New Updates

Media

Campaigns

Newsletters

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format.
If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails.
You can read the original version online:
http://ymlp329.net/z1KA70
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Antiracism is Worse than Racism

by Gerry Neal

While some maintain that there is no gradation of evil, that “sin is
sin” and that it is all the same there is little basis for thinking
this to be the case. If we did not distinguish between greater and
lesser evils there would be no basis for passing laws against certain
bad acts while allowing if morally disapproving others. To be
consistent we would have to either criminalize everything we
considered to be bad or give up the rule and protection of law. Either
option would make human existence unbearable. Out of practical
necessity, at the very least, we need a hierarchy of goods and evils.
Some might qualify the claim that all sin is the same by saying that
while we as humans distinguish between greater and lesser evils, in
God’s eyes, all sin is sin. This is not the doctrine of orthodox
Christianity, however. All that the Scriptures affirm on the matter is
that God does not judge as man does. This means that His criteria, for
distinguishing between greater and lesser evil, is not necessarily the
same as ours, not that He regards all sins as being equal. The
Scriptures very much affirm the idea of a hierarchy of goods and
evils. If there were no hierarchy of good and evil, statements like
“this is the first and greatest of the commandments and the second
is like unto it” and “these shall receive the greater
condemnation” would be nonsensical.

The grounds for thinking that all sin is equal are at their best, very
weak. The grounds for thinking otherwise are much stronger and so we
can safely accept the proposition that there is a hierarchy in which
some goods are better than others and some evils are worse than
others. We will take this proposition as being established, therefore,
in making our argument that antiracism is a greater evil than racism.

“Now wait a minute,” some of you might be saying “by saying that
antiracism is worse than racism aren’t you saying that a good is
worse than an evil?”

That racism is always an evil, and antiracism, which by definition is
opposition to racism, is always good, is certainly the conventional
opinion these days. The conventional opinion, however, is seldom a
good guide to what is true. Conventional means that which is generally
agreed upon. Like the words convene and convention, which it is
closely related to, it comes from the Latin for “to come together”
and suggests the idea of people getting together and coming to an
agreement. However effective that process might be in helping people
live together peacefully it is not how truth is arrived at.

Tradition is a much sounder guide to truth than convention. Tradition,
from the Latin for “to hand over or pass on”, is that which has
been passed down to us through time. Convention and tradition are both
forms of established thought. Convention is that which is established
because of its acceptance by the majority in the present. Tradition is
that which is established because it has endured the test of time.
While tradition doesn’t generate truth any more than convention does
it has a much better perception of truth and is thus a better guide to
truth.

Let us take a closer look then at this particular conventional
opinion, considering its two parts separately. First there is the
assertion that racism is always evil. Is this assertion true? The
answer to that depends upon what we mean by racism.

Racism is a word that is used and overused everywhere in society
today. One would think that due to this ubiquity there would be a
universal consensus as to the meaning of the word. That such is not
the case was recently illustrated for us here in Manitoba. Last fall a
Winnipeg lingerie shop put on a burlesque show to raise funds for
Osborne House, a shelter for battered women. Through e-mail, Eric
Robinson, Deputy Premier and Minister of Aboriginal and Northern
Affairs in Manitoba’s provincial government and Nahanni Fontaine, an
advisor to the government, discussed how they felt this was
inappropriate and in poor taste. In the course of this discussion,
Robinson said that it was an example of “the ignorance of do-good
white people.” This summer, the content of these e-mails was leaked
to Barbara Judt, CEO of Osborne House, who condemned the comment as
hateful and racist and filed a complaint with the provincial human
rights commission against Robinson.

This generated an ongoing public discussion and in the course of that
discussion it became apparent that there was a great deal of
disagreement over what constitutes racism. Robinson is of Cree descent
and his comment, if racist, was racist towards white people. Some took
the position that racism can only be committed by a more powerful
group against a less powerful group and that because Robinson belongs
to a less powerful group, historically oppressed by the group his
comment was about, his words could not therefore be racist. Tim Sale,
for example, took this position in an article that appeared in the
August 31st issue of the Winnipeg Free Press (1) and it was echoed by
several people whose letters were published in the weeks following.

Others, whose letters were also published, found this position to be
absurd and offensive. They took the position that racism consists of
negative thoughts about and actions toward people of other races and
that racism is racism regardless of who is on the giving and receiving
ends of it.

The second group probably represents the views of the majority of
Canadians. Their understanding of racism is certainly more in line
with the definitions found in most standard dictionaries. Where then,
do Sale and the other members of the first group get off saying that
racism is a one way street, going from powerful to less powerful, from
white to non-white, and never the other way around?

After the triumph of the civil rights movement in the United States in
the 1960’s, progressive academics rethought their concept of racism.
The left had just won everything they said they wanted: the Supreme
Court of the United States had overturned the legality of the
“separate but equal” concept in Brown v. Board, the President had
ordered the National Guard to enforce the integration of institutions
of higher education in the deep South, de jure segregation was now
illegal, and the Civil Rights bill had passed, outlawing various sorts
of private discrimination, paving the way for the legal shakedown
industry and the reverse discrimination of affirmative action quotas.
Their total victory, however, threatened to rob progressive academics
of one of their favourite pastimes, i.e., complaining about how deeply
and horribly unfair and racist their society is. They therefore came
up with a new concept of “institutional” or “structural”
racism, racism that does not consist of conscious and overt negative
thoughts and acts towards others, but which is built into the very
structure of society, supposedly generating special privilege and
power for white people while keeping others down. The progressives
redirected their energies towards attacking this kind of
beneath-the-surface “racism”, thus allowing them to maintain their
image of themselves as public tribunes, fighting for the downtrodden
against an unjust system, even though that system had given them
everything they had demanded.

There is therefore now a vast difference between what progressive
intellectuals mean by the word “racism” and how ordinary people
understand the word. Most people think that racism means hating or
disliking other people either because they are of a different race
than you or because they are of a particular race that is the object
of such hatred. Most people think of racist behaviour as ranging from
mild forms, such as the use of racial slurs and insults, to extreme
forms such as lynching and ethnic cleansing. Progressive
intellectuals, however, tend to think that white people who do not
behave like that and do not dislike people of other races are
nevertheless guilty of racism for being unconscious of their “white
privilege” and thus “indifferent” to the racism built into their
society. Moreover, progressive intellectuals tend to see explicit
statements of racial hatred towards white people and racially
motivated acts of criminality and violence towards white people as not
being racist but rather being understandable, if undesirable,
responses on the part of the oppressed to the unfairness of society.
Ordinary people, when they learn how the progressive intellectual
views things, tend to think he is crazy, if not from another planet
altogether.

If asked whether racism is always bad, most people would probably say
yes at first, but if pressed on the subject, many would begin to
quibble. Ethnic jokes might hurt someone’s feelings, they may say,
but they are not on the level of genocide. If the same question were
put to progressive intellectuals they would firmly insist that all
racism is bad, but if pressed about verbal and behavioural expressions
of racial hatred towards whites on the part of members of groups that
have been historically oppressed, they would probably offer arguments
why this isn’t really racism. Both ordinary people and progressives,
in other words, hold to the position in theory that all racism is bad,
but neither group is willing to take this position to its logical
conclusion.

How is racism defined in the dictionary? Perhaps that will help us
decide whether racism is always bad or not.

If we turn to the online version of the Merriam-Webster dictionary, we
find that it offers us two short definitions and a full definition
with two parts. Here is the first of the two short definitions:

poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race (2)

If we accept this as our operating definition, then I would say that
all forms of racism are bad and I suspect most people would agree with
me. I would add the clarification however, that if racism is “poor
treatment of or violence against people because of their race”, it
is always wrong, because it is always wrong to treat people poorly and
not because this particular form of poor treatment is motivated by
race.

This raises the question of what constitutes poor treatment. Sometimes
this is an easy question to answer. To assault or murder someone, to
steal or damage his property, to have an affair with his wife, to go
around town spreading malicious gossip about him – each of these
things falls under the category of treating people poorly. It is wrong
to treat anyone this way, regardless of his race. Sometimes, however,
it is more difficult than that.

The progressive left has complicated matters by declaring equality to
be the ideal standard to be striven for. If we accept equality as an
ideal, then by our standards to treat people as if they were not equal
is to treat at least one of them poorly. Much discussion of racism is
based upon the idea that all races are equal and deserve to be treated
equally and that racism is deviation from that ideal.

As I have argued elsewhere, however, equality is more of an idol than
an ideal. (3) The problem with making equality into the ideal is that
it clashes with justice. Sometimes it is right to treat people
equally. Other times it is wrong to do so. It is as wrong to steal one
man’s property as it is to steal another’s. Therefore, we should
treat both men equally in refraining from taking what is theirs.
Sometimes, family relationships, friendships, and other ties, place
duties upon us which require us to act towards specific people in ways
we are not required to act towards others. In this case it would be
wrong to insist upon treating everybody equally. In theory, equality
might be thought of as a form of virtuous generosity, treating a
perfect stranger as if he were your best friend. In practice and in
reality it is more likely to mean treating your best friend as if he
were a perfect stranger.

If we accept the progressive idea that equality is the standard and
that it is wrong to treat people differently this greatly changes the
meaning of “poor treatment of or violence against people because of
their race”. Here we see how the conventional idea of racism, so
defined, under egalitarian presuppositions, runs up against
traditional ideas of virtue and vice.

Ever since ancient times, that which the Romans called pietas has been
considered to be one of the chief virtues. Pietas was an attitude of
faithful duty towards one’s parents and kin, one’s country, and
the gods. We will use the Latin word for it, because its English
equivalent and derivative, piety, has lost much of its meaning. Pietas
was piety, both filial and religious, and patriotism all rolled into
one. It is the subject of Plato’s Euthyphro. (4) Marcus Tullius
Cicero, believed it to be implanted in us by instinct as the law of
nature. (5) Virgil made it the chief virtue of Aeneas, the last
survivor of Troy and the ancestor of the Romans, in his Aeneid.

Lest it be thought to be merely a pagan virtue, note that the Ten
Commandments given to Israel by God at Mt. Sinai start with duties to
God and end with duties to man. The commandment to honour one’s
father and mother falls between these duties and if the commandments
were divided equally between the two sets of duties, would have to
fall under duties to God. Note that when Jesus rebuked the Pharisees
for using human tradition to nullify the commandment of God, this is
the commandment to which He made specific reference. That was hardly a
coincidence. St. Thomas Aquinas distinguished between a pietas towards
our earthly parents, which was a mere human virtue, and a pietas
towards God that was a gift of the Holy Spirit, but maintained that it
was appropriate to use the same word for both because the latter is
directed towards God as Father. (6)

Do you see where the conflict exists between the egalitarian and
conventional understanding of racism and the classical and Christian
traditional view of pietas? The former teaches that we are to treat
all people equally and that it is wrong to treat people differently
because of their race. The latter teaches that we owe special duties
first to our parents, then to our kin as a whole, and finally to our
country and that the same virtue of pietas is involved in faithfully
and lovingly fulfilling these duties as in fulfilling our duty to love
and worship God. Since the idea of having special duties to our
parents, kin, and country is not compatible with the idea that we
should treat all people equally, i.e., the same, progressive
egalitarianism would seem to condemn pietas as a form of racism.

This is not just speculation about where progressive teachings might
lead. Antiracism promotes impious thoughts and attitudes in practice.

This leads us to the second part of the conventional opinion about
racism and antiracism, the assertion that antiracism is always good.
This assertion is a conclusion drawn from the first assertion, that
racism is always bad. If racism is always bad, then surely antiracism,
which is by definition opposition to racism, must be good.

Well, we have just seen that pietas, which was considered a virtue by
pre-modern, traditional civilizations, which was considered to be the
chief virtue of ancient Rome, was commanded in the Ten Commandments
and considered to be a spiritual gift by St. Thomas Aquinas, would
fall under the category of “racism” if we accept the egalitarian
standards of progressivism, the parent ideology of antiracism.
Therefore, either Moses, Jesus Christ, and all Western philosophers
until very recently were wrong in insisting that we have special
obligations to our parents, family, and country or the assertion that
racism is always bad is simply not true. If it is not true, then the
conclusion that antiracism is always good, which depends upon racism
always being bad, cannot be true either.

In fact, as we are about to see, antiracism is not good at all. Rather
it is an evil that masquerades as a good, a vice that wears the mask
of a virtue.

Our first charge against antiracism is that it promotes impiety. It
has caused people to revile and dishonor their parents, their
ancestors as a whole, and their country.

This was illustrated in the television cartoon Family Guy a few years
ago. In the episode entitled “Chick Cancer”, the character Brian
makes a comment that contains a racial stereotype of black men.
Stewie, to whom he addressed the remark, responds with shock: “Whoa!
What was that?” Brian’s reply is “I’m sorry, I’m sorry, that
was my father talking” and is told by Stewie “You gotta work on
that man”. (7)

Stewie’s response of antiracist shock to Brian’s racial slur
provokes filial impiety from Brian as a self-defense. Granted this is
a conversation between a talking cartoon baby and a talking cartoon
dog but it mirrors reality in the sense that it reflects the kind of
shame and disrespect towards one’s parents that antiracism provokes
among young people.

Another form of impiety antiracism promotes is disloyalty to friends.
Sometimes this is done explicitly, as in the song “Racist Friend”
by Jerry Dammers, songwriter for the British ska group The Specials,
which tells people: “If you have a racist friend/ Now is the time,
now is the time/ For your friendship to end.” (8) More often it is
done indirectly through guilt by association which a favourite tactic
of antiracists.

The most obvious form of impiety promoted by antiracism, however, is
that towards ancestors and country. It is quite common these days, on
college and university campuses and even in high schools, to hear
“socially conscious” students express deep shame for the actions
of their ancestors or for their country’s past. In the vast
majority, if not all, of these cases, it is the racism of their
ancestors or country for which they are expressing shame.

The students who make these impious statements are almost always white
students. This brings us to our second charge against antiracism. It
is not just that antiracism is hypocritical and holds to a double
standard. While that is included in the charge, it is much more
serious than that. Antiracism is, ironically, itself a form of racism.
It promotes impiety towards parents, friends, ancestors, and country
among white people alone and promotes hatred towards white people on
the part of other people.

Think back to the earlier part of our discussion where we discussed
the current progressive view of racism, that it is embedded in the
structures, institutions, and cultures of Western countries so as to
give privilege and power to whites and withhold these from other
people, so that whites are guilty of racism even if they have no
conscious negative thoughts or feelings towards other people and other
people are not guilty of racism, even if they express hatred towards
whites or commit crimes against whites based upon that hatred, because
these are expressions of frustration on the part of disempowered
people against an unfair system. What other effect could this idea
have than to encourage white people to disavow their ancestors and
their countries and to encourage other people to hate white people? To
be antiracist, in practice, means to be antiwhite.

Antiracism’s antiwhite racism is not the mild ethnic joke variety of
racism either. In Europe, the United Kingdom, and Canada, antiracist
progressives have passed hate speech laws which make it, in some cases
a crime, in other cases actionable under civil law, to express views
that might expose someone to hate because of that person’s race.
Although these laws are written in race neutral language, they are
ordinarily only ever enforced against white people. The complaint
Barbara Judt made against Eric Robinson was newsworthy because it,
very unusually, concerned a comment that was pejorative to white
people. Even when Chief David Ahenakew, another rare non-white
defendant in hate cases, was charged in Saskatchewan with promoting
hatred ten years ago, it was not white people but Jewish people he was
accused of hating. In the United States of America, where the Bill of
Rights theoretically prevents the passing of hate speech laws, hate
crimes laws have been passed which require stiffer sentences for
crimes where racial prejudice is the motivation. As with hate speech
laws in other countries, in practice hate crime laws are seldom
invoked unless the criminal is white and his victim the member of
another race. “Hate” laws, of either variety, clearly exist for no
other purpose than as forms of legal harassment targeting white
people.

At this point, let us introduce our third charge against antiracism,
even though we are not quite done yet with the second. Our third
charge against antiracism is that it makes mincemeat out of the truth.

Antiracists treat racism as if it were a sin that was the unique
property of white people. This can be seen in the way “hate” laws
are enforced, in progressive theories about why only white people can
be racist, and in the way antiracist watchdog organizations keep tabs
on the most insignificant activities of the most obscure white
identity groups while all but ignoring racist groups from other races.
Yet antiracism is itself evidence that the opposite is true – that
white people are, if anything, the least racist people on the planet
and always have been. Antiracism draws upon many source ideas
including liberal individualism, humanism, and Marxism. Whatever the
merits and demerits of these ideas may be, they all have this in
common, that they are the product of Western, European, civilization.
They are, to put it bluntly, white ideas. Most antiracists are
themselves whites who have renounced any sense of identity with their
own people. The only other people group that I can think of that has a
problem with this kind of internal self-loathing is the Jewish people.
Yet according to physical anthropologists and population geneticists
Jews are part of the same race as Europeans.

Oops. My bad. I said race when I should have said population or
genetic cluster or whatever current euphemism is being used by
population geneticists to keep the antiracists off their back and
allow them to do their research in peace.

This brings us to the other way in which antiracism makes mincemeat
out of the truth. Antiracists, like progressives in general, tend to
subscribe to the founding mythology of modernity, in which the
Catholic Church is believed to have held Europe in superstition and
darkness before the dawn of Renaissance humanism and the
“Enlightenment”, in which man threw off the shackles of religion,
left the darkness, and set his feet on the path to truth, by following
the light of reason and science. While much of this is pure malarkey
– the foundations for the expansion of science were in fact laid in
the medieval times by Christian scholars (9)– in the last half
century antiracist progressives themselves have acted the way they
accuse the medieval Church of behaving.

When the late Dr. Arthur R. Jensen, professor of educational
psychology at the University of California in Berkeley published a
paper in the Harvard Educational Review, questioning how effective IQ
boosting programs like Head Start actually were by offering evidence
that much of human intelligence is due to a hereditary g-factor,
progressive antiracists began protesting outside his office and
disrupting his lectures. (10)

When the late Dr. J. Philippe Rushton, British born professor of
psychology at the University of Western Ontario presented a paper to a
general meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science in San Fransisco in 1989, a police investigation was ordered
in Ontario. (11) His “crime”? He had put forward the theory that
racial difference could be explained by the r/K selection theory. (12)

Earlier in the 1970s, the co-author of that theory, Harvard University
entomologist Dr. Edward O. Wilson had come under attack by antiracists
for his book Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. (13) The antiracists
even went so far as to physically assault Wilson, dousing him with
water at a 1978 meeting of the AAAS. (14)

My point is not that the theories these men espoused were the truth.
Their materialistic presuppositions, in my opinion, blinded them to
the most important aspect or dimension of reality. (15) In this,
however, they were no different from their antiracist opponents. My
point is that the antiracists condemned these men as “scientific
racists” because their theories, and the data upon which they based
their theories, contradicted the antiracist idea that the only
biological differences between the races are differences in
appearance, and that any other differences are cultural and/or caused
by the legacy of slavery, segregation, and racism in general. This
idea, to which antiracists inflexibly adhere, did not arise out of
scientific observation but is entirely political in origin. In 1963,
Dr. Carleton S. Coon, Professor of Anthropology at the University of
Pennsylvania, resigned as president of the American Association of
Physical Anthropologists when the association voted to censure a book
as racist and unscientific while admitting in a show of hands that the
vast majority of them had not even read the book. If materialism kept
both sides in this debate from the full truth, by blinding both to the
spiritual aspect of reality, the antiracists willingly removed
themselves a step further from the truth, by subjecting science to
political dogma, in a manner worthy of Trofim Lysenko.

What is most apparent about antiracism, in this approach to truth, is
just how ideological it is. For the purposes of this discussion, we
will define an ideology as a rigid set of inflexible doctrines,
lacking the internal self-correction mechanism of a tradition, that
are believed to contain the technical blueprint for solving most if
not all of the world’s problems. Antiracism is by its very nature an
ideology. It is an inflexible belief in the equality of the races and
the rigid conviction that racism is the root of all evil which if
extirpated will bring justice, peace, and happiness to all.

Racism, on the other hand, while it can be ideological, as it was in
the case of National Socialism, more often than not is not. This is an
important reason for considering antiracism to be the worse of the two
evils. A racist might be a person who, for some reason or another,
dislikes a particular racial group but who does not allow that dislike
to overrule his sense of fairness and cause him to mistreat members of
that group and who does not make his dislike of that group the most
important thing in his life. While there are ideological racists, for
whom race is the lens through which the world is to be viewed, who see
life as a Darwinian struggle for existence between the races and build
their entire life around this idea, most racists, at least in my
experience, are of the former type.

Auberon Waugh had the right idea, I think, about ideological racism
and antiracism when he wrote:

For myself, I see nothing to choose between the National Front and the
Race Relations Board. Both are a collection of bores and busybodies
and both are harmful to the extent they are taken seriously. (16)

Of course, the Race Relations Board, like its Canadian equivalent the
Human Rights Commission, has the power to impose its ideas upon
people. Everyone must therefore take it seriously, if they wish to
avoid a great deal of unpleasantness, whereas the National Front has
no such power, and is taken seriously only by its own members the Race
Relations Board. Therefore the Race Relations Board is the more
harmful by far.

Nor is it merely the Race Relations Board or the Canadian Human Rights
Commission that ideological antiracism has at its disposal. The
schools, universities, and churches as well as the news and
entertainment media have become its propaganda arms. Government child
protection agencies have used the racism of parents as an excuse to
remove children from the home. (17) Its attempts to root out incipient
racism and nip it in the bud at younger and younger ages might be
comical (18) if it were not so Orwellian.

In this ideologically driven effort to mobilize the institutions of an
entire society for the purpose of indoctrinating all of its members
with a simplistic message and eradicating a chosen scapegoat,
antiracism resembles nothing so much as the Nazism it believes it is
protecting us from.

If you think that comparison is unfair, that antiracists are the white
knights protecting society from a resurgent Nazism ready to break
forth the moment they let their guard down (how mighty white of them)
then consider what antiracism has actually looked like in practice. In
Canada, the UK, Europe and Europe a system of thought control has been
imposed, that punishes white people for expressing even the mildest of
racist thoughts, with stiff fines, gag orders, expulsion from schools,
the loss of jobs and/or careers, and occasionally jail time. The
system encourages people to turn in their relatives and friends and
goes without a large public outcry, in part because the news media are
complicit in the process and refuse to report on it, and in part
because antiracism has dulled people’s sense of outrage by
convincing them that the victims are racists, and therefore deserve
what is coming to them. Meanwhile, the system metes out punishment,
not just to the accused racists, but to those who speak out against
the system who are lumped with the accused racists.

In other countries, the effects of antiracism have been far more
severe. Here we return to our second charge against antiracism, that
it is a form of racism directed against white people, and that it is
not the mild ethnic joke or stereotype variety of racism either. It
was antiracism, that motivated the UK and other Western countries to
oppose Ian Smith’s government in Rhodesia, leading to the rise of
Robert Mugabe, the transformation of Rhodesia into the dysfunctional
hellhole of Zimbabwe, and the murder of the white Rhodesians. (19)
When South Africa gave in to the demands the world, again motivated by
antiracism, was making on it, it led to the rise to power of the
African National Congress, which has gradually been recreating what
happened in the former Rhodesia. The murders of the white Afrikaner or
Boer farmers, vastly underreported by the world press, have been
classified as the start of a genocide. (20)

“Those are extreme examples.” “That sort of thing could never
happen over here.”

Perhaps. It is interesting, however, that during the last several
decades, as progressive antiracism has become the entrenched ideology
in Western countries, white fertility rates have dropped below
population replacement levels and remained low, as these countries
have opened their borders to mass immigration from non-white
countries, opting to replace rather than reproduce their populations.
(21) The dates have already been projected for when whites will become
minorities in the United States and Canada and those dates are not far
off.

What do you suppose is going to happen to white people in these
countries when they become minorities in countries where the official
ideology, drummed into everyone from earliest childhood in schools, on
television, and in popular music and film, all dissent from which is
punished by social convention and/or hate laws, teaches that racism is
the ultimate sin, that only white people are guilty of it, and that
only non-whites are its victims?

The answer, if you have not already figured it out for yourself, can
be found in Jean Raspail’s novel The Camp of the Saints, first
published forty years ago. (22) Read it if you dare. (23)

(1) Tim Sale, “Eric Robinson may be rude, but he is not a racist”,
Winnipeg Free Press, August 31, 2013, A17,
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/eric-robinson-may-be-rude-but-he-is-not-a-racist-221899441.html

(2) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

(3)
http://thronealtarliberty.blogspot.com/2012/02/demon-idol-of-equality.html

(4) In this dialogue Socrates, who is awaiting his trial on a false
charge of impiety, encounters a young man who thinks he is pious but
who embodies impiety, by seeking in the name of the gods to lay a
capital charge against his father. The two enter into a discussion of
the nature of piety. While most commentary on this dialogue focuses on
the arguments, do not overlook the fact that in the end, Euthyphro is
dissuaded from pursuing his impious suit.

(5) Marcus Tullius Cicero, De Inventione, 2:22.

(6) St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second
Part, Q. 121, Article One. See also Q. 101 on the virtue of pietas.

(7) “Chick Cancer”, Family Guy, Fox Broadcasting Company, original
airdate November 26, 2006.

(8) Jerry Dammers, “Racist Friend”, recorded by The Special A.K.A.
and released as a single in 1983 and on album In the Studio (2 Tone
Records, 1984)

(9) James Hannam, God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Lay the
Foundations of Modern Science, (London: Icon Books Ltd., 2010).

(10)
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/02/local/la-me-arthur-jensen-20121102

(11) http://psychology.uwo.ca/facultyremembrance.htm

(12) The theory basically postulates that species fall upon a spectrum
between r-selection, in which parents have a lot of offspring but
invest little in each particular offspring and K-selection, in which
parents have fewer offspring with a larger investment in each, and
that certain combinations of traits can be associated with either end
of the spectrum. Rushton applied the theory to differences between
populations within the same species, i.e., mankind.

(13) This book, published by Harvard University Press in 1975, like
Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene which came out a couple of years
earlier was largely made possible by the research of W. D. Hamilton,
particularly that found in his two part “The Genetical Evolution of
Social Behaviour”, published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology
in 1964. Hamilton proposed a theory that explained the paradox of how
socially cooperative or even altruistic behaviour could improve the
fitness of an individual organism’s genes. Wilson’s book was more
ambitious than Dawkins’. He proposed a new discipline, a synthesis
of ethology, anthropology, and other disciplines that concerned social
behaviour among animals and humans. As the proposed name of the new
discipline suggests, it is based on the idea that all social behaviour
can be explained biologically.

(14) Wilson tells the story of the antiracist attack on him, led by
his Harvard colleagues Richard C. Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould, in
his autobiography Naturalist (Washington D. C.,: Island Press,
Shearwater Books, 1994). See also Ullica Segerstråle, Defenders of
the Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and
Beyond, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

(15) For an excellent rebuttal of this materialistic worldview see
Wendell Berry’s Life is a Miracle, (Washington, D.C.: Counterpoint,
2000).

(16) Auberon Waugh, “Che Guevara in the West Midlands”, originally
printed in The Spectator, July 6, 1976, reprinted in Brideshead
Benighted (Boston, Toronto: Little, Brown and Company, 1986), p. 155.

(17)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/unrepentant-nazi-mom-aims-to-get-her-kids-back/article1365488/

(18)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2139735/Babies-develop-racist-traits-aged-months-coming-contact-races.html
(
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2139735/Babies-develop-racist-traits-aged-months-coming-contact-races.html
) Note the quotation from Lisa Scott about reducing or eliminating the
biases.

(19) Ian Smith told the story in his memoirs Bitter Harvest: The Great
Betrayal and the Dreadful Aftermath (London: Blake Publishing Ltd.,
2001).

(20) http://www.genocidewatch.org/southafrica.html

_____________________________
Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp329.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqgusuugguewwmw
Powered by YourMailingListProvider

Now, We're Archiving the Stories of Jewish WW II Survivors

Written by Paul Fromm

Friday, 11 October 2013 04:14

<< Start < Prev 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Next > End >>

Page 37 of 454

Media

Campaigns

Newsletters

Most Read