Who Decides and on What Basis that a Law Is Unjust and Must Be Disobeyed?

The great Catholic author Patrick Buchanan has penned a brilliant article, in which he wonders whether an era of civil disobedience is coming to America, "where court orders are defied and laws ignored in the name of conscience and a higher law", similar to what happened in the 1960s, but with the rebellion this time coming from the Right.

The same people who were applauding and making heroes of the civil disobeyers when these upheld principles dear to the Left are now vilifying and demonising the current-day civil disobeyers who, following their conscience, act according to principles supported by the Right.

He starts with the following example:

The Oklahoma Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, has ordered a monument of the Ten Commandments removed from the Capitol.

Calling the Commandments "religious in nature and an integral part of the Jewish and Christian faiths," the court said the monument must go.

Gov. Mary Fallin has refused. And Oklahoma lawmakers instead have filed legislation to let voters cut out of their constitution the specific article the justices invoked. Some legislators want the justices impeached. [All emphases added]

Buchanan then reminds us that U.S. Supreme Court decisions have been defied, and those who defied them have been lionised by modernity, taking us through American history:

Thomas Jefferson freed all imprisoned under the sedition act, including those convicted in court trials presided over by Supreme Court justices. Jefferson then declared the law dead.

Some Americans want to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill with Harriet Tubman, who, defying the Dred Scott decision and fugitive slave acts, led slaves to freedom on the Underground Railroad.

New England abolitionists backed the anti-slavery fanatic John Brown, who conducted the raid on Harpers Ferry that got him hanged but helped to precipitate a Civil War. That war was fought over whether 11 Southern states had the same right to break free of Mr. Lincoln's Union as the 13 colonies did to break free of George III's England.

Millions of Americans, with untroubled consciences, defied the Volstead Act, imbibed alcohol and brought an end to Prohibition.

In the civil rights era, defying laws mandating segregation and ignoring court orders banning demonstrations became badges of honor.

Rosa Parks is a heroine because she refused to give up her seat on a Birmingham bus, despite the laws segregating public transit that relegated blacks to the "back of the bus."

In "Letter from Birmingham Jail," Dr. King, defending civil disobedience, cited Augustine—"an unjust law is no law at all"—and Aquinas who defined an unjust law as "a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law."

Said King, "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."

But this statement, rather than solving a moral issue, begs the ethical question: what is an "unjust law"?

If, for example, one believes that abortion is the killing of an unborn child and same-sex marriage is an abomination that violates "eternal law and natural law," [the very same words used by one of the Fathers of the Church, Saint Thomas Aquinas, that King invoked] do those who believe this not have a moral right if not a "moral responsibility to disobey such laws"?

Rosa Parks is celebrated. But the pizza lady who said her Christian beliefs would not permit her to cater a same-sex wedding was declared a bigot. And the LGBT crowd, crowing over its Supreme Court triumph, is writing legislation to make it a violation of federal civil rights law for that lady to refuse to cater that wedding.

But are people who celebrate the Stonewall riots in Greenwich Village as the Mount Sinai moment of their movement really standing on solid ground to demand that we all respect the Obergefell decision as holy writ?

And if cities, states or Congress enact laws that make it a crime not to rent to homosexuals, or to refuse services at celebrations of their unions, would not dissenting Christians stand on the same moral ground as Dr. King if they disobeyed those laws?

Already, some businesses have refused to comply with the Obamacare mandate to provide contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs to their employees. Priests and pastors are going to refuse to perform same-sex marriages. Churches and chapels will refuse to host them. Christian colleges and universities will deny married-couple facilities to homosexuals.

Laws will be passed to outlaw such practices as discrimination, and those laws, which the Christians believe violate eternal law and natural law, will, as Dr. King instructed, be disobeyed.

And the removal of tax exemptions will then be on the table.

If a family disagreed as broadly as we Americans do on issues so fundamental as right and wrong, good and evil, the family would fall apart, the couple would divorce, and the children would go their separate ways.

Something like that is happening in the country.

A secession of the heart has already taken place in America, and a secession, not of states, but of people from one another, caused by divisions on social, moral, cultural, and political views and values, is taking place.

America is disuniting, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote 25 years ago.

And for those who, when young, rejected the views, values and laws of Eisenhower's America, what makes them think that dissenting Americans in this post-Christian and anti-Christian era will accept their laws, beliefs, values?

Why should they? [All emphases added]

How Much Do Atheists Know about the Science and Evidence They always Appeal to?

I came across the above video by accident while researching the thorny issue of the origin of life on earth, and at first I wasn't sure who the "village1diot" of the name of this video's YouTube channel was. On the surface, it might have been referring to the Christians who are the intended victims of the hosts of what looks like a call-in TV show called The Atheist Experience, in this and many other videos. But watching them at work makes you seriously wonder whether the "village1diot" appellative doesn't refer to the show hosts themselves. I still haven't clarified that doubt to my satisfaction.

It starts badly and it gets worse.

There is a statement at the beginning about the word "atheist" supposedly deriving from the Greek goddess of wisdom. The latter is Athena, after whom the city of Athens is named. The Parthenon in Athens is named after Athena Parthenos ("Virgin"). All those in the video seem to have confused the similiarity between "atheist" and "Athena". But "atheist" stems from the Greek "atheos", meaning "without God" and composed of the privative alpha ("a") denying or lacking what follows, in this case "theos", or God.

On these premises, the Christian caller is right in spotting a contradicrion between atheism and worshipping a god, albeit female. His statement is welcome with sniggering and mockery by the hosts - one of whom for some unclear reason wears a large cross -, as if his stupidity had just been exposed, and not theirs.

But that's what he's there for, to be ridiculed.

The cross wearer, a declared atheist, then confesses his ignorance about the etymology of the word that expresses what he is. So much for choices supposedly made on a basis of rationality, science and knowledge. The other atheist doesn't seem to be any wiser either. If we consider that they run a TV show called The Atheist Experience and therefore atheism must be their specialist subject, it's particularly serious that they don't even know the derivation of the word and concept.

Then we move on to when the non-cross-wearing presenter claims that the laws of physics "can be proved or at least [pause] shown to be true in most senses." To demonstrate "the law of gravity", he performs a very neat experiment: he just drops his pen, which dutifully falls on the desk.

Pity nobody had told him that classical mechanics, of which Newton's theory of universal gravitation is part, far from being "proved or at least [pause] shown to be true in most senses", is now rejected by modern physics.

It has been superseded, and at best can be accepted only for a special set of circumstances. It has been replaced by Einstein's relativity theory and by quantum mechanics.

It can still have practical applications, but it's not considered by scientists to be "true" or "proved". Flat earth theory is also used while not regarded as true.

When a scientific theory like classical mechanics with his Newtonian universe, which had become the model for all scientific theories and the unshakeable pillar of science, was refuted - debuked, to use the common jargon - by Einstein and the quantum physicists in the early 20th century, it caused a profound crisis in the worlds of science and philosophy.

Such was the faith in science that developed in the 19th century, leading to a philosophy called "scientism", that it was considered impossible that a theory like classical physics could be refuted.

But it was. It should be a lesson that things are not as simple as some people think.

Our Moral Obligations to African Migrants and the BBC

I've just finished watching Question Time on the BBC, where one of the questions from the studio audience was whether we should help the people coming from Africa to Italy across the Mediterranean.

That question sparked a contest among the panellists for who shows most philanthropic generosity and heartfelt altruism in asserting that most definitely yes, we have an indisputable moral obligation to help them.

In their answers, the line was blurred between economic migrants and refugees in fear for their lives, escaping dangerous situations.

But hey, it was all for a good cause.

It was never mentioned that, even in the case of genuine refugees, there’s a general principle in the EU that asylum should be claimed in the first safe country that is reached, which is what so-called asylum seekers often don't do.

The UK has its own application of this principle. British charity The Refugee Council explains:

Safe third country

The Home Office deems certain countries to be places where a refugee is safe from persecution... If an asylum seeker travels through any of these states en route to the UK, he or she may be returned there on grounds of having travelled through a safe third country.

Unfortunately this is not a EU clear rule or legal requirement, giving rise to confusion.

The Dublin Regulation from which the "first safe country" principle derives is a confusing piece of legislation, so it is desirable that the ambiguities in it be dispelled by declaring that asylum seekers are obliged to claim asylum in the first safe country they can reach in their vicinity, rather than picking which country they prefer for economic reasons, which is likely to be a nation in Europe.

In case of economic migrants, there is no legal obligation to accept them. In terms of moral obligation, let's remind ourselves that the population of Africa alone is over 1 billion, to which - for moral reasons - we should add all the rest of the Third World's population in similar economic need.

Do we have a moral obligation to let all the Third World billions of inhabitants come to our shores and welcome them to our lands? In short, are we morally obliged to let our countries be destroyed?

Something else which was never mentioned during the program is that in April Muslim migrants being carried on a boat across the Mediterranean threw 12 Christians overboard to their deaths because they were not praying to Allah when they asked God for help when their dinghy suffered a puncture:

[A] Nigerian Christian prayed for his life in an innocent act that would end in the deaths of 12 fellow migrants.

One of the Muslims on board the rickety craft ordered him to stop, saying: 'Here, we only pray to Allah.'

When he refused, a violent fight ensued and 12 Christians drowned when they were thrown overboard by the Muslim refugees.

This is the sort of people we may let into our countries, not to mention the various terrorists, militants and criminals that the Islamic State controlling the Libyan coast smuggles to Europe.

Our betters, the cream of our media pundits and politicians are so concerned about "moral obligations" that they are prepared to let murderers become our next-door neighbours.

What is particularly aberrant is that the people pontificating from the height of their ethical stance in this way are not the ones who are going to bear the burden of their haughty choice. Lionel Barber, the editor of the Financial Times, and his co-pannellists on the Question Time panel last night are not likely to live in the sort of areas where immigrants and refugees reside.

Incidentally, for all those who say that all religions are the same, how many Christians do they know of who have thrown overboard, raped, tortured, beheaded or otherwise massacred Muslims in huge numbers as Muslims have done to Christians over the last few years, and about which we read every day?

Is Universalism So Bad for Whites?

Published on The Occidental Observer

By Enza Ferreri


Our current disastrous situation is that the White race is rapidly declining in absolute numbers and the countries it built are being taken over by the Third World.

There are, clearly, two elements to this. The first is that Whites are disappearing of their own volition because they don't reproduce.

The second element is unrestricted immigration and multiculturalism.

It’s my argument that universalism in general and Christianity in particular didn't produce either (for simplicity I’m assuming that Christianity is universalist although there are exceptions). Their Leftist and Jewish distortions did.

The elephant in the room which nobody is too happy to mention is that the evident reason for the demographic suicide of White, Western peoples is that they have dissociated sex from reproduction, which Christianity teaches not to do. Here, far from Christianity being the cause of this White birth decrease, there is its opposite, the erosion and abandonment of Christianity, at the root of this trend.

There is a Jamie Kelso video in which he confronts young Whites about such an issue as well.

Whites have done this to themselves (I’m childless, so I’m not blaming others, just stating a fact). There is no amount of mass immigration, no number of people from alien races and foreign cultures that could have imposed sexual promiscuity, widespread use of contraception, abortion en masse and similar conducts on our populations.

There is, yes, an alien group with strong anti-Christian sentiments, the Jews, that has propagated the ideas behind these behaviours in the West – only for non-Jews though.

After Jesus, Judaism has taken, with the Talmud, a completely different path from its previous history and has become virulently anti-Christian - hence the deceitful ambiguity of the expressions "Judaeo-Christianity" and "Judaeo-Christian".

For major Jewish movements and organisations in the Diaspora, the weakening and erosion of
Christianity in Western societies has been a primary goal.

Christianity is what has made the West strong and united for a long time, and which Jews saw as a threat.

But it’s up to Whites not to fall into this trap.

Having fun (sex without children or "strings attached") and ambition to make money and get influence (pursuing a career) have become more important than family. This is the Christian priority of values turned upside down.

We can forever speculate about why Whites - women in particular - decided to stop having children or greatly reduced their number, but how they did it is beyond dispute.

We have all the possible empirical evidence in the world to assert that wide use of contraceptives and abortion, starting from the mid-60s, the time when Jewish influence on the minds of the young reached its full maturity, resulted in declining Western birthrates and populations.

Patrick Buchanan, in his book The Death of the West (Amazon USA) (Amazon UK) , is justifiably gloomy:

Only the mass reconversion of Western women to an idea that they seem to have given up – that the good life lies in bearing and raising children and sending them out into the world to continue the family and nation – can prevent the Death of the West.

Why are Western women having fewer children than their mothers or none at all? Why have so many enlisted in what Mother Theresa called “the war against the child”? Western women have long had access to the methods and means of birth control but chose not to use them to the extent they do today…

From studying the birth charts, we find that something happened in the mid-1960s, in the midst of the postwar prosperity, that changed the hearts and minds of Western women and killed in them the desire to live as their mothers had.

There is no usefulness coming from always blaming someone else. We have to accept our responsibilities and change our views and behaviour.

We have been brainwashed, yes. A commenter on a website once wrote: “Most of us are mentally trapped to think Jewish.” Virtually every mainstream media outlet is “nothing more than a screen to present chosen views.” The great battle over the last century has been a fight for the mind of the Western peoples, which the chosen won by acquiring control over practically the complete mainstream news, information, education and entertainment media and using that control to disseminate their message and the way they want us to think.

So the first thing is to fight the battle inside ourselves. We've got to stop thinking in a way that is still affected by Leftist (read "Jewish") influences, ways of thinking which we may have absorbed in our university years.

In the same way as the words "Nazi" or "Hitler" evoke in most people a classical, Pavlovian conditioned response of refusal of everything associated with them, developed through decades of careful conditioning, so that the conscious part of the brain is totally bypassed and - without the possibility of considering the merits of it - an automatic reaction, not dissimilar from a kneejerk, is established, so words like "God", "Christian doctrine" and "Catholic teaching" evoke conditioned negative responses, inculcated by the same sources, and similarly without the benefit of knowing or reflecting on what is being rejected.

We may have become thoroughly aware of the Jewish control of the education system and media and entertainment industries, but are we just as thoroughly capable of neutralising and rejecting their effects on the less conscious parts of our brains?

How many of us have refused Christianity only on the basis of the scantest, most superficial knowledge, mostly coming from the distortions of the mainstream media in Christian-hating Jewish hands?

Universalism and Christianity don't require suicide: this is a wrong, deformed view of their meaning.
The idea that someone should suffer or die so that others can prosper has a long history.

First the animal and human sacrifices of some ancient - and contemporary - religions, including paganism.

Then animal experimentation which, although clothed in pseudoscientific garb, is a revisitation of the ritual animal sacrifices of primitive religions.

While the latter were immoral and just useless, animal experiments are worse: they are dangerous and harmful to the human beings whose health they are supposed to protect, due to the extreme unreliability of their outcome, on which treatments for humans are based.

But then scientific activity is much more dogmatic than people think, and wrong but well-established theories are hard to die.

The most recent incarnation of the belief in sacrifice is the problem we're dealing with: the indigenous people of the West are supposed to sacrifice themselves, by allowing their countries to be flooded with populations from another day and age in the distant past (that's what the Third World is), which will set the clock back for Westerners as well, in order to help these destitute, primitive populations.

Like the other forms of sacrifice described above, it will not help the supposed beneficiaries.

For the result of this invasion of epic proportions will be the eventual destruction of Western civilisation.

Whites are declining fast and furiously in number; Arabs, Blacks and Browns are replacing them in White countries due to the rates of both their migration and their reproduction. What will happen is that, like during the barbaric invasions of Rome, the more primitive human elements will prevail on the more developed and replace them.

It's easier for a more advanced state to revert to a previous one than the other way around. It will be difficult for Third Worlders to absorb and adapt to a far more sophisticated society. But it will be relatively simple for them to destroy it from within, and that will become even more effortless as their numbers and percentage of the population increase.

There is a certain entropy in human affairs as well as in nature: disorder is easier than order, destruction is easier than construction, barbarism is easier than civilisation.

If we look long-term (rather than short), we see that in the end the West, the civilisation created by Whites, will be no more. All the world will be Third World, assuming that the same process will be repeated in every part of the West.

So there will be no place where "desperate", as the media describe them, people from poor parts of the globe can go to.

The image of a lifeboat that can only take a certain number of victims of a shipwreck, sinking when that number is exceeded so that everybody on it drowns and not even the original number can survive, springs to mind.

Is this a rational strategy to pursue?

Of course not. It's not callousness, selfishness or particularism which make us realise that the West cannot take this unsustainable level of immigration and survive.

It's realism and rationality.

From an ethical, universalist viewpoint, it's essential, nay imperative, to preserve Western civilisation, which has established important moral principles to apply to humans and all other sentient beings. Without it, the world would - will? - be a much worse place.

Therefore, there is no contradiction between opposing mass immigration from the Third World and embracing universalism, no conflict between advocating a stop to this colonisation and believing in Christianity.

People quote Pope Francis and other representatives of the Church who say the opposite.

But we mustn't forget that this is the post-Vatican-II Church, which apologised to the Jews and totally changed its views on them.

This is the same Church that declared that the British Bishop Richard Williamson, “in order to claim admission to episcopal functions in the church, must distance himself in absolutely unequivocal and public fashion from his positions regarding the Shoah”. The Bishop had made remarks considered as “Holocaust denial” and refused to retract them.

Why should the Vatican impose specific views on a bishop concerning the Holocaust? How can a certain interpretation of a historical period which is not even connected with Christianity and has - one way or another - no bearing on it be regarded as such a fundamental article of faith as to justify ecclesiastical disciplinary measures?

This in itself shows that something else is at work here. The Church has for a long time been infiltrated by crypto-Jews.

But it has not always been like this. In fact, it has been only in the last few decades of its two millennia of history. We have to understand what happened to the Church, not just with Vatican II, but during decades and centuries before. TOO has explored this several times.

Those who see an affinity between Christianity and Judaism should consider that the Jews before and after Christ are not the same kind of people. Jews either sincerely converted to Christianity – in which case, by definition, they had to abandon their ethnocentrism - or became the worst enemies of Christ: they even killed him and continued their hatred through Talmudic Judaism.

To reject Christianity on the basis, as I have read sometimes, that it’s “not White”, it’s “Levantine” or of Jewish derivation is every bit as rational as if the Japanese, in an outburst of self-harming hypernationalism or racialism, had historically rejected Western technology because it hadn’t been created by Japanese or Orientals but Whites.

Finally, one has to ask oneself why, if Christianity were so bad for Whites as some people think, Jewish media, entertainment industry and intellectuals are constantly bashing and deriding it. Is it atheism or Christianity that anti-White Jews fear?

They don't attack and ridicule paganism or atheism. They actually promote and lionise atheism day in and day out. We don’t have Hollywood films making fun of atheism or criticising it.

In this regard, it’s rather uncanny how the chosen people are now imitating “Whitespeak”.

This is a comment someone left to one of my posts on Facebook:

Christianity is a Roman reworking of some sand demon kult…

They [Christians] have no place being here in the heartlands of the Celto-Germanics/Nordics. The west died when Rome/Catholics tried to destroy our real heritage.

It could sound like a fairly common – if not typical - observation from a White advocate. Except that there are several telltale signs that he’s in fact Jewish.

Typically European Genetic Traits

I must confess that, given the difficulty of establishing an evolutionary basis for even simple physical genetic traits separating the different races, like skin colour, it seems to me that an evolutionary basis for more complex psychological and moral characteristics like universalism is still more arduous to show.

In the attempt to shed a bit of light on this obscurity, I made a search on why Northern Europeans evolved differently from Eskimos ("Inuit" is the politically correct term in Canada but in Alaska it's the other way around and, anyway, "Eskimo" includes Inuit and other groups like Yupik and Iñupiat, so is more accurate in the context of this article).

I'll try to simplify here a theory which is more composite, but for our purposes can be reduced to this basic element. The hypothesis is that Whites developed individualism (as opposed to the collectivism of other races) and moral universalism (as opposed to the particularism of other races) because they inhabited a cold, harsh environment in North-West Europe, where these traits helped their survival and adaptation.

To test this theory I thought of a conceptual control group. Other populations lived near the Arctic and were subject to the same ecological conditions: the Eskimos for example. Did they develop the same traits? Hence my research.

So far I haven't found an affirmative answer to this question, and prima facie Eskimos don't appear very similar to Whites in cultural terms.

But I found plenty of information on another characteristic of Whites that Eskimos didn't develop and why, a physical one: light skin.

The following is the currently accepted explanation for this variance.

The habitat with little sunlight which ancestral Northern Europeans and Eskimos had in common is responsible for the pale skin of the former because the body needs sunlight to synthesise the necessary vitamin D, and a lighter skin helps in cloudy climates as it absorbs more sunlight.

This circumstance should have made Eskimos evolve a white skin too, but it didn't. The Eskimos' dark skin is thus explained with the fact that Inuit ate lots of fatty fish, a rich source of vitamin D, which made them less dependent on sunlight for this nutrient.

Northern Europeans also ate plenty of fatty fish:

As an example, Scottish, Welsh, Celtic, and Irish people have certain nutritional requirements which are just the opposite of the African Bantu. The ancestral diets of the Scots and Irish and related cultures have always been very high in fatty fish.

That, however, changed when an agricultural economy was brought into Europe from the Middle East, transforming the diet of Europeans in the direction of more grain and farm-animal meat and less fatty fish, with consequent reduction of vitamin D intake.

That could explain the difference between Whites and Eskimos with their darker skin.

But anthropologist Peter Frost doesn't believe in this theory, for various reasons, the main of which is that such an evolution would have required a much longer time frame than the period since human populations started inhabiting Europe:

If we pursue this line of reasoning, Europeans must have turned white almost at the dawn of history. We know that agriculture spread into southeastern Europe from the Middle East around 9,000 years ago. By 7500 BP [Before the Present] it had reached a line stretching from the Netherlands through Central Europe and to the Black Sea. Thus, the extreme skin depigmentation of northern Europeans would have occurred over the last seven millennia or so. Actually, the time frame is even narrower, since white-skinned Europeans appear in ancient Egyptian art from the second millennium B.C.

So we’re left with around 3,000 years, at most. Is this pace of phenotypic change consistent with selection due to weak sunlight? Not according to current opinion. Brace et al. (1999) studied how skin color varies among Amerindians, who have inhabited North and South America for 12,000-15,000 years, and among Aborigines, who have inhabited Australia for some 50,000 years. If latitudinal variation in skin color tracks natural selection due to the intensity of sunlight, calculations show that this kind of selection would have taken over 100,000 years to create the skin-color difference between black Africans and northern Chinese and ~ 200,000 years to create the one between black Africans and northern Europeans.

Frost thinks the reason Europeans developed white skin is the same for which they developed different eye and hair colours from the rest of human groups: sexual selection.

Sexual selection for hair and eye colour varieties is accepted by mainstream anthropology - albeit taking precaution to emphasise that it's not the case that blond hair, red hair, green eyes and blue eyes are more attractive per se, but just because they are rarer.

Sexual selection for skin colour is not accepted - hence the vitamin D/sunlight theory.

Put simply, it cannot be accepted that white skin is more attractive.

Frost concludes his article on the subject by saying that, if we were talking about any other animal species, sexual selection would be the accepted explanation for skin colour variation.

He may be right or not, and so could the other theories on the same topic or on universalism as a biologically evolved trait.

The moral is: evolutionary explanations tend to always be highly speculative and difficult, if not impossible, to test. As one of the greatest philosophers of science of our times, Sir Karl Popper, said, Darwin's theory is not scientific, but a "scientific metaphysics", due to its in-built impossibility to be refuted by empirical controls and evidence.

Moral Universalism, Christianity, Whites, the West

Prima facie, there is a number of observations that appear obvious.

Given that the part of the world inhabited by Whites - first Europe and then the West - is the only part to have embraced universalism, and one particular expression of it - Christianity -, and given that this is the part of the world that has made immensely greater progress in every aspect than the rest of the world, the first question to ask ourselves is whether and how the two phenomena - Christianity and progress - are in a causal relationship with each other.

This is of paramount importance, as there are signs that the West and the Whites are on their way to abandon Christianity, and some among them are even considering the next step - abandoning moral universalism in general -, which shouldn't be surprising, as Christianity is the supreme embodiment of moral universalism.

This seems to confirm the idea held by many philosophers and thinkers: that renouncing God is the first step on a slippery slope towards renouncing morality.

Abandoning moral universalism seems prima face to defeat the object. This seems to be the reasoning: we Whites are the only universalist humans; our countries are the best in the world; the particularists, ie all other races, want to take advantage of our generous universalism, invade our lands, displace us; therefore we should become particularist too, in order to defend ourselves and stop them doing that.

It may defeat the object if embracing particularism will make us similar to other races. So, in the end, the West would become like the Third World, one way - by invasion from it - or the other - by our becoming like it. Is a White Third World a desirable objective?

I say no.

Those who think that Whites, universalist and Christian or not, would never create conditions like those of the Third World should be able to explain in concrete terms what are, if not universalism and Christianity, the characteristics of Whites throughout history that produced a civilisation so superior to any other on the globe.

The barbarians that invaded Rome were Whites. What was so good about them that could have produced Europe's subsequent glory?

Who saved Europe in the Dark Ages caused by the Slavic and Germanic hordes that destroyed the Roman civilisation?

It was the Christian Church.

Moral Universalism Is Needlessly Blamed

There used to be an article rather grandly entitled “The Contemporary use of Philosophy and Ideas” by a David Morris on the YourBNP website, but the site doesn't exist any more.

I've looked for his name but haven't found anything. Googling the site turns up "Brain Natriuretic Peptide (BNP) Test" and similar results.

How do I know about this article?

Because I've seen it discussed in an old post on The Occidental Observer on the pathology of moral universalism.

Here is a quotation in the latter from the YourBNP piece:

The [British] government planned drastic financial cuts for us, but increases in overseas aid! This perverse attitude grew from the Victorian middle class influenced by evangelical Christianity, which believed it had a duty to ‘save’ unchristian natives. It became a preference over the British working class which endures today. Characteristic of this is Mrs Jellyby in Dickens’s Bleak House, whose eyes ‘had a curious habit of seeming to look a long way off, as if they could see nothing nearer than Africa’. Like the elites she neglected those around her, including notoriously her own children. Her thoughts were directed instead towards the fictitious African possession of Borrioboola Gha and her idealistic plans for its development.

This and other quotations show that Morris' article doesn't say anything that amounts to a rational criticism of universalism, but only of its wrong (non realistic, or non pragmatic) application. Or rather, of something which is not moral universalism but the incapability of seeing the link between cause and effect, an action and its consequences.

The "pathology" it attacks is the pathology of that inability, not of universalism.

That some universalists possess that inability is accidental.

I can easily imagine plenty of examples of particularists displaying it: one is that of barbarians descending on Rome and destroying the wealth of civilisation that could have been so useful for themselves.

Actually, that behaviour can be attributed to their particularism, their cultural short-sightedness and consequent inability to see their long-term interest (even in purely particularist terms).

Morris' example of a Dickensian character is not valid or persuasive either.

Here we have a person, Mrs Jellyby in Bleak House, acting in an irresponsible manner, who is also universalist: there is a correlation, but the causation has not been demonstrated or established.

The Dickensian character is a fallacy, a red herring. (Incidentally, Dickens was a universalist, and it's that universalism that made him campaign for better conditions for the British poor, which shows the absurdity of the YourBNP chap's claim.) A rational - namely, that takes into account the link between cause and effect - application of universalism gives priority to the next of kin, as the most directly affected by a moral agent's actions.

Let’s take a universalist, a Christian man, who has a family. He doesn’t think – and no other Christian expects him to think – that he has the same responsibility for his kids as for some children living on the other side of the earth with whom he has no genetic or cultural links. (In fact, the moral priority given to attention to one's children over strangers is one of the reasons for priest celibacy, as priests could not offer the same care to their flock if they had a family.)

Nobody, including a universalist, expects two parents to look after the children of others in the same way and degree they look after their own.

It's nonsensical. It makes far more sense to divide responsibilities, fragment them into much smaller units than to stipulate that everybody must be responsible for everybody else in equal measure. That applies to nations in the same manner as to families.

Procreation, biology and genetics are part of the universe created by God.

"Honour thy father and thy mother", says one of the commandments.

In the same way that a natural family has unique ties, so has a natural race, which can be seen as an extended family, sharing more DNA than the rest of humanity.

There is no reason why universalism needs to lead to racial suicide and multicultural absurdities, and it is not the cause of current Whites' sad predicament. Only the misunderstanding of universalism is.

Universalism is the basis of ethics. Most ethical theories are universalist, both Christian and secular.

Are we prepared to live without ethics?

Have people understood the consequences of what it means? Without an ethical system to govern a society, the weakest would easily be trampled. If there is no other source of right, might becomes it.

Do we want to become like the rest of the world, like the non-White countries?

Herein lies the contradiction.

People from other parts of the world want to come to the West because it's better. But it's better for us before it's better for them.

And, going back to the post by David Morris, one can hardly say that the current crop of British politicians are morally universalist, let alone a good example of moral universalism. Their moral universe starts and ends with their own self, and their only moral imperative is to get re-elected.