Category: Liberalism & the Left

Racist Leftist Hate

(Hat tip to Bryanna Bevens)

I’m a White Nationalist.  You know, an ignorant, bigoted, stupid, homophobic, misogynist, blind hater of all that isn’t white.

That said, I’ve never once in my life sent an email with the kind of racial epithets (to say nothing of generally mindless hostility and veiled threats) Michelle Malkin received after shining a flashlight into the leftist sewer:

Continued...

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 07:15 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (8) | Tell-a-Friend

The Flag Ban now Extends to Clothes

The latest:

“In the wake of last week’s immigration-reform protests, one school district is taking drastic measures, banning all symbols of patriotism, both U.S. and Mexican.  Beginning Monday, the Oceanside Unified School District is banning all flags and patriotic clothing. According to school officials, some students are using the garments and flags to taunt classmates.”

Source

I wonder what patriotic clothing is?  Red white and blue clothing, I gather.  But red white and blue are also the colors of France (that’s the French flag above).  And the Left all love France so we cannot have a ban on anything French can we?  Perhaps that is why the ACLU is against the flag ban.

I myself do NOT see why the American flag should EVER be banned in America.  And it is clear that any violence comes from those who hate the American flag, not those who display it.

The whole thing is just another chance for Leftist educators to push their usual gospel of everything being equal.  This time they are saying that the American flag and the Mexican flag are of equal importance and significance in America—which is clearly NOT so.

But below is another red, white and blue flag I kinda like:

It is of course the flag of America’s most reliable ally.

Posted by jonjayray on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 at 08:25 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Tell-a-Friend

Brainless Leftists

Leftists are great projectors (tending to see their own faults in others) so to know what is true of them, you just have to look at what they say about conservatives.  They even accuse conservatives of projection!  So they are always trawling for utterances by conservatives that they can characterize as “hate speech”, even though they themselves can hardly open their mouths without pouring out hatred of all those who oppose them. 

One of their most constant ploys is to accuse conservatives of being stupid and they have done it so often that conservatives seem to be somewhat abashed by it and rarely treat it as the projection it is.  For the record, the ONLY adult general population survey I know of that obtained both IQ scores and a record of political attitudes was Martin’s study (which I helped write up for the academic journals).  And that study showed that it was LEFTISTS who were most likely to be dumb.

Continued...

Posted by jonjayray on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 at 09:57 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (58) | Tell-a-Friend

American Flag Banned in an American School

We read:

“More than two dozen students walked out of Skyline High School Friday morning to protest what they say is a ban that doesn’t allow the American flag to be flown on school grounds.  The principal said that the ban isn’t just on American flags—it’s on all flags.  Several students who walked out of class Friday said that they were upset that Mexican flags can be waved around but that American flags couldn’t ...”

Source

I cannot see why the national flag of ANY country should be banned from government buildings of the country concerned.  In many countries displaying the national flag would be compulsory, in fact. 

And that there are no principles involved is shown by the fact that displaying the Mexican flag was perfectly accepted until the students started displaying the U.S. flag as well.  It is clearly just a rejection of American patriotism while saying any other national loyalty is just fine.

I wonder how many of the world’s liberties were fought for under the Mexican flag?  It seems to me that to dishonor the flag is to dishonor all those who died under it.

(Hat tip to Slapstick Politics)

Posted by jonjayray on Saturday, April 1, 2006 at 08:34 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (27) | Tell-a-Friend

Why there will be war with Iran (and Syria, etc, etc.)

(Same caveat as below)

I am not a big fan of war, in the same way that most anybody normal (i.e. not Bush) isn’t. It involves casualties; it disrupts the orderly progress of day to day life; and it is also hugely expensive. Of course, it is occasionally necessary to defend yourselves against aggressors, but the threat of Sierra Leone (a tiny African basket case, which Blair decided to invade, god alone knows why, nine years ago) and Iraq to Britain can, not to put too fine a point on it, be overestimated. So, it is fair enough to say that I am anti-war in the current context.

Continued...

Posted by Alex Zeka on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 at 06:01 PM in Activism,  Liberalism & the Left,  War on Terror
Comments (4) | Tell-a-Friend

The latest bit of pseudo-science from Berkeley

I suppose I should comment on the latest version of an old Leftist tune—summarized here for the general reader. 

Starting in 1950, psychologists have been trying to prove that conservatives are psychologically maladjusted—an effort that was summarized by Jost et al. and demolished here.  They never give up trying, however, and the study of 95 children from Berkeley, California by Jack Block and his wife is the latest episode.  It’s a bit like shooting fish in a barrel to demolish the “research” concerned so I will just mention a few basics. 

What the authors found was that Berkeley children who were rated as unhappy in their kindergarten years turned out as adults to be conservatives.  So what do we conclude from that?  Do we conclude that conservatives are intrinsically unhappy people?  Hardly.  The opinion polls repeatedly show conservatives to be the happiest (e.g. here).  So what DO we conclude?  How about saying that conservatives in ultra-Leftist Berkeley feel uncomfortable in that environment and pass on some of that discomfort to their children?  But the children (as most children do) grow up to share their parents’ politics so they turn out conservative in later life too.  So conservative parents who were SITUATIONALLY unhappy have conservative children —big deal!

But that is actually putting the best face on the study.  It is not nearly as good as that:

Continued...

Posted by jonjayray on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 at 11:31 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (3) | Tell-a-Friend

Liberalism and the slippery slope

I intended to write a post on the ramifications of sexual liberation (or the sexual “revolution”) in terms of its impact on our mores in the future. This is a subject which is broached quite often although the arguments in favour of greater liberation are never considered in the fullest sense of their real long term consequences.

The legalisation (or intended legalisation in the case of many American states) of Gay “marriage” was a massive step in the relentless march of liberal sexual morality (and this has occurred despite popular resistance to it - as with all the other cherished ideals of the liberal project). The question however is, how much further is this going to go? Have we gone far enough? Have we now permitted absolutely everything under the sun or are there still limits which gnaw away at the concept of the “sovereign” individual (and those limits therefore deserve to be destroyed because the individual is “sovereign”)?

Continued...

Posted by Phil Peterson on Saturday, March 18, 2006 at 09:06 AM in Liberalism & the Left,  Libertarianism,  Marxism & Culture War,  Social Conservatism,  Social liberalism
Comments (28) | Tell-a-Friend

Happiness, politics and genes

The fact that political stance is highly hereditary ties the two reports below together:

Even the Left-leaning Pew Research Center is still finding that conservatives are happier than Leftists.  Such results are hardly surprising.  Leftist politics are the politics of grievance, complaint and whining.  But I also liked the comment about Democrats by Statguy:  “Anyone who consistently looks to the government for help is in for a lot of disappointment and unhappiness”.

Depression:  Those pesky genes at work yet again:  “In a world first, researchers from NSW have discovered the gene responsible for depression.  After 25 years’ research, scientists have found that people who carry a particular gene are more likely to suffer depression regardless of their life experiences. The medical breakthrough will have major ramifications for diagnosis and treatment of the disease which affects one in four Australians. The study, to be published in the prestigious British Journal of Psychiatry this week, shows that people who carry a short serotonin transporter gene are predisposed to depression. Conversely, those who carry a long version of the serotonin transporter gene would be more resilient to whatever life throws at them. Around 43per cent of the population is believed to carry the short version of the gene”.

So we should perhaps feel sorry for Leftists.  They are born miserable.  The trouble is that they want to take all the rest of us down with them too.  They hate other people being happy.  That is why their policies are good at tearing down the rich but hopeless at lifting up the poor.  The results of their policies uncover what their real priorities are—hurting rather than helping.  Stalin and his ilk were no accident.

Update:

There is another report on the genetics of depression here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060209182752.htm

Posted by jonjayray on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 at 08:54 AM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (7) | Tell-a-Friend

Republicans are racists—But

The latest “Republicans are racists” screech is here.  This version of the screech is dressed up in the language of social psychology, however.  I know that language very well.  I have myself written many academic publications in it and have come to similar conclusions.  When the screech ends ““We have 50 years of evidence that racial prejudice predicts voting”, the article is quite right.  The correlation between expressions of conservative attitudes and expressions of racially negative attitudes does not always emerge but mostly it does.

For an intelligent person, WHY that happens is the interesting question, however.  That the finding might arise because conservatives are more honest in saying what they really think or that it might arise because Leftists are more deluded (including self-deluded) is never to my knowledge examined.  Instead,  complicated Freudian explanations for the correlation are offered that fall apart when closely examined.

Continued...

Posted by jonjayray on Monday, January 30, 2006 at 06:42 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (30) | Tell-a-Friend

The Psychology of Bizzarro World

Australia: state of fear

So what about the so-called “race riots” in Cronulla recently? Don’t they prove the failure of multiculturalism? On the contrary, they are a measure of its success, demonstrating that violence will occur in an area that is homogeneous, dominated by one ethnic group and resistant to outsiders coming in. Given my own Celtic heritage, I was embarrassed to see that the majority of youths arrested for assault and affray bore names that were Irish.

LOL!  Okay, whoever it was that predicted this belly up to the bar, I owe you a drink!  I remember a MRnik predicting this some time back (the idea that the solution was MORE! MORE! MORE! Multiculturalism.  Was it you Scroob?).

Look for Bell’s suggestion of “bigger gangs” and “more gasoline” as solutions to gang rape and arson, respectively, coming to a rag sheet near you.

What is it with Micks, anyways?

Update: jumpin’ Jesus Christ on a pogo stick!  F***ing unbeLIEVEable!

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Sunday, January 29, 2006 at 12:04 AM in Liberalism & the Left,  Marxism & Culture War
Comments (7) | Tell-a-Friend

Ignatieff’s lesson from the crypt

One interesting result in the Canadian election was the victory of Michael Ignatieff, a Harvard academic who has written widely on the issue of nationalism.

Ignatieff set out his views on nationalism in his book Blood and Belonging, published in 1993. In this work Ignatieff explains that whilst he himself is a cosmopolitan, he nonetheless supports a civic nationalism.

Why a civic nationalism? Ignatieff is a liberal. As such, he believes that individuals should be self-defined. Therefore he rejects ethnic nationalism (in which national identity is based on a common ancestry, culture, language and so on) because,

“Ethnic nationalism claims ... that an individual’s deepest attachments are inherited not chosen. It is the national community that defines the individual, not the individuals who define the national community.”

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 09:08 AM in Liberalism & the Left
Tell-a-Friend

Leftist logic:  The Nazis invoked God so anybody who invokes God is a Nazi

That is the classic non sequitur underlying a piece of pure hate by the aptly-named Canadian John Chuckman.  According to him, asking the blessing of God is akin to Nazism.  The entire article is one distortion after another.  Putting a balanced argument would leave him with nothing to say.  I have added just a few comments out of the many that spring to mind

I hadn’t realized until recently that Stephen Harper was using “God Bless Canada!” as a tagline for his speeches.  Some may think this a harmless, or even beneficent, expression for a politician to use, but for those with knowledge of history, nothing could be a more frightening.  I do believe we all know to whom Harper is tipping his hat with these words. George Bush, author of two wars which have killed more than a hundred thousand innocent people [A reference to a now thoroughly discredited piece of Leftist propaganda masquerading as science]  and the champion of an ugly set of repressive laws [Being a Canadian Leftist, I guess he means the awful oppression of homosexuals being allowed civil unions only—which is just the same as Hitler murdering homosexuals by the thousands, of course] in the United States, says “God Bless America!” every chance he gets.

Continued...

Posted by jonjayray on Monday, January 23, 2006 at 06:56 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (8) | Tell-a-Friend

An Australian Leftist leader discovers conservatism

Sort of

Teachers have ridiculed the announcement by the Premier, Morris Iemma, that it will be compulsory for all schools to play the national anthem at assemblies, as a response to the Cronulla riots.  Announcing the creation of “Australian values” units in public primary schools, Mr Iemma vaunted the teaching of “respect” and “responsibility” to the state’s youth. But he admitted there was no way of forcing his anthem plan on independent schools.

The president of the NSW Teachers Federation, Maree O’Halloran, described the anthem idea as a reannouncement and window-dressing. Most schools already sang the anthem anyway, she said. The executive director of the Association of Independent Schools, Geoff Newcombe, said: “Many of the independent schools actually do that [sing the anthem] so it isn’t a massive change.”

Mr Iemma made no apology for his repeated use of the term grubs to describe the gang filmed on CCTV bashing a man in a revenge attack after the riots. “They demonstrated not just criminality, but that underlying lack of respect [for an] innocent, law-abiding citizen [who] should not be subjected to that cowardly thuggish attack by that bunch of grubs.”...

Continued...

Posted by jonjayray on Monday, January 23, 2006 at 06:53 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (4) | Tell-a-Friend

Race and IQ—Desperate rearguard action at “the Guardian”

Leftists will of course always believe what they want to believe.  Their simplistic conceptions of the world matter far more to them than the facts.  But even for Leftists, the truth about race and IQ is getting increasingly hard to ignore.  And a recent article in “the Guardian” by Marek Kohn is testimony to that. He admits that the old Leftist shibboleths like “race does not exist” just sound hysterical these days and refers to sources that set out at length the evidence that race not only exists but that it is important.  In particular, he refers to two publications by Charles Murray that set out at massive length the scientific evidence for group differences, racial differences in IQ included.

Continued...

Posted by jonjayray on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 at 10:52 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (24) | Tell-a-Friend

Kinsey & sexual liberation

The politics of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey was discussed widely not so long ago, when the Hollywood film about Kinsey was released.

I think Kinsey is worth having another shot at, though, in the light of a university thesis I recently happened across online.

The thesis, by Brandy Renee McCann, starts out as a criticism of the book The Body Project, by Joan Brumberg. From what I can gather, the book asserts that girls were better off when they had a “protective umbrella” of guidance from older women, to get them through their early teenage years until they were emotionally and psychologically mature enough to deal with issues of sexuality.

Brandy doesn’t like Brumberg advocating such a “protective umbrella.” Brandy, you see, believes in a permissive philosophy of sexual liberation, in which individuals are “liberated from any ideologies about sex that inhibit pleasure.”

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Monday, January 16, 2006 at 08:05 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (3) | Tell-a-Friend

Icons of the iconoclastic

The left loves to create the illusion of a wide-ranging and popular debate on topics about which, actually, the public has a deeply fixed view and no interest in change.  “Debate”, you see, is code for the preliminaries to change.  It worries away at things, sowing doubt where none doubted and, eventually, offering “solutions” none desired.  Without “debate” there can be no general impression of legitimacy, no sense in which consent attaches to the vandalisms of progressive politics.

So when Mike Greenwood of the hopelessly superficial but no doubt expensive government agency, Culture Online, is quoted by BBC News as saying …

“Englishness has always been problematic because we are a ragbag of influences from all over the world,” says Mike Greenwood, commissioning executive of Culture Online, which came up with the idea.

“What a site like this needs to do is reflect that and not impose an orthodoxy about what Englishness is.

“It needs to be inclusive, not just mother’s apple pie and a Turner landscape, so there is a debate about what Englishness is, and the answer will be different depending on your background.”

… you know that Englishness cannot be allowed to remain itself.  It must be digested whole, along with as much alien seasoning as possible, and regurgitated in some new, vibrantly inclusive form.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, January 9, 2006 at 07:58 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (5) | Tell-a-Friend

Some reflections at the year’s end

It is clear that the special position of the English intellectuals during the past ten years, as purely negative creatures, mere anti-Blimps, was a by-product of ruling-class stupidity.  Society could not use them, and they had not got it in them to see that devotion to one’s country implies ‘for better, for worse’.  Both Blimps and highbrows took for granted, as though it were a law of nature, the divorce between patriotism and intelligence.  If you were a patriot you read Blackwood’s Magazine and publicly thanked God that you were ‘not brainy’.  If you were an intellectual you sniggered at the Union Jack and regarded physical courage as barbarous.  It is obvious that this preposterous convention cannot continue.  The Bloomsbury highbrow, with his mechanical snigger, is as out-of-date as the cavalry colonel.  A modern nation cannot afford either of them.  Patriotism and intelligence will have to come together again.  It is the fact that we are fighting a war, and a very peculiar kind of war, that may make this possible.

George Orwell, sounding very modern as he commends love of country in his essay The Lion and the Unicorn, published in 1941.

Given our dissident purpose it is fitting that this, MR’s first full calendar year of operation, brought a sharp spate of nasty surprises to our liberal elites.  I mean, of course, 7/7 and 21/7, the Katrina lawlessness, the black v brown riots in Lozells, the 18 days in Paris and beyond and, latterly, the white backlash in North Cronulla.

Naturally, some of these events were greater than others.  But all, in their way, were unprecedented.

Blacks have looted often enough, but always in times when a moral bonfire was to be expected.  No such pass could be extended in post-Katrina NO, where the white norm would have been to rise to the challenge.  Instead, white Americans glimpsed hopeless, irredeemable Africa in their midst and for a moment the narrative of white racist causality, so precious to liberals, was falsified.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, December 30, 2005 at 06:40 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (9) | Tell-a-Friend

Multiculturalism - a coercive government racket

An academic multiculturalist sheds some light on the essentially totalitarian nature of multiculturalism.

(Update: this has been cross-posted at A Western Heart and the Australian Libertarian Society - cheers, Steve E)

In his latest article for The Australian newspaper, one of our most prominent “multiculturalist” academics, James Jupp, has inadvertently admitted what anti-statists have known all along - that “multiculturalism” is nothing more than a government-sponsored, taxpayer-fleecing, racket.

Jupp states that “for 30 years, Australia has officially been a multicultural society” and claims this was “a sensible response to mass immigration”. Recognising the challenge to “multiculturalism” posed by the recent Cronulla riots, Jupp suggests that the “central problem” of “Australian” multiculturalism is that “it has been preached to the converted and especially targeted at ethnic communities” without being properly explained to the Anglo-Celtic majority, from whom the rioters were primarily drawn. Jupp defines multiculturalism by the condition where “no single ethnic, racial or religious group…can call itself Australian to the exclusion of others”, but if “multiculturalism” is supposed to be against “exclusion”, why has it been “especially targeted at ethnic communities”?

In other words, Jupp effectively admits that the government chose to overthrow the cultural identity of Australia without bothering to inform the incumbent ethnicity, precisely the opposite of an “inclusive” policy. Indeed, Jupp argues that “official multiculturalism” has been too “self-congratulatory”, and that there hasn’t been a great enough effort to propagate the Gospel of Diversity to the unwashed masses, among whom “widespread prejudice” apparently festers.

Continued...

Posted by Steve Edwards on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 02:36 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (13) | Tell-a-Friend

Shakespeare

I make no claim to be a Shakespeare scholar. Even so, I think a case can be made that Shakespeare was opposed to a key aspect of what has become the modern liberal philosophy.

One piece of evidence was discussed recently by Lawrence Auster. It’s a quote from the play King Lear, in which Albany speaks harshly of the evil daughter of Lear, Goneril, with the words:

O Goneril!
You are not worth the dust which the rude wind
Blows in your face. I fear your disposition:
That nature, which contemns [scorns] its origin,
Cannot be border’d certain in itself;
She that herself will sliver and disbranch
From her material sap, perforce must wither
And come to deadly use.

This runs directly against the grain of modern liberalism. A key idea of liberalism is that we are made truly human when we choose who we are through our own individual will and reason. Therefore, liberals prize the idea of an individual “freedom” in which there are no limits to our individual will. For liberals, individuals are free when they are not impeded in their will by an inborn nature, or by tradition, or by inherited identities.

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 at 07:20 AM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (4) | Tell-a-Friend

Patriotism and nationalism

I have never been able to explain to my own satisfaction why Leftists despise patriotism.  And I think that the short answer is that they don’t.  I think it is only (or principally) a worm in the brain of the modern-day American Left.  In America’s “Progressive” era (late 19th and early 20th century) the Left were not only patriotic but outright nationalistic.  The founder of America’s “Progressive” party (Teddy Roosevelt) definitely put his trust in battleships and was instrumental in the invasions of first Cuba and then the Philippines.  And the excuses mustered for both invasions were as threadbare as such excuses usually are.  And under Woodrow Wilson (still a great hero to the Left for his sponsorship of the League of Nations) unpatriotic and antiwar utterances landed thousands of Americans in jail.  A large slab of the modern American Left would now be in jail if Woodrow Wilson were still in charge.

Continued...

Posted by jonjayray on Sunday, November 27, 2005 at 11:44 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (26) | Tell-a-Friend

Anti-racism for Irish toddlers

A sublime self-parody of ultra-leftist social engineering in Ireland has been brought to my amazed attention by Michael R.  I particularly admire these “childcare committees in south Dublin and Fingal” who hope to spread their methods throughout the country.  Wonderfully loving people, I’ll bet.  Wonderful.  Clearly, the citizens committees of revolutionary France reverberate down all the Dublin days.

RACISM among Irish toddlers will be tackled at a conference for childcare providers in Dublin later this month.  International research shows that children can form prejudices against other races even as babies and pre-schoolers.

Workers in creches and childcare facilities will be shown how games and activities can prevent such discrimination forming.

The anti-racism initiative is being organised by childcare committees in south Dublin and Fingal who hope it will provide a blueprint for child carers across the country.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, November 26, 2005 at 07:00 AM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (10) | Tell-a-Friend

European doublethink about Muslims

“I would suggest that the Europeans are engaging in a more extreme version of what many liberals do vis a vis blacks in the U.S. In one part of their mind, liberals idealize blacks as the soulful oppressed victims about whom one must never think a judgmental thought, while, in the other part of their mind, they carefully organize their lives to have as little contact with blacks, certainly lower class blacks and angry activist blacks, as possible. In the same way, the Europeans with one part of their mind tell themselves that the Muslims are just marvellous, while with the other part of their mind they strictly avoid them. And somehow these two tendencies or thoughts never meet, so that the contradiction is never felt”.

More www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/004582.html

Posted by jonjayray on Friday, November 25, 2005 at 09:30 AM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (2) | Tell-a-Friend

For the Left, “racist” is a term for abuse, not for description

Excerpt from Daniel Pipes

My talks at university campuses sometimes occasion protests featuring Leftists and Islamists who call me names. A favorite of theirs is “racist.” This year, for example, a “Stand up to Racism Rally” anticipated my talk at the Rochester Institute of Technology, I was accused of racism against Muslim immigrants at Dartmouth College, and pamphlets at the University of Toronto charged me with “anti-Muslim racism.”

Anti-Muslim racism? That oxymoron puzzled me. Islam being a religion with followers of every race and pigmentation, where might race enter the picture? Dictionaries agree that racism concerns race, not religion ...

Continued...

Posted by jonjayray on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 at 06:14 AM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (13) | Tell-a-Friend

More racist assumption from the Left

Apparently it is only blacks who object to homosexual marriage on religious grounds—or so implies the Leftist Houston Chronicle:

“The hopes of gay rights advocates to stop the addition of a ban on same-sex marriage to the Texas Constitution ended last Tuesday. Texas voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 2, the constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.  Among Harris County residents who cast a vote on the issue, 72 percent favored the ban. Across Texas, 76 percent of voters approved ...

Inner city black voters in Harris County, many of whom have long experience with the denial of civil rights, favored the marriage amendment by an even higher majority than the general Harris County voting population. Black discomfort with homosexual marriage is rooted less in conscious discrimination than in religious belief, but support for the amendment brought blacks into incongruous accord with members of the Ku Klux Klan, whose members rallied in Austin in support of Proposition 2”.

Posted by jonjayray on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 09:33 PM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (2) | Tell-a-Friend

More on ancient Europeans

The excerpt below might help to put the recent abstract I put up into a broader context:

Many people also find something intriguing in the idea that one fairly small prehistoric population and its descendants somehow managed to expand across most of Europe and much of Asia, disseminating their language and culture on the way.  After all, the Proto-Indo-Europeans’ descendants provided much of the language and culture for the civilizations of ancient India, Iran, Greece, Rome, and Celtic and Germanic Europe.

Not surprisingly, Proto-Indo-Europeans were greatly admired by such earlier racial historians as the Count de Gobineau and Madison Grant and, of course, the Aryans were also the favorite people of Adolf Hitler.  This enthusiasm for Proto-Indo-Europeans as the ancestors of the white race and European culture has contributed to the contemporary taboo against Westerners identifying too closely with their racial origins.

The racial origins of the Proto-Indo-Europeans are, like race and IQ or race and crime, a red-hot subject.  Take the case of Professor Wolfram Nagel of Berlin University, who in 1987 argued in the journal of the German Oriental Society that Proto-Indo-Europeans must have been racially northern European.  He didn’t say they were a master race or destined to conquer the world, just that they were northern European.  Although Professor Nagel had reached the top of his profession, his reasoned arguments based on ancient texts and artworks so appalled the learned society that they fired the journal’s editors and debated whether to expel him (although in the event they allowed him to stay).  This incident offers an insight into the totalitarian climate that intellectuals work under in “democratic” Germany.

Similarly in France, two intellectuals whose books and articles describe Proto-Indo-Europeans as racially northern European—Alain de Benoist, the leading figure of the French New Right, and Professor Jean Haudry—are routinely vilified as Nazis.  Westerners are living in a strange world, when discussing the origins of their people and culture can land them in so much trouble.

http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no3/jvd-europeans.html

Posted by jonjayray on Friday, November 11, 2005 at 01:35 AM in Liberalism & the Left
Comments (33) | Tell-a-Friend