The Destructive Class
By • 10/1/07 |
A number of articles on The Inverted World have argued that the reason for the success of the “whites as cancer” myth is that our culture associates anti-Western, pro-diversity attitudes with positive traits like intelligence and courage. This “anti-ethnocentric” snobbery emerged in the 1960s and 1970s and was particularly strong among the professional classes and those who aspired to join them. Anti-ethnocentrism proved an effective ideology for legitimating professionals’ class power. It made slandering whites appear to be a courageous act of resistance to the “pre-fascist” white majority.
Anti-ethnocentrism has proved spectacularly successful. As the pundit David Brooks has demonstrated in Bobos in Paradise, the spirit of multiculturalism spread from professionals to executives, creating a wealthy elite of “Bobos,” or bohemian bourgeois, who have managed to reconcile big business with the values of the 1960s counterculture.
Today, it is a cliché that openness to diversity is associated not merely with intelligence and courage, but with a whole host of other desirable qualities. However, when you read the writings of the diversity rhapsodists, you find evidence for these claims slender to non-existent. Diversity-boosting, in fact, resembles religion more than social science. Its practitioners are perfectly willing to run roughshod over the evidence out of zeal for their idol.
A particularly striking example of this blind faith in diversity is the work of economist Richard Florida, author of The Rise of the Creative Class (Rise) and The Flight of the Creative Class. His argument is that success in today’s economy depends on building and catering to a “Creative Class” through openness to diversity and high immigration levels. However, he ends up showing in spite of himself that diversity is a weakness, and diversity-boosting is the ideology of an elite.
Florida believes we live in a “Creative Economy,” in which economic success is dependent on innovation. Creativity depends on a highly educated and affluent class of knowledge workers consisting of:
people in science and engineering, architecture and design, education, arts, music and entertainment, whose economic function is to create new ideas, new technology and/or new creative content. Around the core, the Creative Class also includes a broader group of creative professionals in business and finance, law, health care, and related fields. These people engage in complex problem solving that involves a great deal of independent judgment and requires high levels of education or human capital.
Florida estimates that 30 percent of the employed belong to the Creative Class, or 38 million people.1
The Creative Class is united by a common culture that stresses individuality, meritocracy, and “diversity and openness.”
The Creative Class people I study use the word [diversity] a lot… . Diversity is simply something they value in all its manifestations. This is spoken of so often, and so matter-of-factly, that I take it to be a fundamental marker of Creative Class values.2
Diversity here means not merely racial diversity, but also homosexuality and other forms of nonstandard behavior.
Rise gives detailed descriptions of the culture of diversity that the Creative Class has created. The class’s anti-ethnocentrism is apparent. For example:
In some Creative Class centers like Silicon Valley and Austin, the traditional office Christmas party is giving way to more secular, inclusive celebrations. The big event at many firms is now the Halloween party: just about anyone can relate to a holiday that involves dressing up in costume.3
During its leisure hours, the Creative Class tends to spurn both excessively Western institutions like the art museum, symphony, opera, and ballet, as well as traditional American entertainments like baseball and football games. Rather, the Creative Class enjoys the cosmopolitan “street life” in “multiuse urban neighborhoods” that offer ethnic restaurants, art galleries, and small theaters. Particularly prized are cosmopolitanism and eclecticism. The creative like a neighborhood where they can find German films and Senegalese music jostling against each other. They especially love hybrid art forms such as “Afro-Celt” music.4
Nostalgia for ‘60s counterculture is another Creative Class trait. Florida describes his delight at attending “Hippie Hour” at a bar in Austin, Texas, the quintessential Creative Class city. Far from being a downscale event, as its name would suggest, “Hippie Hour” attracted much of the local elite. Florida was overjoyed at the diverse crowd of “hippies, musicians, Latinos, politicians, and high-tech business types.”5
Openness to diversity is the key to America’s continued prosperity, in Florida’s view, because it is the vital element of the creative personality: “economic growth is powered by creative people, who prefer places that are diverse, tolerant and open to new ideas.”6 He bemoans the traditionalism of America under the Bush administration: “On sexual orientation, scientific research, the arts, and civil rights, the current conservative leadership is more backward-looking than ever.”7 He argues that this traditionalism is causing a “reverse brain drain,” as the Creative Class leaves for Europe and Canada, where it feels more welcome.8
Friendliness to diversity is also essential because immigration imports talent. Florida positively falls over himself lauding the accomplishments of immigrant entrepreneurs, with names like Gururaj Deshpande, Pradeep Sindhu, and Jing Jong Pan, who have started up high-tech companies.9 Stepped-up screening of immigrants since 9/11 has made it much more difficult for them to enter, and we risk losing them to other countries, Florida warns.10
Startlingly, Florida’s own work reveals that his thesis has no ground in fact. Besides paeans to the creative life, Rise also contains discussions of Florida’s empirical research on innovation, including its relationship to diversity. The scientific and descriptive sections of the book flatly contradict each other. When he correlates what he calls the “Innovation Index” of American cities, which is the number of patents granted per capita, with the “Melting Pot Index,” or the percentage of a city’s inhabitants that is foreign-born, Florida finds no relationship between the prevalence of immigrants and innovation or job growth.11
Furthermore, there is actually a negative relationship between the concentration of high-tech companies in a region and its percentage of non-whites. Florida is disappointed to find that:
The world of high-tech creativity doesn’t include many African-Americans. Several of my interviewers noted that a typical high-tech company “looks like the United Nations minus the black faces.”12
Florida saves his thesis by showing there is a relationship between innovation, sexual diversity, and lifestyle diversity: the most creative places tend to have higher percentages of homosexuals and bohemians. Nevertheless, his findings on race render his unqualified celebrations of diversity ridiculous.
Other passages in Florida’s books have the same effect. One problem that concerns him is the growing wealth gap between the Creative Class and the rest of society, and the wealth gap, of course, is in large part a gap between whites and non-whites. Florida quotes the speech of gourmet chef Anthony Bourdain during a high-society awards ceremony for cooking in New York:
“The restaurant industry would collapse without the Mexicans and Central Americans who came to this country with no skills at all.” Yet, he told the stunned audience, “you look at the audience and you’ve never seen so many white people in one place since George Wallace ran for president.”13
Florida devotes a few generic lamentations to the exclusion of blacks and Hispanics from the ranks of the creative. However, he never explores the ways in which this exclusion challenges his thesis. Clearly, the Creative Class enjoys the idea of racial diversity more than the reality. The type of diversity that it likes—Thai restaurants attended by Egyptian software engineers looking out on black street performers—is of a very artificial and carefully policed sort.
Florida, in fact, finds real diversity depressing and frightening, as most of the Creative Class no doubt would. During his discussion of wealth inequality, he tells of the time he took a wrong turn while traveling to a speaking engagement and found himself in a Hispanic neighborhood in East Palo Alto.
Here the streets were lined with shabby storefronts announcing check cashing and cerveza fria. Instead of people who looked forever young [as the Creative Class does], here were teenagers who looked old too soon.14
Yet another passage that contradicts Florida’s thesis comes at the very beginning of Rise, where he proposes this thought experiment:
Take a typical man on the street from the year 1900 and drop him into the 1950s. Then take someone from the 1950s and move him Austin-Powers style into the present day. Who would experience the greater change?
Florida performs the experiment to highlight the enormous changes in American social values since the 1950s. However, it is also a test of his theory, although Florida does not acknowledge the fact. If diversity and creativity were related, you would expect there to be far more technological innovation in the later period than the earlier, when America was more homogeneous and unfriendly to diversity.
However, the opposite is true. It is certainly, Florida says, the first man who would experience greater technological change. The period from 1900 to 1950 teemed with life-changing inventions: the automobile, the airplane, the nuclear bomb, television, antibiotics, the refrigerator, the computer, and so forth. Additionally, it was the period in which some of the major inventions of the 19th century, such as electricity, the telephone, and the radio, first received widespread use. The period saw the construction of much of America’s transportation infrastructure, such as railways, airports, roads, and bridges, as well as the first skyscrapers. The time traveler would find a world transformed almost beyond recognition.
Such would not be the case for a man transported from 1950 to the 21st century. Certainly, the personal computer and the Internet are major, transforming innovations, as all of us certainly recognize. However, there are few others:
If he took a train, it would likely be on the same line leaving from the same station. He could probably board an airplane at the same airport… . Television would have more channels, but it would still be basically the same… . In fact, with just a few exceptions, such as the PC, the Internet, CD, and DVD players, the cash machine and a wireless phone that he could carry around with him, he would be familiar with almost all current-day technology. Perhaps disappointed at the pace of progress, he might ask: “Why haven’t we conquered outer space?” or “Where are all the robots?”15
Florida’s books constantly undercut his thesis that diversity and creativity are linked. In fact, rather than proving the link, he unwittingly exposes it as a sham that rests on blind faith. His own research, as well as the tidbits of common sense that surface here and there, suggest that increasing diversity actually leads to a decline in creativity. This will come as no surprise to Realists, who recognize that the white race has usually been in the forefront of creativity ever since the time of the ancient Greeks. As Charles Murray has shown in Human Accomplishment, 97 percent of the major scientific innovators in human history have been white.
So what is the reason for the sham? There are undoubtedly many, but one of them is its usefulness in the struggle for social power. By flaunting its friendliness to diversity, the Creative Class advertises itself as a vanguard of intelligence, broad-mindedness, and compassion struggling against the backwards and repressive conservative white majority. One of our central tasks as Realists must be to expose the destructive lust for power that lies behind the rhetoric of diversity.
If you want this article to be exposed to a wide audience, take the time to recommend it at digg. Millions of readers traffic the site, and the more recommendations an article gets, the better its chance of being read. If you don't have digg account yet, registration is easy. Just click submit to get started. |
- Richard Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class, 2nd ed. (New York: Basic Books, 2004), 8. ↑
- Ibid., 79. ↑
- Ibid., 79. ↑
- Ibid., 182-85. ↑
- Ibid., 299. ↑
- Ibid., 249. ↑
- Richard Florida, The Flight of the Creative Class (New York: Harper, 2005), 225. ↑
- Ibid., 126. ↑
- Ibid., 108. ↑
- Ibid., 115. ↑
- Rise, 254-55. ↑
- Ibid., p. 80. ↑
- Flight, 187. ↑
- Ibid., 186. ↑
- Rise, 1-2. ↑
Click here to join the Inverted World mailing list. You'll get an e-mail notice whenever IW publishes new entries.
Realist,
I wanted to get your opinion on something. When interacting with certain minorities it is hard not to shake the feeling that you are dealing with something akin to a disabled person. Now if you were placed in a race against a fellow with a limp wouldn’t it be hard to peel out from the starting position? You might even consider letting him win. Other studies have shown that whites are hesitant to express their opinions when blacks are present in a mixed group. On the latest season of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” you see Larry David putting up with actions from blacks that he would never accept from whites. Is “Blacks as Cripples” a parallel concept or a piece of the puzzle in the “Whites as Cancer” myth?
Whatever it is the feelings should be purged. This is showing up in many cases where double standards of behavior are being accepted. Now this is easier said then done. If your roommate was blind how hard would it be to tell him he is sloppy? If you own a business and your black employee is lazy how hard would it be to tell him he is too slow? Maybe hard but it is fair. Why shouldn’t you expect the blind person to be neat and the black person to pick up the pace? Do you believe that ridding ourselves of these feeling is crucial to dispelling the “Whites as Cancer” myth or merely an incidental factor?
By on 10/3/07 at 8:09 pm
Mr. Hope,
I believe that a profound amount of the momentum behind multiculturalism and our racial dispossession is rooted in a “Christian tolerance” toward the weak, disabled, and intemperate. To demonstrate their correlation, take the deaf community and the vocal minority of deaf folks who demand to have children who are deaf and have deafness be considered not as a disability but as an identity group.
Upon first hearing that, I laughed. The mindset of egalitarianism and relativism had reached its logical conclusion: folks with a blatant defect are not only proud in spite of this defect - but are actually proud of the defect itself!
But I find it more than merely amusing or coincidental…
I think it’s a preview into the mindset of the multiculturalist which echoes from MacDonald’s “Culture of Critique”. The winners become evil and the losers become righteous. Nietzsche explores this in detail in his “Genealogy of Morals” as the “master morality” and “slave morality” paradigm. Essentially, the losers, failures, and slaves within an empire are forced to develop a moral framework which is a reaction to the themes of courage, strength, and pride found in dominant or independent societies.
And if you don’t think that this “virtual slave revolt” can bring the entire Western Civilization to its knees, think again. Christianity (in stark contrast to the traditional themes of the Old Testament) is the Classical embodiment of the slave morality. Rome imploded under the weight of an underclass purchased by the overclass to squeeze the middle class.
The common thread of Christianity, Zionism, Marxism, and multiculturalism can be summarized in a popular epigram which paradoxically endorses those who fail to have power while assuring them that they will one day have absolute power.
“The meek shall inherit the Earth”.
By on 10/4/07 at 12:19 pm
Wikitopian wrote,
“I believe that a profound amount of the momentum behind multiculturalism and our racial dispossession is rooted in a “Christian tolerance” toward the weak, disabled, and intemperate.”
That’s interesting…I was just having a discussion with a friend the other day who noted how the Torah (Old Testament) was rather unapologetic about describing physical deficiencies. A person is identified as blind, leperous, a cripple, and many flaws would make a priest ineligible for Temple service. While this is a bit harsh, it does preempt such a group of people from making such identification a positive identity group .
By on 10/4/07 at 3:45 pm
DK,
Yeah. There was a stark change in moral framework from the Old Testament to the New Testament and I ascribe it entirely to the transition from independent kingdom to subject nationality.
I also believe that many of the attitudes and values of contemporary Jews are changing as their possession of an independent nation-state and accumulating power encourage them to abandon their “culture of critique” and “slave morality” frameworks.
It reminds me of a side of my family which was grindingly poor. While I love and admire my (deceased) grandmother, I was amused while talking to her by her knack for assuming that everybody who was successful was somehow secretly crooked and how everybody who appeared to be a failure was somehow secretly virtuous. You couldn’t drive by a nice house without her whimsically pondering what mischief that person engaged in to acquire that house.
Realist calls it an inverted world. I call it an inverted morality.
Toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe
By on 10/4/07 at 6:15 pm
Mr. Hope,
The phenomenon you note is very interesting. I think it’s likely, though not certain, that whites are more reluctant than other races to point out the failings of others. It stems from a reluctance to show dominance, I suppose, out of fear of appearing arrogant. Perhaps whites punish the arrogant more harshly than other races do, so we work hard to avoid appearing arrogant.
Wikitopian,
Certainly, one of the central tenets of the diversity cult is that there is no inferiority or superiority, only difference, and your example of the deaf is a particularly silly example of that. Your grandmother too seems to have resisted sorting the world into superior and inferior, and she was probably too old for the diversity cult to have had much effect on her, so this seems to be something fundamental to whites.
I think it’s a terrible mistake, however, to view Christianity simply as a slave religion. Certainly, Nietzsche’s view of the origins of morality is profound, but it is also one-sided. The morality that Christianity preaches reflects the need for social order more than the experience of slaves. A world in which the forces of courage, strength, and pride are left unchecked is one in which men are constantly at each other’s throats. Patience, humility, and charity are the roots of order and progress.
By on 10/4/07 at 6:42 pm
Realist, thanks for another excellent column.
What is so amazing/scary is how Florida can acually be taken serious by so many of his peers. The idea that diversity and creativity are linked (diversity as the left defines it), is specious at best, but fallacious in reality.
A more accurate statement would be: There is a correlation between people with high IQ, and creativity. And followed by: Most people throughout history that have been the MOST creative, have been, and still are, of European decent.
When “whites as cancer” myth is finally purged from our culture, “The Bell Curve” and “Human Accomplishment” should be required reading in ALL high schools.
By on 10/4/07 at 7:37 pm
Very good points. The scenario that occurred to me while reading is the following. You teach a computer class at a local college. The dean tells you that starting tomorrow half of your class will consist of deaf students. What do you think about it? Will it slow down your existing student’s studies? Will the deaf students signing to each other cause difficulties? Can you discuss this with the dean or will he think you don’t like deaf people?
What was going on in the pre-1960s between whites and blacks? Did whites hate blacks? Did whites realize that integration would lead to a bad situation for both races? Were these rational thoughts or superstition? What was lost or gained in whites to have changed the situation so drastically?
Patience, humility, and charity are the roots of order and progress. What happens when a race of people that believes in these virtues is invaded by a race that does not value them? The answer is that order and progress are halted and reversed. Truth time: Does anyone on this board think progress is being made in America and that order is carefully maintained. Example, whatever happened to space missions, cures for diseases, major highways/building/bridges being built? We can’t even fix New Orleans or put something up at the twin towers.
It stems from a reluctance to show dominance. Yes, this is the big one. The man behind the curtain. We won’t show dominance to anything We won’t show it to our kids so a lot of them grow up spoiled. We won’t show dominance to blacks, even if they are behaving badly. We won’t show dominance to muslims and ask them to respect our traditions and laws. This a terrible tragedy, a shirking of responsibility. How many future lives and untold misery could be prevented if we would assert our dominance. Truth time#2 Were people,not just whites, happier in the old days? Blacks pre-1960s had a lower illegitimacy rate than whites. If you look at old newsreels people looked pretty happy, optimistic, nowadays people look weary. My final analogy. You are on a bus in the countryside that crashes. One man is badly injured and you are a prominent surgeon. Before you can step in to help, an elderly black somewhat doddering gentleman with a limp steps forward and says “Please folks I was a medic in World War II step aside I can save this man.” Do you speak up knowing that you have the most chance of saving this man or do you clam up not wanting to embarrass this brave gentleman? Who do you think the injured person would want?
By on 10/4/07 at 8:25 pm
Now on to The Realist,
The Realist wrote,
“He bemoans the traditionalism of America under the Bush administration: “On sexual orientation, scientific research, the arts, and civil rights, the current conservative leadership is more backward-looking than ever.”
In terms of scientific research specifically…do you disagree? Do you generally feel comfortable with the social far-right’s approach to science, energy, and the environment?
Additionally, why should I believe that everyone in this “creative class” believes in the myths of diversity? And the ones who do, why should I believe it is important to all of them and they are actively seeking to enforce it? Maybe they haven’t thought about it too much…and maybe they just don’t care.
Some of the things you suggest confuse me as to why they are problematic. For instance, the “creative class” prefers art galleries to art museums. Why exactly is this alarming? I bet at least some of those who go to art galleries will also go to art museums at least sometimes.
As for the issue of “ethnic restaurants,” well, that may be the one tangible, true benefit of diversity. Some of us like to try other types of foods sometimes. Do you not enjoy that? Do you resent that people enjoy that? Should they not travel anywhere else outside of Europe either? If a buddy told you, “Hey, I won a free dinner for two at Kim’s Korean BBQ [say, three 1/2 stars from Zagats!!!] and my girlfriend’s a vegetarian, so want to come with me?” is the proper response, “No thank you, that sounds too ethnic for me, I will have to pass.”
You are mirroring the diversity radicals in your sweeping condemnation of often apolitical gatherings and perhaps not even consistent preferences that are sometimes merely a lip service nod, not only to other cultures, but sometimes even to Western culture (see the above art galleries, guilty of not being full-fledged museums), and not a condemnation of western culture nor of whites.
By on 10/4/07 at 10:07 pm
“He bemoans the traditionalism of America under the Bush administration: “On sexual orientation, scientific research, the arts, and civil rights, the current conservative leadership is more backward-looking than ever.”
Aside from opposition to gay marriage and limitations on stem cell research I don’t know what he is talking about. Re those issues Bush had to find a little something to appease his social conservative followers. The Bush administration is conventionally liberal on “civil rights” (has Bush, for example, done anything to oppose Affirmative Action?). And what has Bush done to hinder “the arts”?
“In terms of scientific research specifically…do you disagree? Do you generally feel comfortable with the social far-right’s approach to science, energy, and the environment? “
Social conservatives don’t have energy and the environment high on their priority list. It is the libertarian “right” and business interests that have the positions that cause you discomfort. Your reference to science, I suppose, probably alludes to anti-evolutionism. Unfortunate as this position is I don’t think there is any evidence that is hindering scientific research- except when espoused by Amerindians(e.g. Kennewick Man).
By on 10/4/07 at 11:27 pm
There are so many different points I could bring up at this moment (in response to the article as well as to other people’s comments), but I will focus on just one thought for now.
I would like to know more about how Florida contradicts himself and proves himself wrong on the diversity=creativity myth strictly in regards to Asians. It is obvious that hispanics and blacks are “left out” of the creative elite club, but I am curious to know how this author proves himself wrong in regards to Asians. Obviously, considering that there were less major scientific developments between 1950 and now than between 1900 and 1950, any intelligent person can come to the conclusion that Asians have in fact NOT helped in any major way. However, I would like to know if this book reveals anything more in regards to the Asian question.
By on 10/5/07 at 4:29 am
I have one further point for now. If anyone wants to see an example of how revisionist history that works to give nonwhites credit for white accomplishments has greatly contributed to the “whites as cancer myth”, go to Wikipedia. Go over there and look at the garbage they have written in articles such as “The history of science”, “The history of physics”, “The history of astronomy” etc….. They don’t only make it seem as if just about every nationality has contributed equally to science but they also have a tendency to give nonwhite cultures and civilizations more credit than Western Civilization as a whole. Go over there and see for yourself. And then you can let me know if it is just a matter of me exaggerating way too much or not.
The good news is that just about every other encyclopedia source gives accurate accounts that don’t look too different from what Charles Murray has written. Of course this is not a surprise considering that Wikipedia is written by a bunch of amatuer volunteers whereas every other online encyclopedia has articles that are written strictly by credible researchers. What frustrates me is how popular Wikipedia is though. I wonder how many whites go read those articles believing everything in them. I find the whole situation sickening.
By on 10/5/07 at 4:55 am
Realist,
I can’t say I follow your proposition that Christianity was the expression of a desire for more law and order. With the oppressive Pharisee codes and Roman laws, Jesus of Nazareth was, if anything, a reformer who advocated eschewing much of the complexity and ritualism of both Hebrew and Roman Civilization in favor of a simplified and more forgiving framework.
I believe you erroneously seek some sort of “altruism” element of the White race which predisposes them to sacrificing their interests. I suggest that abstraction is the culprit. Whites are particularly given to more cerebral and esoteric patterns of thought that, while predisposing them to creativity, also predisposes them to defying their carnal interests in favor of abstraction ideals.
The White race has, I believe, struggled from the dawn of its existence between those following the path of Socrates toward focusing abstraction toward truth and knowledge, and those tempted by numerous distractions (be they Christianity, Hinduism, gnostic mystery cults, or Scientology).
I believe the history of Europe is one in which religiosity and mysticism competed against Enlightenment virtues and the scientific method for hegemony, resulting in our culturally unique detente between these two forces as the “Separation of Church and State”. History shows that Europeans are quite capable of cruelty and bloodlust in pursuit of abstract ideals, even resulting in a form of evil more sinister than the more practical acts of genocide and oppression exercised by other societies.
Are there examples of non-White societies where total abstractions resulted in unimaginable cruelty and bloodshed as they did for peaceful religious dissidents numerous times in European history? There may well be numerous examples that I’m unfamiliar with.
While I am certainly not a qualified neurologist, I contend that the dolicocephalic form of the White race’s heads and the relatively enlarged size of their cerebral cortex could be the biological mechanism behind the phenomenon of increased predisposition toward abstract thought.
This abstract reasoning was as readily turned toward explaining and excusing the cruel exploitation of the Black race as it was turned toward the forcible imposition of the Black race on our communities despite the plainly degenerative result. Just as the Brahmins sat in their temples and meditated on their gods while Indian Civilization declined, so too does our “Creative Class” sit in their universities and debate their whiteness studies while Western Civilization declines.
By on 10/5/07 at 12:21 pm
This site is the best! The posts here are of such a high caliber that if I wasn’t already a White Natioanlist/Realist, you folks would surely persuade me. Keep those intellectual thoughts flowing!
By on 10/5/07 at 3:20 pm
“I believe that a profound amount of the momentum behind multiculturalism and our racial dispossession is rooted in a ‘Christian tolerance” toward the weak, disabled, and intemperate.”
Now consider this quote from an article in the Economist (<a href=”http://economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?storyid=9898270”>http://economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?storyid=9898270</a>) which discusses recent research into the origins of human patience and fairness: “It also turns out that although the propensity to be fair varies a good deal from one person to the next, that variation is rooted in genetics rather than culture.” Because we understand that racial differences are rooted in genetics, it would thus stand to reason that there are varying degrees of a sense of fairness between racial groups.
Christian civilization has historically been confined to majority white culture. It would seem, therefore, that whites are “afflicted” with a greater sense of fairness. However, one causal factor in me becoming a race realist is the completely unfair way whites are treated as the cancer on society. Also important is the completely illogical and unfair demands made by minority groups. Hence, just as our greater propensity for fairness can lead to weakness, it can also be a catalyst for understanding the need for strength in homogeniety.
By on 10/5/07 at 5:54 pm
I wouldn’t say Christianity is the main factor responsible for the decline of the West. I base this on a number of reasons.
1) Just about every history book I have read attributes the uniqueness of European thought after the Renaissance to 3 factors: Greco-Roman civilization, German adventureness and Christianity.
2) Christianity is what eventually unified Europe into a civilization during the Middle Ages.
3) In many ways it was the people in Europe during the Middle Ages who were the most Christian that were the most responsible for preserving classical civilization. The monks are a case in point.
4) Europe was still a very Christian continent well after the Dark Ages. In fact, it just so happens that during some of the greatest outbursts and revolutions in European thought, the continent also happened to be very Christian. Many, many great white scientists from the past 500 years were themselves Christians.
5) Christianity was only a primitive religion during its early years in Europe when it was still fresh from Middle Eastern culture. Christianity certainly helped Europe, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that any other people group could have done the same with this spectacular religion that Europeans did.
6) Why is it that once the West started abandoning its religion and started becoming secular, it also started becoming multicultural?
7) We can sit around and talk about how promiscuous the blacks and hispanics are and we can make fun of the arabs and Indians for having multiple wives, but why don’t we examine the sorry primitive state that white culture is in right now? Have whites not become some of the most promiscuous people in the world? Look at the culture we presently worship. More white people care about what Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton are going to do with the rest of their lives than focusing on how whites can start strengthening their family values and producing more children. We worship women who expose their genitals in public. I wonder how many Asian or Middle Eastern societies would ever allow this same level of perverseness. If whites would return to the Christian morality that once made their civilization one of the most civil in the world, then we wouldn’t be constantly making fools of ourselves right now, now would we, with our disgusting MTV and rated R culture that we promote. Christianity promotes the femininity of women, strong family values and healthy procreation rates. What is so bad about that?
We don’t need to start dividing ourselves within our movement because ill-informed people choose to bash Christianity. There are plenty of decent white people who are Christians. I am a Christian. I am just as racially aware as any of you are.
By on 10/5/07 at 7:51 pm
Courtney asks: “6) Why is it that once the West started abandoning its religion and started becoming secular, it also started becoming multicultural?”
Well, much of the rejection of Christianity can be attributed to people like Antonio Gramsci. His plan was to overthrow Western culture and install atheist-communism by means of destroying it’s institutions from within. He realized in order to destroy Western culture, Christianity must be undermined. Christianity, according to Gramsci, is the biggest obstacle in installing a Marxist system. It’s very disturbing how far his plan has acually evolved. Gramsci is dead, but his ghost is still haunting us….
“The Left learned this in the 1960s when their political agenda failed to accomplish their stated goals. Their radical agenda was shot down politically because the majority of Americans still retained a remnant of the older Christian worldview. The Left knew it would be necessary to capture those institutions that shape and mold children who will one day become leaders. Once the heart and mind are captured, everything else follows, including politics. This is a major tactical maneuver that most on the Right did not understand.”
Full article:
Courtney said: “We don’t need to start dividing ourselves within our movement because ill-informed people choose to bash Christianity. There are plenty of decent white people who are Christians. I am a Christian. I am just as racially aware as any of you are.”
I say Amen to that. I, as a Christan myself, bear no ill will towards atheists, agnostics, Jews, even other races, etc. who are working for white-preservationist goals. In that regard, we are all on the same side. What I do have issue with is those who are openly and actively hostile towards Christianity. Those who view Christianity as somehow a proximate cause for the demise of the white-race. Nothing could be further from the truth. The people that are hostile towards Christianity are creating divisiveness within the ranks; therefore, they’re counterproductive in the process of building a movement.
By on 10/5/07 at 11:49 pm
Courtney,
If I implied that Christianity was the causative factor behind the previous or the future collapse of Western Civilization then I owe you an apology. I should also, if accused of “bashing” Christianity, make it quite clear that Marxism and social Marxism are culprits, too.
I’ll go ahead and offer my thoughts on each discussion point, but I’ll probably need to take it to email or somewhere else out of respect for Realist, as this discussion about religion is a long one, one which doesn’t belong in this thread.
Re 1:) Every history book I have read is quite explicit about the negative effects of Christianity on Western creativity and progress. They call the height of Christian hegemony “The Dark Ages”. They call the lapse of Christian hegemony and return to pre-Christian pagan obsession with knowledge and humanism the Renaissance (rebirth). Folks like Thomas Jefferson who disregarded miracles altogether and attempted deliberately removed Christianity from an official government role are called Enlightenment intellectuals.
Re 2:) Christianity unified Europe into a singular civilization because it is inherently viral and disregards national borders in favor of increasing recruitment. What makes you think it will stop at the Ural Mountains?
Re 3:) Monks and priests were selected from the population for their greater average intelligence, and then were encouraged to be celibate. It’s no wonder that the Western IQ has dropped from around 115 in Hellenic times to barely 100 now.
Re 4:) Yeah, and I find it suspicious that in a Continent that was forcibly and overwhelmingly Christian, how many people were skeptical, deist, agnostic, or even atheist. And that was even before the Theory of Evolution provided such an agreeable alternative explanation for the world’s wonders.
Re 5:) There has been no Socrates in any other race and there will be none. Western Civilization was great before Christian hegemony, good during Christian hegemony, and great again until Marxism and multiculturalism once again cast a veil of demagoguery and “slave morality” over the realm.
Re 6:) Because it had a huge racial and economic underclass intent on slave revolt. Think of Marxism as a Christianity where you do the same general things to get to heaven, except that you have to forcibly take heaven from the bourgoisie rather than wait until you’re dead.
Re 7:) The imposition of a Middle Eastern Islamic-style religious code was not the answer to the freedom of personal expression and sexual expresion commonly found in pre-Christian and post-Christian Europe.
Nobody’s bashing anybody, we’re discussing ideas and values. Even ones that people get puffy about. I did not suggest that the Christians in here are less White racialist than or than most atheists in general. Most atheists are despicable multicult types, imho.
By on 10/6/07 at 11:19 am
I could never understand why the belief outweighs the blood. For me, religion is secondary to race/ethnicity although it can and does impact both. I do place a high value on religion’s ability to control the masses who believe but like everything else touched by man, it tends to be corrupt and, therefore, destructive. When populations are as large and “diverse” as ours, it is impossible to get a handle on things without collective authoritative rule. There really isn’t anything that binds us together. The walls that separated us have been removed and the demand to assimilate never replaced them. The end result will be chaos.
By on 10/6/07 at 1:28 pm
Wikitopian,
I am wondering where you are getting this stuff from. These ideas to me seem a little extreme. It makes me wonder which history books and such you were reading. On top of that, I find it hard to believe that any serious scholar would say most of what you are saying unless they are liberal.
Your rebuttal to my point number 1 is factually untrue on every level. I already explained that Europe was very Christian well after the Dark Ages. This is well documented.
I am not going to add a rebuttal to each of your rebuttals, but I will say something about your point number 7. Where is the evidence that Christianity’s moral codes resemble those of Islam? Give me specific examples of how Christianity is as restrictive and oppressive as Islam. I see Christianity as a happy medium between restrictive Islam and disgusting, perverted, over-sexualized, hedonistic, atheistic liberalism.
“The imposition of a Middle Eastern Islamic-style religious code was not the answer to the freedom of personal expression and sexual expresion commonly found in pre-Christian and post-Christian Europe.”
You want me to give you a fine example of the wonderful freedom of sexual expression of post-Christian Europe? Well, just look at Europe today. I find the nudist habits over there very disgusting and to me they represent a very low form of civilization. Do you think that the East Asians are sitting in their countries admiring that lifestyle by saying, “oh those advanced and enlightened Europeans”? They most certainly are NOT. They find it disgusting and barbaric as they should.
If it isn’t Christianity, then what moral code should we revert to? That of the Greeks and Romans? Oh yes, they were really civil in their sexual habits now weren’t they? Or how about using the modern atheistic liberal model like I just gave a fine example of by refering to Europe?
I am with Taryton on this. I don’t see any good coming out of these discussions. I have already observed the divisive, bickering and time-wasting discussion that goes on on AR whenever this stuff is brought up. As I said in one of my original points, there are two issues that we need to keep out of our platform and hopefully our discussions: Christianity and the Iraq War.
By on 10/6/07 at 5:56 pm
DK,
I quoted Florida’s objections to the Bush administration to illustrate his view of American conservatives. Perhaps it wasn’t the best quote, as it brought in extraneous issues. I don’t have any strongly held beliefs on energy, the environment, and scientific research. Again the reference to the CC’s preference for galleries rather than museums was meant to demonstrate their anti-ethnocentrism in that it shows they have little taste for the great works of Western culture and prefer the multicultural claptrap they sell in galleries. As you can imagine, I do have strong views about homosexual marriage and “civil rights”—I’m against both of them!
I do not, in fact, eat at non-European ethnic restaurants, as I try to avoid patronizing any businesses owned by non-whites. Though it’s impossible to find a white-owned dry-cleaner’s in my area, there are plenty of wonderful French, Italian, and American restaurants for my dining needs, and I don’t care what “Zagats,” whatever that is, says.
I guess I am issuing a sweeping condemnation of CC culture, but I can’t help myself because I just do hate it so! It isn’t that there’s anything intrinsically wrong with Korean food or African music. What’s wrong is the attitude of many of the people who go in for these things. They’re not so much enjoying the food or the music as their own broad-mindedness at eating and listening to it. There’s a pro-diversity agenda behind all of CC culture, and that’s what I hate.
Courtney,
Florida loves Asian immigrants because of their prowess in running high-tech businesses. There’s no reason to doubt this is true. Certain classes of immigrants no doubt are innovative in certain ways, but to say that “diversity” as a whole makes America more innovative is clearly absurd.
As far as Asian innovation goes, have they ever come up with a major, life-changing invention like the television or the personal computer? It seems to me they excel at developing the ideas of whites but aren’t capable of doing anything revolutionary themselves.
Wikitopian,
I addressed your point about the moral equivalence of whites with other races in the first article I put on this site, The Inverted World. Yes, of course, whites have committed their share of horrors, as every race has. However, whites have shown an unparalleled capacity for compassion. I use the example of abolitionism to prove this.
http://inverted-world.com/index.php/feature/feature/theinvertedworld/
It cannot be denied that Christianity is fundamentally responsible for Western greatness. Do you really think advancements in civilization can occur in a culture that practices human sacrifice, as our pagan ancestors did? Christianity did away with the ethic of the warlord and replaced it with that of the citizen. It was responsible for spreading literacy and codified law throughout Europe. It suppressed polygamy and slavery and promoted respect for human beings.
It’s totally absurd to say that Christianity impeded the pursuit of knowledge. Who do you think invented universities? They are a product of medieval Europe, and were Christian institutions: all of the men who taught at the first universities were in holy orders.
If you read Rodney Stark’s The Victory of Reason, you’ll find the Dark Ages were misnamed by a bunch of anti-Christian ideologues. They were, in fact, a time of great cultural fertility and innovation, including the invention of the chimney, water and wind wills, the horseshoe, stirrups, and so forth.
I’m not a Christian, but I’m glad I’m the product of a Christian culture. If you’re not, why don’t you go out and sacrifice a virgin so we’ll have a good harvest?
By on 10/6/07 at 6:46 pm
Realist,
You asked “Do you really think advancements in civilization can occur in a culture that practices human sacrifice, as our pagan ancestors did? Christianity did away with the ethic of the warlord and replaced it with that of the citizen.”
Err…yes. Yes, I do.
I believe that the advancements in civilization by the pre-Christian pagans of Greece and Rome rivaled our contemporary progress as a civilization. I believe they moved toward a very positive and warm moral framework. If this pre-Christian example of Western Civilization thriving doesn’t convince you, perhaps the post-Christian example of Scandinavia presently thriving will convince you.
You challenged me with, “I’m not a Christian, but I’m glad I’m the product of a Christian culture. If you’re not, why don’t you go out and sacrifice a virgin so we’ll have a good harvest? “
That’s an obvious false dichotomy where you imply that since I reject Christian superstition that I must be embracing pagan superstition. I reject superstitition, as Socrates did centuries before the Greco-Roman mystery cults and Middle Eastern religious traditions coalesced into Christianity.
As for your proposition that the “Not-So-Dark-Ages” have been disparaged by anti-Christian scholars - the scholars I’m nodding my head in agreement with were (like me) sympathetic to the message of Jesus of Nazareth but dismissive of miracles. Perhaps you’ve heard of them: Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin.
Courtney,
First my “bonafide liberal” card has been pulled because I’m a racialist. Now my “bonafide conservative” card has been pulled because I’m an atheist. I don’t think I’m totally out in (left/right) field. Many of the Greco-Roman philosophers were skeptical of religion and racially aware. Many of our founding fathers were, too. I’ve also met others in the racial right whose independent scholarship has led them down the same lonesome path.
By on 10/6/07 at 7:17 pm
Realist,
Are you saying that Christianity is the main reason the West is great? I don’t necessarily agree with that. I certainly think there are other factors as well. For example, you can’t make the African continent Christian (actually today it is more Christian than Europe due to missionary activity) and suddenly expect it to produce a modern civilization. In Europe, there were obviously other factors at work other than Christianity, even though I do think Christianity was important. I think Wikitopian brings up good points when he refers to the Greeks and Romans. Those two groups produced phenomenal civilizations. I certainly think Christianity is an important factor but I don’t think it is the whole story.
By on 10/7/07 at 10:48 am
Realist,
Charles Murray noted in the introduction to “Human Accomplishment” that one of his own assumptions going into the project was disproven. He had assumed there would be a greater parity between Eastern and Western Civilizations but found, using his method of research, that Western Civilization indubitably surpassed the creativity of Eastern Civilization.
Having an Asian wife and hybridized children most certainly implied a degree of emotional investment in coming to that conclusion. I wish the best for him and his family, and hope that they are prosperous and well. I choose not to engage in interracial marriage and wish to live in a separate society in which my heritage and way of life are preserved in their entirety, but I regard Dr. Murray’s contributions as incalculable and his research to be a unique rarity of both creative and methodologically solid excellence.
I’m going to crawl out on another limb, here, and suggest that “Human Accomplishment” was biased toward Western notions of accomplishment. It’s essentially a laundry list of accomplishments in the pursuit of abstract creativity, something we excel at, while East Asians excel in other ways.
An East Asian companion edition would perhaps be biased towards accomplishments of excellence in governance, in mastery of the human body in martial arts, in playing music, and in their unique manner of artistic expression which is biased toward elaborate context and detail.
As a computer programmer, I’m fascinated by recent studies which have shown Westerners to be more object-oriented while East Asians are more context-oriented. For example, when Caucasians are shown a picture of an aquarium with fish in it, and are asked to describe what they see, they become transfixed on the specific fishes, attempt to classify them, and are oblivious to much else. East Asians are more apt to describe the entire context including the nature of the aquarium, the seaweed in the background, and how the fish may be relating to that environment.
Much of their artistic expression, such as their scenaries and their gardens, imply this predisposition. In contrast, what is Western art without their singular objects of focus? The statues, portraits, and diagrams are biased toward a focus on the specific object and on what that specific object is doing.
Personally, I prefer our nature of thought and believe it to be superior. But I cannot deny that I am perhaps biased by nature to recognize the form of expression of my people as superior to others. I wonder if Dr. Murray has sufficiently explored that. God knows his brilliance and clarity would be an addition to the pursuit.
Additionally, perhaps as a dig, I would like to point out that Chinese civilization has been relatively civil and largely devoid of barbaric cruelty. The Japanese in particular are the very models of nationalism, civic excellence, and race realism. It suggests, beyond serious dispute, that neither altruism nor the pursuit of greatness are unique to either Whiteness or Christianity.
I believe that we as Whites are uniquely abstract and therefore have a greater plasticity of behavior which can either empower us to excel beyond East Asians in greatness or distract us toward senseless inquisitions and Sysephean endeavors that they lack the plasticity to even sink to.
By on 10/7/07 at 1:42 pm
“I guess I am issuing a sweeping condemnation of CC culture, but I can’t help myself because I just do hate it so! It isn’t that there’s anything intrinsically wrong with Korean food or African music. What’s wrong is the attitude of many of the people who go in for these things. They’re not so much enjoying the food or the music as their own broad-mindedness at eating and listening to it. There’s a pro-diversity agenda behind all of CC culture, and that’s what I hate.”
Allow me to join you in your hatred for the people in the CC culture. I’ve been around these kinds of people all my life. The harder I try to explain to them the harm they’re doing to their own race and heritage, the more they resist my attempts. They really get some kind of perverse pleasure in believing and behaving the way they do. I don’t think they CAN ever be changed. They are TOO self satisfied for that.
By on 10/7/07 at 9:29 pm
Wikitopian,
None of us ever proposed that greatness and excellence were unique to whiteness or Christianity. If you weren’t implying that, then I apologize.
In regards to Charles Murray’s work, I think that the conclusion he has come to is pretty accurate. I think the way that white intelligence is structured and how it is different from the structure of Asian intelligence is the whole reason why whites have accomplished more than Asians in the first place. I think you are thinking into this a little too far. It is pretty obvious that white people are at least 90% more responsible for the state that the world is in now than Asians are.
Overall, I think you bring up interesting points though.
By on 10/7/07 at 10:11 pm
Taryton,
I’ve found the best way to get through to them is to attempt to turn their paradigm against itself at first, rather than attempting to overthrow their paradigm. For instance, Affirmative Action robs Black communities of the most intelligent and capable members, guaranteeing that the Black communities will never rise above. For instance, poor Blacks and legal immigrants are the most harshly affected by uncontrolled illegal immigration.
A central point is that you must NEVER appeal to their group interests, since they have a borg-like knee-jerk impulse to disregard their own group interests. There are plenty of arguments against what’s going on that work around this brainwashing. That’s what’s worked for me. YMMV.
Courtney,
I suppose my central point is that the scientific method, logic, and reason are paradigms that turn the White predisposition toward abstract thought into the most potent force of creation, discovery, and amelioration of disease that the world has ever known. I agree with you and Dr. Murray that the vast majority of technological progress has been created by Whites.
My caveat is that our creativity was vulnerable enough to virtually disappear in a cloud of superstition and ignorance for over a thousand years - and it can happen again. I believe the culprit was Roman importation of non-White slaves, creating an underclass within which “slave moralities” such as Christianity flourished. Now we are doing the same thing and just getting a new and secularized result: Marxism and egalitarian multiculturalism (social Marxism).
By on 10/8/07 at 11:00 am
Moving away from the topic on Christianity and moving back to a topic more related to this article (whites vs. Asians on the topic of inventiveness)……I am curious on what everyone’s thoughts are on this new Asian Space Race that is going on. There is already talk about the Chinese making it to the moon before the US ever sends another expedition there. One notable NASA astronaut mentioned that the US is definately capable of beating China to it since we are more technologically advanced, but the Chinese have more will power and more support within their country. They are very eager to beat us.
I find it humorous that they are beating their chests over beating us to the moon when, first of all, we already went there decades ago and, second of all, the Chinese are getting a crutch because they are relying on Russian technology. The US is planning on returning to the moon in the year 2020 and the Chinese want to do it before that deadline. It sounds as if the Chinese are not only dead set on outshining us, but they are also serious about outshining their Asian neighbors. Japan and Korea are both wanting to step it up a little because of this, and even India has these far off dreams to put their program on par with what is found in Western countries.
In 2003 the Chinese were the third country to ever send a manned mission into space (after the US and Russia). There are still many white nations that haven’t even done this yet. But once again, the Chinese are basically doing stuff that has already been done before and it seems that the European Space Agency is more interested in researching stuff that hasn’t been done by the US or Russia yet, such as perhaps sending people to Mars.
I am just wondering if you guys think that with all this competition going on in Asia that the Asians will one day outshine the West in space exploration or will they just keep on copying us? What are your thoughts on China, Korea, Japan and India in this regard.
By on 10/8/07 at 8:21 pm
Courtney,
If they do surpass us, it will most certainly be because we have volunteered to overwhelm ourselves with myriad social problems by importing the world’s least likely candidates for astrophysicists. Personally, I don’t believe there is very much scientific value in manned space missions for the immediate future. I don’t support the investment of billions and billions of dollars in tribalist competitions.
East Asians have an inferiority complex and want to ameliorate it with manned space odysseys? If that therapy works for them, good for them.
Not to revisit one of the most tired canards in American politics, but I don’t see the merit of investing billions more so that folks can play golf on the moon when we have the healthcare and budget deficit problems we have. I’m easily swayed by arguments explaining that there is scientific or exploratory value in manned space travel, but all of the arguments I have heard from it are of the “Are you just going to sit there and let Chinese people float in space while we’re not?” variety.
Heck, even if America does send more folks to the moon, NASA will probably just assemble a team of multinational multicultural resident aliens. From what the moon has seen, it would assume that the Earth is comprised entirely of White males. We must at least continue engaging in lunar landings until a perfectly representative sample of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, Latina, Rastafarian, handicapable, and deaf Americans have played golf (or some less racist sport) on the moon.
By on 10/8/07 at 9:53 pm
“I am just wondering if you guys think that with all this competition going on in Asia that the Asians will one day outshine the West in space exploration or will they just keep on copying us?” (—Courtney)
I think China is in a good position to surpass the USA—at least temporarily. I say this because the West is hamstrung by attorneys that delay progress with lawsuits and other harmful litigation; we live in a litigation culture. Most of our elected leaders are attorneys.
Whereas the Chinese leadership positions are mainly occupied by engineers (around 85%). I believe I read that statistic in “The World is Flat” by Thomas Friedman. Or “The China Threat” by Bill Gertz
While we in the West are obsessed with “civil-rights” and egalitarianism, the Asians are focused in on making great strides in technological advancement.
By on 10/8/07 at 10:06 pm
Wikitopian,
You have a tiresome habit of avoiding the point and setting up strawmen. Courtney has already debunked one of your strawman arguments. Of course, no one was saying that whites were the only race that was capable of altruism and “pursuit of greatness.”
In addition, you said, “I believe that the advancements in civilization by the pre-Christian pagans of Greece and Rome rivaled our contemporary progress as a civilization.”
I said that cultures that practiced human sacrifice were unlikely to make advances in civilization. The examples of Greece and Rome are not relevant here because they did not practice human sacrifice during their maturity when they were setting new standards for civilization.
Also, you didn’t address my point that Christians had founded the first universities. That fact alone proves the absurdity of your characterization of Christianity as the enemy of knowledge. Granted that there have been periods when the church suppressed legitimate scientific theories, but, on the whole, few belief systems have done more to foster the pursuit of knowledge.
Again, you say Franklin and Jefferson didn’t believe in miracles, as though that had anything to do with the matter. The discussion is about the historical role of Christianity, not about the truth or falsity of the Christian myth.
Try to understand what people are saying before you start typing.
By on 10/8/07 at 10:09 pm
Taryton,
But do you really think the Asians are capable of surpassing us considering how they lack creativity and inventiveness? In regards to your last sentence, aren’t these “strides” that the Asians are making mostly based on copying us? How far do you think they could get based on their own originality?
And as a side note, isn’t “The World is Flat” a bunch of white man bashing, PC propaganda? Just curious. I have never read it, but have heard about it.
I enjoyed your’s and Wikitopian’s responses.
By on 10/8/07 at 11:57 pm
Interestingly, I came here to comment on the article in general but found the subsequent discussion on Christianity of more interest?
Indeed, so much of Christianity is misinterpreted at both the group and individual levels, it is worth commenting on.
For example: “Turn the other cheek.”
I have always taken that to mean, that by “turning the other cheek” my antagonist is worthy of such a gesture? If he actually takes the opportunity to strike the turned cheek in question, (as opposed to feeling shame and guilt for hitting the other one, in the first place) is he worthy of a third strike at the original cheek? After all, I could stand there all day, “turning every cheek” on my body (to paraphrase Homer Simpson’s description of Ned Flanders) and walk away very sore; of course, having turned the cheek the first time only to be given another blow, I might just begin to consider the Old Testament in that context?
Eye for an eye, or maybe even eyes for an eye anyone?
Think about it this way, Jesus came here to teach us and then be crucified for our sins; he did this as the Son of God. He demonstrated that we are all his brothers and sister, and God our father; he might love us equally, but did he make us all “equal?” If so, why are we all not crucified for the sins of others universally? Why a world unchanged, and a son who was first a lamb and then to be a lion upon return? Why a world still engulfed in: Marxism, Islam, and Multiculturalism; but still not fully gone to The Book of Job?
As Richard III notes: “Sin will pluck on sin…”
At no point, did our Lord Jesus or God the Father, ever state that the “sins” of whites as his children were worse or more evil, than an arrogantly “entitled” and self-servingly “vengeful” nonwhite group of their “siblings,” and their own transgressions. At no point, did Jesus even condemn his own people or their Roman overlords, while dying on the cross?
If I am not mistaken, we were all forgiven?
If what I was taught as a Catholic holds any weight, the most painful aspect of the crucifixion for our Lord was not the nails in his wrists or the crown of thorns on his head, but the knowledge that mankind’s sins would go on. These were all of mankind’s sins, not just Rome’s, Israel’s, or the West’s?
Ever wonder, deep down inside, why Jesus wept in that context?
As always, God help us all!!!
By on 10/8/07 at 11:59 pm
“But do you really think the Asians are capable of surpassing us considering how they lack creativity and inventiveness?”
No, Courtney. I think they use the creativity and inventiveness we provided them. They are only capable of taking advantage of our creativity and inventiveness and improving upon them. But they do have a certain advantage over us because their industriousness is not encumbered by volumes of laws functioning as legal roadblocks imposed by their government—not so with us. So at the moment, it seems they are on track to someday surpass the West in their technological endeavors.
“How far do you think they could get based on their own originality?”
Left to their own originality, they would still, in large measure, be an agrarian society.
“And as a side note, isn’t “The World is Flat” a bunch of white man bashing, PC propaganda? Just curious. I have never read it, but have heard about it.”
It’s been a couple of years since I read that book, but I wouldn’t characterize it as white man bashing PC propaganda. But I did get the distinct impression that the author, Thomas Friedman, could barely contain his glee in the that white countries no longer enjoyed their hegemony over technological industries. India , China, and others are now able to participate in the High-Tech industries on equal footing due to the advancements of global communication such as the Internet, and other forms of instant information transfer systems.
By on 10/9/07 at 2:07 pm
I can’t for the life of me understand why there isn’t more commentary traffic at this site. The above column has hit the nail on the head SO hard, it should have been heard throughout the entire blogosphere!!!
By on 10/14/07 at 10:56 pm
Taryton,
Thanks for your support.
Although there certainly are dry spells, I’m actually quite pleased by the number of comments this website gets. Also, the mere fact that people aren’t commenting does not mean they aren’t reading. The traffic to this website is actually quite strong. Most people who read websites don’t comment.
By on 10/15/07 at 4:55 pm
Realist,
That is encouraging about the number of hits you receive. Are these hits total that you are able to keep track of or hits per individual computer?
By on 10/16/07 at 5:56 pm
Courtney,
About 6,000 computers access this website every month, and it receives 500 visits a day during which readers view 2,000 pages. I’m quite pleased that I’ve managed to gain this many readers, although clearly I’ll to have to get a lot more if this website is going to make a difference. I’ve got plans in the works for increasing traffic.
If Taryton and others want more comments, the best way is for them to comment as much as possible themselves, as comments tend to breed more. Also, they should tell people about the site and post links to it on other websites.
By on 10/20/07 at 10:04 am
Realist,
Those numbers sound good to me. Would you like for us to get your permission before posting an article from this website on another forum? Of course all the information would be posted with it (author, source etc…).
By on 10/20/07 at 4:09 pm
No, you don’t need to ask my permission to post articles from this site. It’s fine as long as you include the information you mention.
By the way, here’s another stat: this website has gotten 415,000 page views since it started last December.
By on 10/20/07 at 4:48 pm
Wikitopain……
As a White guy married to a Chinese Lady for about 30 years so far, I disagree with your aquarium analogy.
Here is my actual story of wandering the the Chicago Aquarium with my wife and how she drove them nuts.
Wife: “That fish is good in a xyz sauce, that fish doesn’t taste good, that one is nice in an sweet orange sauce but it really needs to be a bit bigger, and that one over there…. mmmmm…. oh those clams are really tasty in a garlic sauce…. those pesky otters interfere with fishing… and the Beluga whales are fun to watch but only a Japanese would enjoy eating them…”
The number of employees and animal lover types giving us the evil eye upon leaving was huge…. and she didn’t notice at all. She was so happy to see all the tasty fish…. Then she started talking about the fish market that used to be on a couple streets in Taichung. I could deal with that…. as a kid we lived in Taiwan (I didn’t meet her until years later) for a few years and I would spend hours staring at the sharks and such in the same market….
You can’t make the generalizations you are …
By on 11/15/07 at 6:01 pm
Your wife sounds adorable and your story is amusing, but I don’t quite see how it refutes the proposed trends in focus on either objects or their contexts. My wife is good with computation and scores very well on batteries of visuospatial reasoning. That certainly proves that not all White females are deficient in computation and visuospatial reasoning - but the general trend of White females being deficient in this aspect of intelligence relative to East Asian males still stands. Perhaps I failed to clarify that I was speaking in broad trends.
By on 11/15/07 at 6:54 pm
Florida also tried to make some point about Japan and Germany declining because of their homogeneity. Somehow he forgot that 40 years ago they were even more homogeneous and very successful. My sisters book club read this book and I sat in during the discussion. By the end of the talk I has these girls laughing at the book. One of the girls said that I was right but “sounded kinda racist.” :/
By on 12/19/07 at 9:16 am
Steve Sailer’s takedown of Richard Florida is no longer at the newspaper’s website, so I have hosted it at my blog.
By on 1/18/08 at 3:23 am
There’s no better expression of the Inverted World in which the Creative Class lives than Thomas Friedman’s recent column in the NYT, “9/11 is over.” You’d think it would be obvious to everyone that America’s treatment of immigrants is shamefully indulgent. Think of the way we coddle illegal immigrants: sanctuary laws prevent city governments from reporting them to police; day-laborer centers help them get hired; judges strike down laws designed to prevent them from moving in to towns; they march by the hundreds of thousands in the streets. Add to this that US immigration allows 800,000 to immigrate legally every year and doesn’t even screen citizenship applicants effectively.
And yet Friedman thinks that the problem with America is that it’s not open enough, and we should make it easier for foreigners to get in. All this gets tied in with America’s failing infrastructure, as though that issue were somehow related to ease of entry into the country. There is no real relationship between the two issues, except for the habit of thought implanted by people like Florida: diversity, immigration, and innovation are linked; diversity makes us strong, diversity makes us vibrant. The elites believe this, despite the fact that all the evidence is to the contrary, as I show in the article above.
To cap it all off, Friedman says we should prove our openness to the world by abolishing Guantanamo Bay and replacing it with a hospital for poor Cubans. Of course, whites, cancer that they are, are so guilty that they don’t have the right to detain enemy combatants, many of whom are mass murderers besides. We certainly don’t have the right to gain information through inflicting on them such tortures as poking them in the chest and light pushing. Rather, we must make up for our guilt by improving the health of the citizens of an enemy nation.
Destructive class, indeed!
By on 10/3/07 at 6:49 pm