You are here

Glorious past, glorious future!

Mrs. Anthony Lewis, Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, has given us “gay marriage” on the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. She’s evidently timing her benefaction to stick a moral point to us and wrap herself and her deed in glory even beyond their merits. Not to fall behind, here are some odds and ends in honor of the day:

  • A letter from Zora Neale Hurston on Brown v. Board. She asks the obvious question: why does it show respect for black people to say that their well-being requires integration into white society—and thus the abolition of black society as something that functions? If you look at rates of imprisonment and illegitimacy it seems that black society has indeed become much less functional in the past 50 years. If you look at the historical statistics it appears that the decline really set in—and the rate of black economic advance slowed down—during the late sixties and early 70s, just when “civil rights protections” were growing teeth in the form of “affirmative action” and the like. Is that just an unfortunate coincidence, or should it have been obvious all along that Brown and allied initiatives would bring something of the sort?
  • A slightly edited exchange with an antiracist Evangelical correspondent:

    Antiracist Evangelical: How does a Christian not feel guilty after preferring his own ethnicity in matter of immigration? As Christians, aren’t we all called to see the person and soul rather than the skin?

    Jim Kalb: I’m not sure what the problem is here, although I recognize that people believe there is one.

    The basic question in immigration policy is not whether someone who wants to immigrate is more or less worthy as a human being than some other person but what policy best promotes the well-being of the country and its people and whether that policy is at odds with the well-being of the world at large. If the way people organize themselves socially means that there’s more social trust and cooperation and a more coherent and functional culture if there aren’t a lot of new members, and what new members there are mostly have historical connections, loyalties, memories etc. similar to those already present, then limiting immigration and taking ethnic background into account makes sense. What’s un-Christian about it?

    AE: I think what may be un-Christian is the fact one is perhaps glorifying flesh and denying someone the ability to be with them just because they are not white. Aren’t Christians called to see beyond race?

    JK: But human society can’t operate as an undifferentiated blob that includes everyone in the world in everything. It depends on picking and choosing—including and excluding—on some basis or other. If an employer wants to hire someone does he have to hire everyone who says he wants the job, because if he doesn’t he’ll be glorifying something or other and denying the humanity of those who aren’t hired?

    AE: I suppose the employer can discriminate on anything but race. I guess I don’t see how the Christian can use race as a legitimate form of discrimination, as it’s not the same as ability.

    JK: Why is race radioactive, so it can’t have anything to do with any legitimate human connection? What’s so special about it? Suppose an employer hires A because he’s family, B because he’s an old friend, C because he went to the employer’s old school, D because D really needs the job, E because he happens to like the guy, and F because F has the same ethnic background as other employees. The employer has been told that diversity is a “challenge,” and so far as he’s concerned he already has enough challenges to worry about. He believes that common ethnic background eliminates one common source of suspicion, misunderstanding, and conflicting habits and expectations. He thinks it makes it more likely that unforced informal productive working relations will develop based on common habits, attitudes, values, loyalties, interests, etc. Do you believe that what the employer did in cases A - E is OK, but what he did in case F is absolutely unacceptable? If so, why?

    AE: I cannot help but feel God would prefer a heterogenous population, than one that discriminates based on flesh.

    JK: Does God dislike family celebrations, because family connections are fleshly? Does he believe people should get together only when they have no previous connection to each other?

    The real question is the existence of distinct countries, peoples and cultures. Does God believe that every country, city, neighborhood, organization and activity should feature a random assortment of people from all possible backgrounds? The effect would be that distinct peoples and cultures couldn’t exist. But then you couldn’t expect people to have the common habits, expectations and whatnot needed to run their own affairs and work together without supervision, so you’d have to put some custodian in charge of everyone. Why would that be a good thing? Why wouldn’t God view it as destructive?

    AE: Family and ethnicity are different. Families are social structures that can feature adopted children from different racial backgrounds. People of the same ethnicity aren’t automatically my family, they are strangers.

    JK: Sure they’re different. Families are one sort of human connection, ethnicity is another. As you point out, it’s possible to share common ethnicity with a person of different family background and it’s possible to share family ties with a person of different ethnic background. Both connections naturally arise among human beings and both have functions. Neither has much to do with the abilities or moral worthiness of the persons to whom one is connected. Nonetheless, both help provide a setting in which a good life becomes possible. A man without a family finds it harder to connect to the social world and so live a good life, and a man without a particular ethnic culture is I think in a similar position.

    You and many others seem to believe that taking ethnicity into account in choosing associates and building a common life denies common humanity while taking other qualities not directly related to merit like family into account doesn’t. I don’t understand why that’s so.

    AE: Why is race so special you ask? I think because it’s the only criteria that provides a solid glass ceiling without compromise. At least with nepotism, an adopted person from a different racial background may benefit. But with race, unlike nepotism, merit, ability, there is no compromise or room to advance.

    JK: Why is there such a difference? One might as well say that as least with ethnic ties a person from a different family background may benefit. I don’t see why the one has to be treated as more of an absolute than the other. I thought the question was whether ethnicity can be a legitimate consideration, not whether it’s a consideration that automatically trumps all other considerations in all circumstances.

    AE: I didn’t say God wouldn’t like distinct cultures, but when it comes down to do what is moral in these times of rapid population migrations, how can a Christian look 2 men in the eye, one white like himself, the other black, both hard-working and Christian even, but choose to not allow the black man in?

    JK: Do you believe all countries should have open borders? If not, then if you allow any immigration at all you’ll have to let some in and keep some out. Why not base the decision on what seems most likely to be beneficial overall? And why wouldn’t ethnic issues enter into that? After all, they do make a difference to social life. And why is large scale ethnic mixture a good thing that we should choose? What benefits does it confer? The costs seem more obvious to me.

Share/Save

Comments

“What is ‘race replacement’ immigration?”

That California is no longer predominantly white didn’t happen all by itself, or in response to a plebescite calling for such a change or something, but was carefully engineered via imposed policies of Bush pere, Clinton, and Bush fils, building of course on the Kennedy-Celler Immigration Holocaust bill of 1965. A coalition of elites wants the U.S. to be “brown” and they’re frantically, hysterically bringing about the change as fast as they can so that whites not have time to mount effective opposition. The transformation of the entire country is slated to be complete by around the year 2040. Part of the elite strategy is to stifle or ignore expressions of popular discontent: when popular initiatives get passed that, in effect, oppose aspects of race replacement they are simply stricken down by judges arbitrarily; when polls keep showing the nation doesn’t want amnesty for the fourteen million Mexican illegals Bush keeps pushing it anyway; when polls show repeatedly that people want less immigration both legal and illegal the elites keep excessive immigration policies in place, the more incompatible the better; Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected, it is said, mainly thanks to Grey Davis’ granting of drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens, yet he now plans on proposing exactly the same thing; etc.

“That is, if you go in for the notion of collective racial choices in the first place.”

If in a group of three people, two vote for something and the third against, can’t we say the majority votes in favor, without implying that some abstract entity called “the group of three” has consciousness and has expressed its will? I don’t see why you keep trotting this out.

“I’m not in favor of forcing race replacement on any population.”

Good. That’s exactly how I feel.

“Unadorned [wrote]: ’ … find other ways of getting their self-abnegation moral highs? Can’t they just fast forty days or something?’ Why the anti-Christian mockery?”

It’s anti-fool, not anti-Christian. I’m pro-Christian.

“Perhaps you take issue with the fact that Christians don’t generally view their neighbors of another race as foreign invaders, genocidal conquerors, or agents of President Bush’s race-replacement program?”

Pres. Bush’s race-replacement scheme isn’t embodied in anyone’s brown, black, or yellow neighbor, and opposition to it has no implications regarding that particular neighbor of anyone’s. Opposition to Bush’s scheme to do away with the white race in this country and replace it with non-whites has relevance solely at the level of overall immigration volumes and compatibilities. No one’s individual Somali-Negro or Pakistani-Moslem or Chinese or Mexican neighbor is going to single-handedly change this country’s demographics by his presence here. His particular presence as your neighbor is one-hundred percent irrelevant to this issue. The objection to Pres. Bush’s and Karl Rove’s scheme to replace the white race in this country by non-whites has relevance solely at the level of broad immigration policy (and of de facto adjunct race-replacement policies like AA; PC thought control; deliberately keeping white birth rates down through tax policy and through all sorts of policies that prefer non-whites to whites in various aspects of life; etc.).

“I suppose there is widespread support for mass deportations of non-white American citizens in ‘poll after poll’ as well […]?”

My support for repatriation applies to two categories: illegals (who should get repatriated without any financial compensation of course), and incompatibles and their descendants deliberately brought here *legally* in excessive numbers by Ted Kennedy and Emanuel Celler through their 1965 Immigration Holocaust bill (ideally they would get very generous financial compensation). As for public support for generously compensated repatriation, let’s start first with a complete immigration moratorium, together with reforms such as an administration that stops actively preferring non-white races and suppressing whites in the form of AA or whatever, and see where that leads, shall we?

” ‘— not those who were already here or their descendants.’ That’s mighty generous of you, but I don’t quite understand the arbitrary significance of 1965. Incompatible is incompatible.”

Is “excess” hard to comprehend? My side sees no problem with the presence of minorities in a country, as there were here in 1965. What we oppose is being submerged in incompatible races, etc., through the deliberate policies of elites who either actively hate us or don’t care about us. Enough’s enough, already! We want the racial, cultural, ethnic, religious transformation to stop, and to start to be reversed (mainly the racial). By the way, MAY we reverse it if we can? Or do Christians only get their intense self-abnegation highs when white nations are changed to non-white ones, never the other way around? Isn’t sauce for the goose sauce for the gander? Or are these things only allowed to go in one direction?…

“Therefore, if we’re going to break up families and neighborhoods and cities and regions and nations for the sake of racial compatibility, there is no reason not to do a thorough job of it.”

You seem to think the break-up of all those things that’s going on *in reverse* in North America and Europe is happening by chance. It’s being carefully orchestrated. My side wants that to stop. I don’t object to the tide coming in—I’ll deal with the tide. I do object to someone setting up a giant wave-making machine and deliberately sending a tidal wave crashing over me and everything I know and love. If giant wave-making machines are the name of the game I’ll go out and tell the guy to stop and turn his damned machine off. Christians don’t seem able to grasp certain realities. They’re living in la-la land.

“Unadorned: ‘The people of a country, nation, region, tribe, or racial or ethnic grouping have a moral right to the preservation of that entity’s racial or ethnic make-up.’ No, they do not, except in the fertile imaginations of a few rootless and insecure men grasping for an identity of some kind.”

So, whites can take steps to make South Africa, Rhodesia, Mexico, and elsewhere predominantly white and take power there?

”[‘Good ethnic cleansing’ is] insane. Most people who are deeply rooted in their homeland can never be paid enough to leave.”

Steve’s solution is not ideal, but maybe not “insane” either if the alternative is decades, centuries, and millennia of bloodshed and killing.

“What is truly amazing is that you defend the […] ‘race replacement’ of the Zionists […] but have nothing but scorn for the peaceful, legal, and largely accepted immigration of non-whites to the United States.”

I’m sure you’re living in the middle of a place like Harlem or South Central, and would very much like to spend the rest of your life there. I feel certain of that. As for Israel: nations don’t exist in thin air but require land. Israel is a nation. In general, where two peoples have at least equally valid, equally moral claims to land I support the claims of the people who are most closely related to me. (For the record I’m white, Catholic, and a mixture of Eastern and Central European in ancestry, my four grandparents having been immigrants from Europe.) In Israel’s case its claim to the Holy Land isn’t equal to that of the Palestinians but stronger. I support Zionism, therefore, on all counts. But most of all I support my own race, sub-race, religion, ethnicity, culture, language, nation, country, history, heritage, national myths, and people against deadly attack which is being so heartily endorsed by certain Christians.

Far too many words, in my moronic opinion, though I commend the effort, which was no doubt substantial. Thanks to the thoughtfull Mr. Cluberth and Unadorned. We are designed to take race into account. The remaining issue is how we do IT. Do we kill or oppress the outsider? My idea is to contract.

“Far too many words […]”

Mr. Murgos, thanks for that reminder to keep it short. Sorry for the length. I’ll keep any further comments in this discussion to a paragraph or so, max.

Just a few more brief comments before retiring the topic:

Unadorned: “If in a group of three people, two vote for something and the third against, can’t we say the majority votes in favor, without implying that some abstract entity called “the group of three” has consciousness and has expressed its will? I don’t see why you keep trotting this out.”

I keep trotting it out because I thought you were saying that racial groups, as such, have things like *rights* and a *collective will*. But now I see that you were saying something quite different, that racial groups have democratic majorities, and that these democratic majorites have rights and a collective will. I’m not a democrat, big “D” or small “d”, so appeals to majority votes carry no weight with me. Majorities are transitory, fickle, subject to manipulation, and very often wrong.

I find that most self-styled democrats really aren’t democrats either. If you took a poll and asked white Americans whether they wanted to deport all of their non-white neighbors who arrived after 1965, I suspect that most would say “no”, and that you would find yourself one of a very unpopular minority, and that you would deport them anyway if you had the authority.

Unadorned: “Opposition to Bush’s scheme to do away with the white race in this country and replace it with non-whites has relevance solely at the level of overall immigration volumes and compatibilities. No one’s individual Somali-Negro or Pakistani-Moslem or Chinese or Mexican neighbor is going to single-handedly change this country’s demographics by his presence here. His particular presence as your neighbor is one-hundred percent irrelevant to this issue.”

That isn’t true at all. Ideas have consequences, and your idea is that my non-white neighbors who arrived after 1965 - including my wife, children, in-laws, parishoners, employees, customers, and dearest friends - should be forcibly deported. (With generous compensation, of course.) How’s that not relevent?

Unadorned: “—let’s start first with a complete immigration moratorium, together with reforms such as an administration that stops actively preferring non-white races and suppressing whites in the form of AA or whatever, and see where that leads, shall we?”

I would support such reforms, although I would prefer to stop short of a complete immigration moratorium.

Unadorned: “So, whites can take steps to make South Africa, Rhodesia, Mexico, and elsewhere predominantly white and take power there?”

Depending upon the circumstances, that may indeed be the result of good colonial policy, and if it were, I would not oppose it on strictly racial grounds.

Unadorned: “I’m sure you’re living in the middle of a place like Harlem or South Central, and would very much like to spend the rest of your life there.”

If I lived in such a place, I might well want to deport all or most of my neighbors. But I would deport them for bad behavior; you would deport them for “racial incompatibility”.

Unadorned: “As for Israel: nations don’t exist in thin air but require land. Israel is a nation.”

Israel is the Catholic Church, to which the Holy Land properly belongs.

Unadorned: “In general, where two peoples have at least equally valid, equally moral claims to land I support the claims of the people who are most closely related to me.”

That’s still no reason to support Zionism.

Unadorned: “But most of all I support my own race, sub-race, religion, ethnicity, culture, language, nation, country, history, heritage, national myths, and people against deadly attack which is being so heartily endorsed by certain Christians.”

To which I reply with the words of Mr. Kalb in yesterday’s posting:

“If you say that desire, technology and willed construction are the ultimate principles that determine social reality, as moderns do, then you’ve got some choices to make. You can be boring like the liberals, and say that (for some reason) everyone’s desires have to count equally, so the purpose of life is turning everything into a universal safe and egalitarian hedonic machine. Or you can stick some expressiveness and drama into the picture, and say that *my* desires are what count for me, that the constructions of *my* society are what determine the reality for which I’ll put everything on the line, and that I’ll vindicate those things by overcoming all others ….”

Is Mr. Culbreath really saying that any authoritative concern for maintaining ethnic cohesion - where a specific primary concern is racial/ethnic cohesion - is equivalent to Naziism? He seems here to be adopting the view that racial differences are purely a product of the will. But perhaps he is just engaging in rhetorical excess.

To answer Matt:

1. No, I don’t say that an authoritative concern for maintaining racial cohesion is necessarily the equivalent to Nazism. But when it trumps all other considerations, such as the rights of decent Americans to live where they have lawfully and peacefully chosen to make their homes and families, then it does border on low-octane Nazism.

In point of fact there is no possibility of engineering a “racially cohesive” America today without destroying lives and bringing on a civil war. That’s why this kind of talk is worse than irresponsible.

As Unadorned has honestly shown, giving serious consideration to racial cohesion schemes, in the context of American life, inevitably leads to serious consideration of forced mass deportations of innocents. (One should not be surprised that Zionists have no problem with ethnic cleansing, but neverless it is instructive to see Zionist ideology applied directly to the United States.)

2. Certainly Unadorned’s plan for “maintaining ethnic cohesion” by deporting millions of non-white citizens would be an act of political will. And if there is some elite conspiracy to change the racial composition of the United States, as Unadorned claims, that would also be an act of political will. I think it is clear that a nation’s racial composition can, in fact, be manipulated by acts of political will. However, in a nation that has been multiracial from the very beginning, and in a nation that is presently home to hundreds of diverse ethnic groups, I maintain that playing political football with race is grossly irresponsible.

Well, I agree that mass deportation is unworkable for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it couldn’t possibly be done in a way consistent with justice. In my view an immigration policy that stopped all nonwhite immigration while encouraging white immigration in order to stabilize and then re-take the racial gradient would not be immoral though. Since neither Mr. Culbreath nor I are democrats of any sort, I can say it this way: in general there is nothing immoral (or Nazi) about a just sovereign discriminating based on race, and race alone, if that is the particular natural lever that requires pressure. In my understanding that goes both ways: I can imagine factual circumstances in which a just sovereign would discriminate one way or the other, based on the needs of the polity.

I have the impression still that Mr. Culbreath’s view is rather a one-way street here: that government enforced integration can in some circumstances be for the good but that government enforced segragation - based on race alone - cannot be good even in principle. If that is so then it is inconsistent with the view that race is a natural property with natural consequences of its own, like sex. Which is why I further got the impression that Mr. Culbreath views race - not the fact of race, but its political consequences - to be purely a matter of the will rather than a natural property.

I fully admit that these are impressions, not a fully fleshed critique that draws directly on quotations from Mr. Culbreath’s writing. Perhaps I will endeavor to construct such a critique at some point if time allows, if this more general discussion becomes stymied.

Because sex is a natural property with natural consequences it is possible to discriminate based on sex in a way consistent with justice (it is also possible to do so in a way inconsistent with justice, but then it is possible to do almost anything in a way inconsistent with justice). That can mean either forced integration or forced segregation, and with a perfectly just sovereign over fallen men it no doubt would sometimes include one or the other over millennia. As a concrete example, if a just sovereign took power in China and reversed all of its immoral policies, another thing he might do is forbid the immigration of men - and make the emmigration of women more difficult - in order to bring the polity back into sexual balance.

Unless the consequences of race are purely a product of the human will, then the same thing goes for race.

My compliments, Matt, on your clarity of thought and expression. You wrote:

“In my view an immigration policy that stopped all nonwhite immigration while encouraging white immigration in order to stabilize and then re-take the racial gradient would not be immoral though.”

I agree that such a policy would not be intrinsically immoral in itself. But it could be immoral if it were driven by bad motives, and I would suggest that the motive of securing the social/political dominance of one particular race over other races—within a nation that is legitimately home to them all—is problematic. Whatever benefits may accrue would likely be spoiled by an increase in racial conflict.

“Since neither Mr. Culbreath nor I are democrats of any sort, I can say it this way: in general there is nothing immoral (or Nazi) about a just sovereign discriminating based on race, and race alone, if that is the particular natural lever that requires pressure.”

I agree.

“In my understanding that goes both ways: I can imagine factual circumstances in which a just sovereign would discriminate one way or the other, based on the needs of the polity.”

Indeed. It seems possible, for instance, that two races might demonstrate themselves to be implacably hostile to one another and incapable of living together, at least for a time. Serbia/Albania come to mind (although religion is probably more of a factor here). Under such circumstances I can imagine just policies based solely upon race.

“I have the impression still that Mr. Culbreath’s view is rather a one-way street here: that government enforced integration can in some circumstances be for the good but that government enforced segragation - based on race alone - cannot be good even in principle.”

Your impression is not altogether unfounded. Although I do admit the principle that legal segregation might sometimes be justified, I think the *presumption* should be that human beings have enough humanity in common to live together peacefully when they find themselves occupying the same ground.

“If that is so then it is inconsistent with the view that race is a natural property with natural consequences of its own, like sex.”

Although race is a natural property with natural consequences, it seems obvious that those consequences are nothing like the profound moral, physical, and social consequences due to sex. Sometimes, when race correlates with certain behaviors, race may seem to be supremely significant, but it is usually a mistake to conclude that human behavior is unchangable apart from race.

“Which is why I further got the impression that Mr. Culbreath views race - not the fact of race, but its political consequences - to be purely a matter of the will rather than a natural property.”

I would say that the political consequences of race are the result of both nature and will. Nature will be what it will be, and even nature does not generally place insurmountable barriers between racial groups. Furthermore the human will (politics included), especially when augmented by grace, can do much to faciliate social cohesiveness in spite of racial differences.

“I fully admit that these are impressions, not a fully fleshed critique that draws directly on quotations from Mr. Culbreath’s writing. Perhaps I will endeavor to construct such a critique at some point if time allows, if this more general discussion becomes stymied.”

Well, Mr. Culbreath sounds very confident, but the truth is that his views are still developing—hopefully on solid Catholic principles—and he is sure that his past writing contains more than a few inconsistencies. Perhaps any further discussion should continue in e-mail.

Mr. Culbreath wrote,

”[…] I would suggest that the motive of securing the social/political dominance of one particular race over other races—within a nation that is legitimately home to them all—is problematic. Whatever benefits may accrue would likely be spoiled by an increase in racial conflict.”

Here Mr. Culbreath is in essence agreeing with the Clinton/hard-left/Wall-Street/CCR* view that the U.S. would be better off “brown.” If the phrase “legitimately home to them all” means having minorities, every nation that ever existed was/is under moral obligation, according to this, to give itself over to stringent multi-culti policies, since no nation ever was devoid of minorities.

I find it useful in discussions sometimes to turn the tables—give the other guy a taste of his own medicine, and see how HE likes it for a change:** Let’s apply the same reasoning to religion, Catholicism in particular: Catholic dominance must everywhere give itself over to “multi-faithism” wherein all religions are equally prominent and if any appear to dominate, steps must be taken to equal them all out: immigration schemes aimed at the importation of leveling volumes of certain “underrepresented religions” until none seems to dominate, etc.—i.e., the same stuff now being done to “level” the races.

Let’s see how certain Catholics would like that idea. Let’s see if they’ll take their self-abnegation that far…

(* CCR = Country Club Republican)

(** Hey, what could be a more appropriate tactic than “turnabout is fair play” to use on a web-site named “Turnabout”? :-) Sometimes, “One turnabout is worth a thousand words.”)

I agree with this:
“But it could be immoral if it were driven by bad motives, …”

And I conditionally disagree with this:
“…and I would suggest that the motive of securing the social/political dominance of one particular race over other races—within a nation that is legitimately home to them all—is problematic. Whatever benefits may accrue would likely be spoiled by an increase in racial conflict.”

…if “securing” means “sustaining” rather than “supplanting”. Dynastic, racial, cultural, and political stability are all (conditionally) good things to sustain. In polities where these things are not sustained order breaks down and violence ensues, generally speaking, although each particular situation has to be evaluated on its own merits. I know of no peaceful and stable polity ever in which a particular race has not been dominant, and so I am very reluctant to believe that breaking the natural phenotype is a positive prudential good, let alone a moral imperative.

As Mr. Culbreath has asked to take the discussion to email I will make that my last public comment in this thread.

Some relevant thoughts of Lawrence Auster’s, excerpted from an article published today at FrontPageMag.com:

“5. *Publicly renounce and abjure multiculturalism as a societal philosophy.* We must tell the world that we no longer consider ourselves equally open to all peoples and cultures in the world, that we are a Western society with a British-based, Protestant culture and a Judeo-Christian morality, and that we intend to remain so. Therefore no one should think of immigrating to or remaining in the United States unless he is prepared to make that culture his own.

”[…] We got ourselves into this mess through our belief in universal non-discrimination, the utopian liberal ideology which told us to open our nation’s borders on an equal basis to every people and culture in the world. Therefore the only way we can get ourselves out of this mess is by abandoning the belief in universal non-discrimination. […]

“There is nothing evil, immoral, reactionary, fascist, or racist in what I am proposing here. I’m saying things that once would have been the common-sense understanding of all Western people, prior to the suicidal ‘we-must-end-all-discrimination-against-everyone-in-the-world’ brand of liberalism that became ascendant in the West after World War II, and that was made U.S. national policy under the 1965 Immigration Act.”

( http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13532 )

I invite those interested to continue this discussion in the Pro et Contra site generously provided by Mr. Kalb. I am not sure when I will post my reply to the comments above, but I hope people will check it out or add to it on their own initiative. The topic is one of the most important we will ever encounter. The problem of forced integration is grave but has just since 9/11 become at least more substantial in the eyes of many more people. The problem pits those that want change against those that think there is no solution and those that want no change.

Neither the falsity of racial rights nor its perniciousness has been justified above. Catholics and most other Christians are not supposed to treat anyone badly. Yet antiracists believe because we all are different in some biological way, we must treat one another the same.

Another antiracist proposition is everyone is in some vagued-up-way equal. True we are all savages once we are stripped of the veneer of civilization and Christianity. Yet, why is being on a different team evil? There are many differenet teams, and race is so traditional; it is utopian to believe all races are “equal.”

I don’t know how to move the discussion to Pro et Contra.

Correction. Christianity is not a veneer.

It is true one must be responsible in speech. However, the speech here is not constitutional law. It is a learning method.

The de facto position of the antiracists seems to be race is important but our other differences are more important. Yet they fail to propose a reliable principle from which they can derive their supposedly “rational” view.

Mr. Murgos wrote,

“The de facto position of the antiracists seems to be race is important but our other differences are more important. Yet they fail to propose a reliable principle from which they can derive their supposedly ‘rational’ view.”

Antiracism is at bottom a weapon used to attack a hated race and eliminate it if possible, finally getting it out of your hair for good. Naked attacks on hated races just won’t fly in this day and age, in propaganda terms. Those with such an agenda—the elimination of a hated race—must come up with some socially acceptable, effective propagandistic name or slogan, one which the gullible broad public will buy. Thus was Antiracism invented. Antiracism means one thing and one thing only: it means it’s now OK to target white Euro Christians for marginalization and if possible outright extinction because some people are sick and tired of them and want very much to see the last of them. At bottom it means nothing else than that, whatsoever. Part of what makes Antiracism so popular among certain Christians are the almost limitless opportunities it affords for giving proof of self-worth by means of (pseudo-)self-abnegation.

Pages