Header image  
Culture, politics, science, philosophy  


Thinking matters

HonestThinking is dedicated to topics related to culture, politics, science, and philosophy. To understand what HonestThinking is all about, please read our general manifesto as well as our immigration manifesto.


31.12.2007. Have you ever noticed how certain religious groups always seem to have answers for everything? Have you noticed that no matter what happens, or doesn't happen; no matter what kind of phenomenon is encountered, said religious groups are always able to come up with some sort of 'explanation' that (surprise!) happens to confirm their world view? If something good happens, it's God's blessing. If something bad happens, either the devil is trying to get you, or God is putting you to the test. Or perhaps it's a combination of the two; pick your choice. Et cetera.

I am not bashing religion in general. On the contrary I have an increasingly strong suspicion that religion in some form or shape is necessary for any civilization that prefers to survive. However, what certain religious leaders fail to appreciate, and what their anti-intellectual congregations apparently have no clue about (given that they swallow the shallow 'explanations' their leaders feed them) is the following:

A paradigm, a world view, or some other kind of intellectual system that pretends it is capable of explaining everything, explains nothing.

In other words: if it makes no difference to the paradigm whether A or B happens; if its proponents are always happy to tell you that whatever turned out to actually happen, is perfectly in accord with the way they see things; then you have very good reason to be skeptical. Such people are probably charlatans and their paradigms bullshit. This is so because any paradigm worth its salt must make some kind of predictions about what kind of observations and phenomena to expect, and what not to expect. If anything is equally probable, and there does not even exist a single hypothetical observation or phenomenon that could, at least potentially, shake the confidence of the paradigm's proponents, the people in question have become ideologically immune, and one should not listen to them. They are clouds without rain, blinds leading blinds. Understanding this should be part of any mature person's Baloney detection toolkit.

Let's get a little bit more specific here. If you were told that the soldiers of nation X have the nasty habit of raping the women of nation Y, you would probably be right in thinking that the soldiers in question have insufficient respect for the people of that other nation, or perhaps for women in general. In other words: no matter what kind of religion you subscribe to, no matter what kind of world view you have, no matter what kind of social science paradigm you work within, you would conclude that soldiers who more or less systematically rape the women of other nations, are behaving badly.

Now, imagine that you are a social scientist working within an infinitely flexible paradigm, i.e., a paradigm so flexible it will always allow you to reach the desired conclusions. Imagine further that you would like to 'prove' that the soldiers of a given nation are bad guys. Hey, presto, all you need to do is to examine their raping habits!

If they tend to rape the women of the innocent and peace-loving neighboring nations, then you have the data you need to publish your article and further your career.

However, if said soldiers don't rape the women of the innocent and peace-loving neighboring nations, then you still have the data you need to publish your article and further your career. This situation just requires you to do a little bit more explanation, and the very same and desirable conclusions will emerge. This could perhaps further your career even more, given that you have proven yourself capable of undertaking some 'advanced reasoning'.

As you can see, working within an infinitely flexible paradigm has its advantages. If anything needs explaining, you can do it. If some desirable conclusion needs some scientific underpinning, you can deliver the goods.

But, surely, the above example about the raping habits of soldiers cannot possibly have anything to do with what goes on in academia? This example is just too far fetched to have any relevance, isn't it?

Well, this may be hard to believe, but a 'scientific paper' recently concluded that Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Has Political Motives for Not Raping. Yes, that's right; when IDF soldiers don't rape palestinian and arab women, it's because they hardly consider them to be human beings. How ingenious an explanation!

Richard Dawkins' old gems about Intellectual impostors and anti-scientific academics are still worth reading.


25.12.2007 (last updated 18.10.2008). James Watson's remarks about Africans and IQ put media and the scientific community to the test. How would they react, how well would they handle the situation? The answer, in my opinion, is that by and large they failed miserably. Much of what happened in the days and weeks following Watson's remarks is a disgrace.

New York Times, to its credit, has run some interesting articles since the end of October (see also this NYT-article), and I just came across an article in The Guardian which at least makes some effort at being balanced:

'What is ethically wrong is the hounding, by what can only be described as an illiberal and intolerant "thought police", of one of the most distinguished scientists of our time, out of the Science Museum, and maybe out of the laboratory that he has devoted much of his life to, building up a world-class reputation,' said Richard Dawkins, [...].

I have not come across a single article that purports to present solid scientific evidence that Watson was simply wrong (as opposed to just being insensitive or too blunt). The only one that comes close (among the ones I have seen) is probably Where's the beef? by Jim Manzi. However, there are many articles that support Watson. Readers are encouraged to send me references to articles that can balance the following ones, which are definitely worth reading. Without any further comments:

To sum up: There is broad agreement that racial differences in IQ do indeed exist, the controversy is about the explanation for the observed differences; is it due to nature or nurture? Most of the objections to the view that genes make some contribution in this context (no one claims the IQ differences can be explained only by genetics), seem not to have much more going for them than what is expressed in the words of the old maxim "It ain't necessarily so".


25.12.2007. Richard Dawkins begins his scathing review of Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology and Human Nature, by Steven Rose, Leon J. Kamin and Richard Lewontin, in "Sociobiology: the debate continues", New Scientist 24 January 1985 as follows:

Those of us with time to concentrate on our historic mission to exploit workers and oppress minorities have a great need to "legitimate" our nefarious activities. The first legitimator we came up with was religion which has worked pretty well through most of history but, "the static world of social relations legitimated by God reflected, and was reflected by, the dominant view of the natural world as itself static". Latterly there has been an increasing need for a new legitimator. So we developed one: Science.

HonestThinking comments: This old review of an old book is still well worth reading. The abuse of science in the service of politics and ideology has definitely not come to an end yet. Honestly dealing with the truth and facing reality is the only way forward. In the long run I suspect this is also the only viable way of preventing extremists, whether on the left or right side of the political spectrum, to spread hatred and human misery. Wishful thinking and utopian visions of a completely egalitarian world will certainly not do us any good.


16.12.2007. Excerpts from an article by Fjordman at Global Politician:

I know many people on the outside are puzzled by this fight with LGF and believe it is about personal egos alone. I disagree. There are very real issues involved here. Perhaps one of the most important ones is whether ethnicity matters or whether it is not just wrong but evil to talk about it.

Many Americans seem to believe it’s all about the Constitution, and that everybody who sets foot on US soil is equally an American. Put in the extreme, this view would mean that you could exchange the present US population with 300 million Zulus, yet the USA would still remain as American as apple pie if the Constitution remained in place. I’m not so sure that is true.

I see no indication that ethnicity is irrelevant in the USA. On the contrary, I see indications that the importance of ethnic rivalries is growing within the US along with mass immigration from non-Western countries. The reason why this haven’t had serious repercussions yet is because the white majority clings to the idea that ethnicity doesn’t matter. But as the white majority grows smaller and eventually disappears, these ethnic rivalries could potentially grow a lot worse as there would no longer be a stable majority group in the country.

HonestThinking comments: The gullible and utopian dream that ethnicity and race don't matter, needs to be exposed and abandoned. How on earth we are going to solve the multicultural problems we have gotten ourselves into, I don't know. But we are certainly going to need some ethnic and racial realism if we are going to succeed.


14.12.2007. Excerpts from a recent article at Gates of Vienna: The downfall of Dan Rather in the fall of 2004 was brought about by the hard work of a lot of ordinary people, by men and women without any J-school credentials or experience in the field. It was a triumph of a new form of media.

And Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs was the hero of that triumph.

Needless to say, Mr. Johnson wasn’t the only star of the show. The initial exposé of the Killian memo came from Free Republic. Other prominent bloggers were in the thick of it doing important work, including Power Line, Michelle Malkin, Roger Simon, and Instapundit. Bill at InDC Journal played a crucial role when he contacted an expert on typewriters who made mincemeat of the CBS in-house expert’s laughable assertions. Many other smaller blogs, commenters, and forum posters contributed to the effort. It truly was “an Army of Davids”.

Needless to say, Mr. Johnson wasn’t the only star of the show. The initial exposé of the Killian memo came from Free Republic. Other prominent bloggers were in the thick of it doing important work, including Power Line, Michelle Malkin, Roger Simon, and Instapundit. Bill at InDC Journal played a crucial role when he contacted an expert on typewriters who made mincemeat of the CBS in-house expert’s laughable assertions. Many other smaller blogs, commenters, and forum posters contributed to the effort. It truly was “an Army of Davids”.


09.12.2007. Excerpts from an article by Patricia Cohen in New York Times (registration may be needed to read the article, but it's still free; emphasis added):

Ever since the Nobel prize winner James D. Watson asserted six weeks ago that Africans have innately lower intelligence, fervid debates about race, genes and I.Q. have sprung up on the Web, in publications and in conference rooms.

But in recent days, along with long-simmering arguments over evidence, have come others about whether the topic is even worth studying, or whether it can be discussed openly without spurring charges of racism.

“It’s a subject that almost dare not speak its name,” said Howard Husock of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative research group, as he introduced a debate Wednesday night between James R. Flynn, the author of a new book “What Is Intelligence?” (Cambridge University Press), and Charles Murray, a co-author of “The Bell Curve,” the controversial 1994 book about intelligence that set off a previous free-for-all on race, genes and I.Q.

The risk of giving ammunition to racists or undercutting principles of equality hovers over such conversations like an uninvited dinner guest. That unwelcome visitor has been loitering at the online magazine Slate since last week, when it ran a three-part series arguing that hard science is showing that blacks’ I.Q. scores are lower than those of whites — and whites’ scores are lower than those of Asians — because of genetically based differences in intelligence. [...]

Ms. Gottfredson says the cause of the black-white achievement gap is one of the most pressing social science questions, and the refusal to consider genetic causes means either blaming white racism or black culture, making it someone’s fault and placing the issue “in the moral realm.”

We’re ginning up more tensions by denying it,” she contended. [...]

Mr. [James R. Flynn - the man after which the Flynn effect is named - see also his home page], who said he had been attacked by both conservatives (for playing down the significance of genes) and by liberals (for arguing that black culture is at the root of the I.Q. gap), told the group, “I want to say how deeply I believe in this sort of discussion.” He later explained that his own desire to disprove the genetic arguments is what spurred his research.

HonestThinking comments: We should all listen to professor Flynn; the way forward is through scientific research, rational thinking, and respectful discussion. Only the enemies of truth and freedom could disagree.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights …

- Declaration of Independence

09.12.2007. Thus begins William Saletan his article Liberal Creationism, as part of the Created Equal series, at Slate:

Last month, James Watson, the legendary biologist, was condemned and forced into retirement after claiming that African intelligence wasn't "the same as ours." "Racist, vicious and unsupported by science," said the Federation of American Scientists. "Utterly unsupported by scientific evidence," declared the U.S. government's supervisor of genetic research. The New York Times told readers that when Watson implied "that black Africans are less intelligent than whites, he hadn't a scientific leg to stand on."

I wish these assurances were true. They aren't. Tests do show an IQ deficit, not just for Africans relative to Europeans, but for Europeans relative to Asians. Economic and cultural theories have failed to explain most of the pattern, and there's strong preliminary evidence that part of it is genetic. It's time to prepare for the possibility that equality of intelligence, in the sense of racial averages on tests, will turn out not to be true.

If this suggestion makes you angry—if you find the idea of genetic racial advantages outrageous, socially corrosive, and unthinkable—you're not the first to feel that way.

In the days after publishing the above article, Saletan followed up with two additional articles:

  • Environmental Impact: Yesterday we looked at evidence for a genetic theory of racial differences in IQ. Today let's look at some of the arguments against it. Again, I'm drawing heavily on a recent exchange of papers published by the American Psychological Association.
  • All God's Children (emphasis added): Why write about this topic? Why hurt people's feelings? Why gratify bigots? Because truth matters. Because the truth isn't as bad as our ignorant, half-formed fears and suspicions about it. And because you can't solve a problem till you understand it.

Saletan may have been a little too quick to conclude in favor of genetic causes of the difference (we can be 99,999...% sure that some genetic causes are indeed present, but we cannot yet, as far as I can tell, be confident about the relative importance of genetics). Still, by an large, he has written some very interesting and important articles. But, of course, his articles have caused outrage. So much outrage that, after a week or so, Saletan published his regrets, including the following paragraph:

But the thing that has upset me most concerns a co-author of one of the articles I cited. In researching this subject, I focused on published data and relied on peer review and rebuttals to expose any relevant issue. As a result, I missed something I could have picked up from a simple glance at Wikipedia.

HonestThinking comments: Saletan is embarrassed that his articles to some degree rely on the work of J. Philippe Rushton. I am only somewhat familiar with Rushton and his work; I have read part of one of his books, and notice that his name is brought up every now and then. Rushton is obviously well-known for his work on racial differences in IQ, and related issues, and according to Wikipedia he is the current head of the Pioneer Fund.

So what? This brings us to a very interesting point: should Saletan be embarrassed because he has referenced the work of a man who is associated with an organization many consider to be racist? This is an area where we need to be careful. Earlier this year I participated in a discussion on document.no (the largest independent blog in Norway) where arguments advanced by professor Lars Gule were dismissed simply because (a) he is a leftist, and (b) he was arrested in Beirut in 1977 for possession of explosives.

In my opinion we need to use exactly the same kind of reasoning in both cases. If Gule or Rushton can bring interesting facts to bear on an issue, or if they have conducted quality research that can shed light on an issue, we should listen to them, period. We may need to compensate for personal bias, and we should (as always) consult additional sources, but we should not dismiss their results simply because of who they are! If we do that, we have become the victims of political correctness - the enemy of truth and honesty.

Facts are facts, no matter who the messenger is. Good research is good research, no matter who conducted it. I notice that a recent article in New York Times (!) contained the following paragraph (emphasis added):

Linda S. Gottfredson, a sociologist at the University of Delaware, insists that Mr. Saletan has nothing to apologize for. Ms. Gottfredson, who along with Mr. Flynn had been participating in a separate monthlong online debate about intelligence sponsored by the libertarian Cato Institute, wrote that Mr. Saletan “may be the first journalist to so directly acknowledge the scientific evidence” supporting a genetic explanation for racial differences in I.Q. “and to be allowed to publish his views.”

One can always point to minor flaws and details that should have been different. Still, Saletan (and Slate) should be applauded for bringing all of us at least a little bit closer to ending the hypocrisy, wishful thinking, and political correctness that holds American society in general, and American academia in particular, in a deadly embrace.

Every time somebody speaks the truth, or even a partial truth, and is shouted down with politically correct screams, these forces of darkness cannot help but to blow part of their cover. Thus, the currently prevailing intellectual terror regime is brought one step closer to its demise.


05.12.2007. Something interesting is happening in the Muslim world. Moez Masoud is obviously just one man, but the kind of response he seems to be getting for his particular kind of Muslim message, is worth noting. Read the story in Washington Post. See also Islamonline.net and YouTube.


01.12.2007. In an article at The American Scene Jim Manzi raises some interesting issues. Here are some excerpts: Recently, lots of bloggers have been wringing their hands over the implications of genetically-determined differences in intelligence between various racial and ethnic groups. I think they’re getting a bit ahead of themselves – what’s been conspicuously absent from any of these posts is definitive evidence that the premise is correct. [...]

Do genetic differences accounts for any material portion of the difference in IQ scores by self-identified racial groups in the US? The only honest answer is that we don’t know. This, not political correctness is why the American Psychological Association’s formal consensus point of view on this question is stated without qualification: “At present, this question has no scientific answer.”


28.11.2007. Excerpts from a new article by Fjordman at Gates of Vienna:

As most readers know by now, I have been involved in what has unfortunately become a very public brawl — some would probably say witch-hunt — with Charles Johnson of major American blog Little Green Footballs about the supposed “racism” of the Sweden Democrats and the Vlaams Belang. Many of these claims have already been countered, though LGF refuses to link to this. I have announced my intention to take a break from commenting at LGF, where I have been active for several years, since it has become abundantly clear that neither Charles nor many of his readers have any interest whatsoever in having an actual debate, and certainly not about the real threats to freedom in Europe.

However, I’d like to continue the debate about “racism,” which now frequently means something along the lines of “I’m a Multiculturalist. I’ve just lost the debate because I have poor arguments in favor of my case. I want to shut you up, therefore you are a racist.”

HonestThinking comments: I note with interest that the very kind of people who for decades have said things like "race does not exist" or "race does not matter", are now changing their message to "white people are evil", or "all whites are racist", or something else along those lines. Never mind that the two messages are incompatible; the goal is the same in both cases. Apparently we are about to witness a change of tactics in the War Against the West. Or perhaps it should be dubbed the Civil Was within the West? After all, it seems we have become our own worst enemy.


22.11.2007. Excerpts from a new article by Fjordman at Gates of Vienna:

Imagine if you planned a country’s economic future using calculations exclusively based on even numbers. For ideological reasons you excluded odd numbers because you declared that they represent bigotry and have divisive nature since they cannot be divided equally in half. Absolutely all calculations for the future would then end up being wrong. This sounds insane and improbable, but what we’re doing now in the Western world is exactly this naïve. In the name of Multiculturalism we completely ignore all ethnic, religious, cultural and, yes, racial differences, because we have decided that these things don’t matter. But in real life, ethnicity, culture, religion and race do matter. Doesn’t that mean that all our projections for the future by necessity will end up being wrong, since they fail to take important factors into account?

Policy needs to be rooted in a realistic assessment of human nature, not in wishful thinking. Good intentions are far from sufficient to ensure good results. History is full of well-intended policies gone horrible wrong. We know from past experience that basing an ideological world view on a fundamentally flawed understanding of human nature is bound to end in disaster. Society will become more and more totalitarian in order to suppress all the information that doesn’t conform to the official ideology. Isn’t this what is happening in the West now?

I used to believe until quite recently that skin color was irrelevant. I was brought up that way. I still don’t think ethnicity or race does or should mean everything. In fact, I would say it is patently uncivilized to claim that it means everything. But I can no longer say with a straight face that it means absolutely nothing, and if it means more than nothing, it needs to be taken into account. Whether we like this or not is immaterial.

HonestThinking comments: This article is important because large numbers of those who usually agree with Fjordman on issues of immigration and multiculturalism, appears to be completely ignorant of the importance of ethnicity and race in matters of identity and loyalty. Some culturists (the opposite of multiculturalists, roughly speaking) even resort to downright lies and anti-scientific reasoning in order to justify PC views on these issues. Apparently they feel better about themselves if they can balance out their politically incorrect views on some issues by being extremely politically correct when it comes to ethnicity and race. This mixture of hypocrisy, dishonesty, and wishful thinking is a disgrace.


15.11.2007. Record numbers of people are leaving the UK but more immigrants are arriving, according to statistics released today. The Office for National Statistics revealed a record estimated 400,000 people left the UK last year for at least 12 months. This is the highest figure since specific monitoring began in 1991. In 2005 the figure was 359,000. Read more in Daily Mail.


15.11.2007. Excerpts from an article by Elizabeth Wright in Global Politician:

Of the many painful consequences brought on by the surrender to political correctness, the demoralization of the United States military is surely among the saddest. First, force young men, who already face the challenge of bringing their unruly spirits under the control of rigorous military discipline to face the even greater challenge of reining in their urgent, natural drives-while living, dining and sleeping in close quarters with women. Then mix in the young women, who, while ostensibly pursuing military careers, are expected to suppress their visceral drive to capture lifemates. And what do you get? Confusion, and a lot of pregnancies.

What loss of common sense could ever bring a government to purposely introduce into its fighting forces the element of sexual interplay, which inevitably brings with it romantic ramifications with which we're all familiar-hurt feelings, periods of anxiety and brooding and, sometimes, even vengeful behavior?

HonestThinking comments: Radical feminism is a disaster for Western societies, and it's about time we realize this. We either dispose of this corrupt ideology, or it will destroy us. See also Fjordman's essay on a closely related topic, as well as on the utopian ideas of total non-discrimination.


Important new essay from Fjordman

08.11.2007 (incorrect link updated 15.11.2007). Excerpts from an article by Fjordman in Global Politician:

I have heard people who have grown up in former Communist countries say that we in the West are at least as brainwashed by Multiculturalism and Political Correctness as they ever were with Communism, perhaps more so. Even in the heyday of the East Bloc, there were active dissident groups in these countries. The scary thing is, I sometimes believe they are right. But how is that possible? Don’t we have free speech? And we have no Gulag?

The simple fact is that we never won the Cold War as decisively as we should have. Yes, the Berlin Wall fell, and the Soviet Union collapsed. This removed the military threat to the West, and the most hardcore, economic Marxism suffered a blow as a credible alternative. However, one of the really big mistakes we made after the Cold War ended was to declare that Socialism was now dead, and thus no longer anything to worry about. Here we are, nearly a generation later, discovering that Marxist rhetoric and thinking have penetrated every single stratum of our society, from the Universities to the media. Islamic terrorism is explained as caused by “poverty, oppression and marginalization,” a classic, Marxist interpretation.

What happened is that while the “hard” Marxism of the Soviet Union may have collapsed, at least for now, the “soft” Marxism of the Western Left has actually grown stronger, in part because we deemed it to be less threatening. The “hard” Marxists had intercontinental nuclear missiles and openly said that they would “bury” us. The soft Marxists talk about tolerance and may seem less threatening, but their goal of overthrowing the evil, capitalist West remains the same. In fact, they are more dangerous precisely because they hide their true goals under different labels. [...]

The Leftist-Islamic alliance will have profound consequences. Either they will defeat the West, or they will both go down in the fall. We never really won the Cold War as decisively as we should have done. Marxism was allowed to endure, and mount another attack on us by stealth and proxy. However, this flirting with Muslims could potentially prove more devastating to Marxists than the fall of the Berlin Wall.

As William S. Lind points out: “While the hour is late, the battle is not decided. Very few Americans realize that Political Correctness is in fact Marxism in a different set of clothes. As that realization spreads, defiance will spread with it. At present, Political Correctness prospers by disguising itself. Through defiance, and through education on our own part (which should be part of every act of defiance), we can strip away its camouflage and reveal the Marxism beneath the window-dressing of “sensitivity,” “tolerance” and “multiculturalism.”

Political Correctness is Marxism with a nose job. Multiculturalism is not about tolerance or diversity, it is an anti-Western hate ideology designed to dismantle Western civilization. If we can demonstrate this, an important part of the battle has already been won.

HonestThinking comments: This, in my opinion, is among the most important articles by Fjordman to date. Dishonest thinking is about to kill the entire Western civilization, and Fjordman's attempt at explaining why on earth the majority of Westerners continue to vote for political parties that are bent on destroying our societies, is interesting.

However, apart from the fact that smart Islamists exploit naive leftists as useful idiots, I find it hard to believe that Muslim scholars suffer from the same intellectual diseases as do multiculturalist intellectuals. But then perhaps Fjordman never meant to make a claim along those lines?


University forces its students to say that all whites are racist

11.04.2007. New York lawyer and editor of Global Politician, David Storobin, has compiled some shocking evidence of what goes on in American academia. Some excerpts from his article:

The University of Delaware recently made a decision to subject its students to mandatory "treatment" ('treatment' is a term used by the university) where they learn that "all whites are racist", racism by the 'people of color' is impossible, and George Washington is merely a "famous Indian fighter, large landholder and slave owner".

The university requires that the students adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy, and environmentalism. Students are forced to attend training sessions, floor meetings, and one-on-one meetings with their Resident Assistants (RAs). The RAs who facilitate these meetings have received their own intensive training from the university, including a “diversity facilitation training”.

RAs are required to ask and students are forced to answer private questions such as “When did you discover your sexual identity?”

After the one-on-one meetings, RAs must then prepare reports on each student's cooperation and viewpoint, ranking them and the progress they've made during "treatment".

Students are not allowed to express disapproval of the "treatment" or of the questions that deal with their political views, sexuality and other private matters. Expressing disapproval will result in a negative report of the progress they've made during "treatment", which may result in punishment.

Students are forced to achieve "competency" as a goal of the "treatment". 'Competency' requires that “Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society,” “Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression,” and “Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality.”

Student are also forced to take actions that outwardly indicate their agreement with the university’s ideology, such as displaying specific, school-approved door decorations and taking action by advocating for a social group that is defined as "oppressed" by the University.

HonestThinking comments: This just cannot be true, you might think. Unfortunately, Storobin seems to have done his homework. This reminds me of the kind of stuff that went on during the Cultural Revolution in China, where people were forced to confess the correct views on this or that.

Such practices are not only stupid, they are also dangerous. As I have pointed out many times before, the road to a totalitarian society begins with lies and utopian visions (in this case the notion that race and ethnicity are unimportant in human relations and society at large), and continues with ever more draconian measures to force people to act as if the utopian vision were based on facts rather than fantasies, wishful thinking, and more or less well-intentioned dreams.

It is by the way a smart move on the part of the multiculturalists to ensure that only hypocrites and idiots are allowed to go through higher education. Just as in China during the Mao Era there is a need to control people's minds, and to make sure that as few people as possible are capable of critical thought. I often wonder if the USA is in even bigger trouble than Europe.


04.11.2007. Excerpts from an article by Fjordman in Global Politician:

As a non-religious person, but still one that acknowledges and respects the impact of Judeo-Christian thinking on Western culture, I have warned against naïve Christian compassion related to Muslim immigration, as well as a disturbing tendency among too many Christian organizations to ally themselves with Muslims, for "religious values" and against Israel. But frankly, the most useful allies Muslims have in the West more often than not tend to be found among the non-religious crowd.

A number of executives and star presenters at the British Broadcasting Corporation admitted what critics already knew: The BBC is dominated by Left-leaning liberals who are anti-American and biased against Christianity, but sensitive to the feelings of Muslims. Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a very senior news executive about the BBC's pro-Multicultural stance, but was given the reply: "The BBC is not neutral in Multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it." [...]

And if modern reason required a pre-existing community of reasonable men before it could emerge in the West, maybe modern reason "must recognize that its own existence and survival demand both an ethical postulate and a religious postulate. The ethical postulate is: Do whatever is possible to create a community of reasonable men who abstain from violence, and who prefer to use reason. The religious postulate is: If you are given a choice between religions, always prefer the religion that is most conducive to creating a community of reasonable men, even if you don't believe in it yourself."

According to Theodore Dalrymple, the underlying problem in Western Europe in particular is a lack of purpose, which gives rise to a large amount of social pathology:

"Quite a large proportion of the population does not derive any self-respect from having to work for a living because some people are no better off if they work than if they do not work [due to the welfare state]." They "do not feel they belong to any larger project than their private lives. (…) I am not myself religious. However, I am not anti-religious. I am pro-religion provided that it is not theocratic, so long as there is still a division between church and state."

Dalrymple also believes that "Discipline without freedom leads to misery, but freedom without discipline leads to chaos, shallowness, and misery of another kind," alluding to the total lack of freedom in Islam, but also to the seeming lack of direction in the West.

I agree with Harris and Dalrymple: As long as there is separation between religion and state, those of us who don't have any religious belief should prefer religions which tend to create reasonable and prosperous communities. Our traditional Judeo-Christian religions have proven this capability. Islam never has, and probably never will. As Australia's Cardinal George Pell says, "some seculars are so deeply anti-Christian, that anyone opposed to Christianity is seen as their ally. That could be one of the most spectacularly disastrous miscalculations in history."

Indeed it could. Maybe if Western Multiculturalists get their will, and Islam does conquer parts of the West, they will discover that the new religion is infinitely worse than the old one. Of course, by then it will be too late.

HonestThinking comments: As always, Fjordman makes a number of interesting observations. However, this seems to be a good opportunity for me to do what in Norwegian is known as å banne i kirken (an expression which literally means to curse in church; pretty much the opposite of preaching to the choir), and I include myself when I put forward the following question:

Has Thou shalt hate Islam become an unspoken tenet of all who believe that multiculturalism is a rotten ideology?

People are never pure evil or pure good, neither are religions. If we are unwilling to admit that there are positive elements in Islam, we are either ignorant or dishonest, neither or which is going to do our cause much good.


28.10.2008. It appears that Vlaams Belang has been accused of not taking Holocaust sufficiently seriously. Gates of Vienna has published some (recently translated, I take it) material from said political party that addresses the issue.


Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners

17.10.2007 (last updated 19.10.2007). Celebrated scientist, nobel laureate, and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, James Watson, is attacked for race comments: "All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really". Read the story in The Independent. See also The Times and Daily Mail.

HonestThinking comments: Whenever a knowledgeable person says something like this, our willingness to stick by scientific values and uphold freedom of thought and expression is put to the test. A rational response could e.g. be something along the following lines:

This is a touchy, difficult, and important issue. Until we get a better understanding of the entire problem, let us all hold our opinions on this matter in a tentative manner. Let us therefore make sure that we get as much facts on the table as possible, in order to shed light on the issue.

Unfortunately, that is not at all what one usually hears. Rather, one gets the impression that people in power want as little light shed on the issue as possible, and they are willing to use raw power to stop those who think otherwise. This is leading straight towards totalitarianism. Read the above articles, and judge for yourself how well the various people interviewed do in this respect.

The facts are pretty clear in this area. As The Times put it recently: Let’s not cower from the hard truth about race and IQ. The dispute is primarily about what causes this IQ difference; nature or nurture. And, as will be obvious to anyone who understands the basic of evolutionary theory, there is going to be astronomical odds against human populations living separately for many generation without genetic differences being accumulated in various areas, with no mechanism available to exclude genes related to intelligence from this process. Such genetic differences could be more or less significant, but they almost certainly cannot be zero. This means that we can be 99.9999...% sure that the currently observed IQ difference between races is caused by a mixture of genetic and environmental differences. I am making no claim whatsoever about this mixture. I am just pointing out that it almost certainly exists. Only people who are ignorant or dishonest will deny it.

There are a many authors, scholars, bloggers and others whose primary goal appears to be saving the Western civilization from committing demographic and cultural suicide. Fine! However, only a small minority seem to have the guts to touch this topic. They are big-mouthed when it comes to criticizing Islam, but apparently they cower when problems related to ethnicity or race surface.

This is a shame, because sooner or later reality is going to catch up with Western societies, and our failure to deal honestly with the associated challenges certainly will not improve our chances of prevailing in the fight for democracy and freedom. I suggest that the just mentioned authors, scholars, bloggers and others (no one mentioned - no one forgotten) start thinking earnestly about these issues. ASAP.

PS: IQ differences is almost certainly not the major challenge related to issues of ethnicity and race. An even more important topic is that of identity. Who am I, who would I like to marry, who do I prefer to hang out with, who do I prefer to live next door to, etc. Like it or not, but human nature is, in general, influenced by questions of ethnicity and race when these issues are (consciously or unconsciously) considered. Because we insist on building our societies on utopian visions of how human beings should be, rather than finding out what the reality is, we are headed for trouble. This is not a question of forcing all white people to go through 'sensitivity training' or something like that. This has very little to to with white people per se. The tendency to prefer to marry or otherwise deal with people who are genetically close to yourself, is universal (this does not create much problems in professional environments, but it tends to create problems in society at large). That's why, for example, the UK and USA with continued and uncontrolled tsunamis of non-Western immigrants, are disasters waiting to happen.


13.10.2007. From the opening paragraphs of a recent article in FrontPage Magazine by Mark D. Tooley:

In his final parting shot from the deficit plagued National Council of Churches (NCC), outgoing NCC chief Bob Edgar slammed advocates of immigration law enforcement as racist xenophobes.

“The fear mongers among us are devilishly clever,” bemoaned Edgar, who is a United Methodist minister. “They have used nearly every scare tactic they can think of to reduce us to a highly suspicious lot all too willing to not love the alien as ourselves and to evict them from their homes, get them fired, separate them from their families, in an all out rampage of oppression and prejudice.”

According to the simplistic lore of the Religious Left, nearly any restriction in immigration is immoral and a violation of Old Testament admonitions to care for the “sojourner.”

Typically, the Religious Left does not routinely quote from Leviticus to make political points. But in what Edgar called a “word from our sponsor, the God of Abraham,” he cited Leviticus’ warning that “you shall not oppress the alien.” Like a good Bible thumper, Edgar intoned: “That seems pretty clear. Don’t you think?”

In fact, no. The Scriptures obviously call for treating everyone as created in the image of God. Enforcing immigration laws is not automatically an act of demeaning cruelty, fueled only by fear and resentment. The Bible, as on most political issues, offers little specific legislative guidance about immigration.

If the experience of ancient Israel is any example, no one should think that the Hebrews routinely permitted large numbers of foreigners to permanently relocate into their land.

HonestThinking comments: Tooley does a good job of exposing the hypocrisy of this particular brand of Christianity. The sum total of the Old Testament's message gives little or no support to the multicultural project. Selectively picking out, as Edgar does, a single verse from Leviticus, which apparently gives support to his otherwise anti-Old-Testament views, is simply dishonest. Treating every human being fairly and with respect, does not imply a duty to perform cultural and demographic suicide.


08.10.2007. Excerpts from a review of this book at amazon.com:

While the European Union is celebrating the 50th anniversary of its founding as an economic community, The Last Days of Europe joins a long list of books that warns of Europe's decline, like America Alone by Mark Steyn, Menace In Europe by Claire Berlinski, While Europe Slept by Bruce Bawer, Londonistan by Melanie Phillips and The Force Of Reason by the late Oriana Fallaci.

Laqueur's contribution has a resigned and melancholy feel, unlike some of the aforementioned titles. He analyses the current European identity crisis and the rising xenophobia amongst native Europeans with empathy, observing that the average European family today has fewer than 2 children as opposed to five in the 19th century. This decline of the native birthrate is contemporaneous with massive immigration from the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

The immigrant populations have high birthrates which increase social tensions since the concept of the melting pot is utterly alien to Europe. Immigrant groups have ghettoized themselves and this hostility to the host countries is breeding violence. Nowhere is this more evident than in Brussels, the seat of the EU bureaucracy.

While the threat of radical Islamism increases, Europeans are in full appeasement mode. [...]

It is clear that Old Europe especially, is in deep trouble. The most disturbing scenario would be a repeat of the 1930s, by for example the embrace of a charismatic pan-European leader in the face of frightening crises, instead of a return to classical liberal values. Part of the problem is, Europe does not have much of a principled Right, except perhaps the libertarian parties of Scandinavia or the Flemish nationalists.

Oriana Fallaci likened the old Italian Right of the Risorgimento to a noble lady that committed suicide - an apt description of the senescent Christian Democrats that have accepted the tenets of welfarism. Thus the welfare state consensus has never been properly challenged except in the UK where Margaret Thatcher positively transformed the country in the 1980s. That is why British society is in a better state today.

For further information on the recent history and the current state of Europe, I recommend Eurabia by Bat Ye-or, The West's Last Chance by Tony Blankly, The West And The Rest by Roger Scruton, Our Culture: What's Left Of It by Theodore Dalrymple and The Dragons Of Expectation by Robert Conquest.

HonestThinking comments: It should hardly come as a surprise to anyone that our politicians simply ignore this book ("just another book - yawn - predicting the downfall of Europe"). They are masters at ignoring everything that does not fit into their world view. Even so, it is really quite amazing that our leaders can be so callous. If they had the slightest suspicion Laqueur might be up to something, they should be desperate by now. However, their utter lack of concern for the future of our children betrays the presence of hidden motives (or, possibly, of a severe reasoning impairment).


05.10.2007. London (excerpts from story at CNSNews.com) - The population of some English cities is changing to such a degree, that within several decades, whites will be the largest among ethnic minority groups, according to a new report.

Scholars and others here agree that England's population is growing more ethnically diverse, but they differ on whether various groups are becoming more or less segregated.

University of Manchester academics Ludi Simpson and Nissa Finney predict in a report that in Birmingham, the second largest city in England, the white population will become a minority by 2024 -- still the largest group by far, but no longer accounting for a majority of the total population.


02.10.2007. Several French and US journalists who have seen the raw footage have indicated the shooting might have been staged by Palestinians. Philippe Karsenty, director of the media watchdog group Media-Ratings, maintains that France 2 TV and Enderlin staged the incident with the active participation of their cameraman in Gaza, Talal Abu-Rahma. See the Jerusalem Post for more on this.


02.10.2007. Norwegian police have discovered that a large number of Pakistani taxi drivers, many of whom have already been charged with tax evasion in one of the worst cases of welfare fraud in the nation's history, have close contact with Pakistani gangs and operate as couriers of arms and drugs. In the city of Oslo it is documented that criminal Pakistani gangs also have close ties to Jihadist groups at home and abroad. This despite the fact that Norway, a nation of peace and home to the Nobel Peace Prize, should presumably get along just fine with Islam, which is, as we all know, a religion of peace. Thus begins Fjordman his latest article in Global Politician.


Tapped on the shoulder by reality

01.10.2007. Excerpts from another thought provoking article at Gates of Vienna, this time by Numan/Logger:

UTRECHT - Expelled from school. Not because you are a bully, but because you are bullied. It happened to Cyril Teissier (9) on the Zuilen primary school ‘The Circle’. “It’s really frustrating that we have this discrimination, for that’s what it is; we couldn’t stop it,’’ said internal school manager Annet van der Ree.

As the only white and Christian Dutch boy in class, Cyril in group 5 was bullied so much by his Moroccan classmates that school management thought it better to send him to a different school. The bullying kids kept on doing that: kicking, beating, intimidating, and excluding him from his classmates.

Cyril’s parents, Laurent and Laura Teissier, deliberately chose to send all their kids to the ‘black’ primary school “The Circle”. Cyril’s older sisters (now 15 and 19) went there. “Because of the warm atmosphere, and also because it is a minority school, which receives a lot of extra financial attention from the government. That’s why there is always something nice going on there.


26.09.2007 (updated 27.09.2007). Excerpts from an article by nationally syndicated radio talk show host Dennis Prager in FrontPage Magazine:

There are conservatives who lie and there are leftists who lie. Neither blue nor red has a monopoly on truth-tellers.

However, unless one denies that there are distinctive values on the Right and on the Left -- a proposition that no serious leftist or conservative would deny -- how much truth is valued may be different for the Right and the Left.

In the hierarchy of leftist (as opposed to traditional liberal) values, truth is below other values, such as equality, opposition to war, the promotion of secularism and a number of other highly regarded values on the Left.

This does not mean that the number of truth-tellers among individuals on the Left is necessarily smaller than the number of individual truth-tellers on the Right. It means that truth-telling is not high on the Left's list of values.

HonestThinking comments: While I do not find all his examples equally convincing, and while I think this topic deserves a more in-depth treatment than what is offered in this brief article, Prager has a really important point here. Once we allow truth to move down the ladder of importance, we are in major trouble. Period.

If you have been brainwashed into accepting other values as generally more important than truth, you are in need of some serious reprogramming. Because if this is your situation, you are part of the problem.

And, as Prager points out, people on either side of the political spectrum sometimes have trouble with the truth. So let me ask my conservative readers the following little question: Do you see the issue of anthropogenic global warming as just another attempt from the Left of destroying capitalism, freedom, and democracy, or are you willing to consider the possibility that this is a real problem that will have to be dealt with?

I am not saying I know the answer to the global warming issue. Perhaps it is entirely caused by natural phenomena, perhaps humans are involved to a greater or lesser degree. I really don't know, and HonestThinking will continue to publish articles from both sides of the discussion, if interesting issues show up.

And the only acceptable attitude, in my opinion, is for all of us to do our best to get as close to the truth as possible. When conservatives simply dismiss as a scam the entire question of global warming , they are doing harm to the entire cause of saving Western Civilization. Why? Because unless we see truth as a value in itself, rational thinking, as well as freedom of thought and expression, will soon go down the drain, and be replaced by dogmatism.


16.09.2007. Excerpts from an article by editorial writer and columnist Rod Dreher in Dallas Morning News:

Justice Department introduced [a particular document] into evidence at the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas. The FBI captured it in a raid on a Muslim suspect's home in Virginia.

This "explanatory memorandum," as it's titled, outlines the "strategic goal" for the North American operation of the extremist Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan). Here's the key paragraph:

The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack.

HonestThinking comments: The USA currently has:

  • Increasing problems with islamists.
  • Potentially disastrous problems with the growing demographic tsunami from Latin America (this phenomenon alone clearly has the potential to tear the USA apart) .
  • Severe and growing problems over race relations.

Most Americans apparently have little or no idea what kind of predicament their country is in. The USA is unlikely to survive the 21st century, given the kind of political 'leadership' it currently displays. It's time to face some unpleasant truths.


16.09.2007. From an interview in Der Spiegel with Singapore's first-ever prime minister, long-time government head and current political mentor Lee Kuan Yew, where he talks about Asia's rise to economic power, China's ambitions and the West's chances of staying competitive (emphasis added):

SPIEGEL: During your career, you have kept your distance from Western style democracy. Are you still convinced that an authoritarian system is the future for Asia?

Mr. Lee: Why should I be against democracy? The British came here, never gave me democracy, except when they were about to leave. But I cannot run my system based on their rules. I have to amend it to fit my people's position. In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I'd run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese. I would have a constant clash in my Parliament which cannot be resolved because the Chinese majority would always overrule them. So I found a formula that changes that...

HonestThinking comments: Can there be any doubt that true democracy breaks down when the population is divided by language, cultural, ethnic, and religious boundaries? An can there be any doubt that hypocritical Western leaders, apparently bent on destroying our societies, keep pretending that they don't understand this basic fact of life?


15.09.2007 (updated 16.09.2007). Europe must relax its immigration controls and open the door to an extra 20m workers during the next two decades, according to Financial Times.

HonestThinking comments: Over the past several decades Europe has sustained immigration of historically unprecedented levels. And with mixed results, to put it mildly. Tensions related to language, culture, religious, and ethnic differences are increasing year by year. Europe is in dire straits indeed.

Our current predicament should, however, surprise no one. As the African-American professor Carol M. Swain, points out in her book Contemporary voices of white nationalism in America (page viii):

America has been an exception to the general rule that multiracial, multiethnic societies are doomed to eventual dissolution.

In other words, all available empirical evidence, including, unfortunately, the current developments in the USA, indicate that Europe is headed for a catastrophe. Still, EU leaders are not below further increasing the already disastrous immigration levels. They insist on doing so with as little democratic involvement as possible, while vilifying those who protest.

This has the unmistakable flavor of totalitarianism, and that should worry everyone who cares about democracy and human rights, irrespective of what one thinks about multiculturalism.

If our leaders where honest people, they would ensure that all the pros and cons of immigration were thoroughly analyzed, that the general public got to know all the results, even the uncomfortable ones, and that the people got to decide the future course of these extremely important issues. However, for reasons about which one can only speculate, our leaders again and again choose to do the very opposite.


15.09.2007. Excerpts from an article by Fjordman in The Brussels Journal (emphasis in original):

A few months ago, the EU's Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini worried about what to do with illegal immigration. To no-one's surprise, he appears to have settled for surrendering and making it legal. [...]

In the future, the next time Islamic Jihad terrorists, I mean mobile workers enriching us with their presence when they are not abusing Islam, massacre scores of Europeans, the EU will assure us that they did everything in their power to stop this, and then they will continue facilitating the Islamization of the continent as if nothing has happened. The sensible option would be to point out that we had no Muslim terrorism in Western Europe before we had Muslim immigration. The key to ending Muslim terrorism should then logically be to end and preferably reverse Muslim immigration. The EU's solution to this is to continue and even increase Muslim immigration while stopping web searches for the word "bomb." The scary part is that once the infrastructure and principle of Internet censorship has become firmly established, it could be widened to include other kinds of illegal or unwanted activities, for instance "racist" and "xenophobic" websites criticizing Islam or mass immigration. And make no mistake about it: They will do so. They are probably planning this as we speak.

Notice how EU officials announce sweeping and potentially irreversible changes, proclaim that they are "inevitable" and that we may just as well adapt and get used to it. Resistance is futile. This is a lie and it always has been. The entire European Union has been created by such lies, repeated year after year. The gradual destruction of formerly independent nation states was carefully planned and executed, and the introduction of mass immigration from non-Western countries has been and still is a crucial component of this plan.


14.09.2007. In late October 2003, at an immigration-overpopulation conference in Washington, D.C., former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America.

HonestThinking comments: It amazes me that I have not come across this speech before. It hits the nail on the head. Every single 'recommendation' from Lamm, and more, is currently being implemented in Europe, and the results are disastrous. Why on earth are Americans busy following in our footsteps? And has it not usually been the case that the Republican Party has been considered conservative? President Bush appears to be betraying the values of those who voted for him.


13.09.2007. On September 11 peaceful demonstrators were met with what appears to be totally unwarranted police brutality in Brussels. Consider the following.

An open letter has been sent to The Brussels Journal from the office of Vladimir Palko, one of Slovakia’s leading politicians. Mr Palko, who is a member of the Slovak Christian-Democrat Party KDH, was Interior minister from 2002 to 2006 and is currently a leader of the Slovak opposition. Mr Palko says the behaviour of the Brussels mayor and police reminds him of the behaviour of the dictators in his home country prior to the fall of communism in 1989. Palko (1957) is a mathematician, former university teacher, former vice-president of secret service in Czechoslovakia (after 1991-2), former interior minister (2002-2006) and now opposition MP for the KDH-party.

An eye witness account (including photos and video): I witnessed first hand the un-provoked and un-warranted assaults on peaceful participants and stood near groups of armed officers waiting for their instructions listening to them in 4 separate locations whispering, nodding and calling up attention onto apparently specific participants who were moving around and circulating. I am convinced the police were there deliberately to target specific individuals as they left many participants alone who clearly were not in their sights - myself included.

The arrest of Frank Vanhecke, president of the Flemish secessionist party Vlaams Belang and a member of European Parliament

Another eye witness account: Goedele Devroy [said] that she was amazed by the brutality of the police against the peaceful demonstrators “who just stood there.” She added: “This is strange because, when I rang the police this morning, they said that they would tolerate the demonstration if the demonstrators would not use violence and if they just remained put and would not try to march.”

Yet another eye witness account: I just returned home from the anti-Islamization demonstration in Brussels. The Belgian police beat up the peaceful demonstrators in what even the Belgian public television call "an extremely violent fashion." Here are some video images. The grey-haired man whom we see being attacked by the police first is Luk Van Nieuwenhuysen, the Vice-President of the Flemish Parliament. Shortly afterwards we see the police maltreating Frank Vanhecke, a member of the European Parliament and the party leader of the Vlaams Belang. We see how he is handcuffed and pushed into a police bus. Afterwards we also see the police "taking care" of Filip Dewinter, the VB group leader in the Flemish Parliament. We see how his arm gets caught between the closing doors of the bus. An Italian MEP and a French MEP were also arrested. The demonstrators were kept in cells for seven hours and released this evening.

The New York Sun Editorial Goodbye, Belgium?, is also worth reading.


13.09.2007. Excerpts from an article in Global Politician by self-described "Left journalist from California", Robert Lindsay:

The Left loves to talk about hate crimes, but the only hate crimes they are interested in are White hate crimes against non-Whites. The [Color of Crime report from New Century Foundation] makes it quite clear that Blacks are much more likely to commit hate crimes against Whites than vice versa. What is fascinating is that the media plays up White on Black hate crimes for weeks on end as the crime of the century, while Black on White hate crimes are met with deafening silence from the media.

HonestThinking comments: Media people need to realize that their systematic distortion of reality is a serious crime. Not just against white people or the West, but against humanity. Sooner or later reality is going to catch up with us. When that happens, millions, perhaps billions, of human beings all over the world are going to reap the bitter fruits of the dishonest seeds that have been sown for decades.


10.09.2007. Matthew Syed of The Times feels there are some important issues we are not handling with sufficient honesty. Here are some excerpts from his article:

The debate over racial differences in IQ represents perhaps the greatest scientific controversy of the past half-century. The facts are not in serious dispute: blacks score, on average, significantly lower than whites in IQ tests in the United States, Britain and beyond.

Some argue that the only plausible response is to accept that blacks are naturally less intelligent than whites, a view that causes outrage among equal rights campaigners. But is there an alternative explanation for these puzzling statistics and what would it mean if there were not?

All too often the liberal establishment has stifled debate on the issue by pretending that it does not exist. It is asserted, for example, that the concept of intelligence is culturally relative. Even if this is (relatively) true, it does not alter the fact that the kind of intelligence revealed by IQ tests is crucial to one’s prospects in the modern world. It hardly helps the cause of racial equality to argue that, although blacks do worse at IQ tests, they have the kind of intelligence that is useful in preindustrial societies.

The reluctance of liberals to engage in real debate has left the impression that there is an inconvenient truth about IQ differences that is being suppressed by political correctness. This has bolstered the phenomenon of black skin being used subconsciously as an information-bearing trait, so that blacks are judged as a group rather than as individuals. This has prejudiced blacks in finding jobs and amounts to de facto affirmative action for whites.


09.09.2007. Picked up from Atlas Shrugs: A 23-year-old Jewish woman was attacked [in August] in Noisy-le-Grand, near Paris, by two youths who beat her and shouted anti-Semitic slogans… The European Jewish Press reported that she was attacked in front of her house by two youths of “African origin” wearing hoods and scarves to cover their faces. One of the two was later arrested by police and taken into custody. They shouted “You dirty Jew” at the woman before stealing the mobile phone she was using and beating her violently about the head and body… According to Rebecca, the two aggressors recognized her Jewish origin when they saw a Star of David around her neck.


09.09.2007. Excerpts from an article in The Times of India: Success lies in the colour of your eyes, and those with blue ones are likely to achieve more in life than their peers as they tend to study more effectively and perform better in exams, says a study conducted by US scientists.


A radical explanation of what made the island so wealthy

09.09.2007. Excerpts from an article by Gregory Clark in The Times:

The Industrial Revolution is the great event of world history. Before this, from the Stone Age to 1800, there was no gain in average living conditions. Now incomes rise steadily.

It is attributed to political stability and free markets in 18th-century England. But this is the convenient fantasy of modern economists. Medieval England was much more pro-market than even Thatcherite England – the average government tax rate then was less than 1 per cent – yet achieved no growth.

Instead, the Industrial Revolution is more plausibly linked to a Darwinian process of “survival of the richest” that operated from at least 1250. Capitalist attitudes and economic growth triumphed in England because those with such attitudes came to predominate in the population by biological means. The modern English are the descendants of the upper classes of the preindustrial world, those who prospered economically. The poor disappeared. This process was most likely cultural, but we cannot exclude the possibility that the English may even be genetically capitalist. [...]

What does this mean for the modern world? Societies that went straight from the hunter-gatherer state to the modern economy may have historically rooted, cultural disadvantages in competing in a capitalist world. This may explain the difficulty groups such as Australian Aborigines have had in successfully incorporating into the capitalist economy. It could even explain why industrialists in sub-Saharan economies such as Zambia are importing Chinese workers into mines and factories, despite having to pay them more than local labour.


09.09.2007. Excerpts from an article in Daily Mail (emphasis added):

White people in some of the UK's largest cities are likely to dwindle to a minority due to a boom in ethnic populations, experts claim. Birmingham, the country's second largest city, will have its one million population made up of largely ethnic minorities in 20 years time, researchers say.And Leicester's half-million population is likely to follow the same path in just four years time, it is believed. [...]

Ludi Simpson, a social statistician at Manchester University, said the Pakistani population in Birmingham was likely to double by 2026. [...]

He warned that the idea of different ethnic groups finding a 'common identity' was 'utopian in quite a dangerous way' and 'completely unrealistic', according to the Daily Telegraph. [...]

Ms Nissa Finney (also from Manchester University) said: "Clustering is the result of benign and natural population dynamics. There is no evidence of self-segregation or exceptional 'white flight'."


09.09.2007. Excerpts from an article by Soeren Kern in American Thinker (emphasis added):

Europeans love to mock the salience of religion in American society, but they won't be laughing for very long. The de-Christianization of Europe in the name of "tolerance" is rapidly driving the spiritually shiftless continent into the arms of Islam. And now, amidst the postmodern theological confusion that defines contemporary Europe, even Catholic clergy are jumping on the Islamomania bandwagon. [...]

Mohammed thought the Jews and Christians of his day would receive him as a prophet. But the Bible says that any new revelation must agree with what is already established in Scripture (Isaiah 8:20). So they rejected his Allah as a false god. And Mohammed replied by setting his Islam on a permanent warpath against Judaism and Christianity that continues to this day.

The Dutch bishop and other Muslim fellow travelers think they can buy a fake peace with Islam by playing relativistic word games as a part of an "inter-faith" dialogue. But Muslims understand much better than do post-modern Europeans that ecumenical appeasement is a symptom of a Judeo-Christian civilization that is weak and dying.

The irony is that the real danger from Islam stems not so much from ordinary Muslims as it does from sickly Europeans who have subverted their Judeo-Christian heritage in search of secular hedonism. Because they live only for the moment, they are willing submit to anything, including Islam, as long as it doesn't interfere with the pursuit of pleasure today.

It has been more than 50 years since the late Christian apologist C.S. Lewis first warned about Western Civilization's disastrous lurch into post-Christianity. But even he would be surprised to see how quickly Islam is filling the religious and cultural vacuum that is post-Christian Europe.

It's not that Europeans haven't been forewarned. It's that they couldn't care less.

HonestThinking comments: As Fjordman and Dalrymple argue below, it may not be as simple as this. However, Kern is certainly right in pointing out that Europe is in serious trouble indeed. And, in more than one way, Christianity (or lack of true such) plays a role in this.


08.09.2007. Excerpts from an article by Fjordman in Global Politician: The blogger Vanishing American continues what is gradually becoming one of the most important discussions of our age: What role does, or should, Christianity play in Western civilization? Is it the bedrock of our culture, as Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch thinks, and is our decline associated with abandoning it? Or is Christianity, as Derbyshire puts it, a religion for once and future slaves, an ideology that is now fueling globalist ideals and undermining our borders through mass immigration? [...] The big Achilles’ heel of Christians in general, and of Jews, when confronted with Islam is the idea of a “shared community of monotheists worshiping the God of Abraham.” As long as this myth is maintained, Christianity can actually in certain situations be a bridge for Islam to enter the West, rather than a bulwark against it.


08.09.2007. Excerpts from an article by Theodore Dalrymple in New English Review (emphasis added):

I once made the mistake of writing an article in as left-wing publication saying that, in my experience, the best people were usually religious and on the whole religious people behaved better in their day to day lives than non-religious once: and I wrote this, as I made clear, as a man without any religious belief. [...]

Not long ago, while I was in France, the centenary of the final separation of church and state was celebrated. It was presented as the triumph of reason over reaction, of humanity over inhumanity, and I am not entirely out of sympathy for that viewpoint: I certainly don’t want to live myself in a state in which a single religion has a predominant or even strong say in the running of it. And yet the story was far more nuanced that that triumphantly presented.

For example, a fascinating book was published on the occasion of the centenary reproducing the iconography of the anticlerical propaganda that preceded the separation by thirty years; and on looking in to it I saw at once that it was exactly the same in tone as anti-semitic propaganda. There was the wickedly sybaritic hook-nosed cardinal in diabolical scarlet, the thin hairy spider, representing the economic interests of the church, whose sinister legs straddled the whole globe, and the priest who welcomed innocent little children into the fold of his black cloak. One has to remember that almost the first consequence of secularism in France, as in Russia, was unprecedented slaughter.

Perhaps one of the reasons that contemporary secularists do not simply reject religion but hate it is that they know that, while they can easily rise to the levels of hatred that religion has sometimes encouraged, they will always find it difficult to rise to the levels of love that it has sometimes encouraged.


08.09.2007. You know, I'd do just as well to close this blog down and just give readers a permanent link to The Local, the Swedish English-language news site. I've been citing The Local four or five times a day; that's where all the Lars Vilks news is, and from Sweden come all the Multicultural, PC, and dhimmitude stories that you would ever want to read. Thus begins Baron Bodissey his article in Global Politician.


The Tony Blair legacy

08.09.2007. Almost half of Britain’s mosques are under the control of a hardline Islamic sect whose leading preacher loathes Western values and has called on Muslims to “shed blood” for Allah, an investigation by The Times has found.

HonestThinking comments: The reader may want to contrast the above report with the views expressed by columnist David Aaronovitch under the heading If Britain's going to the dogs, I'm a Greek banana (The Times, 28.08.2007, page 19). His basis for making that claim? He is extrapolating from the observation that mixed marriages/partnerships are becoming more common (but he does of course provide no numbers; guess why?).

Why on earth would a quality newspaper like The Times allow such low quality reasoning to be published by one of its journalists/columnists?


06.09.2007. BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - In a hoax that sent panic through the nation, a Belgian TV station reported last year that the Dutch-speaking half of the country had declared independence and the king and queen had fled. Now, a notion that was once a fantasy of fringe politicians is suddenly on everybody's lips: Is Belgium
about to come an end? Read the story in PR-inside.com.


The Tony Blair legacy

03.09.2007. Excerpts from an article by Cal Thomas in Townhall.com (emphasis added): Perhaps there will not always be an England. An exodus unprecedented in modern times, coupled with a record influx of foreigners, is threatening to erode the character of the land of William Shakespeare and overpowering monarchs, a land that served as the cradle for much of American thought, law and culture.


03.09.2007. Excerpts from an article in Global Politician by Blake Gartner:

The Duke rape case has been one of the most well-documented criminal dramas in recent memory. But one aspect of the hoax has been misrepresented and then shut out by the media – the role of race in the malicious prosecution of Reade Seligmann, Dave Evans and Collin Finnerty. When the case broke, race was central to the media. But as the accuser’s story unraveled, race disappeared from discussion. But it was not just a story of 3 boys being railroaded by a rogue prosecutor. This is a story of how American elites view their country: the media, the academia, the corporate management, the criminal justice system. In the mind of the elites – disconnected from reality in their wealthy suburbs – the United States is a place where evil whites are in a constant struggle to conspire against the blameless, near-holy minorities. Anything that deviates from that “Party Line” is politically incorrect, hateful and immoral.

HonestThinking comments: Assuming Gartner got his facts right, this is another piece of solid evidence that the American society is sick. No civilized nation can exist in the long run with such blatant violations of the human rights of large portions of its citizens (in this case whites). The guilty-until-proven-innocent-attitude that is de facto in force for many whites in the USA, is disgusting. See also our comments to the below posting on interracial rape.


03.09.2007. Excerpts from an article in FrontPage Magazine by Lawrence Auster (emphasis in original):

Like Ahab's search for the Great White Whale, liberals' search for the Great White Defendant is relentless and never-ending. When, in 1988, Tawana Brawley's and Al Sharpton's then year-old spectacular charge that several white men including prosecutor Steven Pagones (whose name Brawley had picked out of a newspaper article) had abducted and raped the 15 year old was shown to be completely false, the Nation said it didn't matter, since the charges expressed the essential nature of white men's treatment of black women in this country. When the Duke University lacrosse players were accused of raping a black stripper last year, liberals everywhere treated the accusation as fact, because, just as with the Nation and Tawana Brawley, the rape charge seemed to the minds of liberals to reflect the true nature of oppressive racial and sexual relations in America.

To see the real truth of the matter, let us take a look at the Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2005. (Go to the linked document, and under "Victims and Offenders" download the pdf file for 2005.)

HonestThinking comments: This article is controversial, but important. The interracial tensions in the USA appears to be growing with no solution in sight. Mainstream media's failure to deal with these issues in an objective and balanced way is a very serious crime of omission. Anyone who tries to break the yoke of political correctness in this area, is doing all of us a favor. And anyone who disagrees with the points of view that are being advanced, should simply do it better, not criticize those who try to bring facts to the table. What we need are facts and a solid understanding of what is going on. We've had enough of those other 'approaches' to problems that will ultimately destroy our societies unless they are solved.

For some qualifications and discussion of the above, see New perspectives on the DOJ data.


03.09.2007. Excerpts from an article in Jewish World Review by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. (emphasis added): A likely upshot of President Bush's meetings this week with his Canadian and Mexican counterparts in Montebello, Canada, will be a further impetus to the effort to engage in what is euphemistically called the "harmonization" of the three countries' economies, regulatory systems and policies. The effect will be to contribute to what is on track to become one of the most worrying legacies of George W. Bush's presidency: a significant, and possibly irreversible, erosion in the nation's sovereignty.


29.08.2007. Excerpts from an interview in FrontPage Magazine:

Robert Spencer: I think that the Left realizes very well how severely imperilled our society is in the face of radical Islam. Just like in the days of communism, the Left venerates tyranny and yearns for submission under it. The Left knows exactly what it is doing when abetting and supporting an entity that it knows it itself will be consumed by. There is a logic to why leftist intellectuals support societies that butcher intellectuals, why leftist feminists support societies that mutilate women and why leftist homosexuals and minorities worship societies that barbarize homosexuals and minorities. It's a death wish based on self-loathing. [...]

Jamie Glazov: In terms of your disagreement with me, I think you have a fascinating thesis, and I think it is well worth exploring. It is noteworthy, as you yourself have pointed out elsewhere, that both the Left and the jihadists envision an earthly utopia enforced by terror: the Left has demonstrated this every time it has gained power, and Sharia is a recipe for a totalitarian reign of terror in the name of justice and right, as the Taliban showed. I look forward to discussing this further with you and getting your thoughts on this.

HonestThinking comments: This FP-interview is very interesting, and Spencer demonstrates what a capable thinker he is. We do think, however, that the West should listen more carefully to some of the criticisms that Muslims raise against us (Spencer, apparently, thinks otherwise). Something has indeed gone wrong in our societies, and unless we are able to fix these problems, our chances of winning the current battle could be slim.


13.08.2007. Another important article by Elizabeth Wright. Americans and Europeans, wake up! Our countries are moving in the direction of totalitarianism. When the notion of 'hate speech' is used not just to prevent people from expressing hatred and contempt for others, but becomes an instrument of oppression in the hands of those who believe they have privileged access to the truth, you are in trouble. Major trouble.


12.08.2007. Do you believe the USA is a country with some minor immigration challenges and a bit of ethnic/race tensions, but by and large a country with a prosperous future, and above all a free country? Think again. Just as in Europe, reality is about to catch up with the Americans, which gives them two basic options:

  • Face reality and change their foolish ways.
  • Implement ever more totalitarian measures to prevent the truth from getting out to the people.

So far, the American elite appears just as determined as their European counterpart to opt for the latter. One symptom of which is the hypocrisy exposed by African-American writer and editor Elizabeth Wright who concludes her article White Pride Denied thus (emphasis added):

The white who does not learn how to keep his head beneath the radar could wind up smeared with the "racist" label -- a potentially ruinous accusation. He who slips and fails to follow the politically correct race protocol could find himself in a turbulent situation. Given the existence of "hate crime" laws -- ambiguous statutes conceived primarily to entrap whites -- it is best to keep any socially unorthodox thoughts to oneself. As several cases demonstrate, punishment for Thought Crime has arrived in America.

Knowing that whites are on the defensive in this peculiar, one-sided shadow play, self-appointed "watchdog" groups, i.e., the professional "anti-racists," are quick to target a slogan like "White Pride Country Wide" as an arrogant manifestation of white supremacy. Honest intentions do not matter, since this is a "Gotcha!" game. Once the taboo "supremacist" has been applied, other whites will run for cover, eager to dissociate themselves from anyone who might bring on "race" troubles.

In a society now immersed in identity politics, where the education system and a reinforcing media work overtime in pummeling young minds with racially correct propaganda, there is little prospect that fairness will prevail in the near future.



12.08.2007. Excerpts from an article in Democracy reform by Fjordman (emphasis added): In democratic societies the press, the Fourth Estate, should supposedly make sure that the government does its job properly as well as raise issues of public interest. In practice, we now seem to have a situation where the political elites cooperate with the media on making sure that some topics receive insufficient or unbalanced attention while others are simply kept off the agenda altogether. This isn't the case with all issues but with some more than others, especially those related to Multiculturalism, mass immigration and anti-discrimination where there seems to be a near-consensus among the elites.


The Tony Blair legacy - England is dying

11.08.2007. Excerpts from an article in Daily Express by Leo McKinstry (emphasis added):

England is in the middle of a profoundly disturbing social experiment. For the first time in a mature democracy, a Government is waging a campaign of aggressive discrimination against its indigenous population. In the name of cultural diversity, Labour attacks anything that smacks of Englishness. The mainstream public are treated with contempt, their rights ignored, their history trashed. In their own land, the English are being turned into second-class citizens. [...]

Economics have little to do with the issue. The Left in Britain have seized on mass immigration and multiculturalism as a battering ram to destroy the society they despise. They once sought to change our country through economic revolution. That failed with the Winter of Discontent and the downfall of communism. But demographic change through migration has proved far more damaging.

George Orwell once wrote:

“England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In Left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution.”

That is now precisely the mentality that predominates within the machinery of the British state. And our country is dying as a result.

HonestThinking comments: It's about time the British people wake up and save what's left of their country. The currently ongoing multicultural experiment is headed in one direction only - disaster.

McKinstry is not quite accurate, however, when he claims that "For the first time in a mature democracy, a Government is waging a campaign of aggressive discrimination against its indigenous population." This is, to one degree or another, happening in most European countries, particularly in Sweden.


The multiculti legacy

11.08.2007. A hidden world in which Asian men “groom” young white girls for sex has been exposed with the jailing yesterday of two men, Zulfqar Hussain (46), and Qaiser Naveed (32), for child-abuse offences. Read the story in Times Online.


10.08.2007. This Fjordman-essay is long, but packed with interesting information and penetrating analysis. Once again he demonstrates that he deserves his unique reputation. The concluding paragraphs of The EU and the globalist alliance reads as follows:

When I criticize democracy, this should not be taken as an indication that I believe in elitist rule. I criticize it because it clearly doesn’t automatically ensure freedom of speech and security for life and property, which is the hallmark of true liberty. Another problem is that it isn’t always the best system for long-term decisions because people tend to prefer short-term gains. I still believe, however, that there should be a powerful element of real public influence, to curtail the potential for absolute rulers and abuse of power. We have clearly veered too far in the direction of the latter with the EU, where the ruling elites have skillfully eliminated any constraints on their power.

The democratic system has significant flaws, but it worked to some extent as long as there was sense of being a demos, a people with a shared identity and common interests. What we are witnessing now is the gradual breakdown of this demos, starting from the top down. Powerful groups frequently have more in common with the elites in other countries than they have with the average citizen in their own. If you no longer believe in your nation as a real entity with a specific culture, it simply becomes a tool for obtaining power, a stepping stone for your global career. Without a pre-political loyalty, emotional ties or even a pragmatic interest in supporting nation states, the democratic system becomes a vehicle for distributing favors to your friends at home and abroad, for fleecing the voters while in power and hopefully ensuring a lucrative international career along the way. You will have few moral inhibitions against importing voters from abroad for maintaining power or because your business buddies who give you financial support desire it. This process is related to technological globalization, but it has gone further in the self-loathing West than in any other civilization.

Average citizens who still identify with their nation states thus keep electing people who betray their trust. Since the elites identify little with the nations they are supposed to serve, more power to them will only make matters worse, as it already has in Europe. Corrupt and incompetent individuals will always exist. If you get a corrupt leader every now and then you are dealing with a flawed individual. If you constantly, again and again, get corrupt leaders you are dealing with a flawed system. Our political system is now deeply flawed. The problem is that I cannot easily see how to fix it.


10.08.2007. Excerpts from the article The misery of diversity by Ilana Mercer (emphasis added):

When an academic discovers what ordinary mortals have known for eons, it’s called science. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam has found that diversity is not a strength, but a weakness; the greater the diversity in a community, the greater the distrust. Prof. Putnam’s five-year study was reported last year by the Financial Times, and is finally percolating down to others in the media and blogosphere.

In diverse communities, Putnam observed, people “hunker down”: they withdraw, have fewer “friends and confidants,” distrust their neighbors regardless of the color of their skin, expect the worst from local leaders, volunteer and carpool less, give less to charity, and “agitate for social reform more,” with little hope of success. They also huddle in front of the television. Activism alternates with escapism, unhappiness with ennui. Trust was lowest in Los Angeles, ‘the most diverse human habitation in human history.’” [...]

To sum, a scientist-cum-policy wonk “uncovers” patterns of co-existence among human beings that are as old as the hills. Greater diversity equals more misery. Does he respect these age-old peaceful preferences? No. Instead, with all the sympathy of a social planner, he reaffirms the glories of forced integration, and recommends dismantling old identities and constructing new, “shared” ones. (Or else!)

HonestThinking comments: The above article by Mercer is very much in line with the thinking expressed in our own article The deep crisis of the West.


10.08.2007. At the beginning of the 21st century, electing a new people seems to be exactly what Socialist parties in Europe are doing, writes Fjordman in an essay at Jihadwatch that we just came across.


10.08.2007. Excerpts from an article in Human Events by Rabbi Aryeh Spero (emphasis added):

In a recent interview, Prof. Bernard Lewis, famed historian and leading expert on Islam, warned that "Muslims seem to be about to take over Europe." The irony is that this takeover -- be it in 10 years or 30 -- is not because Islam has more tanks or better missiles than the Europeans. It is because the minority Islamic populations already living within Europe are making demands to Islamize Europe and no one seems to be willing to say no. No one has the political will to announce to the Islamic communities that daily life and laws in Europe must be in accord with the Western outlook that is Europe's heritage.

Was the fall of Europe inevitable? No, according to Prof. Lewis, who says it is coming about because "Europeans have surrendered on every issue regarding Islamic demands, due to political correctness and multi-culturalism." [...]

Moreover, it is necessary to assert that our historic ethos is superior to that which Islam is demanding. Europe, as well as history, shows that those unable to assert the primacy of their own culture at home are unwilling to even assert its parity, and mire in "suicidal self-abasement." [...]

Out of fear, Europe is appeasing. It has become a supplicant. Out of guilt, Europe is acquiescing. Out of years of self-criticism, it no longer feels worthy. Cynicism has lead to defeatism. Pacifisim has replaced religion. They believed in the parity of everything, so they now believe in nothing -- not even themselves. They, not the enemy, are orchestrating their own national demise.

To those elites in Europe, and America, who feel a greater kinship with the exotic peoples of other cultures than with the dull citizens of their own country, there is nothing to fear. For what will have been lost is something, a set of cultural beliefs, they discarded long ago; nationalisms that were objects of scorn and had, for them, become boring. An Islamized Europe is nothing to fret and worry over. Wrong!

Prof. Lewis warns: "The growing sway in Europe is of particular concern given the ever-rising support within the Islamic world for extremist and terrorist movements." But these self-righteous, self-centered elitists born of the 60s Left still need not worry. They probably will not be the victims of the annihilation they have wrought. It will be their children and grandchildren.


The corruption of man is followed by the corruption of language --Emerson

09.08.2007. Excerpts from another great article in New English Review, this time by Rebecca Bynum (emphasis added):

Lately, the American public has been bombarded by propaganda of the most insidious kind. Propaganda that tells us not only that we needn’t take sides in the current conflict with Islam, but that tells us there are, in fact, no sides to take.

This kind of thinking stems directly from material secularism, the very secularism that so many are convinced will be bulwark against religious totalitarianism, but in fact is a weakness so fatal it cannot help but deliver humanity directly into totalitarian hands, including the grasping hands of Islam. Modern secularism has, over the last century, consistently undermined the concept of objective truth and has relegated value to the realm of the subjective, meaning in its current usage, the fanciful or the unreal. Furthermore, it has corrupted vocabulary, so that words no longer have a fixed meaning: we each have “our own truth” and words can mean whatever we want them to mean depending on the whim, or the politics, of the moment. Consider how the word "fascism" is used today. One might think it a synonym for "conservative." [...]

The spirit of our age is plainly that of democratic equalitarianism. It seems that differences between people, or peoples, must be discounted and divisions avoided at all costs. Truth is sacrificed to harmony, Mercy to pragmatism and Justice to utilitarianism. [...]

[Certain kinds of statements currently in vogue] rests on the entirely unfounded assumption that all religions are of equal consequence to mankind. This is especially odd since the great demonstration project of Islamic societies is in full swing. Witnessing Islam in action in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan should be enough to show all but the most willfully blind, that Islamic societies are vastly different from Christian, Buddhist or Hindu ones. And nothing is as misleading as the current Administration effort to invoke Japanese culture as a parallel.

The clear doctrine of Islam itself, they tell us, should be put to one side, and the profound differences between Islam and Christianity should not even be acknowledged for the sake of the peace and the greater good. [...]

And finally, here is an illustration of a complete disconnect from reality by Kofi Annan:

Faiths, in themselves, do not generate hatred or violence. It is the exploitation of faith for political ends that has created hostility among the faithful. (Bridging the Divide)

[...] Defining religions in this way does not “create divisions” (for they are pre-existent) but rather helps to make the reality of these religions more intelligible. The pretence that to ignore differences aids understanding is pure sophistry and those engaging in it are self-deluded if they think they serve humanity well.

HonestThinking comments: The above article in New English Review by Rebecca Bynum contains several elements from the philosophical foundation of HonestThinking, and is hereby recommended.


08.08.2007. Excerpts from an article in International Herald Tribune by Michael Jonas (emphasis added):

It has become increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength. From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger.

But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

"The extent of the effect is shocking," says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist. [...]

The image of civic lassitude dragging down more diverse communities is at odds with the vigor often associated with urban centers, where ethnic diversity is greatest. It turns out there is a flip side to the discomfort diversity can cause. If ethnic diversity, at least in the short run, is a liability for social connectedness, a parallel line of emerging research suggests it can be a big asset when it comes to driving productivity and innovation. In high-skill workplace settings, says Scott Page, the University of Michigan political scientist, the different ways of thinking among people from different cultures can be a boon.

"Because they see the world and think about the world differently than you, that's challenging," says Page, author of "The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies." "But by hanging out with people different than you, you're likely to get more insights. Diverse teams tend to be more productive."

HonestThinking comments: Extrapolating from the kinds of benefits that diversity can give rise to in professional environments is questionable, to say the least. It's about time Western leaders face the truth: Too much ethnic diversity in our societies is going to have severe consequences, unless we start aiming for a sustainable development in this area, sooner rather than later. This is of course going to require some painful adjustments from today's utopian dreams. The alternative, however, is probably even worse.


01.08.2007. Excerpts from a new article by Fjordman in The Brussels Journal:

I still get questions as to why I, being Norwegian, write more about Sweden than I do about my own country. First of all: I do write about Norway sometimes. And second of all: If you look at capital cities alone, Oslo could quite possibly be the worst city in Scandinavia. However, in virtually all other respects, Sweden is worse. And yes, it is every bit as bad as I say it is.

The primary reason why I write so much about Sweden is because it is the most totalitarian country in the Western world, and should thus serve as a warning to others. The second reason is that Sweden, like my own country, now needs some "tough love." Too many Swedes still cling on to the myth of the "Swedish model" while their country is disintegrating underneath their feet. If Sweden the nation is to be saved – if it still can be saved, I'm not so sure – then Sweden the ideological beacon for mankind must be smashed, because vanity now blocks sanity. [...]

The British author Paul Weston believes that Britain's national heart has ceased beating: "Our national soul is hovering indecisively above the operating table. The crash team have been called, but the politically inclined hospital switchboard have told them there is no problem, that everything is under control. The life support boys have heard otherwise, they are hurrying to get there, but other hospital staff members have switched the signage to the operating theatre and killed the lights. It is a big hospital, they only have minutes to get there, they are lost, confused, misinformed, and the clock is relentlessly ticking, and ticking, and ticking…"

I'm inclined to say the same thing about Sweden. The Swedish nation is currently on its deathbed. We can only hope there is life after death after all.

HonestThinking comments: Fjordman hits the bull's eye again. Sweden's irresponsible immigration policies; its censorship; it's lack of honest, free, and open debate; and its totalitarian tendencies in general - these things represent a very real threat to its neighboring countries (Norway, Denmark, Finland), and ultimately to all of Europe. On 7 March 2006 one of the HonestThinking editors published the article Svenskesviket (The Swedish Betrayal) in the Norwegian left-wing daily Klassekampen. The concluding paragraphs translate roughly as follows:

What really gives reason to worry here is that the Swedish political elite seems determined to complete their multicultural project without the Swedish people getting in the way. Said elite is lacking in terms of democratic, intellectual, as well as moral legitimacy and integrity. This elite is a shame to the Western world.

As we have said before, Sweden is about to become one of the most pathetic societies of Europe; a warning sign of what political correctness combined with the arrogance of power and a lack of freedom of expression can lead to. Sweden is clearly involved in a destructive process caused in no small part by political hypocrisy the likes of which have seldom been seen in the Western world before.

Most Swedes are nice people. But this country, so dear to most Norwegians, is ruled by an elite that has completely lost its way. Their anti-western project will probably succeed beyond their wildest dreams, and the consequences are likely to be enormous, not just for Sweden, but also for its neighboring countries. What a betrayal of the Swedish people, and what a betrayal of the entire Nordic region!


The legacy of Tony Blair

31.07.2007. Excerpts from an article by Vasko Kohlmayer in FrontPageMagazine (emphasis added):

Their act throws light not only on their own personal depravity, but also on the larger problem of Muslim discontent as their sentiments are shared by scores of their co-religionists across the western world. No matter how much is done for them, far too many despise the societies from which they so willingly draw support and benefits. We can get some sense of just what we are up against from the suicide note of Ramzi Mohammed which reads in part:

My family, don’t cry for me. But indeed rejoice in happiness and love what I have done for the sake of Allah for he loves those who fight for his sake.

Footage from a surveillance camera revealed the inhuman way in which Mohammed sought to carry out his errand ‘for the sake of Allah.’ As he was connecting the wires to set off the explosion, he purposefully pointed his device toward a mother and her child who were sitting next to him.

A question immediately comes to mind: How we are to live side by side with those whose outlook is irreconcilably hostile to the way we live and think? Those who argue that we must show them that we care could not be more misguided. What more, it must be asked, can a country do than Britain has done for Mohammed and his comrades?

To make things worse, western countries lack the mental and legal framework to handle this kind of moral inversion and are largely unprepared to defend themselves against those whose moral values derive from the concepts of jihad and taqiyya. [...]

Countering this evil effectively will require that we fundamentally change the way we approach this problem. To begin with, western democracies will have to start crafting legislation aimed specifically at the destructiveness and murderousness peculiar to their Muslim residents. At the same, restrictions will have to be placed on Muslim immigration, for it is difficult to see how we can survive continued inflows of those who are not only hostile to the way we live, but are so willing to repay with evil the goodwill of their hosts.

HonestThinking comments: Kohlmayer is absolutely right - we have to fundamentally change the way we approach this problem if our societies are going to survive. The majority of our politicians, however, not only disagree with such a point of view, they don't even want profound and proper discussions of the problems of the multicultural project.


29.07.2009. Excerpts from an article by Theodore Dalrymple in The Opinion Journal (emphasis added):

When Tony Blair announced his resignation after 10 years as prime minister of the United Kingdom, his voice choked with emotion and he nearly shed a tear. He asked his audience to believe that he had always done what he thought was right. He would have been nearer the mark had he said that he always thought that what was right was whatever he had done. Throughout his years in office, he kept inviolable his belief in the existence of a purely beneficent essence of himself, a belief so strong that no quantity of untruthfulness, shady dealings, unscrupulousness, or constitutional impropriety could undermine or destroy it. Having come into the world marked by Original Virtue, Mr. Blair was also a natural-born preacher. [...]

Many have surmised that there was an essential flaw in Mr. Blair's makeup that turned him gradually from the most popular to the most unpopular prime minister of recent history. The problem is to name that essential flaw. As a psychiatrist, I found this problem peculiarly irritating (bearing in mind that it is always highly speculative to make a diagnosis at a distance). But finally, a possible solution arrived in a flash of illumination. Mr. Blair suffered from a condition previously unknown to me: delusions of honesty. [...]

Mr. Blair, then, is no hero. Many in Britain believe that he has been the worst prime minister in recent British history, morally and possibly financially corrupt, shallow and egotistical, [...]

HonestThinking comments: Readers might want to compare the above with our criticism of Blair of 26 June.


29.07.2007. Excerpts from an article by Fjordman in The Brussels Journal:

The media and the authorities have been deceiving the public for decades about Multiculturalism, EU integration and the true cost of Muslim immigration. Thus a culture of lies and moral and financial corruption is cultivated. It starts at the top and spreads downwards. If the state lies, cheats and collects money for services it fails to provide, why can't average citizens do the same thing?

According to Dalrymple, “Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”

HonestThinking comments: This article hits the nail on the head, in our opinion. The lack of honesty that permeates our Western societies certainly has the potential to bring about our undoing. This is precisely why we founded the HonestThinking web site back in 2005. If Westerners do not voluntarily get honest about certain unpleasant aspects of reality, somebody or something else will do the job for us.


29.07.2007. Excerpts from an article in Press Dispensary:

Increasing numbers of people are taking the decision to move overseas as a result of the UK’s current immigration policy, according to www.globalvisas.com, a specialist immigration consultancy that provides immigration advice and visa services.

As numbers of immigrants to the UK from the new European Union Accession states continue to grow, more and more people in the UK are choosing to take their experience and skills overseas. [...]

Director Liam Clifford says: "Since January 2007, we have recorded an 80% rise in British nationals applying to move overseas. As this rise continues, so does the number of enquiries we receive from people asking for help in migrating to a new country. In recent months, we have received as many as 4,000 requests in a single week from people who have had enough of Britain and want to get out." [...]

"This phenomenon adds to the existing shortage of skilled workers already faced by the UK as they leave only to be replaced by low skilled EU A8 workers or low skilled refugees."


21.07.2007. What turned Mohammad Sidique Khan, a softly spoken youth worker, into the mastermind of 7/7? I spent months in a Leeds suburb getting to know Khan's brother. A complex and disturbing story of the bomber's radicalisation emerged. Read the article in Prospect Magazine.


21.07.2007. From MEMRI:

The recent failed terror attacks in London and Glasgow provoked a great deal of commentary among liberals in the Middle East and North African media, in particular due to the alleged involvement of a number of doctors in the plot. Some writers dwelt on the paradox of those trained to save lives becoming terrorists; others pointed to the suspects' backgrounds in order to argue that poverty and ignorance are not the main cause of terrorism; and a number of writers addressed the issue of Muslim immigration in Europe and the U.S. Read four people's thoughts on the following issues:

Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed: How Can One Explain the Fact That a Doctor Could Plan to Kill Innocent People?

Mustapha Hammouche: Misery and Ignorance Are Not the Main Cause of Terrorism; Islamism is a Point of Moral Rupture

Kurdish Journalist Tariq Hemo: The Western Countries Are Reaping the Harvest of Overly Liberal Immigration Policies

Khudayr Taher: Europe and America Should Deport All Muslims - Including Myself


Multiculturalism and its discontents - The changing face of racial conflict in Britain

21.07.2007. From The Economist print edition, 5 January 2006:

IN 1985, the MP Enoch Powell issued a prognostication of doom. By the end of the 20th century, he claimed, fully 8% of Britain's population would be black or brown-skinned, and a third of the residents of some cities would be non-white. The result, he thought, would be a nation “unimaginably wracked by dissension and violent disorder”.

Few took Powell's forecast seriously. He had been a familiar anti-immigrant bugbear since 1968, when he was exiled from the Conservative front bench for fulminating against “wide-grinning piccaninnies” and seeming to anticipate race war between blacks and whites. Powell's later prediction was almost spot on, though. At the time of the 2001 census, the ethnic minority population of Britain was, indeed, 8.1%. White Britons made up less than two-thirds of the populations of Leicester and Birmingham (and accounted for barely half of all children in those cities). Powell was also right to forecast some inter-racial strife, but he was wrong about which groups would be fighting.

These days, members of ethnic minority groups rarely clash with whites or white-dominated institutions such as the police. In the past 20 years, Britain's police have squared off against a violent black crowd only once. Attacks by white mobs on immigrants, of the sort that blighted Sydney's beachfront neighbourhoods last month, have been virtually unknown since the 1950s. But tensions between people of a similar hue have increased. The reasons have to do with the changing geography of the inner city, and, ironically, with the policies that were put in place to avoid the sort of strife that Powell forecast.

In October, violence between Afro-Caribbeans and South Asians erupted in a Birmingham neighbourhood that, 20 years ago, hosted old-fashioned riots against the police. Trouble began when a pirate radio station and the black press aired rumours that a black girl had been raped by a gang of Pakistani men in Lozells Road. Boycotts against Asian businesses were followed by stone-throwing, street fights, the desecration of Muslim graves and the murder of a black man.

Leicester, a generally more placid city, is also blighted by tensions between South Asians and Afro-Caribbeans. But there, fissures are as much between cultural groups as racial groups. “Most of the aggravation flies between the faiths,” according to Manzoor Moghal, a prominent South Asian Muslim. There is resentment at Muslims' growing political assertiveness, which derives partly from sheer numbers (Muslims were 4% of Leicester's population in the early 1980s, and 11% in 2001) and partly from the fact that their votes are concentrated in a few wards. Another rubbing point, which has sparked violence in schools, is between British-born Afro-Caribbeans and newly arrived Somalis.


Why most suicide bombers are Muslim, beautiful people have more daughters, humans are naturally polygamous, sexual harassment isn't sexist, and blonds are more attractive.

17.07.2007. Excerpts from an article in Psycology Today by Alan S. Miller Ph.D., Satoshi Kanazawa Ph.D (emphasis added):

Human nature is one of those things that everybody talks about but no one can define precisely. Every time we fall in love, fight with our spouse, get upset about the influx of immigrants into our country, or go to church, we are, in part, behaving as a human animal with our own unique evolved nature—human nature.

This means two things. First, our thoughts, feelings, and behavior are produced not only by our individual experiences and environment in our own lifetime but also by what happened to our ancestors millions of years ago. Second, our thoughts, feelings, and behavior are shared, to a large extent, by all men or women, despite seemingly large cultural differences.

Human behavior is a product both of our innate human nature and of our individual experience and environment. In this article, however, we emphasize biological influences on human behavior, because most social scientists explain human behavior as if evolution stops at the neck and as if our behavior is a product almost entirely of environment and socialization. In contrast, evolutionary psychologists see human nature as a collection of psychological adaptations that often operate beneath conscious thinking to solve problems of survival and reproduction by predisposing us to think or feel in certain ways. Our preference for sweets and fats is an evolved psychological mechanism. We do not consciously choose to like sweets and fats; they just taste good to us.

The implications of some of the ideas in this article may seem immoral, contrary to our ideals, or offensive. We state them because they are true, supported by documented scientific evidence. Like it or not, human nature is simply not politically correct.


New analysis counters claims that solar activity is linked to global warming

11.07.2007. Study undermines climate sceptics' arguments - correlations 'inconsistent' with temperature rise, reports science correspondent James Randerson in The Guardian.

However, we would also like to point our readers to an article by Dr. D. Bruce Merrifield in American Thinker, the conclusion of which reads as follows: "While it seems likely that solar radiation, rather than human activity, is the "forcing agent" for global warming, the subject surely needs more study."


The legacy of Tony Blair

11.07.2007. Excerpts from an article in FrontPageMagazine by Vasko Kohlmayer:

Although last week’s terrorist attacks in Britain were shocking in their murderous intent, they were not at all unexpected. They are merely the latest in a long series of attempts – successful, foiled and failed – in what is in effect a war waged from within Britain’s Muslim community against the host country. [...]

Although some may feel shocked and surprised at this state of affairs, the situation is only the natural outcome of the trends that have been at work for a long time. By and large, Muslim communities in the West have shown themselves to be aggressively resistant to assimilation. Not only do they refuse to adjust, but they exhibit outright hostility towards their host cultures and, when sufficiently numerous, they invariably attempt to take over the areas they populate. Intimidation, terror and violence are their means of choice in the pursuit of this objective. This tactic has succeeded in Lebanon where Muslims have taken over a formerly Christian and democratic country. Now they are trying to do the same in France, the Netherlands and Britain.

There are some who think that we may already be beyond the point of being able to stop the Islamic takeover of much of Western Europe. In the opinion of U.S. national defense expert and Pentagon Advisor Lt. Col. Bob McGinnis (U.S. Army-Ret.):

It probably is too late for Great Britain and France and maybe even the Netherlands and Germany. They [Muslims] have very sizeable minorities that refuse to integrate, that impose Sharia law on the ghettos, and as a result have created what I think is a series of smaller countries within a country.

The world better pay attention, because this will be the fate of every country that allows large Muslim communities to form in its midst. Clinging to traditional forms of Islam, their mindset is largely incompatible with the Western view of life which is based on openness, tolerance and freedom. Sizeable Muslims populations are thus a sure prescription for terror and violence, because all of them will sooner or later strike out against the societies they despise.

No amount of political correctness can conceal the fact that Muslim enclaves in the West are neither peace loving nor patriotic. Their populations feel no allegiance to their host countries and they are all too ready to approve of violence in order to further their ends. Their lack of gratitude is truly breath-taking, since they have not only been welcomed in their new lands, but also provided with various forms of support, benefits and assistance. But we should not be all too surprised by this behavior from the people who are taught by their religion to despise and kill infidels.

There is a question that often drops from the lips of British Muslims during their fraternizing times together: “Are you British or Muslim?” It is not difficult to guess how most of them answer. In the minds of most, pledging allegiance to the host country would effectively mean ceasing being a good Muslim.

If they really wanted to, British Muslims could easily stamp out the terrorists from their midst. They can only thrive among their ranks because it is there they receive cover and support. Despite all of the reassuring statements by their official representatives, far too many Muslims loathe their adoptive country and either turn a blind eye to or implicitly approve of terrorist plots against it. If British Muslims were a peaceful group they often claim to be, the hate-filled sermons of radical imams would not be attended by tens of thousands of eager hearers.

Britain is now paying the harrowing price for decades of mindlessly admitting large numbers of Muslim immigrants. Ignoring the warning signs along the way, it pursued the policies of multiculturalism to their inevitable conclusion. Today its unassimilated Muslim minority is waging a war against its host country. Terrorized and attacked by those it so has unthinkingly welcomed with open arms, Britain is now a country under siege.

HonestThinking comments: This is entirely in line with our own views. What is currently going on in the UK, as well as in much of the rest of the West, looks more and more like a Jim Jones-style multi-suicide. At the very least the following is necessary in order to save at least parts of Europe:

  • Politicians must take responsibility for their actions, and begin earnestly addressing the escalating problems they have created.
  • The media must step up to their democratic responsibilities, in particular:
    • allow frank and honest debate
    • start telling the truth
    • refuse to be used by the EU and/or the UN as political instruments and brain washers.
  • We all need to speak up against what is going on, and stop pretending we are on our way to multi-paradise. We most definitely are not.

Kohlmayer's article is hereby recommended.


10.07.2007. In this brief video interview a British mullah explains that all infidels are to be considered combatants and therefore legitimate targets for violent jihad. On the killing of innocents: "When we say innocent people, we mean Muslims."


09.07.2007. We have come to the conclusion that our criticism of Tony Blair below (Mission accomplished?, 26.06.2007) was presented using too strong language. The terms in question have been removed, and we hereby apologize.


07.07.2007. We have just discovered a very disturbing report about Jihad Watch being banned from several internet servers because this website allegedly contains "hate speech". This according to Robert Spencer in FrontPageMagazine.


07.07.2007. Is it true that our planet is experiencing Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), i.e., that the currently rising global temperature is caused by human activity? We at HonestThinking do not have the answer to that question, and, frankly, it is not easy to know what one should believe. Consider e.g. the following.

A Sudden Change of State, by George Monbiot: "A new paper suggests we have been greatly underestimating the impacts of climate change – and the size of the necessary response."

The Real Climate Censorship, by George Monbiot: "It’s happening, it’s systematic, and it is precisely the opposite story to the one the papers are telling."

Manmade Global Warming: The Real Assault on Reason Marc Sheppard gives a number of disturbing examples of what seem to be intellectual dishonesty on the part of the 'global warmers'.

HonestThinking comments: We need more articles by authors who clearly demonstrate that they are taking both sides of the argument seriously.


Great quotes from Steyn's book America alone.

05.07.2007. On "grievances", as opposed to religion, as a root cause (from page 34): Nonetheless, by 2010, more elderly white Catholic ethnic frogs will have croaked and more fit healthy Muslim youths will be hitting the streets. One day they'll even be on the beach at St. Tropez, and if you and your infidel whore happen to be lying there wearing nothing but two coats of Ambre Solaire when they show up, you better hope that the BBC and CNN are right about there being no religio-ethnic-cultural component to their "grievances."


03.07.2007. Sweden is supposedly the most “gender equal” country in the world. It’s also one of the nations most eagerly (at least officially, all other viewpoints are banned) embracing Multiculturalism. Promoting “sexual equality” alongside a rapidly growing Muslim minority is going to become an increasingly challenging balancing act. Fjordman reports from our ever more totalitarian neighboring country in Global Politician.

HonestThinking comments: The facts presented in this article are just another illustration of how utterly devoid of common sense some multiculti fanatics and 'progressives' can get. Does anyone in their right mind think that Muslim parents in general will allow these people to indoctrinate their children, e.g. by forcing Muslim boys to wear girl's clothes on a regular basis, and use girl's names whenever their teachers find it necessary to erase some of their masculine identity?

We suspect that the only people willing to put up with such nonsense, are brainwashed and/or cowed Westerners.


02.07.2007. Excerpts from a new essay by Fjordman at Global Politician: I know that people such as Swedish historian of religion Matthias Gardell claim that Islamophobia is perhaps the greatest threat to democracy in the Western world today. Personally, I subscribe more to the view of Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch that “‘Islamophobia’ is a word concocted to intimidate those who are rightly troubled, and more than troubled, by what they have learned of Islam largely through the observable behavior of Muslims not only in the West, but around the world.”






Norsk stoff - Norwegian material

Norske og skandinaviske lesere vil kunne finne stoff på norsk her.



HonestThinking is dedicated and committed to the art of thinking honestly. Yet honest thinking is not the same as true thinking, for it is possible to think honestly, but be mistaken. For the same reason, honest thinking is not identical with objective thinking either. Honest thinking is striving to get things right. This involves being truthful about whatever one publishes, but just as importantly, it involves an uncompromising dedication to never suppress relevant data, even when data collides with dearly held prejudices. Such an approach may sometimes cause hurtful revisions in one’s belief system. That’s what HonestThinking is all about! Read the entire manifesto.

Provoked or enthusiastic?

Please send e-mail to postmaster at honestThinking.org (replacing ' at ' with '@') if you would like to tip us about a web resource that we should link to, or if you wish to submit an article for publication here. Quality contributions are welcome from anyone.



The current European immigration and integration policy is profoundly disrespectful of both Muslims and Islam, because it is built on the tacit assumption that the Muslims will become like us. One claims to have respect for Islam and for Muslims, but one also expects Muslims to give up their orthodox faith when they come here. At the same time one is assuming that Islam will be reformed and modernized as soon as the Muslims become integrated and understand and appreciate how superior our Western culture is compared to their own. This is cultural shauvinism and arrogance indeed! The unspoken premise for this scenario is that Western socities are superior to Islam. Read more.




Human rights and democracy are under pressure. One threat comes from the Western world, in the form of lack of or dishonest thinking. There exists a peculiar Western "tolerance" which is so "tolerant" that it even tolerates totalitarian or anti-democratic ideologies. A tacit assumption underlying such an attitude is that all cultures, world views, and religions are really equally good. As a consequence of this assumption one is cut off from the possibility of critically examining the above mentioned ideologies. Read more.