Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwin, Nicholas Wade and the alt right

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From Guardian:

Jared Taylor was prominently featured in a Hillary Clinton campaign ad released ahead of her speech denouncing the “alt-right” in Reno on Thursday and “appreciates” the Democratic presidential nominee for “calling attention to the message I have for America”.

Asked to define what the diffuse alt-right stands for, Taylor said there were “areas of disagreement”, but that “the central element of the alt-right is the position it takes on race.”

Now here is where it gets interesting:

For Taylor, and other members of the alt-right, race is an inescapable biological fact, which has consequences. “The races are not equal and equivalent. If a nation changes demographically, its society will change,” he said.

But where does this stuff come from?

In her speech, Clinton cited the US Olympic team as an example of strength in diversity. Taylor uses it as an example of the different capacities and abilities of races. He argues that while black people are good athletes, whites and Asians have higher IQs, offering a form of the “scientific racism” that was widely discredited, and denounced by the UN after the second world war. More.

Scientific racism? Yes, but that was conventional Darwinism until World War II, and alt right appears to be a late survival.

See, for example, H. G. Wells: Popularizing Darwin, racism, and mayhem – the history you never learned in school

and

Still legal to say this about Darwinism and “scientific racism”? It’s fair to say that the reason this cannot be discussed honestly in most venues is that many progressive icons and pioneers were fuelling the scientific racism.

Oh well, some will say, everything’s changed now. Has it? What about the curious incident of Nicholas Wade’s A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History (2014). See: City Journal addresses the “Nicholas Wade reinvents Darwinian racism” story:

As if this isn’t enough, Wade’s penultimate chapter, “The Rise of the West,” argues that natural selection similarly helped produce European societies that were open and innovative, which enabled them to “achieve a surprising degree of dominance in many spheres.” Given the influence that multiculturalists have on today’s American campuses, it’s unlikely that Wade will be delivering any commencement address anytime soon.

Wade was way too smart for that. He retired. And in most venues, this thesis was just not discussed much, or nothing like what one would have expected of a racially charged topic.

Meanwhile, a group that sounds a great deal like the alt right, the “human biodiversity movement,” kept sending me mail for years promoting Wade’s book.

This state of affairs probably explains at least in part why most reporting on the alt right is heavy on simple denunciation (that’s expected) but vague about its origins. So it’s not very helpful.

* As David Klinghofferputs it at Evolution News & Views,

But not till reading Cathy Young’s post did I recognize that the mother lode of pseudo-conservative, pseudo-scientific racism is Richard Spencer’s AlternativeRight.com, which as she points out has been rebranded as Radix Journal, “dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of European people in the United States, and around the world.”

Here, the vein of evolutionary thinking is particularly rich. We read, “Darwinian Evolution Revolutionized the Natural Sciences. The Social Sciences Have Been Immune for Too Long.” In “What Is Identitarian Religion?,” writer “Alfred W. Clark” tells of a “long-standing ‘Trad Catholic’ I know [who] told me recently that he had left the Church. [H]is ‘conservative’ priest had become obsessed with [among other things]…denouncing evolution because it’s ‘racist’.”

– Denyse O’Leary

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Also, how would the bible help you with, say, the morals of copyright infringement, given that copyright was not invented until the 16th century?Pindi
September 1, 2016
September
09
Sep
1
01
2016
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PST
Ellijacket, so you are a believe in command morality? Whatever the bible says is moral must be moral as it is God's word?Pindi
September 1, 2016
September
09
Sep
1
01
2016
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PST
WJM. I agree with your last sentence. That is how I obtain moral knowledge as well. So let's assume that morality is objective in nature. In a practical sense, how does that make any difference? You have said before I think that this objective moral knowledge is not recorded anywhere and can't be discerned or measured empirically. So when you or I come to a different moral position based on our respective consciences and reasoning abilities, we can never know which is "right". We can't ask an independent referee to check the moral code and let us know who got it right. Now, you do say that the objectivity of some moral rules can be assessed in that they can be understood as self-evidently true. First obvious objection is that only applies to a tiny sub-set of moral rules. It doesn't help me find out what the objective moral position on insider trading is. But secondly, you are just using "self-evidently true" in that sense to mean "nearly everyone agrees with this". The 3 self-evident truths you give before the one about child torture are all in a different category. For example, a 4 sided triangle is wrong by definition isn't it? We define a triangle to be an object with 3 sides. Let's apply your method to the question of whether it is moral to forcibly remove a burkini from a woman on the beach. Is the answer to this question self-evident?Pindi
August 31, 2016
August
08
Aug
31
31
2016
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PST
Pindi asks:
How do you know what God thinks is good. Or know what is “Good”. How do you know God does not approve of the holocaust? Good morality may be a reflection of who God is, but without knowing who he is precisely, that doesn’t help you. Is insider trading Good or not Good? How do you know? Is it moral to stop a woman wearing a burkini on a beach. How do you know?
If you're really trying to understand, Pindi, then you have to work from the frame of reference of assuming that morality is objective in nature (for the sake of the argument). If morality is objective in nature, it represents a fundamental aspect of our existence which reflects the purpose for our existence in the world (oughts and ought nots refer to some purpose). Under a philosophical position of Natural Law, humans have a capacity (analogous to other sensory capacities) to sense moral right and wrong. Like the senses, this sense can be faulty, it can atrophy via lack of use, it can be refined. We also have the capacity to utilize reason when interpreting information brought to us by our senses and by our conscience (or ability to sense moral rights and wrongs). How do you "know" whether or not you can jump the distance between two high objects? How do you "know" if what you see is a mirage or the real thing? How do you "know" when you should eat? You develop knowledge of some of these things by intuiting and then developing experience; some of them you rationally examine incoming sensory information and developing an experiential model of prediction; etc. Some things one immediately understand presuppositionally as self-evidently true; like "there are no 4-sided triangles", or "A=A", or "1+1=2", or "it is immoral to torture children for personal pleasure". Like with any knowledge in life, moral knowledge can be hard to gain and difficult to understand. It can be confusing. People and societies can disagree on it, as they can about any knowledge presumed to be about objective commodities. IMO, one way you obtain moral knowledge is through a rational interpretation of the information brought to you via your conscience.William J Murray
August 31, 2016
August
08
Aug
31
31
2016
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PST
Pindi, As I stated in my earlier post....the only way we could know what God thinks is if he revealed it to us and I believe he has. I believe, through much study and struggle, that the Bible is God's revealed word. As for the burkini I could think of no passage in the Bible where wone could build a principle from that would say it is right or wrong to wear one. If a woman decided to wear one it would seem to be morally neutral. God says that cheating is wrong in the Bible.ellijacket
August 31, 2016
August
08
Aug
31
31
2016
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PST
Thanks Ellijacket, but my question is how do you know? When forming a moral view on, say, the burkini, how do you know what the correct position is? Also, for that matter, how do you know that God thinks cheating is wrong?Pindi
August 30, 2016
August
08
Aug
30
30
2016
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PST
Pindi, Insider trading is cheating (and illegal) and would therefore be not good according to what God has revealed as cheating is wrong and breaking man made laws (as long as the law is not evil) is also wrong. It is possible that the wearing of a burkini is neither good nor evil. God may have no opinion on the matter. Some actions may be morally neutral.ellijacket
August 30, 2016
August
08
Aug
30
30
2016
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PST
Ellijacket How do you know what God thinks is good. Or know what is "Good". How do you know God does not approve of the holocaust? Good morality may be a reflection of who God is, but without knowing who he is precisely, that doesn't help you. Is insider trading Good or not Good? How do you know? Is it moral to stop a woman wearing a burkini on a beach. How do you know?Pindi
August 30, 2016
August
08
Aug
30
30
2016
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PST
The concept of "race" is bogus. If you travel from China to west Africa, and go slow enough to notice the people and how they look along the way, you will notice that there is a gradual change from Chinese to middle Eastern, and from middle Eastern to Bantu. People in the 19th century only noticed people from the extreme ends of the earth, but missed all the people in-between. This error brought about the concept of race. Based on DNA studies and the idea of a Mitochondrial Eve, this is also evidence against the concept of race. So the idea that the "races" are fundimenally different from one another is most likely wrong. Alt Right is a reaction to the idiotic concept of "privelage" in my opinion. While the idea of "privelage" is bogus, I am not sure that Alt Right is going about the issue the right way. To me, the problem is that idotic and illogical ideas are being promoted in universities is the real problem.alanbrad
August 30, 2016
August
08
Aug
30
30
2016
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PST
@Seversky @ 29, You are not making a statement just for yourself. You are saying things would be better if we all acted a certain way. You are trying to make an absolute moral value out of your own reasoning while saying there are no absolute moral values. As for wondering how God came to conclusions on morals....I do not believe He did come to a conclusion. He didn't have to conclude anything. Good flows out of His character, out of who He is. He didn't have to decide them. Good is what agrees with who He is. Evil is a twisting of Good. Since God is our Creator then He has a right to expect us to align with who He is. Even if no one on earth agrees with God it doesn't matter. Good is good and Evil is evil. Therefore, it follows that the Holocaust is always wrong no matter what any human has ever thought about it. You cannot say that. You can say you think it's wrong, but you cannot say it is WRONG. Big difference. The real question is how can we know who God is. We really couldn't discover Him on our own. He can't be tested or forced to bend to our whims. However, He can reveal Himself to us. That is what I believe He did. He revealed Himself to mankind and gave us a way to test His revelation. You can test it yourself. You can look at all the great tomes and decide if any of them are authentic or not. That's what I did. I set aside all my own beliefs and looked at the historical aspects, the textual aspects, the apologetic aspects. After doing that one belief system rose to the top as being beyond question. So no, I do not believe morals were arrived at in a capricious way. Good morality is just a reflection of who God is.ellijacket
August 30, 2016
August
08
Aug
30
30
2016
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PST
So, are the Japanese a country of racists? https://amp.twimg.com/v/3d3d3f02-f0fc-4eb0-903e-2f1746e14d4e Also, you may throw as many rocks at Jared Taylor as you wish, but you may want to read this before you pick up the next one. http://www.radixjournal.com/the-red-pill/2016/7/26/what-the-founders-really-thought-about-raceriddick
August 29, 2016
August
08
Aug
29
29
2016
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PST
ellijacket @ 17
@Seversky, I’m totally confused about why we have to try and not be racists since you have argued on here consistently that there are no real moral values. You need to quit acting like there are real moral values if you are going to argue there are not.
I have argued that there are no objective moral values, only subjective ones. What intrigues me is why some people seem to believe we are incapable of deciding such things for ourselves. Consider that many people believe objective morality is created by God and either embedded in the fabric of the Universe or otherwise dispensed from on high. I wonder how God arrived at those judgments. Do believers ever wonder that? Do you ever wonder that? Did He just employ a metaphorical toss of the coin - heads, good, tails, evil? Well, that's not so difficult. We can all do that. Or did He reason His way to all those determinations. We can do that as well, maybe not as well as He can but we can take a good stab at it. So what, if anything, is wrong with us working out our own moral values? After all, we are the ones that are going to be subject to them so why shouldn't we have a hand in deciding what they should be?Seversky
August 29, 2016
August
08
Aug
29
29
2016
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PST
Pindi, by now you know or should know that evolutionary materialistic scientism is intellectually and morally bankrupt. (cf here on.) It reduces the consciously aware self to an illusion, and trashes responsible, rational freedom -- thus undermining rationality and moral government. Once we recognise that as patent fact of conscious existence no 1, we are and must be responsibly, rationally free or even a serious discussion is little more than noises used to manipulate or intimidate, then we need to ask what sort of world brings forth such beings. Where, after Hume's guillotine argument there is only one level where moral government can be founded, root reality. Which, we can readily see, has to be necessary being. After centuries of debates, there is just one serious candidate: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. If you doubt this, simply put something else on the table and let us proceed with comparative difficulties. Notice, something that cannot ground responsible reasonable discussion is a non-starter; it would be self-refuting. Which is the problem already outlined. KFkairosfocus
August 29, 2016
August
08
Aug
29
29
2016
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PST
Ellijacket, The argument is not whether or not there are moral values. I don't think anyone denies that there are. The question is how are they derived. Or, more precisely (since we all derive them the same way) are they objective or subjective. I never understand the constant refrain on this site that those who believe morals are subjective are not entitled to judge other people or have moral standards. I believe racism is wrong. I don't believe its written in stone anywhere, but its something that we have come to as a species/group/society. It is a very well established norm in most modern societies. I nevertheless feel strongly that is it wrong and I will denounce anyone who practices it. Racists of course, are free to denounce me. No one is going to rule on who is right though other than the collective will of the people, ultimately through the law enacted by the legislators we vote for.Pindi
August 29, 2016
August
08
Aug
29
29
2016
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PST
I can never fathom why so many of you refer to 'intuition' for the exercise of the most elementary reasoning - so that it almost seems as if it were intuitive understanding !Axel
August 29, 2016
August
08
Aug
29
29
2016
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PST
The Mayans, Chinese and Indians tell a distinct and unequivocal story. It is about what rings a nation's chimes, what turns them on, what Providence ordains should interest them at a particular time or epoch. Aldous Huxley wrote on the subject. In the case of the Mayans, seemingly negative, but not necessarily so. The analytical intelligence is mortal (in heaven, all will potentially have full divine access to an understanding of our material world ? Why wouldn't we, since it is relatively, such an incredibly base sphere of knowledge ?) ; wisdom, eternal. Part of that story has been explicated on here, under the rubric of the Judaeo-Christian origin of empirical science in a purposeful and hence lasting way ; how the acceptance by Christendom of the material world as good (if flawed by the Fall), and its faith in a divine Lawgiver, prompted it to seek logical laws in the nature of God's Creation. Personally, I am very inclined to believe that the sub-Saharan Africans (rather like women, in terms of the sexes) are potentially the most intellectually gifted racial strain in terms of the analytical intelligence, mostly due to their extraordinarily high emotional intelligence - of which it would be a degradation. Do we covert autism when it is high-performing ? This is not to disparage possession of a high analytical intelligence in absolute terms ; far from it. I believe people are given that gift in order for them to be able to assist the more endemically spiritual non-academic people to survive in this world of time, just as the latter can assist the former by their more spiritual focus - however subliminal, to thrive in eternity.Axel
August 29, 2016
August
08
Aug
29
29
2016
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PST
kairosfocus @21: Thank you for your supporting comment. @22: Always timely reference to one of the greatest Russian thinkers Solzhenitsyn, who spoke serious wake up warnings to the obliviously decadent western societies. Thank you. @23: Sobering commentary on such an important subject related to raising future generations. Thank you. We should think seriously about encouraging youngsters to pursue STEM careers if related interest is detected early.Dionisio
August 29, 2016
August
08
Aug
29
29
2016
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PST
PS, cross threaded. >>F/N: I should add, I am convinced that early childhood stimulation, drawing out and encouragement have a lot to do with where a child goes in terms of its potential. And, parents (and grand parents) are the best such sources of stimulation — one of the failings of a world that seems to ever more disdain the family. Think of the successive doubling times of life in terms of 1st year, 2nd, 4th, 8th, 16th, 32nd as in effect increments equal to the so far life experience. Then as a crude model think of novelty as proportionate to what fraction of cumulative experience one has so far one day is. Multiply by how early experience is embedded in how one processes onward experience. That strongly suggests, getting powerfully stimulating experiences as early as possible, reinforced rapidly so they become baked-in. (Ever wondered why as one gets older, the days seem to speed up? Fractionally speaking, they do.) KF>>kairosfocus
August 29, 2016
August
08
Aug
29
29
2016
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PST
Groov, I read that as little more than, we are polarised and all the 'devils' are on that side of the split. Alinskyism. Solzhenitsyn was far more correct, the line between good and evil passes through the individual human heart. The evidence of design has little or nothing to do with races, classes or cultural divides. It has everything to do with, what is the evidence that points to reliable indicators of design as material causal factor. The projections we see are actually a sign that the design inference is so strong that those who want to fend it off have to resort to ill-founded projections, demonisation, stereotyping and scapegoating. KFkairosfocus
August 29, 2016
August
08
Aug
29
29
2016
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PST
D, you are compiling a reference base and that is to be respected. KFkairosfocus
August 29, 2016
August
08
Aug
29
29
2016
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PST
groovamos @18
It does seem that the animations of cellular machinery are the most effective way to get attention.
Don't they say that a picture is worth a thousand words? :) Even though some of those cool animations seem grossly oversimplified. A fully accurate animation would require information we still don't have, but many animations could be updated with information that is available in recent papers. That's one of the projects I'm working on. That's why I'm collecting so many research papers using Zotero in order to enrich the tech specs for animation programs. I share some of them -the coolest ones- here in UD. BTW, by mistake some got repeated recently. Zotero detects duplicates, but this blog doesn't. I apologize for that error, though probably it went unnoticed. Anyway, very few people look at the threads "Mystery at the heart of life" and "Third Way of evolution". They are not popular at all.Dionisio
August 29, 2016
August
08
Aug
29
29
2016
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PST
harry @12 Interesting comment. Thank you. A friend of mine who lived in a multiethnic/multiracial community took his younger son to visit their relatives in another more racially homogeneous town. When the young boy noticed what he thought was lack of ethnic/racial diversity in that place asked why. One of the local relatives replied passionately that they did have ethnic diversity: Swedes, Dutch, Danish, Finnish, Norwegians, Belgians, Germans, Austrians, Russians, French, Scottish, etc. Then, lowering his voice to a whisper, he told the young boy "BTW, don't trust the Belgians". We were made to love our neighbors as ourselves. The shocking illustration Jesus presented to a Jewish man had a Samaritan helping a Jew on a road. The message was unambiguously sharp. Those two ethnic groups hated each other. Since the first humans in history doubted the words of their Creator and did it their way we've been doomed to man-made divisions. It's our natural condition. That malady has no natural cure. It's been a naturally lost case since shortly after the start of human history. There's only one cure available: spiritual heart regeneration through a unique supernatural means. In Christ we're all equally reconciled to our Creator. Then we understand that each and every person is uniquely special with the same dignity as the rest. All made in the Imago Dei*. (*) http://www.reasons.org/articles/imago-dei-what-does-it-meanDionisio
August 29, 2016
August
08
Aug
29
29
2016
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PST
rvb8 : ...‘alt-right’ and its unmistakable ID leanings...? This has to be a joke right? Something that is designated with vague moniker, in single quotes no less, is at the same time unmistakable, with unmistakable attributes. About conservatives in general: I'm acquainted with a very large number of individuals involved in music here in my city. I know equal numbers of liberals, conservatives and those in the middle. None of these people have any serious knowledge of ID that I'm aware of or I would have seen it on my many facebook postings of links to this website and the ENV one. They are appreciative sometimes with 'likes' and short comments but no conservatives seem to want to engage in further dialogue with me. People are just too busy or something. Certainly no "ID leanings" seem apparent. BTW It does seem that the animations of cellular machinery are the most effective way to get attention.groovamos
August 29, 2016
August
08
Aug
29
29
2016
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PST
@Seversky, I'm totally confused about why we have to try and not be racists since you have argued on here consistently that there are no real moral values. You need to quit acting like there are real moral values if you are going to argue there are not.ellijacket
August 29, 2016
August
08
Aug
29
29
2016
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PST
This was posted in another thread, but perhaps it is kind of related to this OP too?
The book “Until the Final Hour” (subtitled “Hitler’s Last Secretary”), is mainly based on the personal stories written by Traudl Junge soon after the end of WW2. The story was edited by Melissa Muller for the German edition of the book and translated by Anthea Bell for the first US edition in 2004. The second paragraph on page 108 reads:
Sometimes we also had interesting discussions about the church and the development of the human race. Perhaps it’s going too far to call them discussions, because he [Hitler] would begin explaining his ideas when some question or remark from one of us had set them off, and we just listened. He was not a member of any church, and thought the Christian religions were outdated, hypocritical institutions that lured people into them. The laws of nature were his religion. He could reconcile his dogma of violence better with nature than with the Christian doctrine of loving your neighbor and your enemy. ‘Science isn’t yet clear about the origins of humanity,’ he once said. ‘We are probably the highest stage of development of some mammal which developed from reptiles and moved on to human beings, perhaps by way of the apes. We are a part of creation and children of nature, and the same laws apply to us as to all living creatures. And in nature the law of the struggle for survival has reigned from the first. Everything incapable of life, everything weak is eliminated. Only mankind and above all the church have made it their aim to keep alive the weak, those unfit to live, and people of an inferior kind.’
On page 237, in relation to a story published by the magazine Quick in Munich, Traudl Junge wrote:
I remember that one Shrove Tuesday the editorial office was working on a big story about several war crimes trials and executions in Landsberg. Only then I did find out, for the first time, details of what went on behind the scenes in the Third Reich. Above all, I discovered what lay behind the facades of people I had known as pleasant, cultivated companions. For instance there was Dr Karl Brandt, one of Hitler’s attendant doctors, whom I had thought an educated, humane man, but he was hanged in 1948 for taking part in medical experiments on concentration camp prisoners and practicing euthanasia. I could hardly grasp it.
On page 243 Traudl Junge talks about her friend Luise Lanzenstiel:
Luise was married to a pastor and had had six children. She was amazingly cheerful and steadfast. The family got through the Nazi period very bravely, without sacrificing their ideals. Luise told me she never once said “Heil Hitler” in all that time. The whole family were securely anchored in their faith, in an open-minded way — not at all bigoted. They always said grace before meals, which made me feel very awkward at first, but then I got to feel more and more like part of the family. I owe it to Heinz Bald that I have a substitute family today, because I am friends with those six children and thirteen grandchildren too. I’m their Auntie Traudl. With the Lanzenstiels, I saw for the first time what it’s like for people to have the strength of faith. I envied them very much for their ability to believe — it’s not a gift given to me. But they weren’t missionaries, they accepted me as I am. I’ve gone to Luise when I wanted to hide from the rest of the world. I felt safe with her, I knew I was with someone who understood me.
On page 244 Traudl Junge talks about Sophie Scholl of the anti-Nazi movement The White Rose:
“At that time I must often have walked past the commemorative plaque to Sophie Scholl in Franz-Joseph-Strasse without noticing it. One day I did, and I was terribly shocked when I realized that she was executed in 1943, just when I was beginning my own job with Hitler. Sophie Scholl had originally been a BDM member herself, a year younger than me, and she saw clearly that she was dealing with a criminal regime. All of a sudden I had no excuse anymore.”
History repeats. Unfortunately these days it seems like there are many people in younger Traudl Junge's pathetically oblivious & naïve condition and there are fewer with Sophie Scholl's inquiring minds.Dionisio
August 29, 2016
August
08
Aug
29
29
2016
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PST
JAD, excellent question. KFkairosfocus
August 29, 2016
August
08
Aug
29
29
2016
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PST
Peter,
As a member of the alt-right, and their theological leader, I believe I am sufficiently qualified to describe them.
Wait, the alt-right has a "theological leader"? And it's you, seriously? Somehow I doubt that.daveS
August 29, 2016
August
08
Aug
29
29
2016
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PST
Harry, dead right. Red vs blond vs dark brown hair is a classic case in point of superficial judgements. And BTW, I have close cousins with blue eyes [and fairly dark skin!], some with blond hair, some with red hair, others with jet black hair. The other day, I looked at a picture of Melanesian islanders with strikingly blond hair. Small mutations account for such features and in my family there is a joke about being born with red hair that has to go black before it can go grey. KFkairosfocus
August 29, 2016
August
08
Aug
29
29
2016
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PST
Christ prayed for our conversion and our unity. The prince of this world wants the opposite and uses a divide and conquer strategy to get it. If the various races didn't exist, and all of humanity had the characteristics of, say, Caucasians, the prince of this world would have us divided into groups where hair color supposedly had some huge significance -- anything to turn us against each other and divide us into groups where each would perceive itself as victims and the others as victimizers, or perceive itself as superior and the others as inferior. The last thing the prince wants is our unity based upon our common humanity.harry
August 29, 2016
August
08
Aug
29
29
2016
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PST
Seversky,
The fact is that racism is found in all human cultures to some degree. Like it or not it is a part of who we are and we are all capable of it unless we make a conscious effort to be on our guard against it. Those who mount a moral hobbyhorse against racism which implies that others are guilty of it but not them are do not help. Only when all sides are humble enough to admit that we are all at fault to some degree will we make progress.
Why should all sides be “humble enough to admit that we are all at fault”? You can only argue something like that if you believe that there is a real transcendent (“objective” and universal) basis for moral obligations and human rights.john_a_designer
August 29, 2016
August
08
Aug
29
29
2016
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PST
1 2

Leave a Reply