had fought for independence from the Empire. They valued the British connection only to the extent that it was useful to themselves and their people.

Some Commonwealth leaders wouldn’t even be that generous. When Robert Mugabe dispossessed the British farmers remaining in his country, we could only look on helplessly. A century ago, people called the Ottoman Empire the “sick man of Europe.” Today, that title surely applies to the remnants of the British Empire.

There is a difference, though. The Ottomans were militarily helpless. We are ideologically helpless. Our universal morality has been turned against us, and it is in the name of our notions of fair play that we’re giving everything up, often to people, like Robert Mugabe, who make no pretence of believing in fair play. And we accept the logic of the situation. We think it normal to judge ourselves by a harsher standard and others by a more permissive one.

Double standards normally work the other way. Normally, one judges people of another kind by a harsher standard. They are less likely to share the same notions of right and wrong. They are also less likely to feel the sort of kinship affinity that makes people want to help each other and forgive minor wrongs, or even major ones.

But we’re doing the reverse. That kind of situation is inherently unstable, even self-destructive. No other human society has ever attempted such a thing.

Rotherham

All of this seems obvious to me. Why is it less so to other people? The question crosses my mind when I see how thinking men and women respond—or rather fail to respond—to the Rotherham sex-abuse scandal. In an English town of some 250,000 people, at least 1,400 school-age girls were “groomed” for prostitution by gangs of Pakistani origin. Grooming begins with seduction and ends in abduction, trafficking, and confinement. This final stage apparently explains why some 500 girls were missing from the town’s 15 to 19 age group at the last census.

This went on for years without anything being done and little being said. From time to time, the parents of the girls would complain, and the police would immediately investigate … the parents. Finally, in August of this year, a long report broke the logjam of silence by officials and the media (Jay, 2014). There is still a pervasive bias against this news item, as seen in coverage by three online magazines.Slate ran one story about Rotherham and four about Jennifer Lawrence. Jezebel had one story about Rotherham and six about Jennifer Lawrence. Feministing made a passing reference to Rotherham and ran two stories about Jennifer Lawrence (Durant, 2014).

Who is Jennifer Lawrence? She’s an American actress, and last August someone leaked nude photos of her online. That’s why she matters so much more to thinking men and women.

It gets weirder. Social media have become overwhelmingly opposed to quarantining of the Ebola outbreak (Alexander, 2014). At one time, quarantines were considered a progressive measure, the sort of thing you would support as a thinking man or woman. If you didn’t, people would assume you were a fool who knew nothing about modern science.

So what makes the Ebola outbreak different? The difference is simple. Quarantining means that light-skinned people will be detaining dark-skinned people. So we just can’t do it. Because? Because.

The same applies to Rotherham, which was about dark-skinned men seducing, confining and, ultimately, enslaving light-skinned women. That, too, triggers the same mental lockdown—Don’t go there! That’s how thinking men and women unthinkingly respond—or almost anyone who has gone to college and watches TV. The response seems almost Cartesian: I try not to think, therefore I am a moral person.

Unfortunately, we cannot make unpleasant truths go away by ignoring them. Sooner or later, we will have to confront them. We will especially have to confront our universal morality, including the assumption that only light-skinned folks have moral agency and only they are to be held accountable for their actions.

Please don’t get me wrong. I’m not arguing for a new improved universal morality. Morality can never be universal. It is a product of local conditions—to be specific, it arises from a co-evolving system of cultural, historical, and genetic factors. If forced to choose between saving one or the other, we should first save this foundational system. Anyhow, that’s all we can really save. Morality has no existence above and beyond the humans who act it out in their daily lives.

That’s a hard message to swallow, but we will have to. Eventually.

References

Alexander, S. (2014). Five case studies on politicization, Slate Star Codex, October 16
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/10/16/five-case-studies-on-politicization/

Durant, J. (2014). John Durant compares coverage of Rotherham abuse vs. Jennifer Lawrence nudes, Twitchy Media, September 3
http://twitchy.com/2014/09/03/john-durant-compares-coverage-of-rotherham-abuse-vs-jennifer-lawrence-nudes/

Jay, A. (2014). Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham 1997-2013
http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1407/independent_inquiry_cse_in_rotherham

(Republished from Evo and Proud by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science • Tags: Ebola, John Durant, Morality, Rotherham 
Hide 85 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Bliss says:

    Take up the White Man’s burden …

    Such talk puzzled me, even as a kid. The sun had long ago set on the British Empire. There was the Commonwealth,

    All you have to do is look at the the natives of the lands conquered and ruled by the brits and their descendants to see what a cruel joke their boastings about taking up the white man’s burden really is.

    Look at what happened to the natives of North America and Australia. Look at the non-white natives of the former British Empire (current Commonwealth). Nothing common about the wealth there. The white descendants of the brits are the wealthiest in the world while the colored south asians and africans of the Commonwealth are the poorest of the poor of the third world…

    • Replies: @Bobbala
    , @Harry Flashman
  2. Bobbala says:
    @Bliss

    while the colored south asians and africans of the Commonwealth are the poorest of the poor of the third world…

    with or without white racists.

    • Replies: @Numinous
  3. Jeff T. says:

    @Bliss,
    This is exactly the type of anti-white double standard Frost is talking about.
    Do you feel sorry for the Balkans, who were colonized and enslaved by Turks for centuries? Or how about the native Ainu of Japan?
    The Balkans are still an impoverished mess.
    Do you think Turkey ought to open its borders to the World as punishment?
    That is the kind of anti-white double standard Frost is referring to, and yet you post this rubbish with no sense of irony.

    @Everyone,
    There are a few good things about the end of white supremacy.

    First, white people will hopefully adapt a new, sensible morality, based on blood and soil. And not even really soil anymore. This means the end of loyalty towards abstract concepts and institutions, and a renewal in kinship loyalties. As in the movie A Fistful of Dynamite: “Not my country. My country is me and my family”

    No longer Is It Good for Mankind or even America, but rather Is It Good for the Whites. That transition is already taking place among the working class, and much of the middle class. It will eventually hit the elites, when the Colored Companions stop looking for Might Whitey liberals to represent them, and have the numbers and leadership to vote in their own tribe.
    Whites who have been invaded by dark-skinned outsiders, like Italians and Slavs, already have tribal instincts, and hopefully this will spread to Western Europeans as they share this experience.

    Secondly, intra-white warfare will end until white supremacy is re-established, which may be never. You see this already in sympathy for Russia; the unspoken issue is demography. Many white Americans no longer identify as Americans, but as white, and they don’t want to fight other white people. In the demographics of the 90s, white Americans were willing to bomb white Christian Serbians in support of non-white Christians to enforce what they perceived to be a universal moral standard. That’s not the case anymore, not that it helps Serbians much.

    There is a mantra spreading that has numerous variations, but the crux of it is “anti racist is code for anti white”. Anti-racism is a white supremacist concept, as it assumes white people are able to impose their standard of universalist, non-kin relations on non-white society. As that assumption proves false, we become a society of minority spokesmen, and that means whites will have to compete as whites, and not Humanity or Americans.

    • Replies: @Bill M
  4. Jeff T. says:

    @Bliss,

    I just skimmed your past comments, and you recently wrote:

    “…The Barbary Pirates of north Africa alone captured and enslaved more than a million europeans, mostly from the northern coast of the mediterranean but even from as far away as Ireland and Iceland. They even captured and enslaved american whalers, which played a significant role in the rise of the anti-slavery movement in the northern states where the whaling industry was based.

    Btw, the very words slav and slave are related which highlights the historical fact that white europeans have been one of the biggest, maybe the biggest, source of slaves. For romans, arabs, turks, berbers etc. Think about that next time you all get off on black slavery…”

    Provided this is not a different Bliss, you evidently don’t believe white people are uniquely capable of such behavior, nor never the victim of such behavior. You can understand why I would assume so in this culture.

    Given that, I don’t understand the point of your post here.

  5. Bill M says:
    @Jeff T.

    This is exactly the type of anti-white double standard Frost is talking about.
    Do you feel sorry for the Balkans, who were colonized and enslaved by Turks for centuries? Or how about the native Ainu of Japan?

    The Turks are Caucasoid and genetically close to Greeks and Balkan populations. They’re probably closer genetically than, say, northern Europeans are to Greeks.

    The Ainu are a paleomongoloid group related to Japanese, Koreans, etc.

    I’m not sure these are the best analogies. The analogy would be to say, intra-British colonization such as the English and Scottish.

    In the demographics of the 90s, white Americans were willing to bomb white Christian Serbians in support of non-white Christians to enforce what they perceived to be a universal moral standard. That’s not the case anymore, not that it helps Serbians much.

    No non-whites were involved in the Balkan conflict of the 90s. It involved Serbs, Croatians, Albanians, Bosniaks, etc.

    Ordinary white Americans had little interest in or knowledge of the Kosovo War and played essentially no role in influencing or determining US policy and military participation in the conflict.

    • Replies: @fnn
    , @Reg Cæsar
  6. fnn says:
    @Bill M

    “The Turks are Caucasoid and genetically close to Greeks and Balkan populations. They’re probably closer genetically than, say, northern Europeans are to Greeks.2

    Historical context. White=European. Turks (at least after they became Muslims) have historically been enemies of Europe-though they were allies of convenience for Germany and Austria in the Great War. Also see the concept of “spiritual race” from such diverse sources as Spengler and Evola.

    • Replies: @fnn
    , @Bill M
    , @Jim
  7. fnn says:
    @fnn

    Plus don’t the Turks overall have some substantial Mongoloid admixture? Don’t have time to look it up, I have to walk the dog.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
    , @Jim
  8. Stogumber says:

    People of all tribes can understand the difference between honest and dishonest speech, between helpful and damaging behaviour, between keeping a treaty and breaking it.
    Those rules refer to universal human conditions and thus to ethical universals.
    So, Mr. Frost is right that most of our morals are community-bound. But he’s wrong in suggesting that we can’t trangress the boundaries of our community.

  9. @Bill M

    No non-whites were involved in the Balkan conflict of the 90s. It involved Serbs, Croatians, Albanians, Bosniaks, etc.

    If Albanians are white, why do they moon Europe five times a day?

    • Replies: @SFG
  10. Kamran says:

    Hello, great people of the great white race. I am writing from my filthy inferior hut in Turkey. I desire conversion to the great white race. Will you be informings me of where such conversion is possible?

    Hala Wallah Allah Shukra whiteness hakasamullah kismagxikallah.

    • Replies: @fnn
    , @rblondon
  11. Numinous says:
    @Bobbala

    with or without white racists.

    Only if you are comparing these countries in the colonial state to the post-colonial state. Economic historians agree that China and India were the #1 and #2 economies in the world until the mid-18th century. Now these were hardly egalitarian and progressive countries back then, but at least the wealth stayed local and didn’t drain away to places on the other side of the world.

    The conquests of the British East India Company devastated the local economies of India. Economic destruction and the consequent evils (like famine) EXACTLY follow the trails of British conquests across the subcontinent. Now, once the British became the paramount power, they did try to do some good, like institute a rule of law (which was unfortunately DOA because white people in India were legally and practically above that law) and infrastructural projects (produced good results but also caused environmental destruction because the British thought the local communities were full of savages whose traditional knowledge could safely be ignored.) But it could not make up for the earlier economic destruction and loss of political freedom.

    White men did take up a lot of burden. But, with very few exceptions, it was all for their personal benefit and not for the darker skinned people they ended up dominating. Don’t project the values of present day western liberals (which I agree are often self-flagellating) on to the white people of the 19th century.

  12. SFG says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Because membership in larger groups is always complex, particularly at the borders of larger cultures. Slavs are Orthodox and Latins are Catholic…but Romanians, speaking a Romance language, are Orthodox, and Poles, speaking a Slavic language, are Catholic.

    The thing is that these phenotypic groups are more clines than actual sharp boundaries. An Italian looks more like a Turk than he does a Swede, but I think both Italians and Swedes would consider themselves Westerners because of history and religion. Is it race (ie genetic similarity)? Is it religion? Is it culture? It’s all of them, in various odd combinations.

    I do think religion is probably the clearest dividing line–Greeks and Turks look pretty similar to me, but everyone agrees Greeks are Western and Turks aren’t (though they’re among the most Western-ish Muslims).

    • Replies: @fnn
    , @granesperanzablanco
  13. Interpundit says: • Website

    Fifty years ago this would have been the Crime of the Century in Britain, covered 24 hours a day by all the major news outlets. Amazing to think that a criminal network on such a vast scale has been completely ignored by the British people.

  14. The first example of when accepted, modern medical procedures such as quarantines were cast aside in order to appease a particularly favored group was during the the AIDs epidemic starting in early 1980s.

    Initial calls for quarantining infected people were shunted aside because they were called “discriminatory.” No less than of an authority than C. Everett Koop, Ronald Reagan’s surgeon general initially ridiculed and then continued to ridicule the calls for separating the infected from the general population. This was done despite the fact that newspaper article after newspaper article mentioned the promiscuity endemic to gay culture was continuing despite the disease. (It was later revealed that Koop might not have been as impartial as he claimed. It turned out he had a gay, possibly infected nephew.)

    As a result, AIDs quickly spread from centers of gay culture like New York and San Francisco to to other parts of the US and then to areas frequented by gays like southeast Asia. From there it spread to places like India. The disease then starting spreading widely among intravenous, mostly black, heterosexual drug users in the USA.

    Who knows what would have happened if the initial calls for guaranteeing had been heeded. Possibly millions of lives would have been saved.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  15. pyrrhus says:

    Britain was a better colonial master than most, but India went from being one of the wealthiest nations in world in 1750 to one of the poorest in 1950. Despite that, Indians have retained their own culture, including the caste system and religions, and have spread all over the world. Who is the winner now?

  16. The Iraq War, which the UK was apart of, has killed upwards of one million Iraqis. I don’t see anyone shedding tears over their deaths. I don’t see anyone shedding tears of the huge number of Iraqi orphans and widows who’ve turned to prostitution. I don’t see anyone shedding tears over deaths of Yemenis, Pakistanis, and Afghans in the US or the UK. None of those wars involved any type of “white man’s burden” noblesse oblige, but are instead about geopolitical and economic considerations.

    There also seems to be a double standard at work, in which the deaths of 3,000 Americans on 9/11 are given infinitely more coverage than the 1 million+ deaths in these Middle Eastern wars.

    In much of the third world, even today, first world and Chinese economic interests abuse their workers in inhumane ways to produce cheap good for first world consumers. So this idea that helpless first worlders let the third world kick them around is not really the case always. Sure the British government let Mugabe dispossess white farmers (before which they allowed him to displace his black tribal enemies in Zimbabwe), but do you honestly believe first world countries don’t use tactics to extort third world nations? The difference between Mugabe is that he uses blatant ineffective thuggery, while first world nations use highly effective legalistic and covert thuggery. Mugabe kicks you off your land and takes it, while the first world elite nations force free trade agreements that result in you losing your land and seeking low-paying unsafe factory work in a horribly exploitative conditions.

    So I think it works both ways. Muslims and Africans are capable of sociopathic violence and thuggery (Mugabe, 9/11, Rotherham, etc.), but Western leaders are capable of callousness in pursuit of their goals. The difference is that Westerners operate in a more systematic manner, while Africans and Muslims operate in a decentralized and disordered manner.

  17. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @fnn

    No, not really, and not really any more substantial than the sub-Saharan African and Near Eastern admixture present in Iberians and Italians or other Mongoloid admixtures in northern Europeans.

  18. S says:

    Excellent as always, Peter.

  19. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Actually, the poem was Kipling’s way of begging the US to colonize the Philippines.

    Of course, if we hadn’t, we mightn’t have been drawn into WWII .

    PS The Quebecois and their petulance is a grand argument against the kind of open borders the Lefties want down here.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
  20. I’d also add that Western nations, such as America and the UK, funded and armed ISIS. ISIS is currently on a sexual rampage and gang raping enormous numbers of women from Iraq’s ethnic minorities. How much coverage does that get in comparison to Jennifer Lawrence or Kim Kardashian? How often is it brought up this enormous amount of sexual violence can be attributed, in part, to the decisions of Western leaders?

    Muslims turn a blind eye to what their coethnics did to women in Rotherham, but Americans and Brits turn a blind eye to what their policies are doing to women in Iraq. Your average American cares more about the latest American Idol winner than hearing about the consequences of the war he/she supported in Iraq. Americans just don’t care about these wars are doing to the men and women of that region – or that Iraqi women were far better off under Saddam.

    It gets even more callous. When Americans are asked what spending item they want to cut the most, they say foreign aid. So not only do Americans not lose sleep over what the Iraq War did, but they have no desire to help people whose lives have been destroyed by their government.

    What about Libya? The removal of Gaddafi has left that once stable country in the grip of militias, who rape and loot with impuntiy. Do Americans care about that? Do you think the Libyan war was about “noblesse oblige” and the “white man’s burden”? Will the suffering of Libyans get more attention from Americans than Britney Spear’s latest fashion accessory?

    Why did the death of one American in Benghazi get far more coverage than the deaths of all the Libyans since the US-backed overthrow of Gaddafi? Double standard at work there.

    American and British civilians may not be directly involved in the carnage in the Middle East, but they’re happy to tolerate massive levels of death and destruction if it keeps gas prices low, the economy going, and consumer goods cheap. If people in these countries have to have their lives ruined or destroyed, American and British civilians don’t lose any sleep. Nobody I know cares about Middle Eastern civilians. They care more about the glitches to the Obamacare web site than the horrendous civilian casualties of our Middle Eastern wars.

    Several years ago, John McCain made up a song about bombing Iran. If a leading Iranian politician made such a joke about bombing an American city, would our public have perceived it as a joke or an invitation to war? Double standard again.

    • Replies: @Harry Flashman
    , @Anonymous
  21. The English never fully civilized the Scots. And now they have realized their prosperity has suffered due to the Empire and its corporate profiteers.

    A couple centuries ago the phrase “The White Man’s Burden” was used to explain why citizens of Western nations must devote resources to civilize the world. Gore Vidal used “The Yellow Man’s Burden” to explain why citizens of Asian nations were devoting so much wealth to keep the USA and much of Europe wealthy. If our citizens suddenly lost 30% of their annual income due to tax increases and spending cuts needed to truly balance our national budgets, they would be outraged. They might learn that this was the result of “free trade”, which might result in revolution and wars. Those who have profited off “free trade” by selling out their citizens know its best to let the working class learn this truth slowly.

  22. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @fnn

    The Turks have minimal East Asian/Mongoloid admixture, around 5%. The Hungarians have even less. The invaders weren’t very numerous compared to the existing populations they conquered.

  23. It is a product of local conditions—to be specific, it arises from a co-evolving system of cultural, historical, and genetic factors.

    There is a basis for a “universal morality”. It is simple:

    Do not kill. Do not rape. Do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace.

    These are not polite suggestions. These are codes of behavior, and those of you that ignore them will pay the dearest cost.

    Who it is right to sleep with, and wrong to sleep with might be a function of local mores, but that’s not really *morality*, except in the eyes of the uneducated. Who can initiate a contract, and what a contract is? Again, local mores. But *fulfilling* a contract is expected across cultures and time. This is a feature of Islam–it is *expected* that you lie when contracting with non-muslims. This is a historical trend, and one of the many reasons that muslim (and especially Arab) countries are such shit holes.

    So yeah, there can be a universal morality. It is minimalist–simple, succinct and easy to live by–at least if you’re not a dirtbag like the “gentleman” who got his brains scattered all over the courtroom in the referenced scene.

    • Replies: @CCR
  24. rod1963 says:

    Johnny

    No one cares about the ME, because it’s a snake pit of fanaticism, tribalism, violence and corruption. Violence and fanaticism is a normal state of affairs with Muslims in general. Sunnis want to murder Shiia, Shiia want to kill Sunni, been going before the Renaissance. They don’t play well with each other and especially foreigners whom they consider prey due to Koranic injunctions.

    When we gave Iraq back to their people the first thing they did was start killing Christians, secularists, women, emo’s and gays. They are not a decent or rational people.

    ISIS? It existed before the U.S. intervened and is simply traditional hard core Sunni Islam. Before ISIS, these fanatics were the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qeada and the Sunni insurgency in Anbar province and main opponents of Assad in Syria. If anyone is responsible for ISIS, it’s the Sunni oil states which are arming and funding ISIS to eradicate Alawites, Kurds and Shiia.

    Rothertham is merely Muslim males doing what they normally do to foreign women. Simply put they are imposing their morality here in the West. And yes we should care more about that than some Muslim fanatics in the ME who are doing what Muslims have been doing since there was Islam – killing each other and infidels.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
  25. @JohnnyWalker123

    The Iraq War, which the UK was apart of, has killed upwards of one million Iraqis.

  26. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    This is exactly the type of anti-white double standard Frost is talking about.

    It pains me to see a White Man, you know, a member of the Master Race, squeeling and nagging and whining and crying “raycisss”.

    Do you feel sorry for the Balkans, who were colonized and enslaved by Turks for centuries? Or how about the native Ainu of Japan?

    My people were “colonized and enslaved” not by Turks or Japanese, but by invaders of Noth-Western European extraction. So your question is irrelevant.

    The Balkans are still an impoverished mess.

    Serbs, Bosniaks et. al. are genetically Slavic. They are a member of YOUR race. Aren’t they supposed be those dynamic civilization-builders driven by their unending Universalism/Individualism/Rule of Law/Non-kin relations et. al. ad infinitum ad nauseam ???

    Do you think Turkey ought to open its borders to the World as punishment?

    I guess the American South opened their borders to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Negroes in the 1600s because of punishment aka White “Guilt”… thanls for the information, buddy.

    That is the kind of anti-white double standard Frost is referring to, and yet you post this rubbish with no sense of irony.

    That is the kind of white self-deception Bliss was referring to, and yet you post this rubbish with no sense of irony.

    Really, somebody ought to write a book about self-deception being a white Group Evolutionary Strategy.

    For example, we are required to believe that Leopold II was imposing White standard of universalist, non-kin relations on non-white society such as Congo “Free” State… what a cruel joke.

    There are a few good things about the end of white supremacy.

    Not for us. In their homicidal attitude, to paraphrase Sam Francis, the White Supremacist is indistinguishable from the White Tribalist.

    @Everybody

    First, white people will hopefully adapt a new, sensible morality, based on blood and soil.

    White people were ALWAYS driven by the blood and soil morality. Despite all the deceitful talks of universalism and individualism, it was White moral relativism and racial collectivism which helped him conquer the colored masses much more populous than him.

    But wait, did you also say,

    intra-white warfare will end until white supremacy is re-established

    So you basically want white supremacy to be “re-“established with out all that “universalist, non-kin relations” stuff that enables us “dark-skinned outsiders”?

    • Replies: @Jeff T.
  27. fnn says:
    @Kamran

    Your best bet is to travel south and see if the Chosenites will let you join their race.

  28. GW says:

    “Please don’t get me wrong. I’m not arguing for a new improved universal morality. Morality can never be universal. It is a product of local conditions—to be specific, it arises from a co-evolving system of cultural, historical, and genetic factors. If forced to choose between saving one or the other, we should first save this foundational system. Anyhow, that’s all we can really save. Morality has no existence above and beyond the humans who act it out in their daily lives.”

    I guess it depends on what you mean by morality. Cultures clearly differ in what they judge to be right or wrong. Slavery is acceptable in one society, the gravest of sins in another.

    But the fact all cultures recognize morality strongly disconfirms your crude materialism. It is universal to human experience that some things truly are morally wrong, even if we don’t know what they are.

    Historically, the white man’s burden was having the correct moral System, the courage to propagate it, and the wisdom on how to carry out the mission. Nowadays we have none of this.

  29. fnn says:
    @SFG

    “… but everyone agrees Greeks are Western…”

    Not quite so simple. Atheist neo-Spenglerian Lawrence Brown in the 1963 book, The Might of the West: “Western civilization as it stands today in every field of thought, law, and action is the unbroken, lineal continuum of these Catholics of 1500…Western civilization is not in any respect the continuum of the civilizations as they stood in 1500 of the Orthodox or eastern schismatic Christians, of Moslems or the Jews…The creators of Western civilization were the ancestors and descendants of the Catholics of 1500.” Brown follows Spengler in seeing classical and Western civilizations as totally distinct from each other.

  30. @pyrrhus

    The place where people don’t poop in the streets. I don’t really think there is any comparison. And only someone pretty unfamiliar with India could fail to recognize just how much change has swept through Indian religion and culture. I practice a religion and live in a culture as close if not closer to that of my ancestors did in 1750s North America as an Indian in New Delhi does to his.

    • Replies: @Numinous
  31. @JohnnyWalker123

    Is that the same double standard that caused you to attend your relatives funerals, but not mine? This kind of autism is a curse on political thought.

  32. @Anonymous

    Goodness is this a new revisionist line? I though it was the embargo now you tell me it was our presence in the Philippines. I guess this would be plausible if the Japanese had attacked the Philippines before Pearl Harbor.

    This is equivalent to arguing that Germany was drawn into WW1 because of its colonies in Africa. Yes, some of those colonies were attacked by the Allies in WW1, but only because that’s what you do during a war. Try and deny you enemy access to their territories and resources. If Germany had occupied the Philippines it would have remained unmolested by Japan throughout the war for the simple fact that it wouldn’t have been occupied by a nation Japan just declared war on.

  33. @SFG

    This was most clearly demonstrated to me taking a bus from Croatia to Bosnia. Quite literally the bus stops at the border, we get going again and the music switches from some sorts of western Euro pop to Turkish sounding pop music. Once at the hotel in Bosnia I am immediately hustled by the hotel manager. My guard was down after being in Croatia where the people have a western sensibility.

  34. Peter Frost says: • Website

    Bliss,

    Your point is irrelevant. I was saying that older English Canadians justified the British Empire on the grounds that it advanced everyone’s interests, regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion. Even for that generation (born c. 1900), it seemed inadmissible to believe that British people had collective interests of their own and that it was legitimate for them to defend such interests. The White Man’s burden was a means to legitimize the British Empire on altruistic grounds, i.e., we’re not doing this for ourselves, we’re doing it for everyone on the whole planet.

    The White Man’s burden has morphed into today’s dominant ideology, i.e., white people feel they have to act altruistically while accepting the legitimacy of collective interest for everyone else.

    Did the British Empire actually help its subject peoples in Africa and Asia? That’s another question. Suffice it to say that population growth was slow or stagnant in those regions before British colonialism and considerably higher afterwards. That change was partly due to the introduction of Western medicine, but it had more to do with a general improvement in living conditions, as well as improved transportation that allowed rapid delivery of food to areas hit by famine.

    Yes, I know about the famines in British colonies, but they were a result of population growth that made reliance on locally produced food impossible. Whenever trade was disrupted, such as during the Bengal famine of 1943, famine resulted. There would have been no famine if the population size had been what it had been before the British arrived.

    Bill,

    We’re talking about perceived differences and not necessarily genetic or even cultural ones. Traditionally, the double standard worked against the “Other.” The more “Other” a population was, the less willing we were to judge it by our moral standards or extend recognition of moral rights to its members. The Other had no inherent moral rights beyond those negotiated by treaty. He could be killed without punishment or (as was usually the case) enslaved.

    For a long time, the Turks were our “Big Other” – primarily for religious reasons.

    Johnny,

    The Iraq War was callous and did a lot of harm, but how is it relevant to this discussion? That war was not fought to advance American or British collective interests. It was largely a case of neocons exploiting the gullibility of the Republican Party to advance their own perceived interests. The word “perceived” should be underlined because the only winners have been the radical Islamists.

    “People of all tribes can understand the difference between honest and dishonest speech”

    Stogumber,

    They may understand the difference (I could argue the point), but that doesn’t mean that lying is universally stigmatized. It isn’t. In most cultures, lying is accepted in a wide range of situations, and not just life-or-death ones. In fact, skilful lying is often admired.

  35. rod1963 says:

    Frost wrote:

    “Double standards normally work the other way. Normally, one judges people of another kind by a harsher standard. They are less likely to share the same notions of right and wrong. They are also less likely to feel the sort of kinship affinity that makes people want to help each other and forgive minor wrongs, or even major ones.

    But we’re doing the reverse. That kind of situation is inherently unstable, even self-destructive. No other human society has ever attempted such a thing.”

    Yes it is obviously self-destructive when you examine the way we have dealt with Ebola(thankfully it’s not Influenza or it would be replay of Justinians Plague) because of the willful blindness of our elites and the Left. Or for that matter how we have failed to deal with Muslim radicals in the West and their imans and mullahs. Rotherham is just a symptom of this blindness.

    In terms of immigration it’s resulted in ghettos and balkanization across Europe and U.S. where large immigrant communities – especially Muslims who refuse to obey the laws of their adopted country and instead bring with them the dysfunctional morality they fled the ME with. Honor killings, fanaticism, supporting jihad, forcing women to wear burkhas, etc.

    Our elites mentality has been if it involves 3rd world imports or brown skinned people, it’s all good.

    “Unfortunately, we cannot make unpleasant truths go away by ignoring them. Sooner or later, we will have to confront them. We will especially have to confront our universal morality, including the assumption that only light-skinned folks have moral agency and only they are to be held accountable for their actions.”

    Our elites and the Left(since they are the main perpetrators of this idiocy today) will continue to try until it’s so obvious their lies cannot hide it. Even now they are trying to pass laws to censor the internet news sites of groups they don’t like. They won’t go without bloodshed.

    “I’m not arguing for a new improved universal morality. Morality can never be universal. It is a product of local conditions—to be specific, it arises from a co-evolving system of cultural, historical, and genetic factors. If forced to choose between saving one or the other, we should first save this foundational system. Anyhow, that’s all we can really save. Morality has no existence above and beyond the humans who act it out in their daily lives.”

    Indeed, it’s not possible. Every group/cultural has their own morality system. Some are very backward and dangerous compared to ours, like Islam. And we have no business accepting these groups into Western society when we know they aren’t going to assimilate, that they intend to remain Muslims or what have you.

  36. Bill M says:
    @fnn

    The context here is closely related, neighboring groups colonizing each other. The analogy to the Turks and the Balkans, and the Japanese and the Ainu would be more like the English and Scots.

    “Spiritual race” and other such metaphysical concepts are social constructs and concern the construction and manipulation of social identity, rather than biological reality.

  37. Bill M says:
    @Peter Frost

    And for the Koreans, the Japanese are the “Big Other”. And nobody outside of Korea cares about the Japanese colonization of Korea. Because it’s a very local and regional issue and has no salience on the global level. It’s analogous to the English colonization of the British Isles, not intercontinental events.

  38. fnn says:

    “Spiritual race” and other such metaphysical concepts are social constructs and concern the construction and manipulation of social identity, rather than biological reality.

    “But in speaking of race, it is not intended in the sense in which it is the fashion among anti-Semites in Europe and America to use it today: Darwinistically, materially. Race purity is a grotesque word in view of the fact that for centuries all stocks and species have been mixed, and that warlike — that is, healthy — generations with a future before them have from time immemorial always welcomed a stranger into the family if he had “race,” to whatever race it was he belonged. Those who talk too much about race no longer have it in them. What is needed is not a pure race, but a strong one, which has a nation within it.”-Oswald Spengler

    • Replies: @Bill M
  39. Bill M says:
    @fnn

    Thanks. I’ve read Spengler. It’s entertaining literature. And I think it can be useful for the construction and manipulation of social identity.

  40. Jim says:
    @fnn

    I believe the genetic data indicates that the Turks are about 90% similar to Greeks with only about a 10% admixture of genes from Central Asia.

  41. joe webb says:

    I call the psychiatric condition of the White Race, the only race to be so-afflicted, PPA.

    Thus, Promiscuous, Pathological Altruism. You could add another P sound, perverse.

    Our evolutionary psychologists speculate that our neolithic history of small hunter-gatherers in the European North of ice and snow, etc. did not compete much if any for game, given the general plenty of mammals and the small numbers of us. Besides the cold selecting for intelligence, the relative plenty of game and little competition over territory, we learned to cooperate, trade, etc.

    I would add that Whites were never collectivized in agriculture, like in Asia and the middle east. Thus we have never been collectivized or enslaved, except for a brief time in serfdom..

    All of these factors make for individualism, cooperation and trust. It all worked relatively well while we were by ourselves.

    That was then. Our evolution-derived psychological traits do not serve us these days when dealing with other races who have little or no altruism for their own people, never mind goofy Whites who extend their blessings to the swine of Humanity. Look at the Chinese. I live in the SF Bay Area. I hear frequent talk with people in Silicon Valley about the Chines: cheats, etc. not to be trusted. They treat themselves like chattel…look at China N. Korea.

    The Liberals and their creeds say all these Migrants are just thirsting for US and White Civility and mutuality. Poppycock. The countries these Other races built are shit-holes cuz these other races are the same, in the aggregate. Liberals say, nooooo…you are a Racist! Yup, No fool like a White fool.

    Good Breeding used to be a term of White elites, which acknowledged temperament and intelligence differences amongst Whites. Good Breeding works for dogs and farm animals, but not us apparently.
    There is nobody crazier than a liberal, or more religious in their fanaticism
    .
    PPA….promiscuous, pathological altruism, and the Jewish Power takes the most advantage of us in this regard. Time to put down the White Man’s Burden to Uplift. Genes cannot be uplifted.

    Joe Webb

  42. @Bliss

    That’s because they are superior stock.

  43. Kamran says:

    I want to taste the power of the white man, joe webb.

    Meet me at 6:00 Thursday in San Francisco a place of your choosing. I have cash and we can transfer the white power from you to me. I will compensate you for this inconvenience with lots of cash.

  44. @pyrrhus

    They spread by using transportation technology created by Europeans and depending on the willingness of Europeans to accept them into their societies and overseas colonies such as South Africa. How does that make them the winner?

  45. @Peter Frost

    The Iraq War and the other Middle Eastern wars are fought to advance the political and economic interests of American and British elites, if not the interests of the collective populations. Also, I’d argue that there’s one white ethnic group whose interests are constantly being considered when foreign policy is formulated in Washington DC and London – the Israelis.

    While you are correct that the collective interests of the American and British commoners are not being advanced, there’s certainly a perception that their collective interests are being advanced. Many Americans are comfortable with nonstop endless war in the Middle East because they believe, incorrectly, that these wars are necessary to prevent another 9/11. If enormous numbers of Middle Eastern Muslims must die to prevent another 9/11, the American public is okay with that.

    The point I’m making is that Americans, Israelis/Jews, and Brits are ready to advance their interests at the expense of Middle Easterners. They all support these wars because there’s a perception that their interests are being advanced. Though in reality, the American and British general public is worse off from these wars, while their elites (and also the Israelis) are probably better off. Of course the reality is known by only a few in America and Britain.

    You’re wrong to say that British/Americans won’t advance their interests at the expense of non-whites. Of course, as I said above, the reality is the policies pursued benefit American/British elites (and Israeli people), not commoners.

    As for Republican “gullibility”, that’s fanciful. Republican politicians supported the war because it was good politics and because war economically enriched defense interests and the national security state (of which politicians are apart of and benefit from the economic largesse). Democrats also supported the Iraq War too, largely for similar reasons.

    “Radical Islamists” are a trivial threat to the world order. The reality is that radical Islamism is supported covertly by the American govt because it provides an excuse for endless military intervention and defense spending, which benefits elites. This is why ISIS was funded by the US govt. This is why Saudi Arabia, despite sponsoring Al-Qaeda, escaped being punished for 9/11 while Saddam’s secular dictatorship was assigned the blame.

    To some extent, I believe Western nations are throwing their commoners to the dogs to advance their interests. For example, I believe Rotherham was allowed to occur because British elites perceive immigration to be in their economic/political interest (and hence the need to cover up the abuses, which would’ve fueled immigration restrictionism if the abuse became public), not because of “sensitivity” to Islam. If British elites were that cowed and submissive towards British Muslims, they wouldn’t be bombing ISIS targets. They wouldn’t have supported the war against Gaddafi. They wouldn’t have supported the Iraq War. They wouldn’t tolerate Israel pushing around the Palestinian Muslims.

  46. @rod1963

    I’d argue that people should care if their govt is pursuing policies which further exacerbate the extremism, violence, and tribalism.

    Iraq is far, far worse today because of the policies pursued by the US, UK, and Israel. Yet nobody cares if close to a million Iraqis died since the invasion or that the lives of enormous numbers of Iraqis have been destroyed. The average American devotes more mental energy to analyzing Kim Kardashian’s wardrobe than analyzing whether the civilian costs of the Iraq War are tolerable.

    I wouldn’t argue against your descriptions of Middle Eastern Muslims, but there’s abundant evidence that the US govt covert funds and supports the most extreme elements in the Islamic world. There’s also evidence that US-allied proxies, such as Saudi Arabia, do the same. As I described in my above post, American elites benefit from sowing discord in the Middle East.

    The violence that has occurred since the removal of Saddam Hussein isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. Of course, only elites are benefiting from this, not common American citizens.

    ISIS was created, in part, by funding from the US govt. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/how-us-helped-isis-grow-monster-iraq-syria-assad

    As for Sunni oil states, do you really think Saudi Arabia and America don’t closely coordinate together? The ties between Saudi Arabia and America go very deep. After 9/11, which was perpetrated by Saudi-sponsored Al Qaeda, there was a meeting between Bush and Saudi Prince Bandar on 9/13/2001.

    The question isn’t whether we should care more about Rotherham than Middle Eastern religious/tribal conflict. The question is whether American and British civilians should care about the consequences of their government’s actions in the Middle East. Currently, reality tv and celebrity gossip generate more public interest than anything that happened in Rotherham or the Middle East. Kim Kardashian’s current wardrobe consumes more public attention than Rotherham and Iraq combined. Which is indefensible.

  47. Here’s a question.

    If someone else sets a fire and then I later pour a gallon of gasoline on this fire, do I bear any responsibility?

  48. Numinous says:
    @Sam Haysom

    And only someone pretty unfamiliar with India could fail to recognize just how much change has swept through Indian religion and culture. I practice a religion and live in a culture as close if not closer to that of my ancestors did in 1750s North America as an Indian in New Delhi does to his.

    I don’t know what this has to do with the topic of the blog post, but modern New Delhi is to Hinduism as Sodom was to the practitioners of the Abrahamic faith. If you step outside the big cities, people practice a religion and culture that is a lot older than the 1750s (some practices date back to the BCs, and most to the 1st millenium AD, even though there have been a lot of revivalist movements since the late 19th century.) Whether those cultural and religious practices are good and ought to be retained is a different question; the caste system is definitely due for a demise, and has been heading that way for a century now, though progress has been slow.

  49. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The folks back home would have disagreed. The Empire wasn’t just for the British or even for Europeans in general. It was for people of all races and religions. It was an instrument for raising everyone up to British standards of fair play, morality, and civilization. In short, for making the world a better place. Take up the White Man’s burden …

    Such talk puzzled me, even as a kid.

    This isn’t that puzzling. Imperialists generally regard themselves as being good for or helping their foreign subjects in some fashion.

  50. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The White Man’s burden is believing in a reality hidden by the world as it is. Supposedly, all peoples are by nature good; the inequitable state of the world is due to greed by the strong and the weak’s ignorance of their rights . The West is strong so it is presumed to be evil. Although every attempt to make reality conform to the supposed truth has merely rearranged things with the old weak becoming the new venal strong, we must believe in the goodness of human beings to be thought good ourselves. After all, if the world was just a meaningless battle for survival the strong would never lose, and they in fact very often do. The power of weakness.

  51. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost

    The White Man’s burden has morphed into today’s dominant ideology, i.e., white people feel they have to act altruistically while accepting the legitimacy of collective interest for everyone else.

    What about Jews? Are you insinuating that Jews aren’t white? Or that Jewish collective interests aren’t regarded as legitimate?

    • Replies: @D3Jones
  52. D3Jones says:
    @Anonymous

    The White Man’s burden has morphed into today’s dominant ideology, i.e., white people feel they have to act altruistically while accepting the legitimacy of collective interest for everyone else.

    What then shall we make of Kipling’s The Burden of Jerusalem?

  53. Jeff T. says:
    @Anonymous

    It pains me to see a White Man, you know, a member of the Master Race, squeeling and nagging and whining and crying “raycisss”.

    I believe that white people are vulnerable just like everyone else, and will have to learn to tribalize and adapt to this cultural environment, even if it’s pathetic and whiny.

    I don’t believe in a Master Race. You do? What do you believe this Master Race is justified in doing to untermensch, like non-NWE me?

    My people were “colonized and enslaved” not by Turks or Japanese, but by invaders of Noth-Western European extraction. So your question is irrelevant.

    Are you Bliss? Im confused.

    Actually mine were invaded by NWE too, though we fought back and so weren’t enslaved. We have been enslaved by non-white peoples, though I doubt you care since it ruins your narrative.

    But really, what’s your point? I think colonialism and enslavement is wrong. Do you? It seems you’re okay with the ongoing colonization of NWE and NA so long as white people are the primary victims.

    Also, seemingly unlike you, I make the distinction between a bad people and bad government. I have no sympathy for most Western governments and institutions. But the average resident of America or NWE does not deserve what’s happening to him.

    Serbs, Bosniaks et. al. are genetically Slavic. They are a member of YOUR race. Aren’t they supposed be those dynamic civilization-builders driven by their unending Universalism/Individualism/Rule of Law/Non-kin relations et. al. ad infinitum ad nauseam ???

    You’re missing or ignoring the point.

    Turkey is and was an Other to Southeast Europe, yet is not held responsible for the ongoing present condition of the Balkans, nor is it expected to have an open border policy to the Balkans and even non-Balkaners. Double standard.

    I guess the American South opened their borders to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Negroes in the 1600s because of punishment aka White “Guilt”… thanls for the information, buddy.

    Doesn’t answer the point. Yes, the worldwide institution of slavery was and is wrong. But you’re using history to justify an ongoing evil today, which is also wrong.

    That is the kind of white self-deception Bliss was referring to, and yet you post this rubbish with no sense of irony.

    Really, somebody ought to write a book about self-deception being a white Group Evolutionary Strategy.

    For example, we are required to believe that Leopold II was imposing White standard of universalist, non-kin relations on non-white society such as Congo “Free” State… what a cruel joke.

    Frost answered this better than I could have.

    Not for us. In their homicidal attitude, to paraphrase Sam Francis, the White Supremacist is indistinguishable from the White Tribalist.

    … what?
    I don’t want white supremacy of the WWII kind. That was wrong. My tribe was not “invited to the party” either.

    I believe in Korea for Koreans, Sweden for the Swiss, and so forth. Right now it’s Korea for Koreans, Sweden for Everybody, and that’s wrong too.

    White people were ALWAYS driven by the blood and soil morality. Despite all the deceitful talks of universalism and individualism, it was White moral relativism and racial collectivism which helped him conquer the colored masses much more populous than him.

    Again, Frost answered this better than I could have.

    So you basically want white supremacy to be “re-”established with out all that “universalist, non-kin relations” stuff that enables us “dark-skinned outsiders”?

    I didn’t say any of that. I think that a multipolar world of confident civilizations with tight borders is the best hope for peace.

    The point is always the double standard: Racialism and monoculture for non-whites, “anti-racism” and multiculturalism for whites. That’s anti-white.

    • Replies: @Bill M
  54. Bill M says:
    @Jeff T.

    You’re missing or ignoring the point.

    Turkey is and was an Other to Southeast Europe, yet is not held responsible for the ongoing present condition of the Balkans, nor is it expected to have an open border policy to the Balkans and even non-Balkaners. Double standard.

    Similar historical regional conflicts receive no global attention. For the Koreans, the Japanese are the “Big Other”. But nobody outside of Korea cares about the Japanese colonization of Korea. Because it’s a very local and regional issue and has no salience on the global level.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  55. CCR says:
    @William O. B'Livion

    You’re confusing a “universal” morality with a “universalist” morality.

  56. @Bill M

    The Turks are sufficiently far away land for Hungary. They are definitely not our neighbors, Istanbul (a city conquered by the Turks only in 1453, less than a century before they conquered Central Hungary) is over 1000 kilometers from Hungary. Hungary was a major source of slaves for Turkey and the Crimean Tatars in the 16th and 17th centuries, and a substantial portion of the Hungarian population (and an even higher portion of the ethnic Hungarian population) was killed during the two centuries of occupation and endemic warfare they brought with them. The Crimean Tatars (vassals of the Turks who the Turks sent in many campaigns to Hungary) are and were even less white than Turks.

    Hungary was also attacked by Mongols in 1241 from around the globe and then again later in the 13th century. (In 1242 they left of their own accord after having conquered Hungary and murdered a substantial chunk of the population. Their later 13th century attempt was unsuccessful.) In another news, the Mongols invaded just about everybody between Central Europe and the Pacific. Are the Mongols of today held responsible for that?

    Countries like present-day Congo or Botswana were conquered by the Bantus over the course of several centuries and millennia, but the original inhabitants (the Bushmen, Hottentots, Pygmies, etc.) were usually enslaved or killed and are now even worse off than Native Americans (Indians) in the US, because unlike whites in the US, blacks in Congo or Botswana don’t feel much responsibility for the fate of these aborigines. In fact, many Pygmies and Bushmen still have to endure slavery at the hands of the Bantu.

    Do you hold the Crimean Tatars, Mongols, Bantus responsible for the people they mass murdered, enslaved, displaced, or is it only white people who are responsible?

    Also, by removing ‘local and regional’ issues from the discussion, you are making success a sin. Do you in your mind have any doubt that the Bantus would have done the same thing to the Chinese or Arabs as they did to the Koi or to Pygmies if they had the ability to do so? Do you have any doubt in your mind that the Japanese would have colonized Venezuela or the Congo if they had the means to do so (and to protect those conquests from other colonizers)? It appears to me that the main difference between the British (who colonized the Irish and Scots and unsuccessfully tried to colonize France but then were forced to colonize far-away people far less technically advanced than France) and the Bantu (who colonized slowly but inexorably one village at a time for several millennia) is that the British were more successful, and also that the British had much stronger neighbors (so after some colonization and attempted colonization in the neighborhood they were forced to go to far-away continents, where they proved to be adept).

    I fail to see how being a successful conqueror makes conquest any worse than being an inept conqueror. Being clumsy is not a virtue and being strong and clever is not a sin.

    • Replies: @Bill M
  57. @Peter Frost: Do you have any sources for the claim that “the police would immediately investigate … the parents”? I do believe you, but I’d like to save the sources for later use.

  58. Bill M says:
    @reiner Tor

    The point isn’t that the Turks are buddies with the Greeks et al. The point is that Turks are Caucasoid and genetically close to the populations they invaded and ruled. This seems relevant to the issue of whether particular historical conflicts have global salience. Korea and Japan, England and the British Isles, were also conflicts involving related regional groups, and they also have little global salience, regardless of how bitter the conflicts were or how much the parties in the conflict regarded each other as the “Big Other”.

    The Mongols left little to no genetic legacy west of Central Asia. Most of their genetic legacy was among other Mongoloids in Asia. Where they did leave some legacy west of Central Asia, such as in Afghanistan, their descendants the Hazara tend to be persecuted and discriminated against by the dominant Caucasoid Pashtun ethny. Similarly, the Vikings were marauders whose legacy was confined to closely related groups. The Vikings aren’t held responsible for their invasions.

    I’m not removing local and regional issues from the discussion. I brought some of them into discussion, such as the Korea and Japan and the England and British Isles examples into discussion. I’m trying to analogize them properly.

    I didn’t say anything about anything being a “sin” or a virtue or better or worse. If you think that no historical conflicts should receive any attention because it’s just something everybody does and would do anyway, then you should make that case directly rather than bring up the Turks and other examples since you don’t think anyone should really care about them in the first place. But that’s not really relevant to the discussion here regarding the global salience of certain conflicts relative to others.

    I think you and others here are being intellectually dishonest when you bring up these other examples and try to analogize them since it’s quite clear that issues of race, genetic identity, genetic distance, etc., are of paramount importance to you. You don’t regard more regional, localized, intra-racial events as being equivalent to or as serious or important as inter-racial conflicts, population movements, migrations, etc. It’s the scale, the genetic distance, and the inter-racial aspects of, for example, contemporary migration patterns that have you exercised. It’s also those elements which make certain historical episodes have more global salience relative to others.

    • Replies: @Jeff T.
    , @reiner Tor
  59. Peter Frost says: • Website

    Johnny,

    When I say Republicans are gullible, I mean the average Republican voter. I agree that certain Republican politicians have materially benefitted from military interventions in the Middle East (through campaign donations), as have defense contractors, but the net benefit has been negative for Americans in general.

    “What about Jews?”

    Anon,

    That question seems to be inevitable around here. All human groups, Jews included, have varying tendencies to frame morality as “us” versus “them” (or “Who – Whom”). Northwest Europeans, like the British, have deviated the farthest from this tendency by conceiving morality in universal terms.

    One offshoot of this moral universalism is antiracism, whose roots can be traced back to early Christianity and farther still to the universal Hellenism of Alexander’s successors. But antiracism as a militant grassroots movement is a British invention. It came about through a radicalization of abolitionism during the early to mid 19th century, and antiracist writings from that period look eerily similar to what we see today.

    That first wave of antiracism subsided in the late 19th century, partly because of disillusionment with post-Civil-War reconstruction, and partly because of growing familiarity with evolutionary theory, but also because it lacked the first-tier leaders and second-tier cadres who could keep it going. It was an unstable popular sensibility.

    This changed in the early to mid 1930s. The rise of Nazism convinced many Jewish intellectuals of the need to fight “racism” in all its forms (the word “racism” was initially a synonym for Nazism). Today, some 80 years later, that war is still being fought. What began as a reaction to Nazism has become a permanent cultural revolution, and it has become permanent because the second wave of antiracists had the kind of organizational skills and ideological stamina that the first wave lacked.

    Yes, Jewish individuals and organizations did play a key role in resuscitating antiracism and making it sustainable, but it has never been a primarily Jewish phenomenon. You’re deluding yourself if you think so.

    Reiner,

    “In two of the cases we read, fathers tracked down their daughters and tried to remove them from houses where they were being abused, only to be arrested themselves when police were called to the scene.” p. 36
    http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1407/independent_inquiry_cse_in_rotherham

    “Police went to a house outside which a father was demanding the release of his daughter, who was inside with a group of British Pakistani adults. Officers found the girl, 14, who had been drugged, under a bed. The father and his daughter were arrested for racial harassment and assault respectively. Police left, leaving three men at the house with two more girls.”

    Times, Sept. 24, 2012
    http://rotherhampolitics.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/the-times-in-full-heads-must-surelyroll/

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  60. Jeff T. says:
    @Bill M

    Bill,

    Let me make clear that this discussion about Turks/Balkans is academic.

    My point is summarized in the following sentences, from a reply to someone else:

    …Yes, the worldwide institution of slavery was and is wrong. But you’re using history to justify an ongoing evil today, which is also wrong.

    …I think colonialism and enslavement is wrong. Do you? It seems you’re okay with the ongoing colonization of NWE and NA so long as white people are the primary victims.

    …But the average resident of America or NWE does not deserve what’s happening to him.

    …I believe in Korea for Koreans, Sweden for Swedes, and so forth. Right now it’s Korea for Koreans, Sweden for Everybody, and that’s wrong too.

    …The point is always the double standard: Racialism and monoculture for non-whites, “anti-racism” and multiculturalism for whites. That’s anti-white.

    The imposed racial and cultural replacement happening in the West, which would not be tolerated anywhere outside the West, is wrong.

    The immigration and social policies of Korea should be determined by Koreans, and to the benefit of Koreans. Noone should be calling Koreans “racist” for exercising that right, while granting it to, say, Algerians. That goes for everyone.

    Mainstream talk about slavery, colonialism, etc. is largely a justification for this policy of imposed racial and cultural replacement, and there is no justification.

    To put it another way, noone is combing through history books looking for terrible things that non-white people did, so they can justify racial and cultural replacement in non-white countries.

    • Replies: @Bill M
  61. rblondon says:
    @Kamran

    But Turks want to be part of White Europe not Asia/African and the Muslim world.

  62. Bill M says:
    @Jeff T.

    Well this is an academic discussion about the contemporary global salience of certain historical episodes relative to others. Your discussion regarding what is right or wrong or should or shouldn’t be the case is with someone else.

    Things don’t have global salience merely because they are terrible. The horrible massacre of, say, one village by another closely related neighboring village, will have zero global salience.

    Historical politics is very much a part of the regional and local politics of non-white countries. In East Asia, for example, countries that were colonized by Japan do cite Japanese crimes to justify certain policies. But this is highly regional and localized and has no global salience, which is evident by your unfamiliarity with it.

  63. Sean says:

    Looking at the world around me I don’t see that anyone is operating in either a morality trumps all, or a might is right mode. If the West is judged by foreign interventions it could be called tail wagged by neocon dog cum corporate hired muscle, social Darwinist or imperialist if not racist, and within the West nonwhites are worse off that the indigenous population. Yet the immigration policy of the West seems to be transcending any considerations of maintaining economic advantage by white ethnic domination even in the white homelands, so there is no way I can see that hard edged ethnic power politics is being practiced by white countries where it really matters: internally. The quasi-official state morality of antiracism in the white majority West must be seen as morally transcending any consideration of the survival of the people who compose the West, but the survival of the state against external enemies doesn’t seem bound by the same logic. While Western states seem hypersensitive to even the most remote potential for external military threats as in a extremely tough-minded realist perspective, they are unconcerned by internal replacement through immigration processes.

    Reviews of Europe the Struggle for Supremacy:- ‘”Through all the cycles of the rise and fall of a dominant power – 16th-century Spain, France under Louis XIV or Napoleon, or the Kaiser’s Germany – Simms shows how both winners and losers were preoccupied, more or less effectively, with enhancing their economic capacity and administrative efficiency in order to withstand external pressure, or to exert it. Sometimes the domestic changes were revolutionary: both the English Civil War of the 1640s and the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 had their roots in a perceived need for an English ruler willing to resist the rising power of France.” Also “Simms singles out, perhaps more plausibly than his predecessors, some factors that at various times allowed the Habsburgs or Bismarck or Hitler to dominate mainland Europe. First, since the middle of the 17th century, Germans have been the only major nation to promote ethnic and linguistic unity above religious divisions, so that Protestants and Catholics could live together in a union of smaller states, ”

    I think the prime directive of nation states is to build up their power to deal with EXTERNAL threats by enlarging and intensifying the coherence of the state, at any cost. States are first and foremost machines for ensuring the survival of the state, rather than the foundational national characteristics that the state’s success is based on, and which are threatened by anti racism. The intelligentsia is entranced with the idea of true morality transcending power politics, and that converges with the internal harmony enforced by a Hobbesian state, orientated to defence against external enemies, that says it doesn’t matter if dissidents are arguing with the state on the grounds of religion, nationalism or science; they have to be made to accept defeat.

  64. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost

    Ok, so are you insinuating that Jews aren’t white? Or that Jewish collective interests aren’t regarded as legitimate?

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @Jim
  65. Sean says:
    @Anonymous

    Jews themselves would be the judge of whether they are white and to what extent their interests converge with whites. However, Peter is making the point that whites think they can’t just do what is in their interests.

    Between Truth and Power: Latour’s Political Philosophy
    SOCRATES noted long ago in his response to Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic, the distinction between friend and enemy is subordinate to knowledge of the good, since one should hope to defeat true enemies rather than merely apparent ones. […] In this respect, policy can never just amount to a death match between competing and equally valid interests: one’s sense of these interests must be open to transformation by what transcends them.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  66. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    The White Man’s burden has morphed into today’s dominant ideology, i.e., white people feel they have to act altruistically while accepting the legitimacy of collective interest for everyone else.

    So what would this statement mean? Is it insinuating that Jews aren’t white? Or that Jewish collective interests aren’t regarded as legitimate?

    • Replies: @Sean
  67. Sean says:
    @Anonymous

    You have already been told what Peter meant. You, not he, is the one insinuating that the white community’s interests ought to be defined in opposition to the interests of Jews as you see them.

    If the white community currently thought the policy of pursuing its collective interest in projecting itself into the future was legitimate, it would pursue those interests through a policy. But it does the opposite because it thinks the truth of antiracism transcends such considerations. And as Peter said, that transcending strain of thought traces back to ancient Greece, (where Socrates taught that reason was a super-good that could enable humans to shape their fate and avoid tragedy).

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  68. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    The statement,”white people feel they have to act altruistically while accepting the legitimacy of collective interest for everyone else”, implies that either Jews aren’t white under this scheme or that Jewish collective interests aren’t regarded as legitimate. Which is it?

  69. Bill M says:

    The folks back home would have disagreed. The Empire wasn’t just for the British or even for Europeans in general. It was for people of all races and religions. It was an instrument for raising everyone up to British standards of fair play, morality, and civilization. In short, for making the world a better place. Take up the White Man’s burden …

    It was a but more complicated than this if you examine the history of the development of the empire.

    Remember that the major expansion of the empire into India and Africa occurred in the second half of the 19th century under the leadership of Disraeli. In fact the term “imperialism” was introduced into English usage to refer to the aggressive imperial policies of Disraeli. Disraeli accomplished this by building a domestic pro-imperial coalition that united wealthy Tories, the City, and middle and working classes. He did this by appealing not to morality or Christian charity, but to nationalism, national interest, glory, self-interest, etc. Especially economic self-interest for wealthy Tories and the City, and nationalism and glory for the working and middle classes.

    Disraeli’s great enemy and competitor in politics was the Christian and Liberal William Gladstone, who was reluctant to expand the empire and opposed the aggressive imperial policies of Disraeli. The Whigs/Liberals had tired of empire by the end of Palmerston’s tenure in office. It was Disraeli and his Conservative coalition that expanded the empire significantly into India, Africa, etc. After it had expanded, it may have been justified by Christians and Liberals on moral grounds, but it seems unlikely that it would have expanded to its extent without Disraeli’s ability to appeal to national and self-interest.

    • Replies: @Numinous
  70. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    And as Peter said, that transcending strain of thought traces back to ancient Greece, (where Socrates taught that reason was a super-good that could enable humans to shape their fate and avoid tragedy).

    There’s also the Melian dialogue of Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, where the Athenians use reason to argue for killing the Melian men and enslaving the women and children:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_dialogue

  71. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    What about Libya? The removal of Gaddafi has left that once stable country in the grip of militias, who rape and loot with impuntiy. Do Americans care about that? Do you think the Libyan war was about “noblesse oblige” and the “white man’s burden”? Will the suffering of Libyans get more attention from Americans than Britney Spear’s latest fashion accessory?
    […]
    American and British civilians may not be directly involved in the carnage in the Middle East, but they’re happy to tolerate massive levels of death and destruction if it keeps gas prices low, the economy going, and consumer goods cheap. If people in these countries have to have their lives ruined or destroyed, American and British civilians don’t lose any sleep. Nobody I know cares about Middle Eastern civilians. They care more about the glitches to the Obamacare web site than the horrendous civilian casualties of our Middle Eastern wars.

    For the majority of US and UK residents, the war on Libya was a reminder of their inability to meaningfully influence the policies of “their” government.

    In the UK, for example, polls showed that only a third of the population supported attacking Libya . How did the British Parliament respond? By voting 557-13 to attack Libya, a decision cheered by the entire British media and political establishment. It was only after the war bogged down – with military “superpower” Libya depleting almost the entire military capability of European NATO — and caused Libya to dissolve into chaos that the loathsome British Establishment shifted responsibility for the war to the British people.

    American involvement in the Libyan war (or conflict or humanitarian intervention or time-limited kinetic military action, depending on the day) was similarly the product of a small elite deciding to overrule popular opposition. The pro-war faction in DC (neocons and liberal interventionists) convinced Obama to pursue the war even after Congress refused to approve it and the military opposed it. Then, they convinced him to continue the war even after the Attorney General, head of the Office of Legal Counsel, and DoD General Counsel all told him that continuing the war would violate the War Powers Act. (The federal judiciary, relying on precedents from the illegal 1999 war against Serbia, later refused to even hear Congressional lawsuits alleging that the war violated the WPA.) American involvement in the Libyan war was the product of a small cabal, one with the ability to override the objections of senior legal and defense officials, the objections of Congress, and the objections of the American people.

    Even the passivity which you describe is the result of elite-driven decision making, in this case a decision to instill in Western populations a psychological phenomenon known as ”learned helplessness.” In a 1975 Trilateral Commission report entitled The Crisis of Democracy: On the Governability of Democracies, a panel of leading political scientists (including Samuel Huntington) argued that Western countries suffered from an “excess of democracy” and that the best way to elites overcome this “excess” was merely to ignore popular sentiment until the people lost interest in foreign (or other) policy areas. Or, as influential Ivy League professor and then-New Left activist Jennifer Hochschild argued during the same era, “authorities must find the will to ignore (temporarily, one hopes) popular opposition [to their policies because] … [p]eople learn to accept and even support what they cannot change; if they see hope for avoiding an undesirable future, they will struggle to do so.” And, as we have seen on issues ranging from wars to Wall Street to the NSA, this strategy works: over time, activists drift away, falling into despair and/or transferring their time and money to causes where they feel they can make a difference.

    What would you suggest that Americans do? The usual remedies – mass protests, lawsuits, and pressure on elected officials – fail miserably when an American president decides, in a matter of a few days, to drag the US into a war with Libya and then announce the decision while traveling to Brazil with his family. Nor is there any way for Americans to challenge the still-dominant elite and media consensus that the decision to go to war with Libya was a humanitarian necessity.

  72. Jim says:
    @fnn

    The Turkish language was imposed in Western Anatolia by Turkic conquerers ultimately from Central Asia but the genetic impact was relatively minor, less than 10% of the genotype. Turkish speakers in Western Anatolia are not greatly different genetically from Greeks. Of course a substantial proportion of the population of Turkey is Kurdish.

    The Finns show some evidence of Central Asian genetic heritage. Finnish Lapps are about 20% genetically Central Asian while Russian Lapps are about 30% . I not sure whether Estonians show any significant genetic difference from neighboring Balto-Slavonic speakers.

    My understanding is that Hungarians are genetically highly similar to neighboring Slavs. Apparently the Magyars were too small in numbers to leave much genetic trace.

  73. Jim says:
    @Anonymous

    According to Greg Cochran Ashkenazi Jews are genetically roughly half European (mostly Southern European) and half Middle Eastern.

  74. Sean says:

    The white descendants of the brits are the wealthiest in the world while the colored south asians and africans of the Commonwealth are the poorest of the poor of the third world

    As a matter of fact the people of non-colonialising countries like Switzerland and Sweden are the wealthiest in the world. Moreover, South Africa and similar countries are converging economically with Britain and the estimates are they will have achieved parity in a hundred years, when the population of the West will be overwhelmingly nonwhite on current trends. If whites are trying to preserve themselves as wealthy ruling powers they have a funny way of showing it.

    As should be obvious, no one is or could be seriously saying that the current development of altruistic universalist ideology was present in white societies since ancient Greece. I think Socrates’s idea of a perfect spiritual reality in a timeless realm that made human life and death (even ones own) of little importance is widely agreed to be a central event in European thought; even though he was condemned to death and the Greek city states proceeded to tear each other to pieces.

    States are concerned with surviving against other states. Of course the British state did not operate in a purely benevolent fashion irrespective of the consequences. Nevertheless, Britain was never anything remotely resembling a racial or Eurocentric state. For instance Britain’s friendly policy toward the Ottoman Empire, which was an oppressor of white European Christians, was determined by fear of Russia. Gladstone wanted humanitarian intervention against the Turkish atrocities. still, when Russia forced the Ottoman Empire to free its subjects in the Balkans and Bulgaria was created the British demanded guarantees for minorities in the new white Christian state.

    While the British state trumpeted its civilising mission to supress the slave trade, it being useful PR around the time of the wars with revolutionary France, which claimed to be a liberating force,; agitation among the affluent classes in Britian for the abolition of slavery was very real (see here). In south Africa British policies in favour of the black population caused the 1815 Slachter’s Nek Rebellion and ended in the Boer war, in which black scouts in British service preyed on Boer women.

    Late European Imperialism was caused by fear of the new and powerfully unified German Empire, and that was why Britain and France tried to add colonies–they wanted manpower to fight Germans. Hundreds of thousand of nonwhites served in the British and French armies during WW2 (Curzon claimed the Germans would have achieved a breakthrough at Ypres in 1914 had it not been for the Indian troops).

    The Iraq War, which the UK was apart of, has killed upwards of one million Iraqis. I don’t see anyone shedding tears over their deaths. I don’t see anyone shedding tears of the huge number of Iraqi orphans and widows who’ve turned to prostitution. I don’t see anyone shedding tears over deaths of Yemenis, Pakistanis, and Afghans in the US or the UK. None of those wars involved any type of “white man’s burden” noblesse oblige, but are instead about geopolitical and economic considerations.

    Apart from neocons around Bush the younger, the US foreign policy establishment was strongly against invading Iraq, Brent Scowcroft‘s Wall Street Jornal opinion piece Don’t Attack Saddam was quite representative. The neocons saw Saddam as evil, and so apparently thought his removal was a moral necessity, irrespective of the consequences. many of the influential neocons were followers of Leo Strauss: “As Strauss properly noted in his critique of Schmitt, … the distinction between friend and enemy is subordinate to knowledge of the good, since one should hope to defeat true enemies rather than merely apparent ones. As Strauss puts it, the question of the enemy owes its seriousness to the seriousness of the question of right and wrong.”

    Strauss’s interpretation of Socrates was that the intellectual elite of philosophers like him knew the truth, but the trampling herd with their stupid religions and nationalisms can’t appreciate it. Convincing the gentlemen requires the use of rhetoric, the nongentlemen can’t be altered with words and need to have some sense knocked into their heads. See here.

  75. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    The pro-Ottoman position was justified by the Conservatives on national interest grounds.

    Abolition was in the 1830s when Palmerston was secretary of state. This was when the Whigs/Liberals were pro-imperial and before Disraeli created the Conservative pro-imperial coalition and before the “New Imperialism” into Africa, India, etc. in the late 19th century. The Boer War was fought because British financial and mining interests wanted control of the Transvaal. And they wanted the cheap black labor to mine it.

    The “New Imperialism” got underway before German unification and before Germany was a major power or threat. It began when Birtain was the sole industrial power. Russia was the main enemy and the Ottomans and the “Eastern Question” were the relevant major foreign policy issues. Germany was not on Disraeli’s radar.

  76. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    Another interpretation is that Strauss, who identified strongly with his Jewish heritage, feared that the decline of Christian dogma would result in an inhospitable social and political climate, as the vacuum would be filled with materialism, Darwinism, later German philosophy, some combination thereof. Strauss had been a student of Heidegger and so had an inkling of what this might entail. Thus Strauss felt compelled to “revive” or in actuality refashion and repurpose classical political philosophy to serve as a new dogma to buttress a liberalism he felt safe in.

  77. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @rabbitbait

    How does one impose a quarantine on a person infected by a disease that kills over years and not days? The decision not to quarantine AIDS victims becomes a matter of practicality and not a policy of appeasement of a favored class as you suggest.

  78. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    As should be obvious, no one is or could be seriously saying that the current development of altruistic universalist ideology was present in white societies since ancient Greece

    It’s present in the Hellenistic period, which was after Greek expansion into and significant contact with the Middle East.

    Christianity arises following the Roman expansion into and significant contact with the Middle East.

    Several hundred years later, yet another major universal ideology comes out of the Middle East – Islam.

    And in more recent times, people with roots in the Middle East have been significant in the development of modern universalist ideologies.

    What should be obvious is that universalist ideologies seem to come out of the Middle East.

  79. Numinous says:
    @Bill M

    Remember that the major expansion of the empire into India and Africa occurred in the second half of the 19th century under the leadership of Disraeli.

    Africa, yes. India, no. You don’t seem to know anything about the history of India (or specifically British India.) Conquest in India started in the mid-18th century by the private East India Company, and was virtually complete by the early 19th. A revolt in 1857 was the last gasp of the old guard, but they were swept aside, the EEC disbanded, and the Crown formally incorporated India into the British Empire. That happened well before Disraeli got his hands on power. And while the Tories and the Liberals had their differences in the late 19th century, both sides were dominated by committed imperialists. William Gladstone was in no way “reluctant to expand the empire”. He probably did care for more human treatment of the natives and more legal protection of their rights though. You are probably thinking of Ireland, but that is the only example of Liberals and Tories differing fundamentally on imperial policy and should be treated as an exception (which it was, being a white country.)

    • Replies: @Bill M
  80. Bill M says:
    @Numinous

    You don’t seem to understand the context of this discussion. The point isn’t about when the British started putting around India and Africa. The Royal African Company was established in the 17th century. It’s about the significant integration of India and Africa with the British Empire and its ramifications for Britain in the 20th and 21st centuries. This began during the New Imperialism of the latter half of the 19th century under Disrali. This is not a controversial point.

    Disraeli’s purchase of the Suez Canal shares and his control of Cyrpus significantly integrated India and the empire with Britain. Victoria was formally proclaimed Empress of India in 1877 while Disraeli was in office.

    You don’t seem to know anything about British history. Gladstone was reluctant to expand the empire. He campaigned for the 1880 election on the promise to turn back the imperialism of Disraeli and Conservatives.

  81. @Bill M

    I think it’s immaterial for this discussion what is or is not of paramount importance to me. But since you brought up the topic, let me state it’s not simply genetic distance for me. For example I know Turks are genetically much closer to Germans than sub-Saharan Africans, yet I’m basically equally discomfortable with Turkish and sub-Saharan immigration to Germany.

    When you say Turks are genetically close to Greeks, you have a point. They are not so close to Hungarians. The Ottoman vassal Crimean Tatars are and were even farther away from them, or, for example, the Poles, whom they also enslaved during their centuries of slave raiding.

    Your point about the Mongol genetic legacy is of little relevance here, because nobody seems to bother that white Europeans had no genetic legacy in Africa or Asia. The Mongols actually had a substantial negative genetic impact – depopulating densely populated provinces and kingdoms from Poland to China everywhere they showed up, and this often resulted in genetic change. For example the original Magyars were the majority in the central parts of Hungary in the 10th century. By the 14th century Hungarians seem to have transformed into a more or less typical Central European population. The fact that the Mongols depopulated exactly those (central) parts of the country the most which had the highest concentration of the original Magyar genes, and that afterwards the king was forced to invite Central European (German and Slav) settlers to repopulate those areas, probably played a role in these genetic changes.

    It’s the scale, the genetic distance, and the inter-racial aspects of, for example, contemporary migration patterns that have you exercised. It’s also those elements which make certain historical episodes have more global salience relative to others.

    Which might be a reason why it appears a bit strange on your part not to have replied to my point about the Koi-San, who have been thoroughly exterminated from most of the Southern part of Africa by a genetically quite distant group, the Bantu.

    If you think that no historical conflicts should receive any attention because it’s just something everybody does and would do anyway, then you should make that case directly

    I think that there’s no reason for whites to self-flagellate for what their ancestors did, because what they did was similar to what others did, do, would do or would have done anyway, however, there’s a major difference, namely that whites are to my knowledge the only successful conquering and enslaving group which then spent considerable effort trying to better the lives of the conquered or enslaved, to the point of abolishing slavery and allowing colonies to secede. This seems to be unique, to my knowledge.

  82. French Canadians saw those wars as foreign entanglements of no concern to them. They were willing to fight and die, yes, but only for their own soil. That may seem selfish, but so were we with our slavish loyalty to the British Empire.

    Selfish? Maybe. Or maybe those testy Quebecois are just harder to dupe into pointless wars of aggression from which they stand to gain exactly nothing. And do note that they also stubbornly refuse to relinquish their ancestral language on their own ancestral soil.

    Maybe we Anglophones should stop mocking them and start copying them.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Peter Frost Comments via RSS