maandag 7 augustus 2017

Imaginary victims: Native American edition

It's very interesting how there are always people who completely warp historical reality to suit their political agenda. I just now came across a bizarre claim by a Native American action group, claiming that European settlers in the USA (not the Americas as a whole, just the USA!) have historically killed 50 million Native Americans. And that's with disease not even included: they purely mean the purposeful killing of natives.

50 million. What a number! But a number out of thin air. The truth is that, after the Old World diseases had burned their way through the New World, there were only about 10 million Native Americans left in all of the Americas! Perhaps, if we're charitable, some 3 million of those lived in what is now the USA. How can you murder 50 million in a region where only 3 million exist? How could that be done? Do tell.

Either out of incompetence or out of wickedness, these 'activists' with their (too-)big claims are conflating certain numbers to fit their own narrative. The truth is that much larger numbers of Native Americans than those c. 10 million have indeed historically existed... but they died in vast multitudes due to disease. In all likelihood, Old World diseases killed c. 90% of the pre-contact population of the Americas. If the post-disease population is c. 10 million, that would make the pre-contact population c. 100 million.

Needless to say, there is a lot of debate about that. Historiographers once tended to consider numbers like 2 or 3 million when estimating how many Native Americans there must have been in 1491. But Henry F. Dobyns rather convincingly made the case for a number between 90 and 110 million, spread across the Americas.

Even the modern-day "low counters", who are sceptical of such high claims, simply believe that disease killed fewer people, like 50% for instance. (That's about the lowest credible estimate in use today.) So there are those who believe that disease killed 90% of the pre-contact population, leaving behind 10 million or so. And then there are those who believe disease killed perhaps 50%... leaving behind 10 million or so.

This is important to note, because this is where those 'activists' get it all wrong. In truth, the low counters simply believe there were much fewer pre-contact natives than the high counters do. That is the point of contention. But the 'activists' muddle the numbers. They claim the pre-contact numbers of the high counters (100 million) and the death rate of the low counters (50%) and claim that post-disease, there were some 50 million natives left.

That's simply not the case. And even then, that would be a number for all of the Americas, and not just for the USA.

Whether disease killed roughly 10 million or roughly 90 million or some number in between... that's still being debated. [1] But that there were roughly 10 million natives left in total after the disease had burned its way through the population is not under discussion.

Of those remaining 10 million, Europeans no doubt killed quite a lot. Although the fact that there are about 69 million Native Americans around today (which means considerable population increase from those 10 million), the amount killed by Europeans must not be overestimated. We are probably talking about hundreds of thousands. Probably not about multiple millions. Certainly not about tens of millions, which weren't there in any case.


[1] A footnote regarding the discussion about pre-contact numbers. Personally, I tend towards the position of the high counters. The effect of disease cannot be underestimated. By the accounts of Hernando de Soto (the conquistador, obviously, not the economist), who traveled the southeastern (later-to-be) USA in the 1500s, the place was filled with settlements. Hundreds of towns, from Florida to the Mississippi. When latter-day explorers reached the area again in the 1700s, they found... nothing. Except that De Soto had not made these villages up. Their archeological remains have been found. As have the mass graves that started appearing after he passed through.

The thing is, he brought livestock along, and animals escaped into the wild. They spread European disease, which killed countless natives and utterly destroyed many communities. This all happened without any Europeans there to witness or actively influence events. De Soto was gone when the dying started, and by the time other Europeans reached the area again, it was all over...

zondag 23 juli 2017

The Arabs and the truth about the occupation

Arab Mohammedans regularly murder Jewish civilians in Israel. They call this resistance, rather than carnage. They, and their supporters in the West, claim that such brutal actions, done unto innocent individuals, are somehow justified because Israel is "occupying" land that (they claim) belongs to the Palestinians.

Palestinians are Arabs. The homeland of the Arabs is the Arabian peninsula. Every region outside that peninsula that currently has an Arab population is land that the Arabs have violently stolen from others. So regardless of who is the rightful historical owner of any particular piece of land outside of the Arabian peninsula, we can say with absolute certainty that the Arabs cannot be those owners. So you want to talk about "occupation"? That's fine. Let's end the occupation right now.

The Arab occupation, that is. The horrible occupation, perpetrated by Arabic Mohammedans, of any and all land outside the Arabian peninsula. That occupation should be ended at once. All Arab settlements outside the Arabian peninsula should be evacuated and/or demolished. Those lands should be restored to their previous owners. (Incidentally, as far as Judea and Samaria are concerned, those rightful owners are... the Jewish people.)

Similarly, the Turkish occupation of any and all land outside the Turkish homeland in north-central Asia should be ended at once. All Turkish settlements outside north-central Asia should be evacuated and/or demolished. In particular, Anatolia should be emptied of Turkish occupiers, and given back to its rightful Indo-European inhabitants (i.e. Greeks, Kurds, Armenians).

Let's end those occupations right away. Afterwards, when we are re-allotting the land recently cleared of all the aforementioned occupiers, we can discuss such matters as the exact historic boundaries of the Jewish homeland. No Arab needs to be involved in that conversation, because no Arabs lived there historically, no Arabs will be living there in this liberated future, and - most importantly - no Arabs should be living there now.

Get the fuck out, you hypocritical occupiers of other peoples' homelands. Go back to your desert and leave the rest of us in peace. We do not want you or your stinking death cult. We never did.

zaterdag 24 juni 2017

Those who reject the essential characteristics of humanity cease to be human

Look at this picture. What does this tell you? Do you comprehend, when looking at it, how dangerous and evil it is? Oh, it's not satirical, if that's what you're thinking. This is genuine leftist propaganda, nakedly claiming that individual rights, reason, logic, and the scientific method are "white inventions", and that (simply because they are supposedly "white") they are also "racist".

Yes. "White is racist" is their actual contention, I kid you not. But let's leave that aside for the moment. It's pretty clear to anyone with a functional brain that self-declared "progressives" are all too often scary collectivists who can only think in groups. Nothing new there. But they also claim that individual rights, reason, logic, and the scientific method are "white" and "racist" concepts. They claim that because these concepts were primarily studied and formalised by white people, these ideas are somehow white. It's like thinking that because a white man discovered how gravity works, nonwhites are somehow exempt from gravity.

In other words, the very notion that ideas have a race is absurd beyond belief. Yet besides absurd, it is also evil. Made no mistake: this kind of nonsense isn't harmless. It's very dangerous nonsense indeed. It's an attack on civilisation and on humanity itself.

To be sure, it's no surprise to me that "progressives" will steep so low as to make these claims. To them, it's only natural. After all, they must understand (even if only on an instinctive level) that those who respect individual rights will reject the totalitarian state that "progressives" always demand to enforce their own ideas. Because they want to force their will on others, they must destroy the rights of others. And because those who use reason and logic will always be able to identify most "progressive" dogmas as utter nonsense, they must erase reason and logic. Because those who adhere to the scientific method will find that there are certain evident facts about race, gender, IQ and many other subjects that "progressives" don't want to accept, they will have to do away with the scientific method.

To sustain their own ideology, they must reject individual rights, reason, logic, and the scientific method. But those things are the very fundamentals of civilisation and of humanity itself. If we imagine a world without rights, without reason or logic, without science... we are looking at the animal kingdom. The "progressives" would reduce us to beasts of the earth. They would seek to destroy the very things that make humanity unique. And in so doing, in rejecting those precious things... they mark themselves as less than human. A human without rights, without reason, without logic, without the critical thinking skills that are the essence of science... such a human isn't a human at all. It is a human only in a physical sense, It is in actual fact merely a human-shaped beast.

Understand this, for it is crucial: those who reject the essential features of humanity are no longer human. Understand it and apply it in your life. Apply this fundamental lesson: that those who deny individual rights, reason, logic, and the scientific method have no business appealing to those things. They cannot claim what they deny.

If such sad creatures are put down like diseased livestock—which they are—this is not a violation of their individual rights. They deny the existence of individual rights, so based on their own stated worldview, they cannot possibly have any of those individual rights.

If they protest such treatment, whatever they say can and must be treated as the meaningless bleating of barnyard animals. To validly protest, one must have arguments. To have arguments, one must use reason and logic. They deny reason and logic. Therefore, they deny arguments. It follows—logically—that they cannot raise valid objections to anything.

If they are segregated into closed facilities for subhuman vermin, they cannot claim to be human. To determine such a thing, they'd need scientific proof. They deny the scientific method, however, and as such cannot get such proof.

Such "progressives", you see, have successfully seceded themselves from humanity. They reject the fundamentals of our human nature and human ability, and they cannot—must not—be allowed any longer to claim the fruits of human nature. They have rejected such gifts. They would deny those gifts to us. We must instead withhold from them the very things they would steal from us, so that they can wallow and perish in their self-made hell.

Een goed plan: hef de failliete staat Illinois gewoon op

De Amerikaansche staat Illinois is feitelijk bankroet. Erger dan bankroet: diep in de schulden, en bovendien ook nog eens onbestuurbaar geworden door corruptie en incompetentie binnen de overheid. Niet bepaald een verrassing: de Democratische partij heeft in Illinois al decennia de alleenheerschappij, en dat heeft geleid tot ernstig machtsmisbruik.

John Kass van de Chicago Tribune heeft echter een oplossing: gewoon de hele staat opheffen. Niet zeuren; zonder gemiep een einde aan maken en in stukken knippen.

De column van Kass bevat lekker satirische elementen, maar het voorstel is te goed om niet serieus te nemen. Het enige dat je eraan hoeft te veranderen is dat Chicago gewoon een soort linkse stadstaat moet worden. De politieke elite daar heeft alle problemen om te beginnen veroorzaakt, dus die moeten de verantwoordelijkheid ook dragen. Men moet gewoon stukken van Illinois afknippen totdat enkel Chicago overblijft... met de problemen en de overheidsschuld en de criminaliteit (die daar heel hoog is, terwijl de wapenwetten er al heel lang heel streng zijn...)

Opvallend genoeg zijn de mensen in de regio het daar ook mee eens: op het plan van Kass komen onverwacht veel positieve reacties binnen, maar wat opvalt is dat reacties uit Wisconsin één duidelijk punt van kritiek hebben. Deze staat zou Chicago en omstreken moeten 'overnemen', en de inwoners van Wisconsin hebben daar geen zin in. "Wie wil die stad in godsnaam hebben?"

Gelijk hebben ze. Laat Chicago maar over aan de Democraten die zowel die stad als de staat hebben verpest. De rest van Illinois kan dan worden overgenomen door de buurstaten, die vast beter zorgen voor de gebieden in kwestie. Zoals ik al eerder schreef over Californië: terminaal links georiënteerde gebieden moeten worden afgescheiden en aan hun lot worden overgelaten. Enkel wanneer ze andere gebieden niet meer kunnen uitzuigen, leren ze om eens op eigen benen te staan. Meestal is het dan snel afgelopen met de socialistische illusies.

donderdag 15 juni 2017

Patriots and Tyrants

Robert E. Lee was the foremost general of the Confederate forces in their desperate war for independence from northern tyranny, which sought to illegally subdue them by armed might after they had chosen to separate themselves from the central government in Washington DC. His words, quoted above, are a clear indication of his character and his motives. In a time when Abraham Lincoln is often (wrongfully) regarded as a heroic figure, and the Southern secession is (equally incorrectly) viewed as evil and treasonous, we should take some time to explore Lee's reasons for supporting Virginia in its secession and opposing Lincoln in his war of conquest.

General Lee, an educated man, knew very well the shape of history and he tried his best to fight in the name of his sovereign state, Virginia; defending it against the despotic ambitions of Lincoln and his centralist ilk. The victory of the northern aggressors, in their war against the southern states that peacefully and lawfully seceded, remains a great tragedy. That war destroyed the last bastions of honour and aristocracy in North America, thus sealing the fate of the United States. Rather than saving the Union, Abraham Lincoln and his butchers destroyed it, and put a centralist colossus in its place. This was their plan from the outset, and fighting that depraved ambition was the South's foremost reason to secede in the first place. (Anyone who claims that it was primarily about slavery is either wholly ignorant or wholly evil.)

Everything Lee predicted has come true, and the United States are fated to perish at least in their current form. Observe that I write "their form", because the states ought to be referred to in the plural. But nowadays, we all too often hear "the United States is" rather than "the United States are". That, too, is the legacy of northern aggression and centralism. And it is exactly that unitary, centralist moloch that will ultimately perish. One may hope that one day, there will again be sovereign and voluntarily united states, once more capable of bringing something worthwhile into this world.

Until that day comes, we should do our best to remember the courage and honour of general Lee, in a world where uneducated scoundrels are tearing down the statues that were once put up the memorialise him and his fellow heroes of independence.

zondag 4 juni 2017

Tien stappen om de islamisering en de terreur te stoppen

Het valt niet langer te ontkennen dat de islamitische terreur in Europa de afgelopen tijd exponentieel is toegenomen. In de toekomst zal deze trend zich enkel verder ontwikkelen. Dat is bepaald geen wenselijk toekomstbeeld. Met de juiste beleidsmaatregelen zouden wij Nederland kunnen beschermen tegen dergelijke ontwikkelingen. Indien we pakweg twintig jaar geleden maatregelen hadden getroffen, was het mogelijk geweest om met vrij gematigd beleid de nodige resultaten te boeken. Daarvoor is het nu echter te laat. Het probleem is sinds het eind van de vorige eeuw zo drastisch toegenomen dat enkel drastisch ingrijpen nu nog een ramp kan voorkomen.

Dit zijn de tien stappen die ik zou voorstellen om Nederland geheel te beschermen tegen islamisering en islamitisch terrorisme:

1. Nederland uit de EU; uit het EVRM; uit de VN.

2. Een verbod op de islam. Sluiting van alle moskeeën en islamitische scholen. Mohammedanen met een dubbele nationaliteit verliezen de Nederlandsche nationaliteit en worden het land uitgezet.

3. Dubbele nationaliteit uitsluitend nog mogelijk voor wat betreft andere Westersche landen, of landen die eveneens beschaafd zijn (bijv. Japan).

4. Nieuw immigratiebeleid waarbij uitsluitend mensen naar Nederland komen die hier (cultureel) passen, die niet misdadig zijn, en die hun eigen boontjes kunnen en zullen doppen.

5. Immigranten kunnen de eerste tien jaar uitsluitend als gast hier leven, zonder de nationaliteit te verkrijgen. Pas na tien jaar goed gedrag kan iemand de procedure starten om eventueel Nederlander te worden. Hier werken mag natuurlijk meteen. Het moet zelfs, want niet-burgers komen geheel niet in aanmerking voor sociale voorzieningen.

6. Geen opvang van vluchtelingen in Nederland. Nul. We zijn enkel nog voor opvang in de eigen regio, en dan enkel voor niet-moslims. Nederland is bereid de opvang van Christenen en seculieren te financieren in gebieden waar zij (meestal door de islam) worden bedreigd.

7. Illegaal verblijf in Nederland wordt strafbaar gesteld. Het herbergen van illegalen eveneens. Minimumstraffen van meerdere jaren.

8. Alle subsidies worden afgeschaft, hetgeen o.a. een einde maakt aan alle multiculti-clubjes, die immers teren op subsidie.

9. Het cultureel Marxisme wordt actief bestreden. Op die manier ontstaat er nooit meer een klimaat waarbij vijandige culturen worden verheerlijkt en de onze wordt aangevallen.

10. Burgers hebben het recht om zichzelf en hun gezin te beschermen met vuurwapens. Vuurwapenbezit voor burgers wordt gelegaliseerd, alsmede het vormen van buurtwachten, volksweerbaarheden en milities.

Dit zijn suggesties voor Nederland, maar ze kunnen natuurlijk ook op grotere schaal worden toegepast. Idealiter zou heel Europa (en de rest van het Westen) deze stappen zo snel mogelijk implementeren, zodat onze cultuur en ons cultuurgebied kan worden gevrijwaard van de islamitische terreur. Hoe langer we wachten, hoe erger het wordt. Dat betekent alleen maar dat er in de tussentijd meer onschuldige slachtoffers vallen... en dat de uiteindelijke maatregelen nog radicaler zullen moeten zijn, tegen de tijd dat men eindelijk bereidt is actie te ondernemen.

Uit menslievendheid is het belangrijk om zo snel mogelijk op te treden.

vrijdag 31 maart 2017

Een extra lange uitzending van de Batavieren Podcast

Gisteren had ik een aangenaam gesprek met Sander van Luit, die mij interviewde in het kader van de Batavieren Podcast. De tweede keer alweer—wij spraken elkaar kort na de verkiezing van Donald Trump ook al—en deze keer een extra lange uitzending. Tweeënhalf uur. Gaat u er maar even rustig voor zitten.

We hebben het over de 'culture wars' en de opkomst van de alt-right beweging. We hebben het over regressief links en de repressieve islam. En tot slot hebben we het over de Westersche beschaving die ik daar graag tegenover in stelling wil brengen... en over het intellectuele curriculum voor zelfstudie dat ik onlangs heb samengesteld, opdat men zich deze Westersche beschaving ten diepste eigen kan maken.

Luister alhier naar de nieuwe uitzending.

vrijdag 3 maart 2017

Paideia: a curriculum (in the form of an extensive reading list)

In ancient Greece, the ideal of education involved far more than the learning of facts and the mastering of skills. More, even, than the training of intellect and the honing of abstract reasoning skills. Beyond intellectual refinement and physical training, the Greek educational ideal also involved the shaping of moral character and philosophical excellence. The ideal education involved rhetoric, grammar, history, philosophy, scientific disciplines (such as mathematics, physics, geography and biology), literature, poetry, music and a variety of physical disciplines (such as gymnastics, wrestling, horsemanship and archery). All these aspects were not seen as separate, but as facets of an undivided whole. They supported and enhanced each other, jointly contributing to a complete education.

This educational ideal was called paideia.

maandag 30 januari 2017

Californian secession? Great! But let's re-draw some borders first...

So. The California secession movement starts gathering petition signatures. I think this is an awesome idea. Not because I think it'll be good for California. No. California will turn into a socialist shithole, that can no longer feed on the rest of the union. But it will be GREAT for the USA. Without California's electoral votes, there will never be another Democratic president.

Regardless of such considerations, I will simply state that I generally defend the right of secession simply because I support the principle of it. With that in mind, I must observe that when right-wing activists quite recently suggested that Texas should secede (during Obama's administration), they were called traitors and racists.

A typical case of the left-wing "it's okay when we do it!"-mentality, then. But never mind that. Let them go ahead. Let them secede. So much the better for the rest of the USA. But before we start cheering for the secession of California, I think it's wise to reconsider the whole idea of the so-called "left coast". After all, it's not like all of California is left-wing. No; it's the coastal strip and the southern portion of the state. The northeastern part is solidly Republican. The left-wing part is just far more densely populated, so they force the entire state to always go Democratic. Considered in that way... California should be split up before any vote regarding secession takes place.

In the same way, sparsely populated Nevada is almost always forced to go left-wing, just because densely populated Las Vegas always goes that way. And the northeastern states of Washington and Oregon are also pulled to the left by their coastal cities, while the rural hinterland always votes Republican.

I propose the following, for the consideration of my American friends: that the borders of these four states are radically re-drawn, to create a Democrat-dominated "California" and "Oregon", and a Republican-dominated "Nevada" and "Washington". The two left-wing states should then be given the option to secede (or to join Canada and Mexico, respectively).

Even if the Democratic states stay with the union, this will at least free the Republican parts of the current states from Democratic overlordship, turning four Democratic states into two Democratic and two Republican states.

The map would look a bit as pictured here, with the Democratic states in shades of pink, and the Republican states in shades of yellow. I have based the border on multiple electoral maps, after figuring out which regions generally vote Democratic, and which regions generally vote Republican. I admit it's just a crude concept formulation, but it gets the idea across.

donderdag 12 januari 2017

De Batavieren Podcast: David Engels en de Spengleriaanse toekomst

De Batavieren Podcast, waaraan ik recentelijk deelnam, biedt wederom een bijzonder fascinerende uitzending. David Engels, een interessante denker, wordt hier door Zlata en Sander geïnterviewd inzake zijn Spengleriaanse kijk op de geschiedenis, het heden... en de toekomst.

Ikzelf ben óók een Spengler-adept, en ik kan de kijk van dr. Engels op diverse zaken absoluut waarderen. Ik denk tevens dat hij gelijk heeft over de algemene vorm der dingen... maar ik denk dat hij specifieke dingen anders waardeert dan ik dat zou doen. Om die reden adviseer ik iedereen die denkt een beetje mijn geestverwant te zijn aangaande cultuur, geschiedenis, politiek etc. absoluut om deze podcast te beluisteren. Maar ik adviseer iedereen eveneens om kritisch te luisteren.

Even wat meer inhoudelijk: dr. Engels ziet het door hem (correct) voorspelde einde van de huidige democratie in de nabije toekomst als toch wel spijtig. Hij verwacht meer authoritair bestuur in de toekomst, en daar is hij niet blij mee. Ikzelf denk dat hij te pessimistisch is, en dat de huidige democratie vervangen gaat worden door een meer traditionalistisch (doch niet minder vrij of welvarend) systeem. In veel aspecten denk ik dat een post-democratische orde méér vrijheid zal garanderen dan de huidige dictatuur van de massa. (Die in realiteit een dictatuur van de oligarchie is, die de massa bespeelt.)

Er is één punt waar ik het echt fundamenteel oneens ben met dr. Engels. De man brengt het allemaal met nuance, en dat waardeer ik, maar hij is uiteidelijk toch (impliciet) nogal denigrerend over de critici van massa-immigratie. Hij vergelijkt de huidige migratie-golf met demographische veranderingen in de latere dagen van de Romeinsche Republiek. Niet bepaald terecht: die immigranten behoorden tot andere Indo-Europeesche (ook wel: Arische) volkeren, en deelden dezelfde fundamentele oercultuur. Als je de massa-immigratie van islamieten wilt vergelijken met een situatie in die periode moet je wellicht eerder kijken naar de opkomst van het Christendom, die zich in de daaropvolgende eeuwen voltrok. Los van waarde-oordelen over verschillende geloven: ik zie nog weinig mensen die de Religio Romana aanhangen, en toch wel heel veel Christelijk erfgoed. De islam kan ons werelddeel net zo overweldigen en gaan overheersen als het Christendom dat heeft gedaan (en kan dat wellicht nog wel met méér daadkracht).

Zijn these dat islamitisch fundamentalisme niet geïmporteerd wordt maar hier is ontstaan (uit ons Westersche gebrek aan identiteit) is zeer laakbaar. Het is natuurlijk zo dat ons gebrek aan (respect voor) traditioneel Westersche waarden ons zwakker maakt... maar de islam is vanaf dag één gewelddadig en expansionistisch geweest. Ik krijg de indruk dat dr. Engels het inherente gevaar van een geweldsideologie zwaar onderschat. Wellicht gaat hij gewoon te ver in het Spengleriaans vergelijken van culturen, en concludeert hij daarom foutief dat culturen min of meer gelijk(waardig) zijn. Heel gevaarlijk!

Wel ben ik dit met hem eens: totdat we ons eigen identiteitsprobleem oplossen zijn we zwak en kunnen we dit probleem niet aanpakken.