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 Evolution of Antiracism
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


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
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Throughout the world, kinship used to define the limits of morality. The less related you were to someone, the less moral you had to be with him or her. We see this in the Ten Commandments. The phrase “against thy neighbor” qualifies the commandment against bearing false witness and, implicitly, the preceding ones against killing, adultery, and stealing. For the modern reader, “thy neighbor” is helpfully explained as meaning “the children of thy people” (Leviticus19:18).

In some cases, this kin-based morality gradually ceased to apply the farther away one went from home and from immediate kith and kin. Usually, however, the limits of one’s moral community coincided with some kind of boundary: a geographic barrier, a political border, and/or an ethnic frontier. Beyond lay the world of “strangers.”

Toward a universal morality

The first efforts to universalize morality—to create a single moral system that could apply to everyone—”arose simultaneously around 500 BCE in various parts of the world, from China in the Far East to Southern Italy in the West” (Assmann and Conrad, 2010, p. 121). These efforts were initially driven by the need to form alliances between different peoples:

Alliance – the formation of treaties – proved the most important instrument of internationalism. Forming an alliance required mutual recognition of the deities which served as patrons. The treaties which these empires formed with each other and with their vassals had to be sealed by solemn oaths invoking the gods of both parties. The list of these gods conventionally closes the treaty […]. They had to be equal in their function and rank. Intercultural theology became a concern of international law. (Assmann and Conrad, 2010, p. 125)

As ancient empires expanded and absorbed different peoples, this intercultural theology became useful for internal peace, notably with the Hellenistic empires that arose in the wake of Alexander the Great’s conquests. By affirming that different religions are interchangeable, it became possible to create a common civic culture for diverse peoples:

Hellenization had two faces. On the one hand, it referred to the diffusion of Greek language, ideas and customs all over the Ancient World; on the other hand, it appeared to be more of a construction of a ‘common culture’, suggesting a similar change in Greece as in the other cultures. Flavius Josephus did not speak of ‘Greek’ but of ‘common culture’, ho koinos bios, as the goal of Jewish assimilation or reform in the Hellenistic age. (Assmann and Conrad, 2010, p. 127)

One result would be the emergence of a universal religion. We like to associate this development with the teachings of Jesus, but a kind of proto-Christianity was already emerging near the end of the pre-Christian era. At that time, many Jews were adapting their belief in one God to the universal worldview of Hellenistic culture:

Thus, while biblical universalism was founded on a notion of the mission of Israel to save all of humanity and bring them to the true worship of the only God, Hellenistic notions of universalism involved the assumption that all the gods were really different names for one God. (Boyarin, 1994, chap. 3).

The two belief-systems merged among the increasingly Hellenized Jews of the eastern Mediterranean, thus setting the stage for Jesus and making it easier for his movement to succeed.

The Christian impulse

This new religion became a vehicle not only for moral universalism but also for belief in human equality. For if morality is universal, all humans must have the same capacity to follow its rules. In Christ, asserted Paul, there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female (Galatians 3:28).

While Christianity would steer people in the direction of universalism, there were limits to how far it could go. Theologians sometimes spoke of the need to set lower aims for average people and higher aims for saintly men and women. We see this realism in Augustine’s position on prostitution: “If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust” (De Ordine ii, 4). The same could be said for the Church’s position on war, slavery, prejudice, and other manifestations of human inequality. These were the realities of an imperfect world.

Such imperfections nonetheless became harder to accept over the following centuries. First, there was “mission creep.” Once the Church had established certain ideals, there was continual pressure to bring human behavior into line with them. Second, the geocenter of the Church was shifting away from the eastern Mediterranean, where the absolute morality of Christianity had been constrained by the relative morality of kinship. Farther north and west, beyond the Hajnal Line, kinship ties were weaker and people more receptive to universal principles. There was thus a “fruitful encounter” between the Christian faith and these northwest Europeans who were more willing to internalize such principles and apply them more thoroughly (Frost, 2014a).

Within this region, Catholicism would radicalize to the point of splitting away and becoming Protestantism. Here, too, Christian ideals would increasingly be taken to their logical conclusion.

The Abolitionist movement

Abolitionism began in the 17th century among English Quakers as a movement to abolish the slave trade. Over time, it grew more radical, seeking not only to free black slaves but also to extirpate racial and ethnic prejudice. Although “antiracism” did not yet exist as a word, its form and substance were already recognizable by the early 19th century. This was particularly so in the American northeast, where radical abolitionists denounced not only slavery but also fellow abolitionists who wanted to settle freed slaves in Africa. “In the 1830s, for the first time in American history an articulate and significant minority of Americans embraced racial equality as both a concept and a commitment” (Goodman, 1998, p. 1). This militant minority wanted more than simply an end to slavery:

Believing that racial prejudice underpinned slavery, abolitionists committed themselves not just to emancipation […] “Our prejudice against the blacks is founded in sheer pride; and it originates in the circumstance that people of their color, only, are universally allowed to be slaves,” Child argued. “We made slavery, and slavery makes the prejudice.” Color phobia, abolitionists contended, is irrational, wicked, preposterous, and unmanly. It is contrary to natural rights and Christian teaching, which recognizes no distinctions based on color. Race prejudice, Elizur Wright Jr. exploded, is “a narrow, bitter, selfish, swinish absurdity.” (Goodman, 1998, p.58)

Decline … and resurgence

That first wave of antiracism subsided in the late 19th century, partly because of the rise of Social Darwinism and partly because of disillusionment with the Civil War’s aftermath. Radical abolitionists had long set their sights on ending slavery and crushing the American South, yet achievement of both goals failed to bring the final goal of human equality any closer. In the face of growing self-doubt, they lacked the ideological stamina to keep the faith and push forward, come what may. The movement thus fell into decline, remaining dominant only in the American northeast.

This first wave did not die, however. It was resuscitated in the early 1930s and would give rise to a much more dynamic second wave. The rise of Nazism convinced many Jewish intellectuals, notably the anthropologist Franz Boas, of the need to fight “racism” in all its forms, this word being initially a synonym for Nazism (Frost, 2014b). The war on racism would outlive the defeat of Nazi Germany, as a result of continuing fears of anti-Semitism in the postwar era. Moreover, it had now taken on a life of its own, much like its 19th-century predecessor.

Today, some eighty years later, that war is still being fought. What began as a reaction to Nazism has become a permanent cultural revolution.


Assmann, A., and S. Conrad. (2010). Memory in a Global Age. Discourses, Practices and Trajectories, Palgrave Macmillan Memory Studies, New York

Boyarin, D. (1994). A Radical Jew. Paul and the Politics of Identity, Berkeley: University of California Press.;brand=ucpress

Frost, P. (2014a). A fruitful encounter, Evo and Proud, September 26

Frost, P. (2014b). From Nazi Germany to Middletown: ratcheting up the war on racism, Evo and Proud, July 19

Goodman, P. (1998). Of One Blood. Abolitionism and the Origins of Racial Equality, Berkeley: University of California Press.

(Republished from Evo and Proud by permission of author or representative)
Hide 49 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Sean says:

    Byzantine iconoclasm in the face of reverses, and the anticlericalism of France after defeats by Austria that led to the Revolution, can be seen as having both moral and strategic objectives.

    Jewish emancipation by Prussia and Catholic emancipation by Britain came when they found themselves up against the supposedly enlightened regime of Revolutionary France. The suppression of the slave trade (agreed twenty years before with America) began then too.

    ABIGAIL GREEN (Oxford) .”By comparing the different international response to the plights of Jewish communities in both countries and referring to the diplomatic forums at the Congresses of Berlin (1878) and Madrid (1880), she argued that one should place emphasis on “the logic of the international system” in order to understand the motives behind humanitarian interventions in the regions in question.”

    The British, worried about Russia, basically insisted that many of the freed European Christians be given back to the tender mercies of the Turks. Map The Congress of Berlin was intended to check Russia of course. Note that the aforementioned were interventions to prevent the Christians left freed from oppression and massacre by the Ottoman empire from oppressing Jews in their new state. Disraeli the PM and Jewish by descent, but Salisbury’s expertise was in foreign affairs and he approved.

    One could say there may be a moral current of opinion supporting humanitarian reforms in the Northern Intelligentsia, but that it usually finds expression when it suits the state or something resembling a side in a conflict, as with the Northern verses the South.

    The USA had been shocked by the British victories in the 1812 war, which saw the elite units of the British Army sent to Canada, resulting in them missing the battle of Waterloo (fear of encirclement by the papists of Quebec had been instrumental in the American War of Independence). Anyhow, abolition was crucial, but there were power politics setting the South against the North, the north feared interference from Europe above all else, and Abolitionist movement dovetailed the moral necessity with a power politics one.

    Above link:”Through the 1840s this division persisted among Transcendentalists and associated groups, but in the next decade it gradually ceased to be of great significance. After the signal year 1850, in which Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Law, all parties pulled away from internecine squabbling as the sectional crisis challenged all Americans to confront the immense problem of chattel slavery. Transcendentalists who had advanced social reforms that included efforts to increase rights for women, labor, and the indigent redirected their energies toward extinguishing the institution of slavery.”

    War or the threat of war causes movements in aid of national objectives. The Boer war resulted in concern about the the poor quality of recruits to the British army and led to social reforms aimed at increasing the health of the masses to aid national efficiency . The original government that the tzar was forced to cede power to was of patriotic Russians, and aimed at prosecuting the war with Germany more effectively. After WW1 in the US there were similar measures, some involving hereditary perspectives . I see the ‘ rise of Social Darwinism’ as being a movement obeying the same impulse as abolitionism. Some of the WASP elite being involved in it was par for the course.

    What I think needs to be pointed out is that it was the New York WASP elite (who by the way put obstacles in the way of Boas’s career because of his opposition to fighting Germany in WW1) that were the main force in getting the US into WW2. The Jews with continuing fears of anti-Semitism in the postwar era were left wing or liberal. The Soviet Union harped on its anti racist credentials to embarrass the US, which made them realise that the cold war required nullifying that PR vulnerability in the eyes of the world.

    It was plain old mass dissatisfaction with failure to succeed in a real war (Vietnam) that led to a cultural revolution which the traditional left-oriented Jewish critique of the US surfed. But the victories and conquests of Israel in the Six-Day War of 1967 attracted massive criticism from the third word and sixties inspired leftists in the West, which culminated in the UN resolution that Zionism was a form of racism, and made important elements of the politically active Jewish community disassociate themselves from the left and become neocons. And that I think, suggests that the real backbone of the anti racist movement in the US and the West generally reflects an enlarged group mindset that is hereditary.

  2. jtgw says:

    I’m still not convinced that northwest Europeans were particularly egalitarian or universalist before Christianity, and I note that for this claim you only cite your previous article “A Fruitful Encounter”, where you also failed to back it up. Where’s the evidence for this claim, or for the claim that pre-Protestant northwest Europeans were significantly more universalist or egalitarian than southwestern or eastern Christians of the same period?

    • Replies: @Smiddy
  3. D3Jones says:

    The opposition of Boas et al grew from the attempt of the founding Americans to defend their homeland from the transformational crush of mass migration from southern and eastern Europe.

  4. Cahokia says: has become a disappointment.

    It seemed at first it would be a repository of political commentary that included, among other neglected opinions, white nationalism. But as time goes on, the site seems to be becoming closer to an exclusively white nationalist blog.

    Ok – but we already had many of those to begin with.

    Although, I will say – despite the disappointments of this site, it still dwarfs the american conservative. That magazine since Unz’s departure has been a pathetic joke.

    • Replies: @Jtgw
    , @reiner Tor
  5. Lloyd E says:

    Not all American slaves were black. So the kinship issue in ending slavery was relevant:

  6. Jtgw says:

    That seems unfair. Have you checked the latest post by Mike Whitney? That’s pretty leftist.

  7. @Cahokia

    Peter Frost is no white nationalist. Unfortunately, facts do have a well-known racist bias, but that will still not make him a white nationalist.

    Moreover, being “racist” (I’d rather say factist in this case) doesn’t mean one must necessarily be on the right. For example my ideal society looks pretty much like Switzerland, Norway or Sweden before mass immigration, i.e. a democratic country with an almost exclusively white demographic, relatively high living standards and an egalitarian ethos, and spending a lot of money on foreign aid to places like Africa, as well as sending volunteers there to help the locals. The only difference that I’d like to see is for the school curriculum to contain all the well-known facts about ethnic differences (e.g. differences in IQ, testosterone and hence aggression levels, etc.), so that certain facts could not be suppressed in the service of the destruction of the society. (Nobody can believe Sweden will stay social democratic once the Lebanese and Kurds and Somalis become the majority. So pro-immigration Swedish Social Democrats are in fact working to destroy social democracy in Sweden.)

  8. Sean says:

    jtgw, you can’t get away from the fact that certain aspects of Christianity came to the fore among elite North West Europeans, and the tendency is now beyond recognising others’ rights, it is masochistic.

    The climate change movement is the latest symptom, Al Gore said climate change sceptics are going to be seen in the light as racists. That’s whites he is talking about.

    • Replies: @jtgw
  9. Peter Frost says: • Website


    There were other issues that divided the South from the North, like tariffs, but the slavery issue was certainly the main one. Could the Civil War have been averted? It could have been if the U.S. had been a country like Brazil, where even most of the whites were politically disfranchised. That’s why slavery ended so peacefully in that country. In the U.S., the end of slavery had a much wider range of consequences. The issue was not so much emancipation as social and political equality. That was the sticking point.

    “I’m still not convinced that northwest Europeans were particularly egalitarian or universalist before Christianity, and I note that for this claim you only cite your previous article “A Fruitful Encounter”, where you also failed to back it up.”


    Perhaps because I never made that claim? I’m simply saying that kinship ties were weaker north and west of the Hajnal Line. This pattern (called the Western European Marriage Pattern) is well documented as far back as the 12th century, and we have fragmentary evidence going back to the earliest historical records.

    Because kinship was relatively less important, northwest Europeans had to rely on other means to regulate social behavior and enforce social rules. I’ve argued that these means include a greater capacity for empathy and guilt, which in turn implies a greater willingness to comply with social rules and to punish oneself if one breaks a social rule (even if no one else has witnessed the wrongdoing).

    Social rules aren’t hardwired. We learn them. Yes, they tend towards absolutism and universalism because the ability to know and memorize a rule depends on its simplicity, but that tendency isn’t inevitable. A simple rule could involve differential treatment of different people.

    So please don’t misunderstand me. There are good historical reasons why we adopted universalism and egalitarianism, but that kind of value system is not hardwired. We could conceivably have a very different value system.

    D Jones,

    Do you have evidence to back up your statement? The evidence I’ve seen is that the rise of Nazism caused Franz Boas to change his views on race.


    I’m not a white nationalist and neither is Steve Sailer. So who else do you have in mind? Most of the other bloggers seem to write about non-HBD issues.

    Lloyd E,

    Yes, the racial basis of slavery would have eventually disappeared. This was what happened in Brazil. Successive generations of “blacks” became less and less black because the slave masters were having children by black slave women.

    Or maybe not. Mulatto offspring accounted for only 1 out of every 100 births on Southern plantations (see Time on the Cross, 1974, Fogel & Engerman). Moreover, since the American South was farther from Africa than Brazil, there was greater effort to encourage black slaves to form families and have children of their own. This was usually not the case in Brazil. Once the slave trade ended, its black population plummeted because the rate of natural increase was so low.

  10. jtgw says:

    But PF’s evidence that those aspects came to the fore so early is pretty poor. E.g. he cites penitential literature from the Anglo-Saxon period to show that Western Christians were already obsessed with guilt by that period. He neglects to mention, possibly out of ignorance, that the Eastern Orthodox also have a highly developed penitential literature of the same kind. See e.g. Eva Levin’s Sex and Society in the world of the Orthodox Slavs. Now perhaps he has other evidence that Anglo-Saxon Christians had more of a guilt culture than medieval Slavs, but he hasn’t provided it.

  11. Peter Frost says: • Website


    There’s nothing speculative in saying that Northwest Europeans have relied more on guilt than on shame to enforce correct behavior, whereas the reverse becomes true as one goes farther east and south. Most human cultures are, in fact, shame cultures. This is textbook anthropology.

    But how far back in time do these guilt cultures go? That seems to be your question. I suspect their origins go back to prehistory, but my evidence is admittedly inferential. Since these guilt cultures coincide geographically with the Western European Marriage Pattern, they are probably as old as the WEMP, and the evidence for the WEMP goes back at least to the 12th century and probably back to antiquity, if not farther.

    Yes, I am familiar with Eastern Orthodoxy, but its penitential tradition was very different. The emphasis was not on guilt but rather on purification. We are talking here about asceticism and the lifestyle of holy men. As with mainstream Catholic tradition, “holiness” was a goal for a minority of devout Christians. In the Anglo-Saxon penitential tradition, we are looking at a broader-based, popular movement that in many ways foreshadowed Protestantism.

  12. Art says:

    In the battle of Christian idealism vs. genetic tribalism – the gonaders always show themselves to be little people. Only a small mind claims superiorly because of who his parents are.

    Western Christian culture is intellectual in nature. God gave us brains – a culture of accumulated knowledge is superior to tribalism.

    Who has the temerity to say that an idealistic intellectual culture is in anyway inferior to a gonad driven culture.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  13. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Christian idealism is based on gonads too. If you do or believe the right things, you’re supposed to be able to keep your gonads for eternity.

    How many Christian idealists would remain so if they discovered for a fact that no such eternity awaited them?

    • Replies: @Robinson
    , @Art
  14. Robinson says:

    Take away the furnace and the pitchfork and the Old Goat then see if faith persists amongst the rabble. How many of us are more concerned with avoiding hell than getting to the amusement park in the sky?

  15. Jason says:

    But the “war on racism” seems to only have one target: Whites.

    Nobody is demanding Japan be anything other than 99% Japanese.
    Black Africa is staying Black.

    But any group of Whites -whether a school, a town, a sport or a country – that intends to stay White becomes a target to be chased down and punished.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @ben tillman
  16. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    What about the Amish or Jews?

  17. Art says:

    Maintaining one’s gonads predates Christianity and of course is still with each of us, that never goes away.

    It is the explicit intellectual acknowledgement of empathy for those who are different from us, that makes Christianity unique and of great value to humanity. Being empathic to others, makes one a bigger and better person then those individuals who find their personal self worth in the linage of their parents.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  18. Bobbala says:

    Luke 10:29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
    Luke 10:30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
    Luke 10:31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
    Luke 10:32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
    Luke 10:33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
    Luke 10:34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
    Luke 10:35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
    Luke 10:36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
    Luke 10:37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

    • Replies: @Robinson
  19. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I’m still not convinced that northwest Europeans were particularly egalitarian or universalist before Christianity, and I note that for this claim you only cite your previous article “A Fruitful Encounter”, where you also failed to back it up. Where’s the evidence for this claim, or for the claim that pre-Protestant northwest Europeans were significantly more universalist or egalitarian than southwestern or eastern Christians of the same period?

    Didn’t Thomas Aquinas devote part of his Summa Theologica to describing the outcome of what basically amounted to a massive eugenics program carried out by the Church in the form of the ban on cousin marriages?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  20. Robinson says:

    Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
    a man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
    a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
    a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.
    Matt. 10:34-39

  21. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It’s probably the other way around. Northwest European barbarians were shaped by the Mediterranean-originating church and via some mechanism that hasn’t been yet explained properly became more ‘universalistic’ than their southern neighbors. It probably even postdates all that. Medieval Europeans seem pretty clannish to me, after all.

    Northern barbarians have also the Greco-Roman-influenced Church to thank for socially-imposted monogamy and all sorts of social goods but recent trends show that most of them didn’t really manage to adapt well to it after all. Maybe we’ll see them committing massive genocides against the ‘Other’ again, soon. Lol!

  22. Sean says:

    There are supposed to be Catholic countries ( including parts of Italy forsooth) where everyone was marrying their cousin into modern times. Kinship just seems to have been stronger around the Med. Those who assert it was Protestants who ended consanguinous marriage should ponder that the most succesful country north west of the Hajnal Line is probably Austria, which is certainly not a thoroughgoing Protestant state.

    By 1792 the Btitish abolitionists (then far stronger than the US ones) had managed to get a bill passed by Parlament that committed Britain to ending the slave trade. Significantly there was an agreement with America to that effect. Britain abolished the slave trade in it’s conquered territories in 1805, and throughout the Briitish empire in 1807. America abolished the Slave Trade in 1807 too, which seems like a move to prevent Britain (the naval superpower) from interfering with America. A major cause of the 1812 war was Britain was taking sailors off American ships as manpower for the British Navy. I think the Abolitionist movement in the North was partly caused by the threat of foreign interference .

    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
  23. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It had the outcome of making Christians more eusocial. Whether or not that was “eugenic” is more of a subjective judgment.

  24. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The fear of death and the instinct for self-preservation certainly predates Christianity. But the pre-Christian pagan religions were much more this worldly and did not make the sort of promises of eternal life that Christianity and similarly successful mass religions like Islam do.

    How many Christians would fervently adhere to its prescriptions if they knew for a fact that no eternity awaited them?

    Why is eusociality of great value?

    And how valuable is it if depends ultimately on the fear of death and the instinct for self-preservation?

  25. Sean says:

    [Compared to Brazil] “In the U.S., the end of slavery had a much wider range of consequences. The issue was not so much emancipation as social and political equality. That was the sticking point.”

    Brazil didn’t really have to worry about external threats and I would note that it was the last country in the Americas to abolish slavery, by which time ‘Rio represented the largest urban concentration of slaves since the end of the Roman empire, more than 40% of the population’.

    Slavery in Russia was abandoned by the tsar in the aftermath of the Crimean war, because under serfdom only 10% of the population were available for service in the army; it was a luxury that benefited the ruling classes but not the state. The South was like that, it had a ruling class that had played a disproportionate role in the US since independence, but it was military inefficient and couldn’t even get the freemen to fight in Appalachia. When it seemed that the Southern system would expand, creating a bloated but vulnerable continental slave state , denounced by the civilised world and thus inviting attack, the North developed an ideology that required the Southern system’s destruction. The same ideology is still prevalent: ‘ diversity is our strength’. Strength is for fighting. Racial integration had much do do with the cold war .

    On the other hand, the Quakers do seem to have represented a pure strain of universalism. Quakers were the only people who made a fuss about famine of 1943 in the Bengal under a British administration that continued export of grain.

  26. Jefferson says:

    “Nobody is demanding Japan be anything other than 99% Japanese.”

    Actually there are left wing Japanese people who want to commit racial suicide of their own people by encouraging more immigration from 3rd world world countries because they believe the Japanese are not breeding enough children in order to maintain population growth.

    But lucky for the Japanese people, such left left wing Japs who have no racial pride and want to sell out their own people down the drain are in the minority. The majority of Japan’s elites are race realists who know that importing millions of Somalis and Pakistanis for example into their country means that every category of crime from rape to homicide to home burglary to domestic terrorist attacks will go way up. And they do not want that because Japan prides itself as being one of the safest countries in the world to live in.

    You are way safer walking the streets of Tokyo at 12am than you are walking the streets of Mexico City at 12pm, lol.

    • Replies: @Sean
  27. Sean says:

    North Korea could claim low crime. Japan still needs to remain Japanese because it needs to remain an advanced manufacturing country and immigrants don’t make quality workers. America doesn’t seem too bothered about remaining in manufacturing, probably because it causes working class organisation and hence gives the elite less freedom to run the country as they want.

  28. Dutch Boy says:

    The late civil war historian David Donald studied the 19th century abolitionist movement and discovered that they were overwhelmingly scions of the former colonial agricultural elite then being displaced by the new industrial elite. His thesis was that much of their motivation was resentment and disappointment at their displacement as the heads of society by the new industrial titans, many of whom made their fortunes by cotton milling and the cotton trade in general. Opposition to slavery and the plantation system that fueled the textile industry was a natural for them. Their empathy for the plight of the slaves did not extend to the exploited (white) industrial workers who manned the mills and whom they considered part of the problem. They shared this attitude in common with their British abolitionist contemporaries who were also indifferent to the exploited industrial working class of Britain.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  29. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Dutch Boy

    Yes, the old Boston elite had made their fortunes as merchants trading with China, before American industrialization which challenged their social status:

  30. Mark Green says: • Website

    ‘Anti-racism’ may have emerged with the objective of ending slavery, but its become a politicized movement now targeting whites. The natural kinship that’s been found among European-derived people in America for centuries has been declared suspect–if not immoral. At the same time, other racial groups are exempted from this modern ‘anti-racist’ dictate. This puts white Americans at a cultural and political disadvantage. Today, whites can legitimately organize around ideology or political party only; ‘minorities’ however have the freedom to advocate along race, ethnicity or sexual identity. This pernicious double standard has not taken root by accident.

    As for ‘European-American’ racism, no dominant people in history have voluntarily surrendered their majority status (and racial interests) as much as whites have over the past generation. Organized, anti-(white)racists have played an over-sized role in this transformation.

    In addition, massive, illegal and unwanted Third World immigration has been permitted to unfold throughout America and Western Europe. Shame, stigma and propaganda are the supporting tools for the movement that is destroying the racial commonality of Europe and white America. It is an onslaught orchestrated by global elites who show a malicious disregard for white interests. The racial and cultural transformation now underway in the West is both unprecedented and irreversible.

    Today’s anti-racist movement also flies under the banner of being ‘antifascist’. These terms are a clue to its political origins and as well as the identity (and objective) of these antifascist crusaders. They may look white but do not necessarily identify as such.

    As for the scale and scourge of racism worldwide, the problem (if there is such a thing) actually lies elsewhere.

    Consider, for instance, the racism that is endemic to most of India. Their racist system is called ‘caste’. And while India ranks among the most racist countries on Earth, there’s a lot of competition for that title.

    Consider: after 150 years, the Chinese still have ‘Chinatowns’ scattered all over the US. These are self-segregated communities. The Chinese are not interested in importing Africans or non-Chinese into their neighborhoods or back in their native country. The Chinese are a typically privileged American ‘minority’. Ditto with the Japanese. Indeed, Japan is happily homogeneous and they intend to keep it that way. Please visit Japantown the next time you’re in San Francisco. Has any US government agency has ever bused black children into either Japantown or any American Chinatown? These double standards are a modern American phenomena.

    Now we even have a spanking new ‘Koreatown’ emerging in LA. Just look for the signs on Hwy 101 as you pass through LA. Segregation and ethnocentrism are apparently a good thing as long as whites don’t follow suit.

    Hispanics, too, are allowed to advance their ethnic prerogatives by declaring ethic-based communities and voting along ethnic lines. I lived in San Francisco’s ‘Hispanic’ Mission District for years. Unbeknownst to most residents however, the Mission was originally a community full of Irish and Italians. They built the Mission district but fled after WWII with the influx of Mexicans. Today, the Mission has become something of a Third World barrio except in areas where young, white entrepreneurs have set up shop. The economic contrasts are striking there. Are we allowed to take notice?

    And of course the Jews remain deeply ethnocentric (as always) in modern America. Today, many Jewish leaders decry Jewish ‘out-marriage’ as a akin to a form of genocide. Is this not an expression of racism?

    Meanwhile, in Israel, ethnic cleansing of the native Gentiles continues to to gather steam. Incredibly, secular, multi-racial America contributes billions to Israel every year in order that the Jews there can maintain their separate State. Jewishness clearly functions today a racial identity. Religion is a footnote. An atheistic Jews is a Jewish as any rabbi, provided his/her mother was Jewish.

    Yet the anti-racist and ‘antifascist’ movements generally look the the other way when it comes to these privileged minorities. These double standards must be overturned.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Numinous
  31. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Mark Green

    Actually major Chinatowns on the East Coast are being gentrified by wealthier white residents. The gentrification involves wealthy real estate developers who force out long time tenants often through unscrupulous or even illegal means. The developers usually have support of the municipal governments.

  32. Luke Lea says:

    “The first efforts to universalize morality—to create a single moral system that could apply to everyone—”arose simultaneously around 500 BCE in various parts of the world, from China in the Far East to Southern Italy in the West” (Assmann and Conrad, 2010, p. 121). These efforts were initially driven by the need to form alliances between different peoples:”

    In my humble opinion the first efforts to universalize morality probably occurred sometime in the second Millenium BCE, probably at the end of the Bronze Age, in the Mesopotamian cultural zone. This is when a small band of semi-nomadic trading/herding people sought to survive in the midst of a disintegrating civilization.

    Being “few in number” they depended upon the goodwill of their more powerful neighbors among whom “they lived, and moved, and had their being.” In short, their reputation for honesty and fair dealing were the keys to their survival. Thus they put forward the concept of a “Most High God” who judges every man with according to his deeds by a single standard of equity, and whose writ runs to the ends of the earth.

    You can read about it in detail in an essay I wrote many years ago, “The Torah and the West Bank” which you can find on the web.

    [Incidentally, the notion that such a key innovation arose simultaneously in different parts of the world seems improbable on its face.]

  33. Jefferson says:

    “North Korea could claim low crime.”

    Are you saying Japan is lying about it’s low crime statistics ?

  34. Numinous says:
    @Mark Green

    All examples you cite are of people trying to protect cultures, not particular shades of skin color. Though I agree with you that what applies to goose should also apply to the gander. Leftist ideologies ascribe automatic virtue to minorities, and assume that majorities can withstand any amount of cultural stress (hence deserve no special protection.)

  35. “It is the explicit intellectual acknowledgement of empathy for those who are different from us, that makes Christianity unique and of great value to humanity. Being empathic to others, makes one a bigger and better person then those individuals who find their personal self worth in the linage of their parents.”


    This raises the free rider problem. How do we deal with people who benefit from empathy but do not reciprocate? In the past, such individuals were judged to be morally worthless and expelled from the moral community (through ostracism or physical expulsion). Are you recommending such an approach today?

    It’s important, here, to distinguish between Christian idealism (which was never workable) and the more pragmatic Christianity that had developed by the Middle Ages. Which kind do you believe in?

    Dutch boy,

    In Britain, abolitionists tended to be members of the rising industrial and/or merchant class. William Wilberforce came from a wealthy merchant family. Josiah Wedgewood was a prominent industrialist. In general, abolitionists were liberals (whigs) and whigs were members of the rising middle class.


    The ancient Hebrews were not moral universalists. They defined their morality in ethnic terms. This changed during the Hellenistic period, and Christianity grew out of this increasingly Hellenized and universalistic Judaism.

    “All examples you cite are of people trying to protect cultures, not particular shades of skin color.”


    Historically, ethnic groups have defined themselves on the basis of cultural criteria, rather than genetic criteria. This is because the ethnic “Other” was usually a neighboring group that overlapped genetically with one’s own group to a large extent. For Europeans, this situation changed as they spread out of Europe and into the Americas, Africa, and Asia. Genetic traits, like skin color, assumed more importance.

    In the current context, it is to be expected that Europeans will define themselves primarily in genetic terms. Are the Welsh displacing the English? Are the Finns displacing the Swedes?

    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
    , @Sean
  36. Dutch Boy says:
    @Peter Frost

    Donald studied the American abolitionist movement, not the British. I thought it was significant that both abolitionist movements were indifferent to the exploitation of the white working class, a situation not unlike today when “anti-racists” are, at a minimum, indifferent to white working class interests (and usually downright hostile).

  37. Hacienda says:

    Fine points, Peter. But I have a stinking feeling that more has changed in the way whites think about race and universal morality in the last 200 years than all of white history before that, and more in the last 50 years than the 150 before, and more in the last 10 than the 40 before. And it’s still evolving quickly.

    Don’t make me prove it. I’m no scholar!

  38. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    People need to take Richard Dawkins’ Extended Phenotype paradigm seriously.

    Idiocy seems to prevail in the area of human eusociality — and not just among the liberal elites, mind you. Even the race “realists” and “HBD” crowd seem unable to fathom the possibility that eusociality is, as Nowak, et al have mathematically argued with due rigor, primarily extended phenotypic:

    If you follow that lead, a lot of such “idiocy” makes a lot more sense.

  39. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Let me offer a simple argument for why race “realists” are being unrealistic in their ignorance of extended phenotypic “altruism” of “whites” or “Northwest Europeans” toward “non-whites”:

    Even mainstream figures like Carl Zimmer are admitting that parasitic castration is a major feature of the natural world — albeit limited to interspecies extended phenotypics.

    I posit that extended phenotypic parasitic castration might be intraspecific and point to interethnic “absurdities” wherein vast populations of one ethnicity sacrifice their reproductive potential for vast populations of other ethnicities.

    Is such intraspecific parasitic castration via extended phenotypics absurd? Why is it absurd? Is it absurd because members of the same species are too closely related to each other to support the evolution of such virtulent parasitism?

    If that is the case, then it is even more absurd for Nowak, et al to posit that a mother parasitically castrates her offspring for her own benefit — and that is exactly what Nowak, et al posit.

    Is it absurd because members of other ethnicities don’t get into a position where they can act as does the eusocial mother in parasitically castrating her brood?

    Perhaps so if the species weren’t so dependent on co-evolved memes for reproductive viability — but if a foreign ethny can interpose itself memetically between generations of a host ethny, is it really absurd to posit that an ethny might evolve the capacity to parasitically castrate host ethnies by specializing in the takeover of memetic programming of the impressionable via, say, religion (Jews don’t have anything to do with Judeo-Christianity do they?), media (Jews don’t have anything to do with the media do they?) or academia (Jews don’t have any substantial influence on academia do they?).

    Perhaps it is absurd of me to argue this — not because it isn’t glaringly obviously the correct working hypothesis to adopt — but because the vast majority are already so abjectly dominated by virulence that there is little hope they can read and comprehend the glaringly obvious.

  40. Luke Lea says:

    Peter Frost – The ancient Hebrews were not moral universalists. They defined their morality in ethnic terms”

    That is true, more or less, once Moses comes on the scene, but not in the first book of the Pentateuch. So unless you are prepared to argue that Exodus was written before Genesis, your point does not stand. There is a constant struggle in Judaism since near the beginning between the “universalist” God of Abraham and the “tribal” God of Moses. The book of Exodus claims they are one and the same but clearly they are not — as witness the later prophets. The tension between the universal and the tribal concept of God is a constant theme in Jewish history right on up until the present day, which is what makes it so interesting. See my “The Torah and the West Bank” for details and documentation if you would like to learn more.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  41. Sean says:

    “This raises the free rider problem. How do we deal with people who benefit from empathy but do not reciprocate? In the past, such individuals were judged to be morally worthless and expelled from the moral community (through ostracism or physical expulsion). Are you recommending such an approach today?”

    I think the key factor for deciphering free rider behaviour is the level of selection that the action is at. Where the pay-off in terms of survival against others of the same level is the level where the battle is being waged. Individual / immediate family survival would be the most easily visible. At the level of self and/or immediate family, few people seem to be committed to follow though on veil of ignorance thinking beyond what is required for acceptence in their society. For instance, who chooses to move their family into a tough minority area in order to improve the area for the minority families?; not even Quakers did that. So at the basic level of offspring even Quakers are to some extent free riders on their own nominal community standards.

    The NW European tendency exemplified by Quaker moral behaviour is strongly dependent on social approbation, they’re like the Jains that DS Wilson talks about. So at the symbolic community level (Quakers were converts to a large extent) the Quakers were not free riders and hence their community was successful. The symbolic community level is not often missed, someone is pointed out to be Sunni or Shia, neocon or paleocon, extraction industry or environmentalist, if they sell out to further their or their family’s aggrandizement they are free riding by operating at a lower level.

    The level I think is usually missed is the state level, the state level is the one where the state is trying to survive, it doesn’t require the continuation of genetic or symbolic communities. The state sees the attempt to preserve genetic or symbolic communities as at best a distraction and at worst free riding. Fact is, we are in a world of states.

    Science has no more privilege that religion when it comes to assertions which challenge the settled assumptions in a modern state. Once it becomes clear that they can’t be convinced by arguments, dissident scientists (hereditarians, climate change deniers) become no different to religious fanatics.

    Hobbs’s Leviathan:- “because the purpose of the commonwealth is peace, and the sovereign has the right to do whatever he thinks necessary for the preserving of peace and security and prevention of discord. Therefore, the sovereign may judge what opinions and doctrines are averse, who shall be allowed to speak to multitudes, and who shall examine the doctrines of all books before they are published.”

  42. syonredux says:
    @Luke Lea

    That is true, more or less, once Moses comes on the scene,

    Moses did not exist; neither did Abraham

    but not in the first book of the Pentateuch. So unless you are prepared to argue that Exodus was written before Genesis, your point does not stand.

    Both Exodus and Genesis were compiled out of the same sources (the J text, the E text, the P text, etc) at roughly the same time. Neither text has chronological priority.

    • Replies: @Luke Lea
  43. Luke Lea says:

    Yeah, yeah, I know all about the documentary hypothesis. Don’t deny it either. But read Genesis and then read Exodus and tell me they are from the same period. The whole style of them is completely different. Anyway, whether Moses and Abraham were real or not, there is a decided difference between the two visions associated with their names, one in Genesis the other in Exocus. See my The Torah and the West Bank for a serious argument on the case.

  44. syonredux says:

    Yeah, yeah, I know all about the documentary hypothesis. Don’t deny it either. But read Genesis and then read Exodus and tell me they are from the same period. The whole style of them is completely different.

    I’ve read them; the “style” seems quite similar to me.

    Anyway, whether Moses and Abraham were real or not,

    They weren’t. They are mythological characters.

    there is a decided difference between the two visions associated with their names, one in Genesis the other in Exocus. See my The Torah and the West Bank for a serious argument on the case.

    I’m sorry, but I didn’t find it very convincing.

  45. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    You muslims are renown for your lack of humanity,beheading,murdering,raping, killing had been your muslim arts and crafts for ages and since days immemorial.Nation of pedofiles,murderers,rapists, killers .You muslims are scoring great , remarkable success in slaughtering of your own brethren.In Syria you succeeded in murdering, raping, killing of nearly 200.000 people your own muslim brethren. You are a mentally sick nation of lunatics.The world is a safer, much safer place if there is no islam which is a message of satan,of blood, of death.Death, death and much more death.As I already said you are a mentally sick nation of lunatics.

  46. Smiddy says:

    Northern and Western Europeans have more hunter-gatherer ancestry (being as things don’t grow as well in cold climates). Hunter gatherer societies have a strong tendency toward egalitarianism, relative to agriculturally based societies, which naturally consolidate wealth to a handful of elites.

    Not to be harsh, but most of this is anthropology 101. Nothing I just wrote is debatable. Even from an evolutionary perspective, organisms (not just people) with more abundant resources (namely, people who live in the tropics) will make less efficient use of them than those with limited resources (or those who live in harsher, northern climates). There is a ton of literature on this stuff.

  47. @Jason

    But the “war on racism” seems to only have one target: Whites.

    That’s right, and that’s why White tendencies toward non-kin-based cooperation (which some call “universalism”) can explain only so much. This tendency had both potential benefits and potential costs and could plausibly have evolved. We can call it a “characteristic”.

    A full inversion of the societal immune system, in which, the immune system attacks self for the benefit of non-self has no evolutionary benefits. It could not have evolved. This inversion is properly characterized as a “disease”.

  48. Notice that the figure in the antislavery pamphlet illustrated in this article is kneeling. This pose, often captioned “Am I Not A Man And A Brother” was iconic in the early English anti-slavery movement, appearing on Wedgwood pottery and bronze tokens. There is nothing threatening about kneeling. Kneeling is generally a sign of respect. Colin Kaepernick famously invested kneeling with a somber meaning, using this simple stance as a powerful reminder of how far we still have to go to realize the high ideal of equal protection under the law. It is unfortunate that some misread the meaning of “taking the knee” and failed to see the respect, concern, and even vulnerability inherent in the gesture.

    British opposition to the slave trade was more idealistic than the movement on this side of the Atlantic. Historians generally sanitize the account of American opposition to slavery, part of the “feel good” fictionalizing of our past, making it appear to conform to current notions of morality. Ending slavery here had little to do with concern for the human rights of the slaves. It was based foremost in fear of “servile insurrection” and secondly on the morally corrosive effect of the institution on whites. In the wake of the Nat Turner murders the Virginia legislature was flooded with petitions to end slavery and to expel all blacks from the commonwealth, and nearly voted to do so; and as for the latter objection, even the ardent secessionist Mary Chestnut confided to her famous diary her disgust at having to receive her husband in their bedroom “reeking of the wench” he kept in the slave quarters for his own private entertainment. It was only the radical Abolitionist faction that proposed blacks and white could or should live together on equal terms, and they were so universally hated that the leading spokesman Garrison, for just one example, narrowly avoided lynching on Boston Common.

    Southerners felt they had solved capitalism’s most vexing problem by means of their peculiar institution. Instead of labor and capital being eternally at odds, as that fellow Marx noticed, their labor force was their capital. Many, including Virginia’s Fitzhugh, proposed that northern industrialists take up the system as well for those who labored in the “dark Satanic mills” of the Industrial Age. Women, children, men, laboring fourteen hours a day six days a week in dangerous, deadening factories for barely enough wages to keep them alive- how could these, Southrons claimed, compare to their happy darkies singing in the fields? Masters cared for their human property as they did any income-producing asset, while if mill workers sickened or were killed, it was no loss to the owner, who had no incentive to protect them – there was always another boatload arriving from Ireland. They argued the system perfectly fit the ignorant and dangerous mass of uncouth immigrants, who without adequate controls on them, were turning America’s once great cities into sewers of crime and corruption.

    Ironically in nineteenth century America, slaves were seen as symbols of a kind of freedom that was denied to whites in the stifling social conventions of the day, the freedom to sing, to dance, to make love, to be passionately alive without the endless unnatural prohibitions that were the lot of proper, upright Christians. The great popularity of minstrel shows reflected this idea, that sounds so bizarre to modern ears.

    It’s possible that if the southern states had chosen to remain in the union and assert their rights within the framework of democracy, they might have prolonged the institution for another generation or longer, received payment for the loss of their human capital assets, repatriated the unfortunates to Africa, and spared us the unending nightmare of racial animosity and the heritage of hate left by the terrible fratricidal war they chose to initiate. Even with Lincoln’s election they still controlled Congress and the Supreme Court, but the barons of the Old South hated popular democracy right from the start and refused to participate in a government they did not wholly dominate. By striking first at Sumter, they lost the initiative to the Abolitionist radicals, who skillfully harnessed the nation’s rage to force their unpopular agenda on the American people.

Current Commenter

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 have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Peter Frost Comments via RSS