The Georgetown Time-Traveling Ethics Slavery Freak-Out, or “If You Can’t Count On Jesuits For Ethical Coherence, What Hope Is There?”

"Yikes! Gotta stop that slave sale in 1838!"

“Yikes! Gotta stop that slave sale in 1838!”

Last week, Georgetown University, one of the most prestigious  liberal arts institutions in the nation, took a flying leap into full-fledged radical lunacy, basicly announcing that the entire school’s mission, budget, operations and culture must be centered on self-flagellation for the sins of slavery, and inviting the rest of the nation to do likewise.

As first steps, announced by Georgetown University President John J. DeGioia, the descendants of the slaves who built and worked at the Jesuit institution will be given the same edge in admission consideration as the children of faculty and alumni. Two buildings on Georgetown’s campus campus will be renamed, one for a slave, the other for a black Catholic educator who founded a local school for black girls. The university will also launch a center to study slavery and commission a memorial to slaves. That’s just the beginning.

What spawned all of this–and there is much more to come, if the report guiding the university is going to have the influence it promises—is the discovery that  in 1838, a Georgetown University official, Father Thomas Mulledy, a co-president of the college, sold 272 slaves to a Louisiana plantation in order to keep the college open. Mulledy is being punished for this decision by having his name purged from a campus building and replaced by the name of one of the slaves who was sold. Now, nobody knows anything about “Isaac” other than his name. He could have been a bounder; he might have been a killer, a thief. Never mind. By virtue of simply being a black slave, he is now worthy of honor on the campus, and a priest who devoted himself to the college and his faith is consigned to oblivion.

Thus proceeds the airbrushing of history on our nation’s college campuses and elsewhere, as the leftist theory takes root that the way to control today’s minds is to remake the past to comfortable and politically correct specifications.

The building bearing the name of the other co-president who did not have the foresight to insist that the college dissolve rather than sell off assets in a completely legal and unremarkable transaction for the time will also be renamed, for a black Catholic educator who founded a local school for black girls…in other words, for someone with no connection to Georgetown University or reason to be honored there except her race.

Later, Georgetown is likely to enact other measures recommended in the report, such as mandating new students to take a“Historical Walking Tour of Black Georgetown,” touring the campus and the neighboring area to see sites that were involved with the institution of slavery. The report wants local public schools to collaborate with Georgetown  to teach students about the university’s involvement with slavery. The University needs to “invest in diversity” by improving the “racial climate” on the campus through sensitivity training, also known as indoctrination. There will be ongoing studies on the current consequences of the school’s dependency on slave labor, and, of course, much research will be required to determine who the descendants of those 272 slaves are. No doubt about it: this will be the go-to school for those who want four years of concentration on an institution that was abolished in 1865.

The report itself is stunning in its orientation, beginning with its admission that it was greatly influenced by the writings of the articulate and trendy anti-white racist, Ta Nehisi Coates. A Coates’ quote about racial reconsideration is prominent in the report, though not other more ominous quotes, such as this..

“White America’ is a syndicate arrayed to protect its exclusive power to dominate and control our bodies.”

..or this, his reflections on the police and firefighters who died in the Twin Towers..

“They were not human to me. Black, white, or whatever, they were menaces of nature; they were the fire, the comet, the storm, which could — with no justification — shatter my body.”

Coates is a bitter, angry, anti-white demagogue, and Georgetown University used his philosophy to point the way to an overhaul of campus culture and direction based on guilt over a decision made almost 200 years ago.

The over-reaction by a supposedly responsible major educational institution defies easy explanation omitting the word “hysteria.”.Surely the fact that Georgetown, like many, probably most, conceivably all institutions and organizations dating from the slavery era benefited from the practice and to some extent participated or enabled it was not unknown to DeGioia and his colleagues before the slavery sale began being publicized. Were they just waiting for this opportunity to transform the college into a slavery obsessed exercise in white guilt?

How do intelligent people entrusted with a university dedicated to educating today’s young men and women, at a time when the expense of higher  education has to be brought down for college to be practical, suddenly decide to divert resources to a symbolic exercise in hindsight bias? What sense does it make now to try to make amends to 272 people who are long dead, for an act that was both legally and culturally approved and accepted when it occurred?  “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” which began the process of convincing the American public that slavery was wrong and the blacks were human beings with a right to be treated as such, wasn’t published until 1851. We see now that what Georgetown did in 1838 was wrong, but those responsible didn’t and couldn’t know how wrong it was.

Institutions and the nation itself can’t try to retroactively undo such decisions and events without societal carnage. Make Georgetown’s hysterical approach the universal norm, and we would have to tear down every existing civilization and start from scratch. How much if this nation’s success and wealth is owed to the virtual enslavement of women, as non-voting, unpaid housekeepers and baby machines for the majority of our history? Obviously the appropriation of North America from indigenous people was cosmically unjust. It’s especially ironic for the Catholic Church to focus on one episode of commercial slavery to do modern day backflips over in horror, while the subordination of women remains in the Church’s bloodstream. Speaking of diversity, President DeGioia, where are those female priests? When can your gay priests–and as someone who worked at Georgetown, I can vouch for the fact that there are a lot of them—come out? How much simpler it is to focus attention on the failure of a Jesuit priest in 1838 to divine the progress of human rights.

By what principle of ethics does Georgetown think that current day, qualified applicants should be penalized by the fact that they aren’t the descendants of slaves? Like all affirmative action, this just substitutes one wrong for another except it’s worse: it substitutes a current wrong against innocent parties for a past wrong that wasn’t recognized as a wrong at the time, perpetrated against individuals long past helping, based on race. How does the daughter of Vietnamese refugees deserve to have her chances of being admitted to Georgetown reduced because of a slave sale in 1838?

I don’t think students should want to be educated by social justice warriors whose reasoning is that muddled. I don’t think parents should want tp pay $100,000 or more to have such warped ethical reasoning and poor problem solving skills passed on to their offspring.

Of course, the new admissions policy is just a little racially biased: The preferential admission policy places the descendants of slaves on par with legacy applicants, of whom about 25%  are admitted, compared with the overall acceptance rate of 16%. So it’s a 9% edge. Then again, if you are a non-black student who loses an admission to Georgetown to a less qualified applicant who can trace his lineage to one of the 272, it might as well be 100%. Apparently, since the policy is to make amends, it won’t matter if that slave descendant is mostly white, or if he comes from a filthy rich family. That sure makes sense. Do they teach chaos at Georgetown? How can anyone know that the sale didn’t end up helping some of those sold, by setting in motion unpredictable events? A lot can happen in 178 years.

Amusingly, legacy favoritism at colleges has long been criticized by civil rights advocates as having disparate impact on minorities, and this being intrinsically unfair. Now Georgetown uses it as the template for time-traveling justice, with disparate negative impact on white applicants.

So it’s fine.

Georgetown isn’t really interested in addressing identifiable wrongs directly linked to the sale, since an idiot could figure out that this is impossible. Indeed, if Georgetown wanted to show it was serious about rejecting Thomas Milledy’s decision, it should dissolve, liquidate, and distribute the funds to various service organizations and charities serving the black community—after all, there might be no Georgetown without that sale.  ( This is the time traveling ethics anomaly, isn’t it? If Georgetown diverted funds to invent a time machine and directed student Marty McFly to go back to 1838 and stop the slave sale, he might return to a Georgetown-free D.C., and enrolled at American University.)  Ah, but dissolving the school would mean Georgetown’s administrators would have to suffer for Georgetown’s 1838 sins. Can’t have that. How much fairer it is to make white and Asian kids pay for those administrators’ retroactive remorse!

This is, in essence, racial spoils grandstanding, accompanied by an irresponsible diversion of scarce resources away from education and the setting of an irresponsible and destructive precedent. Campus activists elsewhere are sure to use the Georgetown report to try to make every university a permanent machine for the Advancement of Colored People, to the detriment of anyone who isn’t the “right” color, meaning that they might have somehow gained an advantage from that fateful slave sale. How can Georgetown think this will improve racial harmony? It’s a funny thing: I tend to get angry when I’m discriminated against. Aren’t most people like that? Even when it’s well-meaning, sincere, good discrimination?

In addition, as Georgetown alum (like me) and talk show host John Ziegler notes, the process of retroactive grievance-collecting, once begun, has no stop on the slippery slope:

“Specifically, based on our actions of today, I wonder how in the world we Hoyas can possibly still cling to our school colors of blue and gray. You see those colors have a very real and rich history which directly relates to Georgetown’s unique role the Civil War. Effectively, our gray is a way of honoring our students who went to fight for the Confederacy. I can’t wait to see how fast our administration folds once a “Black Lives Matter” protestor, seeing blood in the water, decides to finally make an issue out of that. I’m guessing our sports teams would be dressed in all black by the end of the week.”

Well thanks, John; it they weren’t going to make an issue of it, they sure will now.


Sources: NPR, Mediaite, LA Times, GU Slavery Archive, Politico

Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts, and seek written permission when appropriate. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work or property was used in any way without proper attribution, credit or permission, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at




Filed under Education, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Dunces, History, Race, This Will Help Elect Donald Trump

100 responses to “The Georgetown Time-Traveling Ethics Slavery Freak-Out, or “If You Can’t Count On Jesuits For Ethical Coherence, What Hope Is There?”

  1. deery

    I don’t really see much of a “hysteria” here. Georgetown, as an ongoing institution, feels an obligation to make amends for what it feels were the obvious wrongs it had committed to 272 people. The fact that it was legal a the time is no excuse. All sort of wrongs were legal, (like slavery itself), so that isn’t necessarily a mitigating factor in analyzing it from a moral framework.. Was it *ethical*? Was it moral? Georgetown feels that their actions were not moral, and thus is trying, in its own way to make amends.

    I don’t see how anyone can complain about giving the descendants of those particular enslaved people legacy status, especially if they have never complained about legacy status itself, an unearned benefit derived not from the achievement of the student, but the actions of their ancestors. The college itself at Georgetown did not admit black students until the 60s.

    The descendants of the people that Georgetown sold are already very well documented, thanks to the efforts of people who worked on family trees out of personal interests. Thus far they have identified over 2,000 people who were descended from those enslaved people. I have not heard thus far any restrictions where those descendants had to be black to qualify for the legacy status. It’s almost a given that some percentage won’t be, though given the nature of how passing works in the United States, those descendants will be somewhat harder to find and identify.

    • “The fact that it was legal a the time is no excuse.”

      Foul. Even if someone says it was legal (which i don’t think anyone actually did.) The point wouldn’t be that legal = ethical. Not here anyway. You new here? The point might be that legal was common, and that it was a vestige of that time, and that as has been pointed out hundreds of times (again, you new here?) it is pointless for us to try to judge 200 year old cases by the moral standards of today.

      And how does this translate into debt 200 years later… No one alive now remembers this… How is this anything but the sins of the father? I think as a rule of thumb is that once all the immediately interested parties are dead, the matter is practically irrelevant.

      Not legally so however, because this is an institution, and an institution is an ongoing concern. It’s easier to poke at institutions and businesses, because they’re giant faceless entities, and while putting them through hardship you can sit back smugly and delude yourself with the fiction that these choices you make have no repercussion for the people working at them who are just trying to get by. It’s also easier legally to poke at institutions and businesses, because they haven’t died. Every single employee could turn over, but the business is the target. But this isn’t a legal issue. The Social Justice Brigade hasn’t been interested in the rule of law for quite some time… They realised the laws weren’t helping them along, and instead of introspectively wondering why that might be, what those laws were supposed to do, and why those things were at one time thought of as positive, they have spurned the law as just another tool of the cis-white-hetero patriarchal institution that is their boogeyman.

      Think about it… When is the last time an SJW used a court of law? Oh there might be the odd one-off example… But it’s far more likely for them to have used media. Look at the rape epidemic on campuses… all these feminists saying they were raped, none of which are going to the police and filing a report, but we know about them because they are more than willing to spout off on Twitter or Jimmy Kimmel. Why? Because the media is currently giving them the satisfaction that the police are not.

      That seems to have went sideways very quickly, but to tie it up into a bow: The kind of people who make grievances about 200 year old slave deals aren’t making those grievances because they feel any connection to a 200 year old tragedy. They’re doing it as a combination of virtue signalling, self-importance, and a need for power and control. They’re not interested in having a moment before the courts, because they know their grievance is materially groundless, and the courts would not give them satisfaction, but before the court of public opinion, because for the moment, that’s where their favourable outcomes are.

      Which makes you wonder… Once the fickle public moves on to the next fad, where will these snowflakes go?

      • [Reply to Humble Talent’s September 5 at 1:32 pm]

        “[T]o tie it up into a bow: The kind of people who make grievances about 200 year old slave deals aren’t making those grievances because they feel any connection to a 200 year old tragedy. They’re doing it as a combination of virtue signalling, self-importance, and a need for power and control. They’re not interested in having a moment before the courts, because they know their grievance is materially groundless, and the courts would not give them satisfaction, but before the court of public opinion, because for the moment, that’s where their favourable outcomes are.

        Which makes you wonder… Once the fickle public moves on to the next fad, where will these snowflakes go?”

        Thanks HT – astute comments. Wow – I go away for a few days, and I miss three new rationalizations, plus comments like HT’s – plus, terminology such as “cis-white-hetero patriarchal” that I absolutely need for what the soon-to-be-permanent authorities will insist I must know, in order to survive and to “truly know history,” in a post-Orwellian, post-Clintonian world.

        I guess I should go away more often, and for longer times [snicker].

        There was a time when I thought the enumerated rationalizations would max-out at somewhere between 60 and 65. Now, I can’t help hanging on in anticipation of “Jack’s 100” – or, perhaps more formally and elegantly (as is fitting), “Marshall’s Hundred.” Though better than a baker’s dozen (being easier on the waistline), it’ll be a precious artifact of doubleplusungoodthink – precious to a faithful, virtually invisible remnant of ungoodthinkers – but likely to be continually vulnerable to censorship and extinction via memory-holing by future generations of Newspeakers who will lack the life experience and culture of communications to make any sense out of it.

        To answer HT’s question: “these snowflakes” he refers to don’t melt. They are congealing, or have congealed, into a deepening, expanding, creeping, world-freezing glacial mass, an ice sheet of thoughtlessness of inexorable force. Every next fad is mere glacial till, lubricant under the ice sheet for its continual march and accumulation of more snowflakes to increase the overall mass and global coverage of Panglacieriana. Humanity will be dead forever long before humans become extinct.

        • Social Justice is the slow entropic heat death of culture. They don’t build anything, they just tear things down. Sometimes with the adage: “You gotta tear it down to build new”, but time and time again finding themselves unable to follow through with the second half.

          • I do agree (if I am understanding you) that the “SJWs” are only building ever bigger, ever more permanent ghettoes of all kinds – in keeping with their innate prime directive for enslaving the world in their ideal, exalted, “anti-slavery” authoritarianism.

    • That’s not even a vaguely coherent defense. The fact that it was regarded as legal and moral at the time means that the offense can only be detected in retrospect, meaning that there is no blame to be attached. When it is discovered, decades hence, that embryos are sentient and human in every way, are you going to retroactively argue that every doctor and mother was a murderer? Nor have you dealt with the core absurdity, which is that Georgetown’s action does nothing to mitigate the wrong to those who suffered it. You just turned off your brain to nod in agreement with a well-meaning harmful, meaningless gesture.

      Deal with my points: it really makes sense to you, for example, that a mostly white son of a millionaire should get an admission edge because of an 1838 slave sale? Really?

      • deery

        What sense does it make now to try to make amends to 272 people who are long dead, for an act that was both legally and culturally approved and accepted when it occurred? “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” which began the process of convincing the American public that slavery was wrong and the blacks were human beings with a right to be treated as such, wasn’t published until 1851. We see now that what Georgetown did in 1838 was wrong, but those responsible didn’t and couldn’t know how wrong it was.

        “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a context…. I think a change already perceptible, since the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is abating, that of the slave rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, the way I hope preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total emancipation, and that this is disposed, in the order of events, to be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their extirpation.” Thomas Jefferson, 1785

        I think it is beyond falsehood to claim that people, even slaveholders did not think slavery was a moral and ethical wrong before 1851.

        Deal with my points: it really makes sense to you, for example, that a mostly white son of a millionaire should get an admission edge because of an 1838 slave sale? Really?

        Does it really make sense that a mostly white son of a millionaire should get an admission edge because his granddad went to Georgetown? Really?

        If you have no problems with legacies, then you should have no problems with this. It is merely putting those descendants on par with Georgetown legacies, nothing more. Their ancestors contributed in a meaningful way to the Georgetown that you have enjoyed today, and furthermore, were never compensated for that by Georgetown. Why shouldn’t the descendants of those people not get a slight benefit from their ancestors uncompensated efforts?

        Being sold “down South” to Louisiana and Mississippi was a well-known threat given to slaves. Imagine, people who were whipped, raped, restricted in every possible way, and yet, being sold to the sugar cane fields was considered a fate even worse than that. It was not a “routine legal and moral transaction at the time.” It was selling your slaves for parts, more or less. People who were forced to work the sugar cane fields tended to have a much lower life expectancy than those who worked other crops.

        • You cite JEFFERSON for that proposition? He obviously didn’t think slavery was wrong enough not to practice it. Hilarious. Society as a whole did not believe slavery was wrong, which is why it remained legal. God, your arguments are so dishonest and hackneyed. The fact that identifiable iconoclasts, curmudgeons, rebels and visionaries happened to be proven right after many decades does not mean that their view was obvious, clear, or even necessarily correct. How wise you are with the benefit of such hard earned wisdom!! If only you were there to point out the obvious in 1776, all of our problems could have been solved! Why couldn’t everyone in 1838 see then what is so obvious now?

          What arrogance and tunnel vision.

          • deery

            I cited Jefferson precisely because he was a slaveholder, who nonetheless knew what he was doing was wrong. He was in debt up to his eyeballs, and did not want to reckon the costs of both freeing the slaves, and having to hire out for labor. More than half the country had abolished slavery by 1830, so it was more than just a few “rebels and outliers” who thought slavery a moral and ethical wrong.

            As you have said repeatedly, legality and ethics are two different things. People knew, from the very beginning, that it was a wrong, morally and ethically. They did not have the strength of will to end it, because they knew the costs that it would entail.

          • Chris

            Jack, I too am curious about your position on legacy students. The move to allow descendants of slaves the same treatment as legacy students seems absolutely just to me, as long as the legacy system exists. Of course, if they abolished both, that would be just as fair, and perhaps better.

            • What does one have to do with the other? Yes, both should be eliminated. But the argument against one applies to the other as well: both unfairly provide advantages on something other than merit. You really think two wrongs improves a situation? It improves it for the newly privileged group, but worsens it for everyone else.

              I was a legacy admit to Harvard, by the way: my Dad was a grad under the GI bill. It would have been a close call otherwise.

        • Isaac

          You still missed the point. Slavery was understood to be reprehensible because it was objectively bad, and the Founders and early Congress debated it endlessly before deciding to put a moratorium on even talking about it because the issue threatened to tear the new nation apart.

          What kept slavery legal for decades were rationalizations, dozens of practical considerations, and the furious lobbying and threats of those who directly profited by slavery. It’s nearly exactly analagous to the current abortion issue. Most of the founders claimed to WISH that slavery could end, even the ones with slaves, just as the Democratic platform, until recently, stated that abortion should be rare, but must continue to exist.

          Imagine (and I think it could very well happen) if male contraception becomes a reality, and other tech improvements converge to make abortion irrelevant in the near future. With no one wanting an abortion anymore, it becomes safe to talk about the scientific reality that a fetus is an individual person. Abortion advocates no longer exist to shout down this reality, or proclaim it sexist, and everyone sudddenly grows a conscience. After a few generations, everyone is comfortable damning abortion as cruel, self-serving and homicidal. Every future liberal insists that had he been alive in 2010, he would have been right there protesting against the fat cats of Planned Parenthood, along with the other progressive anti-abortion liberals of the time. John Kerrys of the future would tell poor future voters that if you vote Republican, they’ll reopen abortion clinics and put fetuses back in chains. College freshmen will assume that liberals like them were always anti-abortion, and they’ll quote religious pro-abortion advocates of the 20th century to confirm that it was the Religious Right backing the evil abortion industry of the regressive past.

          Since the pro-choice crowd uses nearly identical rationalizations as the slavers used, it’s not irrational to conclude that most them would be just fine with slavery if you transplanted them into white bodies born in the 1830s. It’s not about Left and Right so much as about moral clarity without regard to the pressures of the prevailing culture.

          • valkygrrl

            I’m sure you actually believe what you’ve said but you’re ignoring some pretty ugly parts of human interaction, specifically forced pregnancy. I’ll leave you to research how it gets used as a means of destroying ethnic groups as an exercise for the reader since you were only thinking of the accentual kind of pregnancy not institutionalized use of rape but I will leave you with an event I was reading about recently.

            A disturbed individual who raped another because they had fantasies of making a baby despite what the victim would have wanted.


            Our relationship existed largely online and we bonded over all the little things only black trans folks can understand. After years of searching, I thought I found the second piece to the holy trinity I wanted to create, complete with a black trans man and our black non-binary baby.

            I was wrong. He made it clear to me that some trans men do not wish to carry children and it’s not ok to fetishize them in that way. The first time we had sex I can barely remember, as it followed a night of drinking and smoking but I know that we broke two of the most important rules… consent and safe sex

            Bolding mine.

            Consent and safe sex. If that’s too vague, the author decided that a person with female reproductive biology was just the thing needed to create a baby (who’s apparent life outlook would involve the rejection of binary gender roles). Said person’s consent for this was not sought and the person was clear about not wanting to be used a women have been used for millennia. So our author resorted to rape.

            No male birth control, unless done by force, can prevent these situations. No birth control, unless forced, can completely prevent unwanted pregnancies.

            Technology that greatly reduces unwanted pregnancies is worthwhile and I applaud you for wanting it. But please don’t think it’ll magically erase the side effects of religion or malevolence.

      • Spartan

        It wasn’t considered legal AND moral at the time, just legal. The nation already was edging to the brink of war because of this issue and slavery already had been outlawed in all civilized countries. The US was the hold out.

        • As we see today, the US does not let other countries dictate ethics. That, on the whole, is a good thing.

          • Spartan

            Except when we were wrong. And we were very wrong to perpetuate slavery as long as we did.

            • 100% hindsight bias. That’s a facile statement. The anti-slavery forces at the birth of the nation had to either accept slavery temporarily, or give up on independence. It was the right choice—anyone, including Thurgood Marshall, who condemns the founders for that disgraces themselves.It took less than a hundred years, with lots of conflict, and a war, to finally kill slavery, and that was a great achievement. “It was wrong” makes it sound like the institution could be ended with a voice vote. It’s a historically irresponsible thing to say, write, or THINK.

              • Spartan

                You are talking about two different things. The birth of our country vs. the evil of slavery. Their is no hindsight bias here — I can go back to writers at the time who were condemning the peculiar institution.

                But here’s hindsight bias for you — and unpatriotic bias to boot. What would have happened if we had not won the American Revolution? Well, we would have remained part of the British Empire. Presumably we would have ended up a lot like Canada, but perhaps we would have been released from our ownership much sooner (and probably peacefully) given population and industrial power. We wouldn’t have fought the bloodiest war in our history and wouldn’t have continued the forced bondage of Africans for another 80 years.

                World Wars I and II would have ended earlier or might not have happened at all.

                Oh, and we wouldn’t be talking about Obamacare. That alone is worth at least a few moments to bask in alternative history fantasies.

                • WHAT???

                  You are talking about two different things. The birth of our country vs. the evil of slavery.
                  And those two things required the temporary acceptance of one for the other to take place.

                  Their is no hindsight bias here — I can go back to writers at the time who were condemning the peculiar institution.
                  Oh, for God sakes—you too? Yes, and Jules Verne predicted nuclear submarines—so what? That is meaningless. There are iconoclasts and outliers who are in opposition to any societal belief imaginable at any time. The fact that people predict something doesn’t mean it was predictable; the fact that time proves a contrarian right doesn’t mean he or she should have been listened to or could have been.

                  But here’s hindsight bias for you — and unpatriotic bias to boot. What would have happened if we had not won the American Revolution?

                  Yes, there were several essays out of the increasingly disgusting and and anti-American left asking that question around July 4th. Let’s talk again about why so few flags were around at the Democratic National convention. My best guess about the answer: there would be no democracy anywhere, and a lower standard of living everywhere.

                  Yes, it was worth being stuck with slavery a little longer. Democrats and progressives really don’t think so, do they? And that is a serious problem.

      • Chris

        When it is discovered, decades hence, that embryos are sentient and human in every way, are you going to retroactively argue that every doctor and mother was a murderer?

        Is this a hypothetical, or do you really believe that embryos are sentient?

  2. Rick M.

    The results of the slavery system are with us today in the great racial divide. Various methods have been made to correct a situation that still has created a two class society so I will avoid the litany of social and political programs designed to “level the playing field.” We all know and recognize them.

    Georgetown is attempting to cleanse their soul or conscious and the method was a right step. My concern would be just how deserving the recipients are? Is they enough evidence to support that each one is that one or two steps behind thanks to decades of racial disparity?

    • On one hand, we could give black people as a class receive affirmative action, of which a disproportionate amount of candidates will be poor, or should poor people get affirmative action, of which a disproportionate amount of candidates will be black.

      One of those is fair, one of those is racist.

      At what point is the debt paid… I think is the most important question. At what point do we say… Ok… we’ve done enough. Your current state has nothing to do with slavery that happened so long ago, your grandfather wasn’t alive to see it, and more to do with the stupid and bad choices of their descendants.

      • Rick M.

        Slavery may have happened a long time ago, but the residue persists – that is why so many programs have been implemented that directly impact a large portion of Blacks as the recipients. As you state just when is enough enough? Is there a point where you simply say “no more?” When your investment does not have expected returns? Unfortunately, we are dealing with people and not stocks – so the beat goes on.

        • Well, it can’t. You cannot have racial harmony, or justice, or trust, or progress, when one race is constantly told that it can’t succeed unless the other provides constant deference assistance, and the other race will continue to demand preferable treatment forever.

        • Residue… I’m so sick of hearing about this. This is the circular argument:

          “Why should I be on the hook for slavery?”

          “Because you benefited from it.”

          “No I didn’t… My grandfather was a WWII mechanic who came to Canada with an English war bride and 5 bucks in his pocket, and my other grandfather was a Holodomor survivor… They had to earn everything they had from the ground up, generations after the benefits of slavery had been doled out.”

          “Well people like you benefited.”

          “No, people like ME didn’t benefit. At the height of slavery, only 1.4% of Americans owned slaves. People like me were the other 98.6%.”

          “Well those slaves had it awful, they had their society beaten out of them, their good family habits shattered, and they were eventually discarded with nothing.”

          “Agreed…. So what do we do about it?”

          “We give them every opportunity and social program known to man.”

          “O…K…. But that doesn’t give them any incentive to get out, it doesn’t even really empower them to get out, because while the opportunity to succeed is there, they don’t know how to get there from here, and we’re so busy telling them to wallow in their victimhood, no one is really showing them the way out.”

          “Yeah, but it makes my liberal white guilt hurt less.”

          “So why should I pay for your liberal white guilt?”

          “Because of slavery”

          “And why should I be on the hook for slavery?”

          “Because you benefited.”

          • deery

            I can’t speak to the history of Canada, but your example of the post WWII vet who would have come to America instead of Canada, that vet would have certainly benefitted from systematic racism.

            That white vet, in the 40’s, would have been able to take advantage of the GI Bill. The GI Bill allowed vets to use low-cost loans to obtain housing. This benefit was not extended to black vets, who were denied loans, and systematically redlined from even obtaining standard loans. Nor could those black vets be allowed to own housing in the neighborhoods they chose, but were strictly relegated to ghettos, where they could be preyed upon by landlords there.

            These vets were also denied the right to use their educational benefits of the GI Bill to get a college education. Most colleges, even state colleges who were the beneficiary of black tax dollars, denied black vets the right to go there.

            It is accepted wisdom at this point that those two prongs of the GI Bill, housing and education, a largesse given by the federal government, led to the huge boom of prosperity of the 50’s. It also created and exacerbated a huge wealth inequality between the black population and the white one. Because most people have their net worth bound in their house, housing which black people were systematically denied from owning, people were able to pass these benefits and wealth on to the next generation, and the next one after that.

            Discrimination did not stop at 1865, with the abolition of slavery. It has continued on, well within the lifetime of most people alive today.

            • Other Bill

              Okay Deery. Then what’s the solution? What do you want the government to do now? Let’s hear it. What will make this all right?

              • deery

                First an acknowledgment that it happened at all would be a fine start. Apparently people forgot about events that only happened a few decades ago. All the better to dismiss the effects today, I’m guessing.

                • No no, my cycle, which your comment directly followed, explicitly takes into an account the understanding that black Americans got an horrifically, unaceptably shitty deal. My example was slavery, so perhaps you didn’t see the logic following, but if it helps the conversation along, I stipulate that discrimination against black people has happened, to an extent it is still happening, and that it is a blight on our collective enlightenment.

                • Other Bill

                  That’s it? Acknowledge slavery and discrimination happened? That’s all? Why don’t you go to Antietam sometime and watch the film they show when you enter the battlefield and see whether slavery and discrimination have ever been acknowledged by the government (U.S. Park Service) or the tens of thousands of Americans that died there.

                  So what’s next?

                  • This is a good point to make. Three hundred thousand northern boys died in that epic struggle. But even with that as a reference the basic facts do not change. So yes, the northern government ended slavery. But then it did not, or perhaps could not, follow through on Reconstruction. And the nation was tardy — very tardy — getting around to implimenting with any seriousness the content of the 14th Amendment. No matter what, one is always remiss.

                    An activist will note all this, notice the hypocricy, or the failed good indentions (or whatever it is), and can just as well use all of that against those who seek to no longer be held in bondage by the history of chattel slavery and racial discrimination.

                    I draw a parallel in fact between the exploitation of guilt by Jews in Europe to that of the guilt of the crime of slavery and exploitation. It is this guilt which has been established as an ontological principle within the very being of the European *exploiter*. Again, the European grammar of self intolerance is a grammr that we have been taught; it has been installed in us at a fundamental level. Because it is an *understructure* (or a forestructure to thought and perception) the work required to disassemble it, to neutralize it, is very very hard to come to terms with.

                    This issue of guilt is thus much larger, and much more debilitating and complex, than the issue itself.

                    • Other Bill

                      Alizia, I’d say there’s a difference between the Black Lives Matter movement and, for example, the Anti-Defamation League. The ADL responds to particular instances of anti-Semitism. They don’t say anti-Semitism is “systemic” or “institutional.” They simply seem to assume it’s a chronic problem that needs to be addressed and countered when it raises it’s ugly head. I think the BLM people, if they were not actually Marxist revolutionaries could do well taking the same tack. They could rationally address specific instances of racism. Instead, they want to basically re-formulate the entire social contract in America. They want the police to stop policing. They want various criminal behavior legalized. They are irrational. The ADL is very, very rational. Big difference. Also, I just don’t see Jewish groups shaking down various institutions for money and programs by playing on guilt. I do see people like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson doing that, however.

                    • I see your points.

                      I am less interested in how each of these minorities works their complaint and grievance, and am only really interested in its effect on white Europe. In my view the ‘guilt’ functions similarly, or is used in a similar way.

                      But you bring up an interesting, if difficult, issue in contrasting BLM (or Black Liberation) and the Jewish issue. Not really the place to do into it though I am sort of tempted.

            • Well, first off, my grandfather was an American in WWII who decided to move to Canada, and so for your example to accurately mirror my example, it would be a Canadian vet who settled in America, and that person wouldn’t benefit from the GI bill.

              But that’s anecdotal. I understand that wasn’t the norm. So the question is… Does someone being denied a benefit mean that everyone else who benefited, did so as a product of racism?

              I think that’s a very weak argument, it assumes that the benefit was racist in nature… It wasn’t. The benefit to the vets was patriotic in nature, and the discrimination was racist. The benefit only becomes an example of systematic discrimination if the benefit was predicated on the discrimination, that is, in this case, had the benefit not been feasible had the black vets been included, and their dis-inclusion made the benefit possible. At that point the white vets would have actually been benefiting from discrimination, as opposed to the black vets suffering from it.

              Following that, we’re squarely back in the original cycle… I agree: The discrimination against black vets following WWII was awful. So what do we do about it?

            • That white vet, in the 40’s, would have been able to take advantage of the GI Bill. The GI Bill allowed vets to use low-cost loans to obtain housing. This benefit was not extended to black vets, who were denied loans, and systematically redlined from even obtaining standard loans. Nor could those black vets be allowed to own housing in the neighborhoods they chose, but were strictly relegated to ghettos, where they could be preyed upon by landlords there.

              Was this redlining required by the state?

              • deery

                With FHA loans and GI loans, it was implemented by the state. They also refused to back loans made by private mortgage lenders who did not use the redlining system. So yes, required by the state/government.

      • As far as I can tell, that sums it up perfectly.

        • Wow, that’s going to be more confusing than I intended, since I didn’t realize this reply was going to be separated from the original post.

          I was responding to Humble Talent’s post when I said it summed up the situation perfectly:

          “On one hand, we could give black people as a class receive affirmative action, of which a disproportionate amount of candidates will be poor, or should poor people get affirmative action, of which a disproportionate amount of candidates will be black.

          One of those is fair, one of those is racist.

          At what point is the debt paid… I think is the most important question. At what point do we say… Ok… we’ve done enough. Your current state has nothing to do with slavery that happened so long ago, your grandfather wasn’t alive to see it, and more to do with the stupid and bad choices of their descendants.”

    • How is this “a right step,” when it is ridiculous and irresponsible on its face? How does it help the actual victims? How do we know the sale didn’t make them better off? Why should a penny be taken from the resources to educate current students for this grandstanding? Why should a modern institution be obsessed by an institution that vanished in the US in the 19th Century? Why should my son, adopted from Russia, be at a disadvantage in applying to college to a millionaire’s child who happens to be 1/64 related to a slave? It’s insanity, and the fact that so few voices dare to say so is proof of how intimidated we are of being labelled “racist.”

      • Rick M.

        This has nothing to do with “Mother Russia.” This is an American issue and not to be confused or associated with various other nations and their historical grievances. I would, however, gladly file a claim on behalf of my serf grandparents.

        This is designed to help the victims descendants and that is quite clear in what Georgetown has stated. Here is exactly what I wrote in my last two sentences.

        My concern would be just how deserving the recipients are? Is they enough evidence to support that each one is that one or two steps behind thanks to decades of racial disparity?

        If you honestly and truly believe that there is no pattern of systematic and institutionalized racial discrimination then Georgetown is certainly “grandstanding.” I, however, will subscribe to the opposite. What is difficult is – as I stated above – determining just who is deserving.

      • deery

        Why should your son be at an advantage in admissions because you went to Georgetown, against someone whose father did not happen to go to Georgetown? Where’s the railing against that?

        • He shouldn’t be. I said that in the post. On top of everything else, the slave policy is hypocritical. My son should be evaluated on his own efforts and ability, and I, as well as my ancient slave ancestors are completely irrelevant.

          Now as a law school grad only, my degree doesn’t help my son one bit, and wouldn’t unless I gave money to GU, which I haven’t and certainly won’t now, since it flows into the pockets of lucky beneficiaries of silly Jesuit guilt and SJW bias.

      • valkygrrl

        You think the white son of an affluent white guy is in any way disadvantaged in college admissions? Really?

        • Think. Obviously, in a system where a descendant of a slave gets an unearned competitive advantage, anyone who does not get the advantage is penalized by definition. The math isn’t hard. It’s zero sum game. If someone jumps ahead in line based on race, someone will fall out the back. I’ve been involved in admissions, at Georgetown, in fact. Sons of affluent white families miss the cut all the time. They shouldn’t miss the cut because of their skin color.

  3. If you don’t see how this is wrong and destructive after reading the post there is very little anyone could say that would help you see it. You might want to read or re-read Thomas Sowell’s many essays on the subject to help you see that keeping people in a perpetual state of grievance and childish dependence is the worst possible way to raise them up or to allow them to raise themselves up.

  4. Patrice

    My only question — isn’t there something, outside of the medical profession, that holds “first, do no harm”? There is no way that this decision could fit under that banner. Slavery way monstrous. The sale of slaves to owners in another part of the country was monstrous. As you wrote, there is no way to give recompense to those victims. It would seem that restitution to descendants of those victims might be justified. But such restitution can not be at the expense of the rights of someone else. The only just way to make restitution is to find a way that doesn’t adversely affect others. Not sure that’s possible.

    I am sympathetic to descendants of slaves. I’m also sympathetic to descendants of Native Americans, descendants of ethnic groups who were part of the mass immigration to the US who ended up being discriminated against, children of families who can’t afford the high tuition at a place like Georgetown, veterans who were not welcomed back from Viet Nam and ended up homeless and helpless, et al. Granted, GU doesn’t have (to my knowledge) some evil history with other groups.

    As a potential Affirmative Action precedent, it is indeed the beginning of a very slippery slope.

  5. Other Bill

    Nice post, Jack.

    Our daughter got her B.A. and Masters from Georgetown and it was great for her and a bargain for us back in the ’90s at 20K a year. Bless her heart, she managed to get her B.A. in three years and then her Masters on Georgetown’s nickel in another year (or two, I forget. It was free so I wasn’t counting.) It was a great school for her. The Jebbies did a great job with all the kids. I remember being particularly impressed by the freshman orientation program. They just did a nice job of making kids from all over the world feel pretty comfortable there.

    I suspect this sudden outburst of inanity is driven by fear of losing federal funding for not being sufficiently diverse. It’s the only explanation I can come up with for why college administrators all over the land seem to have suddenly and irretrievably lost their minds. This is the functional equivalent of reparations on the scale of a single institution. It’s completely rational and correct according to Herr Coates and his brown shirts and doubtless the federales running the funding of college and university grants. Authentic Frontier Gibberish has won the day.

    And by the way, adjusting to Georgetown was not easy for our daughter. There were lots of rich kids and lots of boozing Irish Catholic kids and bright Korean kids and preppies and otherwise brutally competitive little monsters. I suspect a fairly large portion of the unfortunate legacy slave descendant/affirmative action kids will struggle, be miserable, probably flunk out or withdraw and be scarred for life.

    What a disaster for a formerly very good school run by adults.

    I second your thought on the gays in the priesthood. The Catholic clergy and hierarchy have been nothing other than a gay cabal for centuries (or millenia – take your pick).

    • Other Bill

      Query: When are the Jebbies going to provide reparations to all the descendants of the Jews they tortured and murdered or drove out of the Iberian peninsula or underground during the Inquisition? Anyone? Beuhler?

      • Now THERE I have some claim. I also have a PayPal account.

        • Other Bill

          Jewish Lives Matter, Alizia. Oh, wait, Jewish people take care of themselves and their own as best they can regardless of the larger society within which they ultimately flourish. I forgot. Never mind.

          • It is fair and reasonable to point out that ‘we’ have carried out a similar exploitation of guilt in the post-war era. See Finkelstein and the ‘Holocaust Industry’ and consider the astounding sums gotten from Germany. All told over $60 billion (give or take).

            Once the veil is punctured, and once one begins to see clearly, edifice after edifice fall to the ground. How to make sense of the stark picure left there to see is beyond my capabilities at this moment.

            • Other Bill

              The Germans randomly and industrially murdering as many millions of Jews (men, women and children, and other non-Jews) they could round up was worse than U.S. slavery. Perhaps their use of slave labor in their factories was analogous.

              • Part of The Red Pill cure has to do with revisionism. I have made this effort and for this reason I now understand that the official narrative is false in numerous ways, yet this does not change the underlying terribleness of the German endeavor: social divorce of the Jewish population.

                I suppose it will come as little surprise that I accept the historical revisionism (revisionism taken in its necessary and logical sense of simply ‘looking at once again’) of David Irving, a very able historian and I think a noble English man. His talks on Dresden and long interviews where he speaks of his research are on YouTube and are quite good).

                Possibly for the first time he offers a line of view to actually be able to see clearly what went on. And as you know I often say that *seeing clearly* is a trmendously difficult project in our time because, at every turn, and for so many reasons, we are lied to.

                But these are very complex and contentious issues as you know. And I imagine that you are aware that people are raised-up on certain Views and, once installed, find them hard to modify.

                What I think is more interesting than the contention itself, is the notion of how a view of reality is created through narratives, and how these narratives are infused with (what I call) metaphysics. Our core narratives though are linked to propoganda stories and in this sense are peculiarly modern.

                Though they don’t seem like they could or should, these narratives dovetail with ontological questions of the most profound order. And so The Red Pill (to take in and allow to work on one a sort of *medicine* that restructures perception) is in my understanding a Spiritual Work. I began as a Jew that converted through Christianity to another possibility of seeing. And I have successively pierced one *veil* after another. I don’t know ehre it leads but I fear I won’t be canonized. 😉

                This IS relevant to the issue being discussed in this thread, though I admit that as is normal I take things at a meta-political level, because it has an acute relevance to white guilt, and white identity, and to the structure and integrity of the European self. (Yet I also will apologize since, in fact, I often feel guilt for pushing on questions and expanding them. Well, it is my nature to do so).

                • Chris

                  So now Alizia is a segregationist and a freaking Holocaust denier? Why am I not surprised?

                  • Ay, Chris! There is much work ahead of you. One has to go through these things one by one and sloooooooowly. There certainly and beyond all doubt an effort to cut out the Jewish population of Germany, or what I call ‘social divorce’. This is detailed in Hilberg’s ‘The Destruction of the European Jews’ (said to be the most thorough documentation, and which I have read a good portion). But there are significant differences between what was said to have happened and what happened in fact. (But none of this changes that it was an enormously destructive event for European Jewry).

                    I had written a bit more here but am backing out. This is just not the place for this discussion.

                    • Chris

                      Don’t tell me I’ve got work to do. You just cited this guy:

                      David John Cawdell Irving (born 24 March 1938) is an English Holocaust denier[2] and author who has written on the military and political history of World War II, with a focus on Nazi Germany. His works include The Destruction of Dresden (1963), Hitler’s War (1977), Churchill’s War (1987), and Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich (1996). Though Irving’s revisionist views of World War II were never taken seriously by mainstream historians, he was once recognized for his knowledge of Nazi Germany and his ability to unearth new historical documents. Irving marginalized himself in 1988 when, based on his reading of the pseudoscientific[3] Leuchter report, he began to espouse Holocaust denial.[4]
                      Irving’s reputation as a historian was discredited[5] when, in the course of an unsuccessful libel case he filed against the American historian Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books, he was shown to have deliberately misrepresented historical evidence to promote Holocaust denial.[6] The English court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite, and racist,[7] who “for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence”.[7][8] In addition, the court found that Irving’s books had distorted the history of Adolf Hitler’s role in the Holocaust to depict Hitler in a favourable light.


                      The “work” you’ve done has been the work of deluding yourself, of justifying your racism and anti-Semitism with absurdly fake history. You get to work; you’re nuts, and need help.

                    • Sure, that is pretty much standard fare. From my perspective it is a hack-job among many hack-jobs.

                      And most people, perhaps like you, will stop at that point and go no further. Those are impassable obstacles to anyone who desires to see themselves as righteous and good. And such barriers have been established all around us. Groupthink, propaganda constructs: this is what we have to struggle to see through.

                      But when you start to peel back the layers — I’d suggest this as an endeavor for you — you find a more complex story. Then, one really has to do some moral work.

                      According to Irving, ‘mainstream historians’ are a group of historians who simply avail themselves of the established narrative which, in fact, it is illegal to oppose or to refute. You do understand this, right? Irving spent 14 months in prison because he held to and holds to his historical research findings, from examination of the primary texts. You can access the videos where he speaks of his experience.

                      Yet I know that none of this can or will influence you. In my view you are a solid example of the True Believer. You defend your received view — that is, the one you have done zero work in forming — with all the psychological force of your being. That is really the more interesting fact. It is much more relevant to what I understand as the topic of this thread: How white guilt is established, grown and harvested.

                      There are certain zones and districts where one is simply not permitted to think freely. The only way to get some idea of this is to transgress the borders, flip back and forth, and then see what you think.

  6. Rick M.

    A little historical note: Massachusetts never abolished slaery. The 13th “officially” did it. A historical quirk since there were no slaves in Massachusetts after 1790.

  7. The object of Black America should be, in my humble opinion, to secure their own Republic where they can fully flower as a people. I propose that, at bottom, this is what they desire as a people, I mean ‘psychologically’. I see no wrong in hoping that they themselves (they who can and do think in terms of ‘us’ and who recognize themselves as distinct) would themselves develop the will and desire to have and to run their own Republic. Farakan has said as much and so have Black Muslims. It is not a novel idea. It is not necessarily a ‘racist’ idea either.

    Strange to say, also tragic in the original sense, but it is likely that they would not be able to run such a Republic. Such a republic would devolve as South Africa is devolving. Into barbarism. It is rather unpopular to say that the Black race is a totally dependent race: dependent on the white European will that made the country and established its laws, and incapable of carrying on, except through a bit of imitation, for any length of time. This appears to me to be true.

    There will never — not ever — be an ‘end’ to racial issues until and unless 1) the Republic becomes a mulatto population or 2) until the Republic divides. At that point the *problem* will be solved. You cannot expect that a people, released from prior bondage, will ever be able to come to terms with the descended body of those who enslaved them. The solution? Brazil.

    Saying this, I recognize, is a sin against the very current of godly consciousness itself. It is a statement that contradicts so much of the false-understanding of our present. But yet that false understanding is quite empowered and certain of itself.

    I am simply amazed that white European people have been so psychologically overpowered that they agree to give themselves over to the pathos of guilt. It’s ‘the European grammar of self-intolerance’ taken to an extreme and the complete loss of self-confidence and self-empowerment. It HAS to end, and when it does en (because it is perverse and *unnatural*) its reversal will likely be over-compensatory.

    • Chris

      No one here cares what a racist segregationist thinks black people should do, Alizia.

      • That is of course at least somewhat obvious! Even to me (as *racialist*: you really must remember the nomenclature so kindly offered up by our likely next Fearless Leader).. Yet it is a fair point to make that there are hundreds and thousands and perhaps even millions of people, here and in Europe, who are beginning to forge paths of thinking the purpose of which is to get out from under this debilitating guilt and what amounts to a cutting away at one’s own flesh. It is a process, essentially, of turning away and dismantling the consuming guilt — like pulling a thorn out of the side of one’s head — and getting on with far more necessary projects. True, those projects might be non-intelligible to you (and those who think like you), yet they can be defined. It is a bit of a radical project to do so. We also desire to know: How did it happen that we wound up in this position? That is all part of reversing it.

        So you are actually somewhat wrong in your analysis on some levels. Wise to take that into account. I maintain that it is much more likely that some people at least understand where I and others like me are coming from becuase they feel and understand something similar inside their selfs but, perhaps, don’t know how to explain it or justify it. And just as I seek to forge a path to that understanding and empowerment — and don’t quite have it — other people too might follow. That is how it worked for me anyway.

        You also pretty clearly make the mistake of pigeon-holing me (and those who think similarly to me) into an ‘evil camp’, as if I or we are cruel people desirous of doing harm. But that is your mistake of perception. For that is not what motivates me at all. I do not believe in ‘blended destinies’ and I choose, against all opposition, to have and to define my own destiny.

        When I read numerous of the comments here what rises in me most strongly is a desire to GET OUT FROM UNDER the entire structure of valuation which seems to have white European-Americans down on the ground and with tremendous weight on them.

        They cannot rectify a past which obviously they cannot control, but neither can they completely deny that they are not the beneficiaries of what has occurred in the past. This class of white guilty hand-wringing liberal Americans (and certainly some conservatives too) has made possibly the most extraordinary efforts to transfer resources and opportunity to the former slave-race, and stumble over themselves to make amends.

        It literally gets to the point of cutting off their own limbs or tossing their own children toward some kind of Moloch: It cannot ever be quenched Chris. The more it is fed, the hungrier it gets. The hungrier it gets, the more it clamors to get its hands not on ‘justice’ (what a farse!) but in truth on power. Just like anyone and everyone. The most delicious thing for a former slave (anyone who had been oppressed by some other is to is to see the roles reversed).

        Yet I do formally, and respectfully, acknowledge that in a certain sense you are very right in your analysis, and at the same time I can honestly say I sympathize with your sentiment knowing that you are not insincere in having them (those of the SJW).

        I desire to be something opposite of the social justice warrior. A warrior, yes. But a warrior for my own people and my own destiny (and a supporter of the same in others).

        • valkygrrl

          You’re not a warrior for your people, you’re another Dan Burros.

          • Your point would hold 1) if I had ever concealed anything about my origins, from myself or anyone else, 2) if I did not have European blood because of the principle convert who had a great deal to do in making me me. 3) I had not taken The Red Pill, and 4) If I were remotely interested or drawn to skinheads and neo-Nazis!

            It is a very new era all the way round valkygrrl. Going to the core, one finds the most important issues discussed in the most serious way. I mean among the emerging philosophers of this ‘movement’. You speak to caricatures. Now, it has to do with sobriety, clear-seeing and also idealism.

            This is surely not the place for the discussion that your comment would inspire but yet there are a few interesting aspects. You see, with your statement, with its possessive barbs, you yourself reveal much about Jewish Identity and why it is problematic. In the end, to serve *that people* is surely not to be capable of serving Europa and there will always be divided loyalty. (And if you think that a mild conversation that deals on a slight touching of black and white issues is contentious, the full conversation on The Jewish Question would melt some people’s minds here and then the Black Helicopters would come swooping down).

            “…Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die…”

            If it can work in one direction it should be able to work in the other? I’m King of Moab’s daughter turned bad I suppose …

            Jewish Identity is actually dead and a sort of corpse or disembodied spirit still walking around moaning. But there, I’ve said too much (again).

            • Chris

              “This is surely not the place for the discussion that your comment would inspire but yet there are a few interesting aspects.”

              This is not the place for any of your “discussions,” which are incoherent and offensive to everyone else here but you. Try Stormfront.

              • Counter-Currents
                Radix Journal
                Taki’s Magazine

                Here is a somewhat comprehensive list:

                • Chris

                  Is it really ethical to allow Alizia to continue to use this blog as a dumping ground for drive-by mentions of fascist white supremacist organizations? Every single “thinker” she references here can be found with a quick Google search to be a racist, a Holocaust denier, or some other disgusting type of quack. At some point, could the consistent linking and citing of these people hurt the reputation of this blog?

                  • Well, opinions are welcome. I don’t ban people based on content until it crosses into chimpmania territory. Alizia repeatedly volunteers to leave…I have repeatedly said that she is civil, articulate and brings a unique perspective. I confess—I usually don’t read her posts. I try to avoid enforced homogeneity. She comments on things other than this: explain to me how I would partition her comments on race from those of other usually rational commenters here regarding homosexuality?

                    You tell me, Chris: I’m curious. I think it’s a tough call.
                    She did have one Comment of the Day.

                    • Rick M.

                      I like Aliza, but, then again, I also enjoy Shark Week and Freddie Kruger.

                    • I had a comment of the day? When? Where?

                    • Gee, I thought you did, but I can’t find it. I must have dreamed it. I’m sorry. Something to shoot for!

                    • Beth

                      So, as long as Alizia is polite about her racism it’s okay? I wondered if this was your test. She is a repulsive human being and the fact that she uses 20 words when 5 would do isn’t a mark in her favor. At least it doesn’t take me as long to read the Chimpania blog.

                      And here’s the difference with the few homophobics on this site. First, equal rights for gays is still a fairly new concept, so I am willing to give some time for people to come around on this issue. Second, it is clear that most of the people here who express these views struggle with them and examine them. Alizia does no such thing. She relishes in her racism and is trying (pointlessly I might add) to recruit others to her cause. Either that or she’s trolling. There are sites for people like her — this isn’t one of them.

                    • That’s a persuasive argument, Beth. Is that the consensus? Because I really struggle with this. Ideas should be tested and challenged, Just banning people who hold offensive views seems like a slippery slope to me.

                    • Rick M

                      Bad behaviors and not bad ideas should be banned.

                    • This is how hyper-liberalism functions. You are allowed to have a ‘retrograde’ view since we know, in time, you will grow out of it. But we will allow it only for that reason. What if those who hold those views do not ever change them? Ah, at that point things get more nasty. The liberal morphs the world to fit his or her’s views and s/he does it knowing she is right. It is that assuredness of being *right* that always amazes me. Yet I understand it.

                      The fact is I have not ever expressed any classically racist ideas, nor said anything bad or harmful, much less hateful, against anyone. Why? Because I do not have those feelings.

                      I am a Eurocentric and, I suppose it it were available as an option, a Euro-nationalist. Not in a strict and absolute sense (it would work against my own self!) but in a general way. I also believe in rediscovering and reempowering white identity, but encourage the same in people of all ethnicities. I do not see what is wrong.

                      Yet even these ideas — relatively modest — are impermissible within a hyper-liberal setting. Hyper-liberalism thus reveals that it is a project of limiting free speech and free thought. Sure, have ‘free speech and free thought as long as it is the thought we tell you to have! This is exactly what is seen on the campuses these days. And here it shows itself in discourse.

                      The most notable aspect, from my perspective, is the level of hate leveled against contrary thinking and an avoidance to engage in debate.

                    • Chris

                      Personally, Jack, I would have banned her a long time ago. But we have different deal breakers; as Beth alludes to, you don’t tend to ban people over ideas, even horrific ones, but over tone. You’ll ban hysterical partisans for being hysterical partisans, but Alizia sounds articulate and respectful, even though her ideas are completely disrespectful towards Jews and non-whites.

                      I’m not going to tell you how to moderate this blog; I was just asking a question about the ethics. But as Beth also points out, Alizia is trying (unsuccessfully) to use this as a recruiting station for budding white supremacists. No one has bitten. Yet.

                    • That’s a fair assessment. One problem I have is that while her sentiments really are disrespectful to blacks, lots and lots of completely valid arguments that merely dare to challenge race-based activist positions from others are routinely condemned for the same offense….not here, very often, but elsewhere, and in prominent places.

                    • I only want to be able to choose my own casket. I’d like it to be a deep rich ebony black, but lustrous and fine. And I’d like to have a hunter green velvet lining. A little deeper than hunter green though. But less than forest. (Let me see some swatches please). Like The Hunter Graucchus I want to load my casket on a barque and I want to ‘wander aimlessly and eternally over the seas’.

                    • Having thought about it some I am of the opinion that the use of the term ‘racist’ should be understood as an unacceptable term of discourse. The reason is simple: it is used without any supporting argument. I do not deny that there are some people who have and express ugly, disrespectful terms of abuse or too-quick judgment, and I also accept the term ‘bigot’ if it is qualified by a specific context. I think that unfair, cruel, unthinking condemnation of any other person for any reason is to be avoided. I live out of my own values and express my values in what I do and how I treat people.

                      Yet I hold — intellectually, philosophically, sociologically — to the idea, which I feel I can also support with clear, direct and well-reasoned arguments, that I have every right, just as any other one has the right, to define myself to myself, to link myself through my heritage and my biology to a group that I can call ‘my people’ (that is expressed in a pan-national term of ‘Europa’), and I can work to establish definitions which 1) describe favorably ‘my people’, their achievements, their history and as well their destiny, and distinct from others, and if necessary in contradiscinction to any other people, and 2) defend Europa from a general definitional attack carried out against it for a host of reasons which, in my own view, have arisen in the early 20th century and almost entirely within the European context. (It arises out of deep crisis in the early century and the two world wars). I also feel ethically justified in noting, and describing, any particular facet or aspect of how a general calumny has been carried out against European identity and how this fits into larger patterns — patterns that operate negatively against Europa (in the sense that I use this term) — which can be alluded to with the term ‘multiculturalism’.

                      There is another aspect here and it most certainly hinges into very important issues of free thought, free thinking, intellectual and also scientific freedom, and the freedom to form thought or carry out research which results in the expression of ideas that some others may term ‘offensive’ (or ‘disrespectful’).

                      A great deal hinges in this. I suggest that we live in an era, and I use terms like ‘hyper-liberalism’ and such to describe the regime of thinking in which we live, that explicitly or implicitly applies force to ensure thought-conformity. You-plural may or may not recognize this as a problem, yet based on Jack’s own words and a huge part of his own endeavor within ethics I have no doubt that he understands this issue very well (and has expressed it just now), but I suggest, forcefully, that even putting aside my own opinions and suggestions, seen and described by some as retrograde or ‘discredited’, that one CANNOT limit the speech that one does not like if it is articulated well, sincerely and with solid argumentation, simply on the basis of expressing — and this is how I encapsulate both Beth and Chris’ ‘arguments’ — dislike for the content of that speech.

                      Effectively, they have no argument and offer no argument nor have any intention of arguing. Yet they would the both of them work to see me excluded on the basis of slanderous opinion. Chris tells me I am ‘racist and gross’ and Beth tells me I am a ‘repulsive human being’. Chris offers no reasoned arguments of any sort, ever. Beth relies on slander, ad hominem of the most transparent sort, and a once-in-a-while statement that some of the people’s ideas that I read and refer to have been ‘discredited’.

                      And that is it. The rest is emotional outburst, underhanded insult and slander.

                      But I can express, I do express, and desire to continue to express in reasonable terms the structure of my understanding and the content of my ideas. This is my project. And I have no shame or embarrassment in saying that my participation in this blog, on the theme of ethics within an American legal-ethical context, has been taken by my as a challenge. I desired to rise to the challenge and to see how well I could carry it out.

                      Are my ideas ethical or are they not ethical? No one can say to me ‘You are unethical’ without offering a solid argument as to why I am so. Saying something, declaring something, proves nothing. In fact to use those tactic is a failure of argumentation. I assert that it is possible, and also necessary, to defeat and to reverse a whole tide and current of liberal notions which *inform our present* yet the only way to do this is through sound and fair argumentation, backed by some grasp of philosophy, culture and history, and bolstered by some grasp of rhetoric. (This is my understanding of Richard Weaver’s method). To this end I have read, and very closely, at least 40 different works on a wide range of themes and relevant to my project. From Horkheimer to Gramsci and from Hitler’s Table Talk to Robert Bork, from Chomsky to Jefferson.

                      This is not ‘racist’ and evil work. It is in its essence spiritual work. That is exactly what I said and it is what I mean: spiritual work. In fact, that is how I relate to the US Constitution: as terrestrial theology. It is High Idea which gets translated into an existential terrestrial economy. And no one of you can succeed in telling me that I am off track. But if you did you;d have to do so with structured argument.

                      Once again I declare: I will think whatever thought I desire to think; I will conduct any research I desire to conduct; I will source any materials that I desire to source; and I will express my understandings whenever I want and using all the tools of language. What I CANNOT do, nor have I ever assumed that I could (or should) is to do all this within an intellectual space that I do not oversee or control. For this reason, and on 5 different occassions over the last year+ I have written Jack to ask if it is OK that I continue to write here. It would be fair and reasonable for him to say no, and I would have, and will, abide by that decision.

                      So: Here I have decimated, I have ripped into miserable shreds and shards the slanderous and unethical *charges* brought against me, and by two unethical people who are brazen in holding to their destructive ideologies, yet who do so in the name of righteousness and goodness.

                      THAT is what we have to watch out for.

                    • valkygrrl


                      I don’t support banning for objectionable opinions. Hell, many people find my opinions objectionable and I don’t like being banned, it hurts my feelings.

                      Expressing opinions in an objectionable way, perhaps by sealioning, is a different story.

                    • I was trying to figure out what the heck the sea-lions had to do with anymof this. Then I saw that it is a specialized Internet term: Sealioning:

                      Here is one interesting part from the above:

                      “These questions are not asked because the person genuinely wants to know. If they did, they would do their own digging based on your statements, and only ask for obscure or difficult-to-discover information. This is the “debate principle”; when you go to a debate, you educate yourself on the topics at hand, and only request evidence when a claim is either quite outlandish or unflinchingly obscure.

                      “No, these questions are asked to make you waste your time. It works, too; I’ve responded to sealions before, answering all their questions and claims for evidence, only to be greeted by even more willful ignorance. It’s a way to force you into responding to questions phrased neutrally but asked in bad faith.”

                      These attacks by Beth and Chris are not intended to be arguments or to open into conversation and are motivated by *bad faith*. They are designed and intended to thwart advance and to draw me down into defenses I should not have to make in a responsible, intelligent and somewhat trained intellectual environment.

                      They discredit my sources, which I only refer to and do not support or condone necessarily, without having any familiarity with them, nor any intention of getting familiar. They do not challenge a particular point and ask for clarifications or support ‘evidence’, but essentially make a scene, an embarrassing scene, which drags the conversation away from the essential to side-issues and rancorous exposition. Overall, this works against me as I am turned into *a problem* when I only desire to express my ideas and debate them fairly.

                      The whole purpose is to cause to waste time because if one is to remain in integrity with oneself, one must defend oneself. But in doing so one consumes space, embarrasses those around, and ‘pollutes the site”. Yet the real problem is those who apply these tactics to harm the overall position of the other, which they have unfairly and unsupportedly condemned.

                      It must be a variation of the ‘sealion’ meme!

                    • Chris

                      So typical of the alt-right:

                      “Nothing should be off-limits in open discourse! Also, the term “racist” should be off-limits in open discourse!”

                    • Pathetic rejoinder Chris. And anyway I already slaughtered you. How dare you resurrect under such ignoble conditions!

                      Were you ever to actually read from the various phiosophers of the dread Alt/Right you would know 1) there is wide difference of opinion about the necessity or the validity of focussing on ‘race’ outside of an entire context of culture, history, locality, general sensibility, etc., and 2) when race and biology are discussed there is no holding back from analysis because of restraints placed by PC formulations.

                      In order to enter into this conversation you would have to have familiarity with it. You do not. You hear *trigger terms* that in your milieu allow you to launch into hysterical tirades of righteousness supported by an entire political metaphysics.

                      You have no self-understanding and no tools that allow you to see yourself and what informes you. You are incapable of self-analysis and shielded from its necessity by your arrogant assumption that you are right and justified.

                    • A very interesting interview with Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents by a French Marxist undertaking an investigation of the American ‘Alt-Right’. (See link at bottom).

                      This is sort of a follow-up to the *accusation* of ‘using this blog as a dumping-ground for drive-by mentions of fascist white supremicist organizations’ (that phrasing indicated how ingeniously little knives can be embedded in our rhetoric!)

                      That has not ever been my stated intention. My stated intention was to ‘be of service’ to an American audience that may not be familiar to the ideas that are circulating on the more far-right circles, for example the ‘New European Right’ and, increasingly but still limitedly, within the Amercian ‘Alt-Right’.

                      What I notice — here on this blog — is that with any mention of any structure of ideas, or any mention of any idea or concept that touches on themes deigned to be *unmentionable* and *unthinkable* within American terms, that the partisans come out with knives, hammers and other weapons and perform the most savage hack-job on the holder of such alternative ideas, even if that person is merely a messenger. (I am more than a messenger because I myself believe certain things, yet I can function as a messenger who desires to inform and to expand the knowledge-base and participate in civil discussion).

                      This violent rejection of contrary or demanding or challenging ideas is possibly what most I have gotten through my participation here, and by that I mean through some of the commenters here who seem to me to function within rather closed intellectual loops. It is not that I *blame* them, it is more that I notice it as a phenomenon within a closed intellectual system or *world*. What I find interesting is that, for these people, there is no tool and no munition that they will not employ to discredit and destroy their *enemy*. Oddly, these attacks manifest both from the ‘left’ as well as from the ‘right’.

                      I am still of the opinion that it can be of great usefulness to understand the intellectual and philosophical dimension of Alt-Right and European New Right perspectives whether one is centrist, leftist of conservative. It is my contention that these ideas will become more visible and more discussed as the liberal contructs of the last 50 years are challenged and, I hope at least, dismantled to some degree.

                      In the following interview the French Marxist journalist Laura Raim interviews Greg Johnson who is, IMO, the most articulate expostulate of post-paleoconservative ideas. It is well worth listening to because, I maintain, Greg Johnson is particularly adept at explaining a cogent politico-philosophical position. The interesting thing is to notice where his paleoconservatism interesects with some leftist concerns.


                    • For those interested in what ‘Alt/Right’ is and means: Richard Spencer:

                  • In my own view, and if I were Jack and the operator of this blog, I would struggle to determine if I were ‘apprpriate’ or not.

                    The way that I see things is like this: the issues that are being talked about in various right-wing sites DO touch on transgressive themes. Or, better put, themes that have been determined to be transgressive and ‘fascist’ as you say. But this is something I have explained upfront and honest:

                    The European New Right is involved in a project of reexamining all of the right-leaning, nationalistic, and perhaps even chauvinistic, material that was being discussed at the turn of the 20th century in Europe. To understand the context, you have to understand opposition to Communism and to powerful communistic/socialistic forces. You cannot defend fascism with some blanket statement about it..

                    It must also be understood that, now, after a good deal of dormancy, the same group of concerns has come back up again (speaking of Europe), and in some senses this represents an ‘octave’ of previous events.

                    And as everyone seems to know, and for example the NYTs, it is fair game to pint these labels on the newish American Right.

                    It has all the elements that you say it has Chris. It asks all sorts of forbidden questions. It investigates areas that are off limits.

                    Now, numerous people, similarly to you, determine that I am so weird, or so lost, or so dangerous, that they shut down communication. This is very typical. It is also what has happened within the mainstream American conservative party (the Buckley purge, etc).

                    You certainly CAN push it out. The other alternative is to understand the views that are being presented, and be forced to articulate positions against them.

                    • Chris

                      Yes, you’re all so very edgy, pushing ideas that were discredited a hundred years ago because they led to genocide. Of course you deny the Holocaust; you have to pretend it didn’t happen in order for you to feel your ideas have any merit at all.

                    • Just FYI: Irving is not a ‘denier’. He strongly suspects that over 2 million Jews were killed in Treblinka. That’s about 900,000 more that Raul Hilberg’s calculations! And Hilberg is the authority among authorities. Irving’s non-denial position is resisted by true ‘deniers’ in fact.

                      I suppose you cannot read very well. The Shoa for me is utterly real and undeniable. But it happened quite differently than the official propaganda narrative claimed.

                      Still, there is all manner of controversy about exact numbers. Yet you are not the one to speak to about anynof this. You have looked into none of it.

                      And my ideas will remain a mystery to you. You have no interest in hearing them!

                      This is the position that best explains my own position:

        • Chris

          There is no difference between a “racist” and a “racialist,” other than political correctness and cowardice. Almost no racist self-identifies as such–they identify as “racialists” or “race realists” instead, because it makes them feel better, even though it has the exact same meaning: someone who believes that one race is superior to others, and that the races should be separated and hierarchized as such.

          Your individual right to “control your own destiny” does not extend into a right to have an all-white society, and it’s delusional of you to proclaim that anyone has such a right.

          • I think this is pretty accurate overall.

            When you actually read the texts of those who write on these themes now you find that they do define racial identity or white identity or European identity and they seek conceptual pathways to the understanding of that and its defence. Some do employ hierarchical categories, others do not.

            I place stress on the word ‘defence’ myself. It is a counter-movement against a whole range of forces and definitions which function *against* European identity (white identity if you wish). It takes a certain amount of time to take it in and to digest it, and this time factor is in my view a sort of deprogramming. Things have to be carefully thought-through, discussed. It is like reversing a form of mind-control or brainwashing. The easiest term to use would be deprogramming from propaganda constructs, and that is mostly what it is.

            Race-realists and racialists must, certainly according to you and those who helped you organize your thinking (who established its tenets), can only see *identity* and hierarchy (even if one were to place oneself on a lower rung of the hierarchy) as racism.

            But — thankfully or tragically — the actual issue is really more complex. The thing about you is that you really have no idea what you are critiquing. I mean, you have not ever read any of the texts I refer to. But I have read a great many of the Leftist/Trotskyist/Chomskian texts. For this reason I have an advantage.

  8. Spartan

    Let me translate the university’s PR response: “We’re so sorry that we enslaved your great-great-great-great grandparents and then sold them to Louisiana — the worst place for an American slave in 1838. But we have a great solution! We’ll let you come to Georgetown and you can pay us $200,000! That’s before room and board of course. We don’t really have dorms here at Georgetown, but we’re happy to let you stay in your relatives’ slave quarters at bargain prices!” (Okay, I made the last sentence up, but the rest is accurate.)

    I disagree with most of your analysis here Jack, but I do agree that Georgetown should have made a huge donation to appropriate charities as well as making some acknowledgements on campus instead of its admissions plan.

    For me, granting preferential treatment in admissions without some sort of financial relief is just insulting — and is a weak attempt to try and deal with some bad publicity on the cheap.

    • It is insulting, and grandstanding. Well, we get to the same conclusion, via different routes.

    • JutGory

      I like this analysis. It is certainly appropriate (even if it is not required) for Georgetown to acknowledge its past misdeeds, even if they were not viewed as such at the time. And, I have little problem with conferring legacy status on the descendants as a way to atone (even though the rationale for legacy status is to get successful alumni to continue to donate, which would be less likely if their stupid offspring were rejected) for those misdeeds. (You may not like legacy status. I have little opinion regarding it one way or the other. But, I do know these things: I would love for my children to go to my alma mater; and my alma mater is basically self-selective so, if it is right for them, they will get in without my help). Anyway, there can be a balance struck here.

      But, Jack, your points about this modern day iconoclasm is spot on; it springs from a toxic arrogance that cannot tolerate a perceived evil without seeking its obliteration, especially when it also affords one the opportunity to demonstrate one’s moral superiority, all (and here’s the punchline) in the name of tolerance.


  9. E2 (nee Elizabeth I)

    I will not comment on the slave/descendant/Georgetown legacy program. Enough has been written already.

    I will comment, however, on Georgetown as a Jesuit and Roman Catholic bastion, a place where I worked professionally for eight years, and a place that, even though its student body may not now be majority Roman Catholic, remains nevertheless a Jesuit and Roman Catholic bastion in the United States.

    It is ironic in the extreme that this representative of Roman Catholicism in American higher education would choose to right this particular wrong at this particular time. The Roman Catholic Church has much to answer for and significant amends to make. In recent history, the Church’s stand on contraception, divorce, the inability of women to hold power (i.e., be priests), and the horrific sexual predation of priests upon children are issues crying out to be fixed, not just by agit/prop writers and thinkers, but by Roman Catholics themselves.

    I can only think that Georgetown, powerless itself over the whole-Church-related issues noted above, was misled into trying to right a wrong over which it became convinced it did indeed have some control. The result is ludicrous, of course. And it will only hurt the university’s reputation and ability to attract the kind of student that has been the making of its reputation. Alas now, aside from the chuckling, thoughtful people will ask “Why this? Why now? Why in this way?” and won’t get a reasoned answer from the University because there is none.

    … In much the same way that no one is getting answers to other issues that the Roman Catholic Church continues to ignore — to the detriment of its hierarchy, its clergy, its reputation, and its congregations.

  10. In recent history, the Church’s stand on contraception, divorce, the inability of women to hold power (i.e., be priests), and the horrific sexual predation of priests upon children are issues crying out to be fixed, not just by agit/prop writers and thinkers, but by Roman Catholics themselves.

    Why would the Catholic stand on contraception need any more fixing than, say, the Islamic stand on alcohol?

    • Slick Willy

      Because Islam is the political system chosen by the liberal Marxists to destroy existing western societies, allowing them to remake those societies in the image they want (with themselves in power, of course)

    • Chris

      She didn’t say that it did. But it seems to me fairly rational for an American–Catholic or not–to be more concerned with the former than the latter. Catholics have a lot more political power in the U.S. than Muslims do, and their decisions regarding contraception affect a lot more Americans than does the Islamic stance on alcohol.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s