Jews, Hindus and Anglicans

Explanations are sought. They can be racial, cultural, or selective on any basis whatever, such as recent immigration policy in the US.

_________________________________________________________

I got an immediate response from Arran Gold, from his mountain fortress.

His explanation for the rankings are:

1. Subterfuge

2. Affirmative action

3. White privilege

Tobermory responded:

Hilarious, Arran! And yet, Episcopalians are privileged beyond whiteness (like most “old money” in the US, the Bushes attend that church). For those who have had the pleasure of a visit to Maui and taken the 10,000-ft drive up to the top of dormant volcano Haleakala, you may have noticed that at sea level are store-front evangelical churches attended by native Hawaiians, at 1000 ft are Baptist churches, at 1500 foot elevation are Presbyterian, and at a balmy, eternal-spring 2500 ft are Episcopalian churches, surrounded by large Tudor-style homes with rose gardens, i.e. exactly mirroring their ranking in the chart 🙂

 

Tacitus on the Germans

 

Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman historian, prose stylist, senator, consul and provincial governor.  He lived roughly from 56 AD to after 117 AD. He wrote a famous description of the German tribes, their lives, and customs, called Germania. Read it.

“For myself, I accept the view that the peoples of Germany have never contaminated themselves by intermarriage with foreigners but remain of pure blood, distinct and unlike any other nation.  One result of this is that their physical characteristics, in so far as one can generalize about so large a population, are always the same: fierce-looking blue eyes, reddish hair, and big frames – which, however, can exert their strength only by means of violent effort. They are less able to endure toil or fatiguing tasks and cannot bear thirst or heat, though their climate has inured them to cold spells and the poverty of their soils to hunger.”

What I most admire in books written before late 20th century governmental and self-imposed censorship is the treatment of different peoples in terms that are always more accurate than not because they are racial, tribal, or national, as appropriate.

It is not racist to discuss races in racial terms. What is so shocking to us is that people did so freely and without malice or condescension before about 1960. This is what they were like, these authors tell us.

You can read the same unselfconscious frankness in Thomas Jefferson’s discussion of black people in his Notes on Virginia or Francis Parkman’s descriptions of the Hurons, Iroqouis, French and English in his great works of early North American history.

That is what was so surprizing about these authors: their complete freedom to describe people as they saw them, without a Human Rights Commission on their back.

We are not living in a time of intellectual freedom. We are living in a time that future generations may well call a Great Darkness.

It has come to this

 

“Stop Islam”. No equivocation, no pussy-footing, no mincing words. “Stop Islam”. This in the country which produced Baruch Spinoza, gave rise to Amsterdam, and welcomed religious refugees from all over Europe even at the height of 17th century religious warfare.

The Daily Mail reports that the Turkish foreign minister has said that “Dutch anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders’ views were shared by all rival parties and were pushing Europe towards ‘wars of religion’.”

In short, all you Dutch white people are the same, social democrats, liberals, greenies, nationalists.
The outrage of the Left at Wilders (rightwing! extremist!) is well captured by Steve Sailer’s commentary in TakiMag this week.

Congressman Steve King (R-IA) has noticed just how extremist today’s respectable conventional wisdom has become. So King has been exercising a Trump-like knack for trolling the Establishment with blunt truths that enrage goodthinkers into revealing just how much their worldview is founded upon hatred of average Americans.

Over the weekend, King tweeted:

[Geert] Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny. We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.

Every time I try to think of myself as a moderate, along comes the frantic, hysterical reaction to obvious truths such Steve King just issued. I find myself asking, as I have occasion to do nearly every day, why is there is such anti-white animus from white people? I understand it coming from professional race grievors, even if it is the product of excessive tolerance by whites for subsidized attacks on ‘white’ civilization. But why is our civilization- yours and mine – so bent on self destruction?

Why is the statement, that “you cannot restore our civilization with someone else’s babies?” so electrifyingly horrid to the immense crowd of anti-white whites? I think these are the reasons.

First, because it is irrefutably true. Second, because it refers to the consequences of abortion, reduced fertility, and demographic collapse that feminism – for want of a better word – has engendered, but will not own up to. Third because it asserts that there might actually be such as thing as “our” civilization, which might have a racial or ethnic basis.

Touching three electrified rails at the same time!

I keep seeing this Thing, and I do not know what it is in essence, but in its effects, it is

  • anti-white
  • anti-male
  • anti-Christian

Yet I suspect that if this civilization had been founded by the female, the racially Mongol, and the Buddhist religion, then the Thing of which I speak would be equally anti-female, anti-racially Mongol, and anti-Buddhist. For myself it seems to be an inchoate rage of people who were never spanked, loved, restrained, and held to any standard of manners and comportment..

Japanese extremism

The Japanese, I have discovered, have only one standard, and that is – perfection. When, after WW2, they were told by American engineers that they could allow a 1% imperfection rate into the manufacture of screws, they looked at themselves and wondered how to engineer a 1% defect rate into what was already perfect.

The Tokyo String Quartet, Tokyo guitar quartet, Tokyo Bach choir: they all play their selected western classical music perfectly. Japanese cars – we all know how they set the standard for defect-free manufacturing.

And now comes news of the Japanese hoarder of pornography, who was buried under six tons of pornographic magazines. I understand. It was a particularly Japanese obsession, not in his taste, but in the devotion he showed to collecting everything.

I cite the infallible collector of the world’s oddities, the Daily Mail:

 

A lonely Japanese man who amassed more than six tons of porn died when a huge pile of magazines fell on top of him.

And even more tragically, the man’s body was only discovered six months later when the landlord entered the flat to find out why the rent had not been paid.

The man’s lowly death was revealed by a member of the cleaning team, who said his company had been hired to remove the magazines discreetly in a way that would not be noticed by neighbours and the man’s family to save them from the shame.

The kitchen of the Japanese man whose body was recovered from under a six-ton pile of porn
How Japanese can you get?
  • The landlord waited six months before acting (as to do otherwise might impugn the honour of the lessee)
  • The cleaning staff sought to spare the family and neighbours the shame of the discovery.

Japan is a pagan shame and honour society, in which Buddhism and Christianity are important but definitely not the mainstream. As I have remarked before, Shinto is a religion unbothered by any conception of the Deity. But shame and honour: these people understand those feelings to the core of their beings.

All this is carefully explained in Ruth Benedict’s Chrysanthemum and the Sword

As to the porn-stasher, consider him an example of the Japanese penchant for perfection, in this case, for collecting the complete works of Japanese pornographers.

Tedious Wankers 1: Michael Eric Dyson

American race hustlers abound. One can think of Al Sharpton, Van Jones, Jesse Jackson.  The new one on the block is Michael Eric Dyson. Obviously he is at least half white, and that makes him more tedious than less.  In a way the racism of Malcolm X came from a place of deep and possibly grievance. This guy is a nabob of the chattering classes, a professor of sociology at Georgetown. He appears on talk shows to denounce whiteness, white people,  and the baneful effects of both on his precious consciousness.

Let us refer to the words of Thomas Sowell, the American black intellectual, who has fought the ideas of the race hustlers all his life. Speaking in an interview in 2013 in the American Spectator, Sowell had this to say:

AmSpec: Let’s talk about the example of David Hume and the Scots and the path they followed.

Sowell: The role Hume played was one diametrically opposed by that played by most intellectuals as regards ethnic groups that are lagging behind. He wanted the Scots to master the English language. And that’s what they did. There were places all over Scotland that were giving lessons in English. The Scots learned that and it greatly expanded their cultural universe. I don’t know if there were any books in Gaelic in Scotland, and you were unlikely to learn chemistry or anything like that in Gaelic. The Scots came out of nowhere. They were very backward at one point. But from the middle of the 18th century to the middle of the 19th century many of the leading British intellectuals came from Scottish ancestry, including John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith.

It was the same with the Czechs in the Hapsburg Empire. If you were a Czech and you wanted to become a doctor or a scientist, chances are you’d find the books you needed in German, but not in Czech. And so, again, you needed to borrow from another culture.

Hume understood that. Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore understood this. The kids there learn English in addition to their native language.

But nowadays you are told to cling to your own culture and glory in its past achievements, real or fictitious. In Czechoslovakia after World War I, when they were doing they were doing the opposite of what Hume had done, intellectuals were lauding the Czech peasant as the purist expression of Czech culture. And the Czech peasant may have been the purist expression of Czech culture, but there wasn’t a damn thing he could teach you that would enable you to become a doctor or a scientist.

None of this race hustling will stop until Americans of good intentions cease to listen to the Dysons, Sharptons, and their ilk. Yet they seem addicted to self flagellation. Why? Therein lies a question whose answer runs deep into the spiritual decadence of the contemporary leftism.

Cultural appropriation is both good and necessary for cultural growth. People like Dyson are too ashamed of their “blackness” – whatever that is –  to endure comparison to real standards of accomplishment, which he labels “white”. Dyson fails to understand that  we all once to learn those standards of accomplishment ourselves, and in so doing gave up living in our little villages and knowing only our cousins and our clansmen. Charlatans like Dyson keep trying to get American blacks to revel in their cultural and economic failure, and to shift the blame for that failure onto whites. If whites were not around, he would have to shift the blame  onto whatever racial or cultural group was dominant. That is the sum and substance of sociology, a collectivist system of blame apportionment and victim worship.

A rational society would fire every sociologist from university teaching positions and send them to work making coffee and sandwiches for people who do useful things.

Michael Eric Dyson is today’s Tedious Wanker.

 

Sowell, Race Hustlers, and David Hume

 

 

 

 

 

 

The latest twaddle

I was at a speech given by a senior federal bureaucrat last week, a man not normally given over to political correctness, or complete folly for that matter, and to my astonishment I heard  him begin his speech by announcing piously that he was acknowledging standing on some tribe or other’s treaty territory. This seems to be the latest fad in virtue signaling.

As I write I am sitting in a chair on land that goes back to the time it emerged from retreating ice 9,000 years ago.  It used to be the hunting grounds of indigenous Ottawas, who emigrated to the Ottawa River from around Manitoulin Island in the upper Lake Huron, and thence to the Ohio River valley in the 17th century, where they were rivals, as were most Algonkian speakers, of the Iroquois Confederacy. My land has at various times been claimed by the King of France until the Treaty of Paris assigned it to the King of England in 1763 at the end of the Seven Years’ War.

 

The Ottawa [Or Odawa, Canadian] originally lived along the Ottawa River in eastern Ontario and western Quebec at the time of European arrival in the early 1600s. Their historic homelands also included Manitoulin Island in Lake Huron, and what is now Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. The Ottawa moved into northern Ohio around 1740. They spoke an Algonquian language; and are thus related to the Delaware (Lenape), the Miami, and the Shawnee. Historically, the Ottawa were enemies with the Iroquois nation, and with the Wyandot because of the former’s ties to the Iroquois.

The Ottawa’s political alliances were complicated and changed with the times. Some Ottawa were allies of the French until British traders moved into the Ohio Country in the early 1700s. Many Ottawa moved into northern Ohio so that they could participate in the fur trade with the British.

And so forth. Normal people: fighting, trading, and moving with the tides of history to greater safety or greater opportunity.

In short, why is the claim of the Ottawas memorialized by the federal bureaucrat in a speech downtown last week – in what ought to have embarrassed him –  over those of the King of France? Is anyone yet making a claim that I owe rent or acknowledgment to the remnants of the Ottawas or Hurons who still live around here? Or by contrast do I owe the same to the Bourbon pretender to the throne of France? Should I acknowledge  the claims of the Count of Paris to the former New France? Perhaps I can send my loyalty by bank transfers to the Stuart Pretenders to the throne of England? For some hundreds of years the Stuart claim has been held by the Ducal House of Wittelsbach of Bavaria, and according to a certain friend of mine they are the rightful sovereigns of Canada.

Is it any more absurd to start one’s speech acknowledging the traditional rights of the Bourbons or the Wittelsbachs to the ground I stand on than to a bunch of Canadian Indians?

And what about the claims of the Iroquois Confederacy to the lands of the Hurons, whom they exterminated in the 1650s? Do I owe recognizance to the heirs of Joseph Brant, Mason, Loyalist, and Mohawk, in preference to those of the Ottawas? Or is the Roman Catholic style of the House of Wittelsbach more to your liking? Your call. The next time you make a public speech, throw in some other claimants to the ground you walk on.

Joseph Brant

joseph_brant_painting_by_george_romney_1776_2

Franz, Herzog (Duke) von Bayern at his investiture as a Knight of the Holy Grail of Jerusalem

franz_von_bayern

 

 

 

 

Elites and Brexit

marie-antoinette

 

 

There is a strange notion going about, which has only been gathering strength for twenty years or more, that common people do not have a right to be concerned, let alone express concern, for the enormous hidden (to the upper classes) costs of living with aggressively intolerant minorities, of having one’s peace disturbed by the over-privileged spokespeople for those minorities, for the decayed social trust, the increased need to lock your house,  for the inability to enforce social norms – like taking out the garbage in a timely way or keeping the common halls clean – for fear of being accused and taken away to the police station for racist incitement. Not to mention the costs of de-Christianization in terms of tribal/national solidarity, and the increasing atomization of society under the impact of multi-culturalism, and its intolerant legal requirements imposed on the native population. What else? A general contempt for the native working classes and an apparent desire to see them replaced with cheaper foreign workers.

There has been, and continues to be, a stupefaction as to why people are becoming upset, and Marie-Antoinette’s “Qu’ils mangent du gâteau” seems to be a widespread reaction among  the beneficiaries of these changes.

The people have just told the elites to stuff it, and the elites are flabbergasted at their effrontery.

 

 

Racist Trees and other items of leftist dementia

Let’s face it: it is open season on whites, whiteness, and everything built by whites, which means in essence that the forces against civilization have the upper hand. To be clear, if you magically replaced every white person in North America with Japanese people, the Left would be railing against Japanese-ness. The hatred of order is the point, not the racial or cultural targets of it. Leftism is a revolt against standards first and foremost. Those who uphold standards of whatever nature are the Left’s targets.

Today’s lunacy is this article in Sultan Knish

Mickey Fearn, the National Park Service Deputy Director for Communications and Community Assistance, made headlines when he claimed that black people don’t visit national parks because they associate them with slaves being lynched by their masters.

Yellowstone, the first national park, was created in 1872 in Wyoming. Slavery was over by then and no one had ever been lynching slaves around Old Faithful anyway. But false claims die very hard.

Now Alcee Hastings, an impeached judge, and a coalition of minority groups is demanding increased “inclusiveness” at national parks. High on their list is the claim that, “African-Americans have felt unwelcome and even fearful in federal parklands during our nation’s history because of the horrors of lynching.” What do national parks have to do with lynchings? Many national parks have trees. People were hung from trees. It’s guilt by arboreal association.

Sultan Knish concludes:

The Obama era has seen the “Sharptoning” of America as the same ugly shakedown scams that were being practiced in New York or Chicago were suddenly national policy. This is the Sharptoning of the National Park Service. It’s happening in every agency and arm of government. We just don’t notice it…

Forests and lakes are not about where we want to go collectively. They are where we once were. They represent spaces of imagination and reflection that have nothing in common with Finney’s compulsion. They don’t have to represent Finney’s demands for “demographic and ethnic diversity”. They allow us a freedom from the confining urban spaces of leftist identity politics that deny our humanity. They show us that life is pure and simple in ways that defy the convoluted nonsense of political correctness.

It’s not hard to see why the left, despite its hollow environmental posturing, hates them.

I am waiting for Trump to correct this nonsense, to offer a spirited defence of normal thought, and to remove – as US politics allows Presidents to do so – every leftwing nutjob appointed to advisory boards to the US government.

The election in the United States will be about race. We have seen the face of black racial privilege and we don’t like it. They will call the supporters of Trump racists, and there is a sense -however limited – in which the accusation is true. The supporters of Trump were people who did not use to feel that way, but they have judged the Obama regime by its fruits (Trayvon Martin, Ferguson Missouri- cop killings and celebrations of black mayhem, affirmative action for overprivileged blacks, starting at the President) and have decided to repudiate it.

Trump will beat Hillary like a baby seal.

 

Race and IQ: changing my mind

This is an official announcement: I have changed my mind about something. Or maybe it is more accurate to say that new evidence is opening my mind to other possibilities – as it should. For the longest time I was persuaded, on rational grounds, that the gap in the United States between whites and black IQ scores was a largely genetic issue (approximately 70-80 percent) . After all, better scientists than I argued this way in The Bell Curve. Richard Lynn also argued this way, on possibly weaker statistical grounds.

The success of a couple of generations of children of African immigrants in the United States has damaged the credibility of theories predicated on inherited IQ.

I cite Chanda Chisala in the Unz Review:

 

The fact that black immigrants to the United States have shown achievements that are superior to native black Americans has been a phenomenon studied since at least the 1970′s. At first it was just the Caribbean blacks who were a subject of this unexpected outcome. As black Africans kept immigrating into the US, they showed even higher levels of achievement than the native blacks. Many scholars theorized on the reasons for these differences, from Thomas Sowell’s proposal that this disproved the validity of discrimination against native blacks as an explanation for their underachievement (Sowell, 1978), to other scholars who suggested that these immigrants were just the most highly driven members of their home countries as evidenced by their willingness to migrate to a foreign country (Butcher, 1990).

What most of these theories failed to predict was that the children of these immigrants would also show exceptional achievements, especially academically. It is only in recent years, as the immigrants have stayed long enough to produce a sufficiently high number of offspring, that it has been observed that they are over-represented among high academic achievers, especially when compared to native blacks, particularly at very elite institutions. What has been missed in the IQ debate is the full logical implication of these achievements: they have effectively nullified any arguments for a racial evolutionary explanation of the well-known IQ test score gap between blacks and whites. Even more fatal for the racial hereditarian side of the debate has been the corroborating data of school children performance in the UK, particularly when the black Africans are divided into their respective nationalities and tribal ethnicities, as reported in the latter section of this article.

The article is long but worth reading for those who concern themselves with such issues.

 

Thomas Sowell, a thinker and researcher at the Hoover Institute at Harvard, has argued that American blacks adopted the culture of the Scotch-Irish crackers who surrounded them. The book is called Black Rednecks and White Liberals, published in 2005. Thus a good deal of what is blamed on black ghetto culture is ascribed to ne’er do well hillbillies from whom the African slaves picked up ideas of work, child rearing, and social display. Sowell’s argument says that African Americans should not be indulged by white liberals in what he thinks is a loser culture; whether that culture arose from contact with rednecks or whether it arose from other causes is not ultimately of vital interest to Sowell. He is concerned of the use made by white liberals of American blacks.

“A crucial fact about white liberals must be kept in mind: they are not simply in favor of blacks in general. Their solicitude is poured out  for blacks as victims, blacks as welfare mothers, criminals, political activists against the larger society, as well as those blacks who serve as general counter-cultural symbols against the larger society.” (p.57)

Sowell’s concern has been the development of a black identity fetish since the 1960s, where being authentically “black” has been associated with low achievement, where earning and culture have been depicted as “acting white”. Harry Belafonte, a Caribbean immigrant to the United States, turned  on Colin Powell, another successful Caribbean black immigrant, who had been Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff of the US military, by calling him a “house nigger”.

Sowell maintains a strongly “culturalist” explanation of apparent racial differences. The interesting thing about Chanda Chisala’s article and the evidence it cites is that we have a much stronger basis for considering cultural explanations to be better grounded now than the genetic one, for supposedly racial IQ differences. This is a cause for hope, perhaps, that some things can be changed for the better.

Anti-white racism

Watch this. A debater from some second tier university argues at Harvard that whites should kill themselves because of “white privilege”. There has been and continues a completely frank anti-white racism in Obama’s America, which is only growing. People are getting fed up with it. And no one seems to be linking the rise of Trump with the reaction of the white people in America to this devaluation wrought by the political left. Whom you would destroy you first denigrate. To me the link seems obvious.