It’s probably a good thing for you, Jared, that you
didn’t beat the hell out of the mugger. Nowadays, the
police will charge you with felonious assault for doing
something like that. Among the long, long list of things
the modern state seeks to criminalize, defense of self
and others against common crime is one of them.

What is it about primordialism that gets us in so much of a quandary? Naturwüchsigkeit took us to dark places once, and yet seems to be the natural course of things. Jared’s proof!

I remember my days in 2005 as a mall cop. I had
what I coined at the time, a hero complex. My
coworkers didn’t get it, but I longed for the
time when someone gets attacked in the parking lot,
and I would come and save her.

Sinclair Lewis called it, unrighteous anger in a
righteous cause.

You know what? I think you’re a very honest guy for telling this story this way.

Resentment is a cumulative thing.  Finding a certifiable bad guy upon whom to vent it is an art form today.  You found one.  But, structurally, it is still scapegoating, as you see by a certain set of ambiguous feelings after the event. 

The moral outrage and feeling of righteousness masks awareness of my own sinfulness, and, as you say, awakens the “primitive behavior.” Multiplied by street rabble, this becomes what Rene Girard calls, “the primitive Sacred,” which, if you happen to be the designated victim, can expel or execute its sense of “righteousness” and go home feeling wonderful: we got the evil one, etc.

Your sense of ambituity is the effect of the Gospel at work in western history, giving us moral qualms about victimization that is unknown, or lesser so, in areas of the world less affected by the Gospel.  That is good and that is not so good.

The West has bent over backward now in victim studies, with everyone playing that card.  What we have forgotten is the undeniable need for what the Church calls “legitimate defense” and, I’d add CHIVALRY in days in which it will be more and more needed.

So, while it is absolutely right to chase the bad guy, we must do so with a certain sadness that we must as we do.  If we do so with that primitive urge of self righteousness, we mask our own sinfulness with the momentary feeling—and that is as wrong as mob scapegoating.  Best

There is an excellent story by Andre Dubus along these lines. It explores the guilt you experience when you fail to rise to the occasion and stop a criminal act. I think it’s called “the Curse.”

Jame Q. Wilson, perhaps our best criminologist, has demonstrated that the 1950s had the lowest crime rate in American history.  The statistics were low for all classes and ethnic groups.  I myself remember in my childhood how many householders wouldn’t lock their front doors, and how it was safe for a man to walk in every quarter of city.  Since the early 60s, the crime rate soared to its highest rate in American history.  Wilson went on to name the cause, a moral cause: A culture focused on self and self-satisfaction instead of living for others will have high crime.  True, he said, impoverishment (and hyper-affluence) plays a role, but only when a social order sings “songs of myself”.  Thus has American society changed

Real Conservatives (Burke of the Reflections) have something to add to this doubtless correct moral argument.  Consider these other causes:

1. Déracinément”:  “uprootedness” and anomie.  Real Conservatives know that people are held together—also morally—by history, habit, custom, tradition, class, ceremony and religion – reinforced by a sense of beholden-ness.  Take these away, and the upper classes become decadent, the lower classes violent, and everyone simian. Liberal (in the European sense)and Social Democratic Gesellschaft might better protect individual rights; conservative Gemeinschaft produce deeper, broader, stabler more interesting, and less criminal personalities.  (Note that by using déracinément, I am not supporting necessarily Maurice Barrès’ version of nationalism.  In fact, it could be argued that he was a regionalist.)

2. Revenge, the licence a victim assumes. “I’ve been treated badly, so I may treat others badly”: Cultural Marxism in a nutshell.  At best, this is to argue badly.

3. The triumph in popular culture and high culture of the anti-bourgeois tradition. Granted, the bourgeois wasn’t heroic.  But he didn’t go down the street ripping jewelry off others and siring children out of marriage.  Neither did Gregor Samsa.  We Real Conservatives need to point out to the bourgeois that his own denigration of the noble tradition did not improve matters.  Don Giovanni is more myth than fact.  Burke pointed this out.  The chivalric class, as one writebacker has pointed out, knew that a weapon should be given only to a gentleman, or that those who have weapons should be under the command of a gentleman.  Social classes in a good social order are the reservoir of certain virtues which all may drink from.

4. Richard Sennett’s Fall of Public Man.  In the big cities of the 18th Century, it was possible to go up to strangers of all social classes and both sexes, and talk to them without any sense of embarrassment .  Another fruit of the worst disaster in Western history, the French Revolution, was our estrangement from contact with strangers, and “re-tribalization”: “I’m decent to members of my tribe, and treat other tribes as trash”: The “Far-Right” in a nutshell.

5. One cause of high crime since the 60s is one Roger Scruton knows well:  the celebration of the brutal in art, especially in architecture. Assault people in their eye and ear, I would argue, and they will because assaulters themselves.  Social scholars often overlook the aesthetic element.  (Scruton’s The Aesthetics of Architecture may be the best Real Conservative book written in our time.)

6.  The degradation of the feminine: From Beatrice and Elizabeth Bennett to the Happy Hooker and mud wrestling.

7. Secularization, and not just de-Christianization.  Folk with Muslim, Shinto, Confucian, Hindu, Buddhist ethics also have less crime.  In Italy, I am told, the Japanese are the most popular targets of pickpockets; the Japanese can’t imagine why someone would wish to rob someone and thus disgrace his family and ancestors.

All these things, or the lack of them, might help determine whether we check the bad, or let it loose.

There’s also something primal about watching the battle scenes in movies like Braveheart, Lord of the Rings, etc. It stirs something in most men.

Well acted out and well told, Mr. Taylor.
If there is a next time, don’t say that you were wearing flip-flops in public

Aye.  Ahh, aye!  (Spoken with my Scottish Presbyterian great-grandmother’s accent),
AH, oh, aye!

Which, in the dialect of the Scottish Borders, can sometimes mean, “NO! NO! NO!”

Aye.  Ahh, yah and yas fer aye.  Alas and alack, as I am a true and loyal son of my Presbyterian Scottish great-grandmother who instructed all of her sons, and all of her grandchildren, and me too, NEVER to do anything dishonourable or untruthful, consequently, alas, now that the creep holocaust-denier and neo-Nazi Jared Taylor has published an article on this blog, I cannot and will not publish any more articles here, lest I become tainted with the stain of Jared Taylor’s neo-Nazi
shit.

As my devoutly Presbyterian, Scottish great-grandmother always used to admonish all of her beloved posterity:

“If you lie down with pigs (like Jared Taylor), you will arise with shit and flies stuck to you!”

And I won’t have it.  I will not lie down in the same shit as the neo-Nazi shit-dwelling holocaust-denying pig, Jared Taylor.

My last article here on Takimag, a friendly one about Edgar Allen Poe, is the last one I will publish here - because I will NOT lay down in the shit with Jared Taylor the bloody neo-Nazi liar.

Taki, and FJ Sarto, now you have clarified and defined your boundaries.  MY boundaries will never have anything to do with holocaust-deniers or nazi-apologists like Jared Taylor.

What a waste.  Taki had a chance to become a personal centre of an HONOURABLE kind of American conservative movement, but then he published an article by the neo-Nazi Jared Taylor.

A plague upon ALL of the so-called “conservative” houses of America!  I wish a plague upon the Trotskyite Neocons, and upon the Israeli lobby, AND upon the neo-nazi scum who call themselves “paleoconservatives” (evidently meaning,
Nazi sympathisers who HOPE now to rehabilitate Hitler and all kinds of nationalist-populist vulgarian hatreds.)

Ah.  Oh, oh how I love my new country, Australia, where almost no one cares about such evil bullshit of the neocons AND their opposite (and equivalent) numbers, the so-called “paleoconservatives”, who evidently have nothing in common with me.

Advance Australia, God save the Queen, and the Cross of Christ is our only hope
(and yes I DO mean in a Protestant way - Taki’s blog has persuaded me to convert to Protestantism) - and, anyway, Peace be upon you all - if any of you are humble enough to accept and to enjoy the simple Peace of the Gospel, which has nothing to do with the British Empire (cf Foy) or with bashing “the Jews”...my old English way of Peace, here in Australia, just means, enjoy the garden and have faith in Christ…

...which, evidently, is no longer what Taki’s blog is about.  I close and say goodbye, with handshake to Taki, who is a truly good and great man.  But his blog, alas, is not even remotely as great or as charitable as he, and I fear that Taki’s honest, romantic naivety will destroy the credibility - and the decency - of this blog in the long run.

Mr. Cundiff,

You insightfully point out the virulence of deracination and “victimocracy” in poisoning our culture. Also, you contrast our predicament with the 1950s – an era a scant half-century ago.

If is difficult to imagine such corrosive changes occurring in such a short time without an outside agent to speed up our descent. You gave only passing reference to Cultural Marxism, but for the past few decades it has dominated Western media and academia, two institutions whose influences are perversely magnified by their tenuous connections to reality. These institutions have become moral truncheons to demonize and degrade all things Western, civilized and, yes, white. By the time an “average American” has graduated grade school, he or she has been thoroughly indoctrinated to despise all things about himself, his culture and his history.

Over the blood-soaked course of the 20th century, Marx’s tendentious bilge has been revealed for what it’s always been, and the man himself as a fat ghetto drunk with no knowledge of government, economics or history. His vehicle was the self-importance of “the revolution,” trundling along on illusory moral dominion accorded acolytes, comrades… useful idiots.

The “movement” has degenerated to soft-sell, feel-good Pete Seeger/campfire slogans about how wonderful the world will be when all the reactionary honkies are dead, and the proletariate has morphed into Tapas Bar Revolutionaries, arguing liberation theory while chewing out their Third World yard crews for noisy leaf blowing. But the destructiveness and pervasiveness of the tired old doctrine remains. In all the crap about a the “Jena Six,” not one mainstream talking head questioned the application of moral equivalency to 1) - pulling an ugly prank by hanging nooses in a Southern tree, and 2) – savagely beating a teenager to unconsciousness. Not one.

We are fearful and brimming with guilt, to the point where we are terrified of speaking the truth, terrified of giving voice to the genuine feelings and opinions we hold inside. We allow our children to be taught to hate themselves – and pay taxes to support this monstrous travesty.

It’s getting harder and harder to believe we don’t DESERVE to be enslaved by any jackass thug who come rapping at the gates…

Dear Mr. Ball,
In response to your comment, I think it positively slanderous to claim, without offering any evidence (links, please?) that Mr. Taylor is any of the deplorable things which you called him. I have looked over his publications, and never seen anything denying the historicity of the Holocaust, or expressing sympathy with the disgusting barbarism of the Nazis. Had he done so, we wouldn’t have run him. We have allowed you considerable liberty on this site, which you have used sometimes well--and sometimes not so well. In future I recommend choosing your epithets more (ahem) soberly.

Come off it, Mr. Ball.  A healthy sense of racial consciousness, while certainly not the whole, is a necessary part of our recovery in the culture wars.  Taylor is certainly within the pale.  By the way, and this really is an honest question,has anyone seen Mr. Ball heap such disgusting vitriol on any enemies to the Left?  If not, then his harshest atacks are reserved for the Right.  Somehow I think I’ve sen the type before.

I’m tired of talk. I’ve chatted any number of times
to the christian nationalists who wave their flags
in support of the empire. As if our freedom and
greatness is directly related to the subtraction of
freedom in the third world. 
I want to introduce my fist to their face. I
judge it to be the end justifies the means situation.
Passivity doesn’t lend itself to a healthy
democracy, am I right?

neo-Nazi shit-dwelling holocaust-denying pig, Jared Taylor.

Jared Taylor is not a Nazi.  He’s a golfer!
(Apologies to Russell Kirk)

the neo-nazi scum who call themselves “paleoconservatives”

Well, neo-nazis usually consider paleocons to be wimps and cowards.  They hate us, even Sam Francis, for refusing to reduce every issue down to racial categories. In addition, they hate all forms of Christianity save Anglo-Israelite heresy.  They don’t study catechism and debate liturgy like this crowd.

Had Mr. Taylor written anything of the sort Mr. Ball describes, Dr. Sarto would have been right not to publish it.  But must he reject a good essay because of things the author has said, or is alleged to have said, elsewhere?  Talk about chilling effect!  Mr. Taylor no doubt disagrees with much I have said, as do many of us, but he has not, as far as I know, demanded that Taki blacklist me.

I will say this:

I am sorry to inform the descendants of “backcountry” (commonly refered to as “Scots-Irish”, what I call “Hillbilly") settlers of America that their domination of America was very brief, and will never happen again.  If you wish to see a strong, cowboy-esque President of the United States, sorry.  GW Bush is as close as you’ll get, and, as we all know, he’s a Yankee carpetbagging fraud, born in New Haven, Connecticut.  Reagan was about as authentic as it gets in American politics anymore, and he was “put in his place” the 30th of March, 1981.

Face it, the brutality of the “Negro” will continue to terrorize at home, and the brutality of the “Hillbilly” will continue to terrorize abroad.

The criminality of the modern “Negro” in America is directly tied to the criminality of the modern “Hillbilly” abroad.  One feeds off the other. The urban “Negro” ghetto is as much a culture of guns and murder as the United States Military; the former is inhabited by people that terrorize the domestic population into submission, whereas the latter inhabits (for now) the lands far away, and terrorize those people into submission.

The only way to win “The War on Crime” is to either:

A) Kill all “Negroes”; or

B) Convert them

Your choice, what do you want to do?

Also, in order to convert all the “Negroes”, you yourselves, the “Hillbilly” militarists will need a conversion, or you will experience the same death that is needed to win “The War on Crime”.

What conversion is it then that everyone needs?

What conversion transcends race?

You can’t convert the “Negro” into a “White”.

You can’t convert the Irishman into an Englishman.

You can’t convert the Russian into a German.

The “Negroes” and the “Hillbillies” need a mutual conversion into their shared enemy - and that enemy is the people that founded and currently rule America.

Correction to the last paragraph:

The “Negroes” and the “Hillbillies” need a mutual conversion into something that rivals their shared enemy - and that enemy is the people that founded and currently rule America.

To John Ball:

You’re kidding, right?

<i>Sid,

Why do you still cite ignorance?  On a previous thread it was already demonstrated that Burke is no race denier

Where again does Burke say “race doesn’t exist”? (hint: no where)

Where does he differentiate between blacks and whites? (hint: in about 1,000 places).

I’ll quote it:

“As a Real Conservative, I follow Burke too.  But sorry to inform you, Burke did not hold your politically correct views on race.

Although he thought slavery was bad for the British Empire and wanted to end it, BURKE WAS NOT A RACE DENIER.

I challenge you to find in Burke where he says “race doesn’t exist” or any of your other politically correct cliches.

There are hundreds of sentences (like “Be it enacted, that no Black or European Factor or Trader into the interiour country....") where Burke makes distinctions based upon race.

And Burke (like Calhoun, Lincon, and Jefferson Davis) thought that if freed, slaves should return to Africa, the East Indies, or other country of origin.

Burke on Deporting Skilled Negroes from London:  “When his apprenticeship is finished, the Lord Mayor of London is hereby authorized and directed to receive the said Negro from his master, and to transmit him to the island, from which he came in the West Indies, to be there as a free Negro; subject, however, to the direction of the Protector of Negroes, relatively to his behaviour and employment.”

Or what about....

“And be it enacted, that if any free Negro hath been twice convicted for any of the said misdemeanors, and is judged by the said Protector of Negroes, calling to his assistance two justices of the Peace, to be incorrigibly idle, dissolute and vicious, it shall be lawful, by the order of the said Protector and two justices of Peace, to sell the said free Negro into slavery: the purchase-money to be paid to the person so remanded into servitude, or kept in hand by the Protector and Governour for the benefit of his family.” - Edmund Burke, Sketch of a Negro Code, 1780

“ And be it enacted, that no blows or stripes, exceeding thirteen, shall be inflicted for one offence upon any Negro, without the order of one of His Majesty’s Justices of Peace.” - Edmund Burke, Sketch of a Negro Code, 1780

“And be it enacted, that the Minister shall have power to punish any Negro for disorderly conduct during divine Service, by a punishment not exceeding [ten] blows, to be given in one day, and for one offence.” - Edmund Burke, Sketch of a Negro Code, 1780<i>

Burke no where says “race does not exist,” and his quotes show that he does make distinctions between whites and blacks.

San Fernando Curt,

For anyone who hasn’t seen it, I’d highly recommend the documentary _The Frankfurt School Story_, which is about the history of cultural Marxism.

There is documentation in the film that it was a very early and deliberate goal of the Cultural Marxists that white people buy into the “race doesn’t exist” mantra.

In fact, as the documentary points out, any white person who says “race doesn’t exist” is indeed doing the leg-work for the Cultural Marxist.

“I will not lie down in the same shit as the neo-Nazi shit-dwelling pig, Jared Taylor.” ~ John Baller

Real mature.  I see that you have employed the “let’s follow the PC line of white race denial and anyone who doesn’t is a neonazi” argument, typical of neocons.  You certainly won’t be missed by Real Conservatives, if that is your attitude.

Mr. Taylor,

Excellent essay.  Informative and entertaining.

It would be a blessing indeed if your essays would become more frequent at this site.

----

I am sorry to inform the descendants of “backcountry...” settlers of America that their domination of America was very brief, and will never happen again.

Racist!

<<any white person who says “race doesn’t exist” is indeed doing the leg-work for the Cultural Marxist.>>

If a “Cultural Marxist” tells me the sky is blue, should I believe otherwise?

Wouldn’t that be a bit foolish?

<<Racist!>>

You got a chuckle out of me, Ramus.

And why am I a “racist”?

I pray, John Ball, that you will continue to be a writebacker.  The way to fight the Browns is not to hide or be silent, but to stand up them.  You say you are Protestant.  Join that great Protestant and student of St Augustine, Sophie Scholl, virgin and martyr, and Protestant Doctora Ecclesiae. Fight the browns with words and expose them for what they are and what their doing. (well, at least imitate the “martyr” part!)

My views on “race”,on American Renaissance, and The Occidental Quarterly are well known to readers. 

San Fernando Curt is talking sense.  It’s high time that someone around here takes on the Cultural Marxists, the more serious long-term enemy than the Hamiltonian Whig Necons (as bad as they otherwise are). Other than “Anglo-Israelite heresy”, Mr. Ramus is saying here some things that I agree with regarding Neo-Nazis, a version of nationalism, the other more serious long-term enemy. 

Mixed feelings about Andrew Capp today on my ethnic group.  “Hillbilly” is a term used for Borderers for centuries.  It may refer to their support, when some of us lived in Ulster, for William of Orange.  If Andrew Capp means that my ethnic group is a bit too prickly about its honor and tends to meet insult with fighting; if he means that for a 1000 years we Borderers had to fight Rack Renter landlords, hanging English sheriffs, Whiskey-palian Establishment (Laud and the Test Acts in Ireland), Angles, Saxons, Danes, Lowland Scots, Highland Scots, Irish Irish, Aboriginal Americans, Federal agents (Shay’s Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion), the British (we made up the bulk of Washington’s army), Yankees (ditto Dixie’s armies), and Mexicans at the Alamo—and that thus we’re a warrior culture, he is correct.  If he means that The First Blacks copied our culture,as Thomas Sowell argues, there’s truth in that, though Sowell overstates the case.  If he were to mean that we would have no virtues (and Mr. Capp isn’t saying this), he would be wrong. For Borderer/Backcountry crime stats and well as First Blacks were low in the 1950s.

I’ve already refuted “Burkean Conservative” [sic] and his Brown views.  Burke opposed slavery, the slave trade, and support human rights for Blacks, for India, and Ireland. Race is a 19th Century fictive invention, and thus before Burkes time.  And I’ll keep on repeating this whenever I see the Browns’ attempt to takeover Burke, so my opponent might was well go back to Stormfront.

Certain writebacks by these Stormfronters, above, who may in fact be the same person, re-enforce the view that John Ball needs to turn up his volume and increase his presence than do the opposite.

Nietzsche wished for Germany to become master of the world
Nonsense! Nietzsche hated nationalism, racialism, and antisemitism, considering such drivel the utterances of the inferior human being. In this respect, ol’ Fred was correct.

Sid Cundiff and Andrew Capp (the same person), and John Ball all are walking lock-step with Bill Kristol and David Frum:  “race does not exist and anyone who says so is nazi.”

Geez, Sid.  You can stick your head in the sand and say 1,000 times “race does not exist,” but meanwhile the rest of the world organizes along racial lines.

There are over 200,000 black organizations in the U.S., and the largest mestizo organization is La Raza ("the race").

If you look at polls at racialist sites, the vast majority of racialists are not nationalists.  A recent poll I saw at Yahoo showed that about 70% of racalists were anti-nationalist.  Big government has done many things (desegregation) to hurt the White Race.  At any racialist site you will find that about 80% of the people support Ron Paul for President.

Furthermore, one doesn’t need be a racialist to want to be with and support his own kind.  One only need to turn to Real Conservatism (i.e. paleoconservatism) to find justification to support his own race.

Mr. Taylor,

Love the article, and it was a very pleasant, and welcome, surprise to find your article here.  I hope you will be able to write more for Taki Mag.

Cheers,

Lawrence

I can see that Sid Cundiff / Andrew Capp are already trying to hijack the thread with their “any whites who take pride in their race are nazis” tirades.

All I can say is thank goodness that the likes of John Ball, Sid Cundiff, Andrew Capp or Adrianna can be counted on to mutate any promising thread into a gussied up pissing match.  You are by far the most heroic cadre of self appointed moral censors I have encountered outside of academia.  Take a bow you’ve earned it.

Whites should have their own country, America. We stole it fair and square from the Injuns. Amen.

Whites should have their own Church. The idea individuals from all races could be members of the same Church is racial suicide. Amen.

Damn. It is really weird to even write that as a primal joke but those are the sort of ideas one reads at this site

Indeed, Mr Cundiff.

The Hillbillies (as I call them, my family being from the “hills” of Western North Carolina, but maintaining their Catholic Faith, despite having priests only pass through the area on rare occasions, and the closest Catholic church being in either Knoxville or Asheville for 100 years) and the American “Negro” share a common enemy: the powerful “WASP” establishment.  Not that there’s anything particularly wrong with being “White” or “Anglo-Saxon” or even “Protestant”.  The problems lie in being all of that, and being in the “establishment”, and using that power and those ethnic connections to gain the land and labor and capital of the rightful owners.

Our land, the Negro slave’s labor, and our combined capital.

Prior to The War, my family owned land, as did a rather large colony of Free Blacks in the same valley.

After The War, my family’s land holdings were reduced, being transferred to the Northern carpetbaggers, most of whom were Baptists (I guess the elite Episcopalians didn’t bother with stealing land from the Hillbillies).  The colony of Free Blacks were gone too.  Their African Methodist Episcopal Church remains there to this day, empty.

What happened to my ancestors neighbors descendants?

The same thing that has happened to my own cousins:

They have, more or less, become tools of the government to wreck havoc on the population, whether that population be here of “over there”.

The descendants of Africans and the descendants of Hillbillies; both wrecking havoc in modern America.  Crack cocaine, meth, bastard children and venereal diseases.  None of this was common 50 years ago.

As for why did our Hillbilly Culture get “out of hand”?  Why does violence permeate American culture today?  Why is today’s Elvis “Eminem”?  It is, as I believe Mr Cundiff would agree, the result of eliminating our ancestors, our traditions from modern America.  That is, Reconstruction.

The Reconstruction of the South was the Reconstruction of America.  Everybody suffered, much akin to everyone sufferring from forced desegregation in the South.

Blacks, Whites, Northerners, Southerners, Yankees, Cavaliers, Protestants, Catholics, everyone is a victim of Reconstruction.  And the Reconstruction didn’t entirely stop in 1877.  It still goes on today via such things as Wal-Mart and NASCAR and the NFL and “Country Music” and Evangelical “Christianity”.

Behind the face of every coward there
burns a straw dog.

<<race does not exist and anyone who says so is nazi.>>

Race DOES exist!

But it’s not the REASON for existence itself!

The Triune God of the Father, the Son, and the holy
Spirit is the REASON for existence.

If you believe the Triune God is “White”, then
we have no ability to converse.

The mantra of the seperatist United States was, for
years, “Seperate but Equal”.  Now it is “United and
Equal”.

I feel comfortable to proclaim “United but Unequal”.

Race exists, but I don’t let it control my thinking.

Jared,

Great piece!  A white female I know (with blonde hair and blue eyes) recently awoke to a black man holding his hand over her mouth, about ready to rape her.  (He had broken into her apartment.) Lucky for her, her (white) bf arrived home late, saw what was happening, and his gut instinct set in.  He grabbed a golf club and beat the living hell out of the black man.

By the way, Sid Cundiff = Andrew Capp = the self-appointed Minister of Political Correctness at Taki’s Top Drawer.  Ignore him.

As one of the few blacks (and non-Americans) who has written for this website, I would like to defend Mr. Sarto’s decision to publish Jared Taylor. Like John Ball, I strongly disagree with Taylor’s views on race. However, the way to deal with people who hold views like Taylor’s, is to debate them. If Sarto had published an article by Noam Chomsky opposing the Iraq war, I assume Mr. Ball would not have reacted so strongly. Chomsky was the guy who defended the communist regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia, which killed 2 million people in the 1970s. If Chomsky has the freedom to offer his opinions, then Jared Taylor should get the same opportunity. The best answer to offensive speech is more speech. I am very passionate about the cause of free speech, because I live in a part of the world (East Africa) that denied its citizens the right to speak freely until very recently (things are somewhat better now). I hope that Americans do not follow the path of some European countries, where people who express unpopular views are thrown into prison.

Right now, the hottest topic being debated in newspapers all over Africa, concerns the recent comments by the Nobel Laureate, Dr. James Watson, who suggested that Africans are inherently less intelligent. Most disagree with his views, but there is a large minority of Africans who have spoken out in support of Dr. Watson. There is a very lively and heated debate going on. This sort of debate is not taking place in any Western nation, because of the crippling political correctness that dominates Western societies. For my part, I was asked to contribute an article on the subject to the Sunday Nation newspaper, the highest circulation newspaper in East Africa. An edited version of my original article was published on November 4, 2007, and is available at the Daily Nation newspaper website.

In March 2007, I read about a debate that was held in Canada between Jared Taylor and Dr. Peter March. Dr. March is a man who vehemently disagrees with Taylor, but wanted to debate him on free speech grounds, because a previous attempt by Taylor to give a speech in Canada was violently disrupted by masked hoodlums. Inspired by Dr. March, I too would like to debate Mr. Taylor – with the debate focusing on whether the racial difference in IQ scores is genetic. Based on my personal educational experiences, I do not believe that genetic reasons explain the lower IQ scores of black and brown people. I have probably read as much on this subject as Mr. Taylor. I have a Masters degree, just like he has, and I probably speak more languages than he does. I took three IQ tests in 2002, and my scores were 133, 135, and 139. Ideally, the debate should take place in Britain, the nation that cancelled the speaking engagements of Dr. Watson.

If Taki is not too busy, he can organize the debate. But if he cannot spare time for this intellectual endeavor, then he can ask one of his many friends in Britain to sponsor and host the debate. Think about it. Two writers for this webzine debating such an important topic, would bring plenty of publicity for this publication. I would like to know Mr. Taylor’s thoughts on this subject.

From a paleoconservative perspective, I don’t know if intelligence necessarily matters.  Although I think that history shows that accomplishments of Europeans far outshine any other people, it does not matter as far as loyalties go.  Genophilia and kin loyalties are ancient, and care not about what race is better.

The Great White Race could be the most or least intelligent race, and I would still support it, because it is MY race.

Your a rational person and probably realised the guy was stealing either to eat or support some habit.
I recall a time when I had caught some kids [I was just 18] stealing bicycles from the garage which I had left open [back in 1978 we didnt have much, if any crime in the barrio] I was angry and caught them but didnt hurt them. It turns out their parents were extremely poor and they would drop the kids off to steal lawnmowers and bikes to sell or pawn. I held them and called the police. The kids didn’t even know their address but could find their way home and thats how the police caught the parents.

The Great White Race could be the most or least intelligent race, and I would still support it, because it is MY race. -WPC

Intelligence is nothing more than elecrical impulses, which are waves. That color of skin you see is the same thing. Waves of varying frequency.

JetMechanx,

Along that reasoning, everything is atoms, ergo nothing matters.

Is it me or does John Ball always come across as if he’s in a drunken rage? As a child I attended a Presbyterian Church founded by Scots across the North Channel from Scotland but I never heard any of them use the language John Ball uses regularly here. In all likelihood his Scottish great granny would have been far more offended by Ball’s language than by Taylor’s views on race, which were the norm everywhere two generations ago.

This is a very interesting and well-composed article by Mr. Taylor. Knowing something of Mr. Taylor’s views, I could not help wondering about the article’s overall import.

Is Mr. Taylor merely relating some incidences of interest to guys, or imparting streetwise wisdom?

I think not. He clearly draws two conclusions,each following from each story repectively :

1)"If something catches you completely by surprise, you may be too stupefied to act.”
2)"And when the fight starts, your instincts—both for mayhem and for mercy—may surprise you.”

The next question is:
Are these two conclusions somehow related?
I think so and this is where we see the articles overall import. This is a causionary tale with an evolutionist backstory, and the moral is that if we are going to survive, we are going to have to both tutor instinct:

“I learned that in an emergency I cannot count on myself to do the right thing instinctively.”

and overcome instinct:

“Another lesson was that high emotion begets primitive behavior....Instinct must have told him this was the best way to draw off my fury, and he was right...."You just don’t have the killer instinct,” one friend said. He thought I should have given the jerk a good pounding, and held him for the police. That would have made for a much better story....”

It’s a Darwinian game, and if we want to win (ie be selected) then we are going to have to learn to take evolution to the higher level of our intelligence.

But who is “we”?

I think the answer to that is given in the first story:

“ young black man sprinted by, not 20 feet away. I just stood and watched. I stood and watched as a white guy jogged after him. There was no chance the jogger would catch him, and I thought he was probably just pretending.”

“We” is the white race and the if “we” are going to survive “we” can’t be like that loafing poser with his pro forma “jogging”!

The sad thing about this article as about many of the responses is the level on which the discussion takes place. I do not deny that there are important difference between the races, just as I do not deny that there are important differences between those of the same race or between the sexes. Inequality is a fact of life. But I do deny that diffences of race are as important as the racialist make them out to be. It is an intellegence and will turned to God that makes a man, not race. I’ll take a godly black man to a materialist white man any day.

Racialist ideology is a product of decadent 18th and 19th century materialist scientism, and the fact that both left and right argue on this basis is a result of an immense loss of vision. a massive falling away from spirituality and intellegence. The civilization that you claim to be defending was not built on such a foundation.

Abellio,

You can stick your head and the sand and say 1,000 times “let’s just ignore racial differences,” and meanwhile all the non-whites will organize along racial lines.

As I say above, I don’t care about IQ.  But there are over 200,000 black organizations in the U.S.  And the largest Mestizo organization is La Raza ("the race")?

Do you think these organizations will go away?  And if not, should whites just do nothing and watch their own demise?  If blacks and Mestizos organize along racial lines, shouldn’t whites be allowed to do the same?

I know that many of you post here under aliases.  I do too.  But can you blame us?

I’ve been told by a very reliable source that Sid collects names of people who don’t hold PC views on race for the SPLC.

If you believe the Triune God’s “White”, then
we have no ability to converse.

Nobody believes that anyway.  Every single branch of Christianity, from Catholics to Calvinists, teaches that the gospel is freely given to the entire human race, regardless of ethnicity. That includes the Blacks, Jews and Scots-Irish.

if he means that for a 1000 years we Borderers had to fight Rack Renter landlords...

Oh, no. Sid Cundiff and I are brothers under the skin.  Do you think whatever he has is genetic?

Dear Mr. Waruiru,
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, and your excellent contribution which we ran in previous weeks. I can’t arrange a debate, but would invite you to take a look at Mr. Taylor’s latest piece on this subject (it was published in the last week at http://www.vdare.com) and compose a reply for this site. Thank you again for speaking up bravely for conservative principles under hostile conditions.

White Christian PaleoConservative:

My head is not in the sand, but it may be in a different universe than yours. I have not said once, much less 1,000 times “let’s just ignore racial differences”, but I will say again that they are not as important as racialists think they are.

We cannot solve the problem of racial hatred and violence by remaining on the same level of thinking (or rather lack of thinking) as that on which the problem arose. The Spanish missionaries where able to overcome the Aztec empire because they bore witness to a higher truth than race. To the degree that Christians have lost the vision of divine truth the world has broken into factions based on less important qualities such as race. Again I do not deny these distinctions but I deny the importance given to them by men such as Mr. Taylor. The answer is not to fight for the permission (permission from whom? The omnipotent secular state?) to organize along racial lines in reaction to others who do this, but to organize spiritually in order to covert all races to the truth of the Gospel.

and that enemy is the people that founded and currently rule America.

Posted by Andrew Capp on Nov 15, 2007.

Yeah, like they are one and the same.  What a goofy post.

Dear Mr. Sarto,

I appreciate your comments. I have just read Taylor’s Vdare article. I will send you a response in about 10 days.

<<any white person who says “race doesn’t exist” is indeed doing the leg-work for the Cultural Marxist.>>

If a “Cultural Marxist” tells me the sky is blue, should I believe otherwise?

Wouldn’t that be a bit foolish?

Posted by Andrew Capp on Nov 15, 2007.

Yeah, whoever it was who suggested we ignore this guy
was right.  A Capp is a moron.

“Maybe some people do the right thing instinctively, but some of us need training or mental preparation for the unexpected.”

There you have it right there.  Excellent.

Personally, I would say that most of us need training.
I have no statistics to pull from but I would say that
the number of the truly Self-Taught are pretty low. 
And that even in the most extraordinary cases of the self-taught,
there is usually some person of great influence in the
background somewhere.  Usually, though not always, a Parent,
or Relative. 

I was pleasantly surprised to see an article from Mr. Taylor
here at Taki’s Top Drawer.  Hope there’s more.
He is obviously a very special person.  Intelligent and
Brave.

I know that many of you post here under aliases.  I do too.  But can you blame us?

I’ve been told by a very reliable source that Sid collects names of people who don’t hold PC views on race for the SPLC.

Posted by Too Chicken To Use His Real Name on Nov 15, 2007.

Don’t do that.  Don’t encourage or empower them, in any way.

They are losers.  I don’t care how much “power” they have.
They are low-lifes.  They’re cowards.  Sneaky, and Corrupt.
Psuedo-Intellectual and Anti-Spiritual.

Who cares if they are policing this site?

The only postion one should hold toward them is contempt.

But fear?  Never.

Like I said, they’re low-lifes.

A friend of mine chased a street robber here in Berkeley, Ca. until the robber turned around just enough to point a gun at him.

Another friend who visited Kenya some years ago said she found the people there wonderfully open-hearted (this was some time after the Mau Mau period), but she felt ambivalent about their practice of beating to death on the spot anyone caught pick-pocketing.

For anyone interested, here’s information on the 2008 American Renaissance conference:

http://www.amren.com/conference/2008/index.html

-----

Too Chicken and his informer are misinforming readers, and they need to get their facts correct.  I actually collect names for the Mayor of the Munchkins.

According to some people around here, being a
racist is a prerequisite for being “conservative”.

To paraphrase that demon possessed madman, Martin Luther:

All I can do is sit here and shake my head, I can
do no other.

Quoth abellio:"The answer is not to fight for the permission (permission from whom? The omnipotent secular state?) to organize along racial lines in reaction to others who do this, but to organize spiritually in order to covert all races to the truth of the Gospel.” It will be difficult for abellio, Andy Capp and other co-religionists to hear, but the splendor of our civilization does not consist in the Church alone.  The proof? Ethiopia.  It has held the faith of an orthodox and ancient Church longer than Ireland or Poland, but it remains a Third World wreck.  Contrary to the great Belloc, it is not quite true that “Europe is the Faith and the Faith is Europe.” Unquestionably, there is a racial component to our civilization too.

<<Ethiopia...remains a Third World wreck.>>

Because the various races of the Horn of Africa
are inferior to the “White race”?

Will F.C. Kelly refrain from presenting inconvenient facts!

Hmmm, I prefer some of Mr. Taylor’s other works. A listing can be found here:

http://www.vdare.com/taylor/index.htm

Lots of lists. Everyone’s making lists. Checking them twice for the naughty and nice.

A Capp would prefer Mexicans to the descendants of those who fought at Valley Forge because the former are Catholics while the latter are likely to be Protestants. This is the thanks old stock Americans (WASPs) get for sharing the nation they built with non-WASPs. Perhaps the Know Nothings were on to something.

I have a comment on Andrews diatribe:

“To paraphrase that demon possessed madman, Martin Luther:

All I can do is sit here and shake my head, I can
do no other.”

You are so very misinformed about the great Martin Luther.  Please find the time to research about him and his books.  This man rode to the Vatican for a pilgramage, kisses every single step up to the Vatican, only to find that Satan rules the Vatican, boys coming out of giant cakes and being molested by the clergy of the catholic belief, all of this on a daily basis.  So the quote above fits, Martin Luther rode all the way back to Germany with his head hung low and totally disgusted with what he had seen.  It is no small wonder that he broke away and started the Reformation.  What is a wonder today is how the catholic church is so huge?  Sickening…

F.C. Kelly wrote:
“Quoth abellio:’The answer is not to fight for the permission (permission from whom? The omnipotent secular state?) to organize along racial lines in reaction to others who do this, but to organize spiritually in order to covert all races to the truth of the Gospel.’ It will be difficult for abellio, Andy Capp and other co-religionists to hear, but the splendor of our civilization does not consist in the Church alone.

Either F.C. Kelly did not read careful what I wrote or he confused what I said with what someone else said.  I did not write that “the splendors of our civilization consist in the Church alone” nor would I deny that “there is a racial component to our civilization.”

What I wrote was:

“But I do deny that differences of race are as important as the racialist make them out to be.”

and

“The civilization that you claim to be defending was not built on such a foundation.” with “you” referring to racialists such as Mr. Taylor and “such a foundation” referring to “racialist ideology” which I characterized as “a product of decadent 18th and 19th century materialist scientism.”

Now F.C. Kelly is right if he inferred that I hold that our civilization i.e Western Civilization was built on a religious foundation and that religion is the Catholic religion. But you are wrong when you conclude that I hold that “the splendor of our civilization consist in the Church alone” First of all I said nothing of the Church, what I wrote of was “civilization.” These are two different things. The splendors of the Church are far above any terrestrial civilization. But let that pass. Let us talk about religion. From nothing that I wrote can it be concluded that I hold that the slendors of a civilization consist in religion alone. But I do hold that religion is by far the most important component of a civilization, and that there has been no civilization in the history of the world in which that was not recognized excepting the modern West. I further hold that the evolutionist materialism of the 19th century including Darwinism is patently false, and that the racialist ideology that relies heavily on this “science” shares with it the same blindness to higher truths. And thus the importance that it gives to race is too great.

F.C. Kelly further wrote:

“The proof? Ethiopia. It has held the faith of an orthodox and ancient Church longer than Ireland or Poland, but it remains a Third World wreck.”
I know little about Ethiopia, but I know enough not to judge a nation by its current condition. If we were to do that I doubt that either I or F.C. Kelly would give that Western Civilization very high marks, although we would probably judge it decadent for different reasons and due to different causes. If we are going to judge Ethiopia we must judge it on the long history that F C Kelly refers to, and for all of which, according to F.C.Kelly, it has remained a “Third World wreck.” The little investigation that I have been able to do makes me think that F.C. Kelly doesn’t know much about the long history of Ethiopia either. First of all there is the question of what is being referred to by the name “Ethiopia.” because, if we are to believe the some sources, (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05566a.htm) what this name has referred to has varied. 
But leaving that aside, and assuming that we are referring to the long history of what is currently referred to as Ethiopia, there are other important difficulties with what F.C. Kelly writes, because according to one sources the people that inhabit that land are “not black but of Caucasian descent as pure as the Anglo-Saxon or the Celt.” (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9801E3DB1E31E033A2575AC1A9629C94679ED7CF) But as I said I know little of the long history of this nation which according to FC Kelly has “remained a Third World wreck.” Maybe he thinks little of my sources. Maybe he could share with me some of his own sources concerning this long history of wreckage. I am always open to hearing inconvenient truths.

I meant to post this here:

FYI - there is a world of difference between racialists and neonazis.

Paleoconservatives like Sam Francis and racialists like Jared Taylor have tried to create a broad coalition of paleoconservatives, conservatives, libertarians, Christians and Jews, and racialists to support the West and keep off the path of self-destruction. All other races organize and support their own interests along racial lines.  If whites do not start doing this, then the white race is doomed.

Neonazis (like Duke and Black) are furious that Francis and Taylor included Jews in their coalition, and have denounced them.

These two groups really do not get along.

Western Civilization was built on a religious foundation...

It was built by the Roman Empire, which Christianity co-opted.

Most old white guys I know are chasing young asian, mestizo and mulatto girls, mostly from the third world.They seem to have given up on crabby white feminists.

\"Most old white guys I know are chasing young asian, mestizo and mulatto girls, mostly from the third world.\”

An aristocrat (i.e. lingo for a white man of pure Anglo-European blood) would never marry such women, nor have legitimate children with them.

A person like myself (of pure Anglo-European blood, and the DNA tests to prove it) would only pollute his family blood line by having children with such women.  Think about it.  Once your blood becomes tainted, it can never again be pure.

Besides, white women are beautiful.  I know no women more beautiful.

“An aristocrat (i.e. lingo for a white man of pure Anglo-European blood) would never marry such women, nor have legitimate children with them.

A person like myself (of pure Anglo-European blood, and the DNA tests to prove it) would only pollute his family blood line by having children with such women.  Think about it.  Once your blood becomes tainted, it can never again be pure.” - Euro-American

A DNA test so that he can be an aristocrat in his own mind?  Some people are beyond parody.

The trouble is white men have been sticking it to colored girls for 500 years There are enough bastards in the world,marry the girls you knock up, no what their color and raise the kids as good Christians.

As anyone who has done DNA genealogy knows, over 88% of white Americans are of pure Anglo-European blood.  And the other 12% generally only have 1 non-white ancestor out of 256.

Regardles, having pure Anglo-European blood is nothing to laugh at.  One should be proud to be of such noble lineage.

There once was a chap name o’ Ramus,
who with soundbite would stingily spam us.
Parsimonius words, he pinched off just like turds;
Oh have done Peter! Why not just damn us?

I owe FJ Sarto a reply to his question:

“Dear Mr. Ball,
In response to your comment, I think it positively slanderous to claim, without offering any evidence (links, please?) that Mr. Taylor is any of the deplorable things which you called him. I have looked over his publications, and never seen anything denying the historicity of the Holocaust, or expressing sympathy with the disgusting barbarism of the Nazis.”

My answer:

1.  I retract my accusation of Jared Taylor ever having denied the holocaust in any literal way - although, a cursory review of his articles and his associations will point to his being a colleague and collaborator of many holocaust-deniers, for whom he has provided fora (forums).

2.  But as for his “expressing sympathy with the disgusting barbarism of the Nazis”, well, that’s what Taylor’s publication “American Renaissance” is all about.  He advocates eugenics, and that is, precisely, identical with the most ghastly quality of Nazism.

Here is just one link among many, to demonstrate Taylor’s advocacy of eugenics, a link from Taylor’s own rag:

http://www.amren.com/ar/1997/02/

It’s a reminder of the main reason Churchill stated for resistance against the Nazis:  “a new dark age, perhaps more protracted by the lights of perveted science.” Nazi persecution of Jews wasn’t the main danger to civilisation and Christendom; Nazi eugenics was, and still is.

The “Holocaust” was not the worst, most anti-Christian crime of the Nazis.  Eugenics was, and still is, and THAT is what Jared Taylor promotes, and THAT is why I repudiate any and all association with him or with anyone who publishes anything he writes.  You can’t turn a pig’s ear into a silk purse, and Taylor’s advocacy of eugenics is an antichristian pig’s ear, any way you cut it.

Oh have done Peter! Why not just damn us?

I’m not in management.

He advocates eugenics, and that is, precisely, identical with the most ghastly quality of Nazism.

I don’t support eugenics, but T.S. Eliot did.  Was he a Nazi?

The “Holocaust” was not the worst, most anti-Christian crime of the Nazis.

Why?  I’m not asking as a rhetorical question. Nor am I hinting at holocaust denial in any way. I’m merely curious about what led you to that conclusion.

@ John Ball

Good riddance to you. I get much more agitated about
slanderous Holocaust-denier attacks than having
a writer at this site who edits a magazine with an
article in favor of eugenics. I have great
reservations about the practice myself and don’t
agree with Taylor’s racial separatism, but his
thinking is always thought-provoking. Yours is not.

“Regardles, having pure Anglo-European blood is nothing to laugh at.  One should be proud to be of such noble lineage.” - Burkean Conservative

It’s not the blood I laugh at; I laugh at anyone pretentious enough to take it seriously and think that it constitutes a noble lineage of which one should be proud.  My own blood is CMV negative - a relatively rare situation in an adult which makes it unusually suitable for transfusion to newborns or preemies.  Many times I’ve been called on to donate blood for that and perhaps some lives have been saved in the process.  Now that’s pure blood which actually serves a useful purpose.  But I’m not proud of it - just grateful for the chances God has given me to help other people.

Welcome to Jared Taylor.  I would like to see more of his articles here. This article is great and enjoyed. I too have been in situations that required heroic effort and did my duty. It usually takes one false start to humiliate yourself with the cowardice and in future events have the courage to act.  Also Virtue training is necessary.

Thanks for printing Jared Taylor.

Ohh, and by the way all Farmers practice eugenics---all European Aristocracy and Royalty did in the Old Order marry their own and racial eugenics was practiced by the Doric Greeks of Laconia to great success. Nature and Nurture or both important. IT is just a lesson of the Natural Law.

Nazi persecution of Jews wasn’t the main danger to civilisation and Christendom; Nazi eugenics was, and still is.

Oh brother.  Please. It is SO obvious that the problem
today is that we live in a Politically Correct, Multi-
Cultural Police State that is entirely Jewish from head to toe.
An old College Professor, who is Jewish, once said something I
have never forgotten.  When asked by a classmate during a walk
through campus after class if the Prof. thought that
Jews were a big influence on Political Correctness.
He gave the student a surprised look, as if to say, “Don’t you
know this already?” and said “Of course!  I mean, How
can ANYTHING Jewish be Democratic?”

Also; the problem with Eugenics in relation to the Nazi’s
was that it was to be used to practice racial discrimination.
Well, look at the States today and Europe as well, and just
ask yourself WHO is being discriminated against and WHO
is the Power behind the discrimination.

Regarding the former, it’s obviously White Male Gentiles.

and for the identity of the latter, well…

I gotta hint for ya.

It Ain’t da Nazis!

Oh, and the quote at the beginning of my above post was from a earlier post
by John Ball.

And I’d like to add:  I think it’s worth pointing out
to John Ball the fact that Paul Gottfried is slated as
a guest speaker at the upcoming American Rennaisance Conference
in early 2008.  Mr. Gottfriend is Jewish.

Great article as always by Jared Taylor—the Martin Luther King of our people.

Pay no attention to the lies of John Ball (by the way, I thought this guy was leving) and Sid Cundif. When these guys start attacking black racism then I will listen to their anti-white rants.

By the way, very enlightening quotes from Burke. Similar quotes can be found from Kirk and others.

Eugenics is disgusting, of course, because it undermines human dignity. (Maybe that’s why it was always practiced on FARM animals.) One of the posters above noted that European aristocrats practiced it as well. Yes, and with what wonderful consequences! Hemophiliac Romanovs, insane Habsburgs, and that summit of Protestant only royal in-breeding, Prince Charles. Exogamy is healthiest, from a strictly genetic point of view--contrary to the pseudo- scientific assertions of 19th century racists.

Not that I’m advocating the large-scale amalgamation (and hence disappearance) of the races as part of some social engineering experiment. There’s a good reason to want every human group, white, black, pygmy and Hottentot, to survive and reproduce itself. Steve Sailer writes about this best, presenting races not as Platonic ideals or eugenic teloses, but as extended families which command some part of our allegiance--if only thanks to our selfish genes. This natural attachment, like all natural attachments, is in itself good, St. Thomas teaches us. But it can sometimes be trumped by higher loyalties--sacramental kinship, for instance--or the duties of supernatural charity. Or even the natural duty of loyalty to the legitimate government of one’s country. Hence, Japanese Americans fought their racial kin in World War II out of loyalty to their adopted land. Were they wrong to do so? Were the thousands of Italian Americans who fought on the Allied side betraying their “race” or even tribe?

Conversely, however, we have NO right to undermine the institutions, laws, and public order of the land where we owe the strict duty of patriotism, simply because we share the same religion as a group of immigrants. Those posters here who despise the U.S. because it was founded by Protestants, and who wish to flood it with their fellow Catholic immigrants regardless of the democratically enacted, just laws regulating immigration should LEAVE the country. The Catholic bishops who advocate undermining our just laws (like immigration restrictions--not unjust laws like abortion) are advocating TREASON.

One more thing: John Ball, you’re right to despise eugenics. But not to consider eugenics some shadowy, right-wing notion which threatens us from afar. Eugenics is a REALITY, widely practiced in America, via amniocentesis and abortion. How many Down’s Syndrome kids have you seen lately? Not many outside of strict religious circles, because (as the NY Times has reported) most of them are ending up dismembered in dumpsters. So any pro-abortion politician, from Hillary Clinton to Rudy Giuliani, is pro-eugenics, de facto. Their defense of Roe v. Wade is far more dangerous than whatever supremacist fantasies waft up from the Stormfront sewers. 

FJ Sarto: 

Great post, and well written.  I agree with most of what you say.  I think that some like myself have reacted to the views of Sid et al, which makes it seem that all I care about is race, which is not true.  Many other things matter more than race.  But to hear someone say that we should forsake all our ancient kin / racial loyalties, is extreme, and warrants response.

Bernie:

Yes, Burke supported no notion of equality, as I posted on the other thread.

Wanting to see slavery ended is one thing.  Supporting equality is another.

There is no other more authoritative piece of evidence that Burke did not think blacks and whites the same than the fact that Burke wrote _A Sketch of a Negro Code_.

As Richard M. Weaver already argued, if Burke believed in equality, then why the separate system of laws for blacks?

Think about it:  why write an entirely separate system of laws for blacks?

The modern equivalent would be if we were to have to U.S. Constitutions:  one for whites, one for blacks.

Burke was not “color blind.”

N.B.  I am NOT saying that we should have a separate system of laws for blacks and whites.  I am only pointing out the Sid’s politically correct interpretation of Burke is infantile at best.

I don’t think Mr. Ball is treating perceived “Holocaust deniers” like Jesus would have, albeit Jared Taylor is apparently not one after all - but was in the presence of some without insisting they be burned at the stake. Heresies against a writing of history are apparently worse than heresies against Mr. Ball’s religion.

Our present immigration restrictions are not “just” and they work to the disproportionate disadvantage of Catholics as they are intended to do.  The Catholic Church will never oppose the immigration of its members to the US or any other country.  Calling this treason and saying they should leave the country is sinking to the Bill O’Reilly level of debate.

Reader should see my reply to Real Rosenberg Racialist (a better name for “Real [sic] Burkean [sic] Conservative [sic] and Hampton Johnson in the Purcell article.  Their view of Burke is nothing but lies.

Couple of comments about eugenics:

First, “eugenics” as a concept and practice, was widely popular in a number of countries up until the 1960s. Here in the US, at least 30 plus states had statututes not only permitting eugenics, but mandating it, in some cases.

In North Carolina there was a State Eugenics Commission and Board that eixited until 1972. It had broad-based powers, enabling it to hand out sentences in various situations. In recent years, the state has been sued by victimes of engenics practices....

Of course, some of this can be traced back to Margaret Sanger and her “progressive” health programs of the 1920s. For the longest time, the Left championed eugenics as a “progressive” measure. The Church has consistently condemned it.

Secondly, references to “race” and “racial differences” occur throughout history. In my reading, “race” seems to become an issue in a locality in propoartion to the growth in an alien population within a society. A few black traders in Genoa or Pisa never aroused suspicion or apprehension; it is only when a larger alien population emerges that a native population may sense apprehension.

There are various references at the time of the Mongol invsions to the “mogol race” and the dangers they bring with them to Christian culture and religion. In Spain the North African Arabs are seen as a “foreign race,” but largely under the reubric of religious heresy. Nevertheless, they are clearly identified in Spanish historical literature as a “raza de extranjeros,” and “race” is clearly understood to exist.

The turning point comes, I think, in the 19th century iwht the rapdi development of biological science, and the realisation that the perceived differences may well have a foundation scientifically. This development certainly adds fuel to the fire, along with Darwin’s theories.

Thus, I think we can identify roughly two more or less different historical ways of looking at race: One, for most of history, race was noted and differences perceived, but normally hostility based on race is restricted to those times when feels threatened by a foreign race. Two, since the late 18th century, when biology and science have altered the equation and the grounds of disucssion about race.

@Kirt Higdon
“Our present immigration restrictions are not “just” and they work to the disproportionate disadvantage of Catholics as they are intended to do.”

Please expand on this statement.  I don’t find it to be the least bit credible.  Current “restrictions” are the most liberal in history and with respect to Mexico are de facto nonexistent. Hispanics didn’t even warrant a census category until 1980 if memory serves and are now at 15% of the population. To what do you attribute this happening?
Don’t delude yourself. If you are hoping that immigration is going to somehow straighten out the US and render it more just and in greater conformance with the social Kingship of Christ, I confidently predict that you are going to be disappointed. I don’t need a crystal ball to see that dismal future, looking south is all the warning a sane man needs.

FJ Sarto wrote:

“Steve Sailer writes about this best, presenting races not as Platonic ideals or eugenic teloses, but as extended families which command some part of our allegiance--if only thanks to our selfish genes. This natural attachment, like all natural attachments, is in itself good, St. Thomas teaches us.”

No! St Thomas Aquinas did NOT teach THAT! - NOT in the CONTEXT in which it is being discussed now!  Thomas Aquinas said NOTHING about “selfish genes”, and his idea of “natural attachments” had NOTHING to do with this ongoing, evil, heretical and obsessive discussion about “race”.

And, FJ, if you really believe in “selfish genes” - your words, which are taken from a ghastly, anti-christian book by bloody Richard Dawkins - then maybe you need to reconsider the eternal and irreconcilable differences between Chridtianity - which TRANSCENDS THE FLESH - versus the neo-paganism of Hitler and Dawkins and Jared Taylor, all of whom believe in material genetics as OPPOSED TO Christ.

Christ, and all children of God, are born from Spirit (cf the Gospel of John), and genetics (AND THE FLESH) has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Holy Spirit.

And anyone who even SUGGESTS that material DNA has the SLIGHTEST relation to the Gospel, or to being born from the Holy Spirit, is anathema to the Gospel of Christ.

Boyd Cathey has made a useful contribution.  Without disagreeing with the factual matter he has stated I would add two caveats:

1. Before the 19th Century, “race” largely meant what we would call “ethnic identity” (which has nothing to do with “race”, and everything to do with the historical experience of a people).  How could it be otherwise?  There was no knowledge of genetics. Boyd Cathey is correct: That people look different in, say, Glasgow and London only became meaningful when there was ethnic conflict. In the same manner: people who look identical can hate each other: e.g. Serbs and Croats, Highland Scots and Irish Irish, Danes and Northern Germans, Poles and Russians. 

2. The so-called “scientific” racism, beginning with Arthur de Gobineau, is pseudo-science, equivalent to the “science” taken off the box of Crackerjacks box. And don’t trust ANYTHING a “scientist” says about race until his credentials as to a mastery of organic chemistry and both Mendelian and molecular genetics are demonstrated.  Even then his opinion has no validity until subject to peer review and an endorsement by the overwhelming majority of such peers.

PS, to clarify my above retort to FJ Sarto:

Yes, I believe “race” exists, although only in a very ephemeral and superficial way, in contrast to the Gospel of Christ which does not acknowledge race - BECAUSE the Gospel is the enemy of The World and the enemy of the Flesh.

“Race” is of the flesh, and so “racial” concerns are, at best, irrelevant to Christ (or at worst, hostile to Christ, when racial obsessions become more important to us than the Gospel.)

And what Jared Taylor, and other “soft”, “respectable” apologists for the foundation of Nazism (ie, Eugenics) are doing, is to reduce the spirit of Man to material conditions (eugenics), and that is precisely opposite to the Gospel of Christ, who said the only way to be reborn as a Christian is to be reborn in spirit.

Therefore, there is absolutely NO WAY to promote any eugenics or any aspiration to create “better” or “good” people through genes or biology - ie, through the flesh.  Any and all such beliefs are sins against the Holy Spirit - CATEGORICALLY - because the Holy Spirit is NOT CONDITIONED BY THE FLESH!

DNA and eugenics have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Holy Spirit.  And so I repudiate and condemn Jared Taylor and his eugenicist rag “American Renaissance”, and the even MORE obsessivly eugenicist-materialist rag “Occidental Quarterly”, I repudiate them as enemies - yes I do mean ENEMIES - of the Gospel; they are enemies of the Holy Spirit.

You can’t turn a pig’s ear into a silk purse, and all, ALL speculations about “genetics” and “race” are just shit, because they are all - ALL - opposed to the Holy Spirit, who doesn’t give a flying f--- about DNA.

Mr. Ball,
You need to take a deep breath. Where in my post was I defending eugenics? My offhand mention of “selfish genes” was simply shorthand for explaining the natural (as opposed to supernatural) loyalty one automatically feels for immediate family, which seems to get diluted as one moves further away. Hence, people are more inclined, other things being equal, to sacrifice for sisters than for cousins, and for fellow tribesman over foreigners, and so on. This tendency can and should be overridden, of course, by higher allegiances. But it’s not intrinsically wrong. However, I’ll grant you that it is often abused--as it is abused by the white racialists, who are socially ostracized, and by the black and Mexican nationalist groups, who are accepted and even funded by the mainstream. Neither sort of tribalism seems healthy, or particularly Christian. But the Church has typically baptized and elevated natural impulses, rather than negating them altogether. Sometimes it doesn’t work hard enough at the baptism process, I’ll grant you. In the old Confederacy, the Church was too accepting of racism. In today’s Mexico, it’s too accepting of anti-gringo nationalism. And so on. 

Non-white races use their churches/faiths/religion to advance their racial interests FIRST, its never the other way around. They “get it”. I wish I could say the same about the cadre of brainwashed white fools found here ceaselessly obscuring the obvious with complex rationalizations. Its time to come together, not fight the 100 years war again.

To be or not to be, that is the question white man.

@ Sid

“Race is a 19th Century fictive invention...”

The 19th century didn’t create race; evolution did.
Is there no place on the Web where I can avoid social
constructionists (i.e., science illiterates)?

-------

“We remain a hunted people. Now you think you have a destiny to fulfill in the land that historically has been ours for forty thousand years. And we’re a new Mestizo nation.”

“Our devil has pale skin and blue eyes…”

“We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.”

– Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, founder of La Raza

“Around the year 2040, whites will become a minority in the United States and, believe me, it will be ‘payback time’.”

- Pro-Immigration Activist, Jorge Sanchez

“And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem.”

- African Studies professor, Dr. Kamau Kambon

“Blond hair and blue eyes are a biological defect.”

“The white race is a disease, and the only cure is a bullet. The rule of whites is history. Soon they will be our serfs. It’s now the Age of the Brown Man.”

- Hindu nationalist, Ramesh Sharma

“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists. Make no mistake about it we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed–not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.”

- Jewish studies professor, Dr Noel Ignatiev

-------

Most historians no longer accept the view that Gobineau discovered race.  If anything, he popularized already existing theories.

Mind you, there are two concepts of race.

(1) the scientific view of race, discovered (not “invented"), in the 17th and 18th centuries.

and the

(2) classical notion of race, going all the way back to the Greeks and Romans, who first discovered the concept of race.

For the latter view, as the learned on this site have recommended, see The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity by Benjamin Isacc.

Try telling a black person that race does not matter or that race is a fiction. Why do you think they march with Louis Farrakhan or for the Jena 6 racists. Only (deluded) whites believe that there is no such things as race. Only whites do not work for their own racial interests.

But I GUARANTEE that Sid Cundiff and John Ball (who said he was leaving this site because it published opinions that challenge his views but keeps coming back) do not live in a black neighborhood.

Race is an ancient concept.  It is nothing more than extended family.

Genetically a Brit is more closely related to a Pole than either are to Sub-Saharan Africans.

Here’s a nice beginning for all of you like Sid
who are sorely in need of an education on the
biological basis of race:

http://www.gnxp.com/
blog/2007/01/race-current-consensus.php

_IQ and the Wealth of Nations_

Average IQ by Nation

Nigeria 67
India: 81
UK: 100
China: 100

..

Jared - and of course all women want a hero, (but all they really want when the chips are down is to be protected from a stronger force if they are the weaker) that’s what they think they want but what they actually want is someone they can admire/respect, not be afraid of - I’ve found that the ‘tough guy’ may protect a woman but just as often hasn’t got a handle on the anger you found a use for. That the anger drained from you is a good thing. I don’t think you should knock it.

You said “Another lesson was that high emotion begets primitive behavior” - ain’t that the truth. we are all guilty of that one.

Nothing fancy here. You won’t know what you’ll do until you have to face it.This advise came for both my Pop and my Uncle both vets.Myself, Iv’ve beenbeenin both places; flat footed and man of action. Life can make a man humbile.

Calling Jared Taylor a Nazi is an error on the part
of Mr. Ball. I have read and heard many attacks on
Taylor by National Socialists, who say that he does
not go “far enough.” in his views. 

Calling Taylor a pig is really out of order. I was a
nodding acquaintance of Taylor for a few years and
heard many of his speeches and he never used the
kind of intemperate language that Mr. Ball uses. Mr.
Ball, it appears, is a recent convert to
Protestantism and as such, I think an apology on the
part of Ball might be the truly Christian thing to do.