Some people are better than others, and some cultures too. The reason that some cultures can be said to be superior to others is that they enable a wider range of what is good in the sense of allowing many more different characters (mentalities, dispositions), i.e. persons with divergent priorities, to interact and thrive. No culture allows all to thrive, and some will inevitably discourage or sideline certain traits which may thrive in a different, but likely more limited society.
ON INVECTIVE AGAINST RACISM
Mild racism is everywhere, a minor ailment not unlike the common cold, and unlikely ever to be eradicated. The fanatics would have us believe it is the onset of pneumonia.
Most people of whatever ethnicity tend to prefer to associate most closely with those who look and speak much as they do. This is not something that can be forbidden. There are also always exceptions, individuals who prefer the exotic.
The Politically Correct have the simplistic worldview of the Manichaean heresy, a reductionist theory that makes of all life (and not just some) a combat between good & evil, black & white, not allowing for nuance or colour.
It is an abuse of language and thought to conflate extreme genocidal racism, as practised by the Nazis against Jews, or extreme culturalism, as practised now by the Chinese government against Uighurs, with sometimes justified suspicions or reservations about people of different heritage.
CRITICAL ANNOTATED EDITION NEEDED OF THE KORAN
On the subject of a resurgent culture which is the cause of much vexation not only in the public domain:
A few years ago the Bavarian state government, which held the expiring copyright to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf and had refused republication, relented and permitted a heavily annotated edition to be published. The annotations provide historical context, correction of matters falsely asserted as facts, linguistic analysis and much else, as one would expect from an academic forum.
In view of widespread aspersions on The Koran, which are often incorrectly subject to blanket condemnation as islamophobic, would it not be appropriate to launch a similar project for The Koran?
There are some of us, namely, who consider that Islam is the archetype of fascism (“Urfaschismus”).
If Western civilisation has for a few centuries now been the ongoing product of the spirit of the Enlightenment – the project which has created unprecedented prosperity, science, and even some progress towards legitimate government on the groundwork of the separation of powers (judicial, executive, parliamentary, the fourth estate) – then a question may be posed as to the legitimacy of a belief system and ideology which is to all intents & purposes diametrically opposed to all the Enlightenment stands for. In its Sunni and Shiite forms, at least, Islam is, surely, incompatible with European values.
Maybe we are mistaken. But the powers that be wish, it seems, to deprive us of the background to make an informed judgement. Or is it that we should be prevented from forming an adverse judgement?
BREEDING AS A FORM OF WAR: THE BLIND SPOT OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT
There is an emergent matter of concern, which has acquired the dramatic epithet of “le grand remplacement”.
In a world which is, incontrovertibly, grossly overpopulated, the impression has arisen, and rumour has it, that some (ideological, linguistic or ethnic) groups are embarked on a policy of outbreeding the others, being as they are unable to win these over by force of reason or by a demonstrably superior lifestyle. It is not the case that all implicated are pursuing this policy consciously, but some certainly are. It is nothing new.
It is at this juncture that the noble Enlightenment aspiration of universal human rights is in need of refinement. Universal human rights cannot be allowed to mean unrestricted reproductive rights.
In this connection there is, notoriously, a continuing crisis of mass migration to Europe, a sometimes fatal attraction. High-minded politicians who confuse liberalism with laissez-faire (i.e. inaction) are reluctant to look beastly truths in the eye. Each community or nation must have the right – yes, the right – by & large to shape its population density and composition as it sees fit. Anything else tends towards gradual cultural genocide.
Our appeasement Establishment will have no truck with the truth that moral courage sometimes means exposing oneself to public outrage. This, despite Europe’s roots in two figures, Socrates and Jesus, honoured (as none in inferior cultures) for their courage not only in speaking truth to power, but in speaking truth to the mob.
If people from the south (Africa) and the south-east (Middle East) are fleeing war or poverty, it has certainly much to do with recent rapid population growth there. It is a drastic situation, which requires drastic measures. For example, mandatory sterilisation for most (not all) arrivals.
If these people fear returning to their countries of origin, then conscript them for several years to a peace corps or an army which will give them proper training but also military-style discipline. They can learn to defuse booby-traps, clear minefields, rebuild bombed homes, drive, give first-aid, and learn the rudiments of proper governance. Those who opt and are cleared to fight could be deployed to liberate their countries from the tyrants and cliques that predominate there.
Of course it would be expensive. But the alternatives, too.