It doesn’t matter what their IQ is; what matters is that they hate us.

I don’t understand why illiberal sites like Alternative Right and The Occidental Observer are always going on about IQ.  They think it terribly important that white Christians know that blacks are dumber than they are, while Jews are smarter.  Biology is supposedly the source of all our problems.  Those of us who focus on culture and religion are supposedly cowards, who are supposedly using these concerns to keep from facing the harsh biological reality.  This can’t be right, though.  Suppose I were to divide the white population up, calling everyone with an IQ above 120 an “alpha”, everyone with an IQ between 90 and 120 a “beta”, and everyone with an IQ below 90 a “gamma”.  If IQ were everything, white alphas should be as big an adversary to Christendom as the Jews, and white gammas should be as big a social problem for America as the blacks (indeed, much worse, because there are more of them).  This is clearly not the case.  I’m sure if we were to look into it, alphas are overrepresented in cultural subversion and gammas in violent crime. but alphas would also be overrepresented in cultural preservation and gammas in the muscle-work of the establishment.  The big difference is that nobody thinks of himself as a “gamma”, while many people do think of themselves as black.  Being black isn’t an IQ range; it’s a whole identity.  It correlates strongly with certain beliefs and loyalties.  What we find disturbing about the Jews and the blacks is their hostility to our civilization.  For them, America and the West are evil; these are their ancestral enemies; not only do they not share our loyalty to our nation and civilization, they actually would welcome their destruction.  Our ancestors, whom we revere, they regard as criminals.  This makes them a moral threat, which bothers us more even than physical threats.  When I meet a black man, it’s very unlikely that he’s going to mug me.  It’s quite likely, though, that he regards my society as illegitimate and my cultural-ethnic heritage as shameful.  When I meet a Jew, it’s a near certainty that he feels this way.  Thus, black violence bothers us more than white violence, because it seems more meaningful.  If a white steals my TV, I chalk it up to senseless greed; if a black man does it, the disturbing thought crosses my mind that he might have felt entitled to.

Why does this bother us so much?  It annoys but doesn’t disturb me that gypsies think its all right to steal from the rest of us.  But that blacks feel entitled to my money and Mexicans to my land disturbs me in a different way.  I think it is because all the anti-Christian, ant-Western propaganda we’ve endured has gotten to us.  We don’t feel confident that our culture, religion, or race deserve to survive.  We believe they do, but we recognize it as a disputable point.  We’ve been taught to feel shame over our European heritage.  We’ve rejected that shame, but not escaped it; it has left its mark.  There’s a sensitive spot that certain minorities are very good at hitting.

Then there’s the rational reason for worry.  Blacks and Jews have willingly–enthusiastically!–given themselves over to the role of wedge minority, as those “poor excluded others” in whose interests the liberals claim justification for smashing our culture to bits.  We have to be honest about it:  they’re on the enemy’s side, and we’ll never win them over.  I used to maintain hope that wedge minorities could be won over by pointing out how their own traditions and group cohesion are ultimately threatened by liberal individualism.  I’ve now come to believe that liberalism destroys wedge minority cultures faster even than those the liberals are attacking.  Minorities’ self-understanding is remolded to fit their role as victims.  Ask a black to describe black identity, and it will all have to do with being oppressed by the white man.  He doesn’t know anything positive about African culture; what he thinks of as “African values” were manufactured in the past few decades by Leftist academics in their “Afrocentric” fairy tales.  Ask a Jew what it means to be a Jew, and you’ll hear about “tolerance”, “human rights”, and of course, vivid consciousness of being an outsider.

We must remember, though, that wedge minorities are ultimately a distraction.  The liberals say “you boys can’t have that tree-house there, because that excludes girls!”, but they don’t really care about girls feeling excluded.  What they care about is stopping those boys from making themselves feel included.  They say “Don’t brag about your fathers and grandfathers because it will make people from other families feel bad”, but they don’t care about other families.  They care about erasing filial devotion.  The Leftist will never be happy until the atomism which is the sickness of his soul is spread to everyone everywhere.  Our job as reactionaries should always be to bring things back to the real issue.

The remarkable George Weigel

I guess when you write a really long biography of a pope, you get special insider information from the Vatican.  George Weigel must get papal encyclicals sent straight to his home that the rest of us don’t get to see.  How else can one explain this:

…the Catholic Church has made clear for three decades now that, under modern conditions, democracy is morally superior to other forms of governance

Really?  Democracy is morally superior to all other forms of government?  Mob rule is better than Catholic monarchy?  And this is part of the Catholic faith, that I must believe on peril of my soul?  I wonder when this memo is going to be shared with the rest of the Church.  Of course, it’s inconceivable that George Weigel might be making shit up and calling it Catholic doctrine.

Allah and God: the debate continues

Readers may be interested in the debate between Peter S. and Alan Roebuck in the comments of my post “Maverick Philosopher on whether Muslims worship the same God“.


Sometimes the double standard applied to wedge minorities and the host population is so blatant, even those of us who expect such things are shocked.

1) From View from the Right:  Media only notice black flash mobs when whites start talking about defending themselves

Paul K.writes:

You recently commented on the MSM concern that black flash mobs might lead to racial profiling. Here is a TV news reportfrom a Pennsylvania Fox affiliate in which journalists worry that citizens may be arming themselves to avoid being victimized by flash mobs. In not one single case so far has a rampaging black youth been shot by an intended victim, but the newsman worries that we could have “a nightmare in the making,” as if we don’t have a nightmare already.The newsman and woman reporter–both apparently of mixed race–repeatedly stress that mob participants are “children” and “kids” not deserving such an overreaction. A black police captain, clearly sympathizing with the thugs, says, “We’re talking about shooting children,” and expresses concern about citizens using guns instead of their cell phones. (He’s evidently unfamiliar with the saying, “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”)

The police captain talks about “children” even though the security-camera footage shows a mall being looted by great hulking brutes six feet in height. Granted they may have been 13 or 14 years old, but anyone who knows what middle-school students look like knows that many are full grown. The newswoman’s voice cracks as she worries what might befall these kids, ending her report with, “It’s kids–kids!”

To which the newsman answers, “Yeah, we’ve got to remember that.”

So please, people–as you’re lying on the ground being kicked into a coma, let your last thought be, “They’re just children!”

2) From Kevin MacDonald: Jewish Australian MP:  bring Israel’s African immigrants to Australia

Michael Danby, a Jewish MP in the Australian Parliament, has “enthusiastically agreed” to the idea of bringing to Australia thousands of Africans who have illegally immigrated to Israel (“Danny Danon: Send African Immigrants to Australia“; Jerusalem Post). The idea originated with Danny Danon, a Likud MP well known for his far right views. (Here he is in the NYTimes advocating that Israel annex the West Bank.)  Being a good rightist, Danon thinks that the immigrants are a threat to the Jewish identity of Israel: “The arrival of thousands of Muslim infiltrators to Israeli territory is a clear threat to the state’s Jewish identity. … On the one hand, it treats the refugees and migrants in a humane way. On the other hand, it does not threaten Israel’s future and our goal to maintain a clear and solid Jewish majority.”

The implicit idea is that Australia, being a traditionally European society, has no identity at all except to abstract principles. So it’s not surprising that Danby wholeheartedly agrees with the plan. Being a good Jew in Australia means being an enthusiastic cheerleader for non-White immigration—long the policy of the organized Jewish community in Australia and throughout the Jewish Diaspora in the West.

A difference between Catholic and Protestant traditionalists

The Christian reactionary is confronted by two “Others”.  On the one hand, there are liberals, the members of his own civilization who share many of his habits and history and yet wish to cut this civilization off from its Christian roots.  On the other hand, there are the other religions and civilizations:  Islam, pagan antiquity, and the Orient.  There are, thus, three points on his ideological map.  In principle, there’s no reason the three points couldn’t be equally spaced, each equally different from the other two.  In practice, the Christian reactionary usually takes one of two positions.

  1. Regard Christians and liberals as closer to each other than either is to non-Christian civilization.  Liberals are our wayward brethren.  They’ve forgotten how the stuff they value, like human rights and the presumption of a rational universe, depends on Christian revelation.  Before and outside Christianity, the world is cruel and vicious, and not at all what liberals would want.  The non-Westerners are the real threat.  They don’t just criticize our civilization from within; they would destroy it from without.  Practical implication:  make common cause with Right-liberals against Islam.
  2. Regard Christianity and other religions as closer to each other than either is to the liberalism.  Liberalism is a freakish departure from the piety, patriarchy, and hierarchy that marks the consensus of all mankind.  Plato, Muhammed, and Confucius stand with us in condemning the liberal abomination, and this fact gives us comfort.  Practical implication:  make common cause with Muslims against feminism.

Right now, I’d like to leave aside the question of which is right and which is wrong.  I have colleagues who I deeply respect on both sides.  What I’ve noticed, though, is that Protestants seem to be noticeably more drawn to position 1 and Catholics to position 2.  Does this seem true to anyone else?  I think what’s going on is that Protestants ultimately feel more at home in the modern world than Catholics.  (It’s when the Reformation happened, after all.)  They are less likely to reject democracy, capitalism, and secular culture in their entirety.  They are more willing to try to salvage some good in the liberal/American tradition.  Catholics, on the other hand, feel more alienated from the modern world (It’s when the Reformation happened, after all.), and more tied to the ancient world.  The idea of a perennial philosophy, that Plato and Aristotle (and, for that matter, Ibn Sina) are on our side, has deep roots in us.  Catholics don’t like the “Christianity saved us from pagan barbarism” argument, because we don’t like it when people put down the Roman empire.

Maverick philosopher on whether Muslims worship the same God

Maverick Philosopher has addressed the question of whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God.  The question, you’ll recall is whether both believe in the same God, but group understands Him incorrectly, or whether they worship two different beings, one of whom does not really exist.  Basically, MP thinks it comes down to what we mean by “God”, i.e. how reference is established.  If the Christian means “the unique being who fits the following description:  omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, created the world ex nihilo, and is triune” and the Muslim means “the unique being who fits the following description:  omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, created the world ex nihilo and is unitarian”, then, no, the Muslim and Christian are not talking about the same being.  They’re talking about different beings, (at least) one of whom doesn’t exist.  On the other hand, if by “God” we refer to a cause–“whatever it was that caused my mystical experience” or “whatever it was that communicated with Moses”, then Christians and Muslims may be referring to the same being.

I think there are serious problems with both of these possibilities.  Identifying God by some particular experience seems wrong.  Suppose Moses’ experience was actually caused by a chemical imbalance in his brain or by clever extraterrestrials.  We wouldn’t call the brain disfunction or the aliens “God”; we would rather say that Moses was mistaken in thinking that God was talking to him.  I prefer the first theory, that reference to God is mediated by a concept.  However, I don’t think “triune” or “unitarian” are part of that concept.  “God is three persons” seems like a synthetic, not an analytic proposition to me.  I wouldn’t imagine that I could tease out the Trinity just from my definition of God.  This is not to say that God is not necessarily triune.  But what we have is not God’s essence, but a concept that we know doesn’t capture that essence completely.  So things that are necessarily true by God’s essence may not be necessarily true by our definition of Him.  The definition of God I would think would be something more vague, like “the source and plenitude of being”.  “Who created God?” and “What if human beings are more perfect than God?” are nonsense; someone who said them would betray that they don’t understand what we mean by “God”.  “God is not triune” is heretical, but not nonsensical.  So I restate my claim that Christians and Muslims do worship the same God.

Who is “Boswell”?

Michael Paterson-Seymour shares with us Ronald Knox’s brilliant satire of biblical scholarship:  “Materials for a Boswellian Problem”.  My first impression is to be amazed at the care that seems to have gone into this work of mock-scholarship.