The folks at the Council of European Canadians seem to agree wth me.
I have posted on Ferguson's lurid personal life here. But more important, at least politically so, he is married to Ayan Hrisi Ali who has never publicly denounced her Muslim background although she writes copiously about how she is an "atheist." More precisely, she believes that Islam can be reformed and the logical extrapolation from that "belief" is that she would readly return to Islam but if it were "reformed."
- Ferguson and Ali's affair and their illegitimate son after he abndoned his wife
- Ali on her new-born son's choice of "his" religion when he is an adult
- Ali's ambivalence and therefore "unspoken" support of Islam, the kind she calls a "reformed" Islam
- Ali's disdain for Christianity
- Ferguson in America: And His "Wry Belief in the Fall of American Power"
But even more significantly, as she denounced Islam so she puts Christianity in the same basket of Islam, and has been a fervent advocate - relgiously so - of "secular" Europe and Amerca.
Western European, and consequently American, civilizations, were founded on Christian roots. To advocate the destruction of this fundamental premise is to throw out everything else.
Either Ali is ignorant and unscholarly (and researched her work badly) or she is simply anti-Christian. I blelieve she is the latter.
So what is Ferguson doing wth someone like her? It only means that he, like her, despite his stream of articles and books on western civilization, believes that Christianity is harmful to the west and should be removed as part of the "future" indentity of the west.
This crack lets in Islam. That is how Muslims successfully conquered various middle eastern and African countries. And that what they're doing in Europe. And now in North Amerca also.
Niall Ferguson, Strangely Blind about Race
Sometimes smart people are blind to obvious facts, especially if these aren't politically correct. Here's a doozie from Harvard professor Niall Ferguson, one of Britain's most renowned historians.
by Frank Hilliard
I was reading Ferguson's work on Europe called Civilization: The West and the Rest with a great deal of interest. Why was the West better than the rest, why had it triumphed in the competition between the civilizations around the world? He has a number of answers: the geography of Europe, "Judeo-Christian" concepts of free will, property ownership.
All true of course, but I sensed something was missing. Humm, what could it be?
It took a while, but I found the answer on page 176 of the hardcover edition. After noting all the European scientists who had found cures or causes of a wide range of African diseases, he had this warning:
Lurking within the real science was a pseudo-science, which asserted that mankind was not a single more or less homogeneous species but was subdivided and ranked from an Aryan 'master race' down to a black race unworthy of the designation homo sapiens.Pseudo-science? The races are all the same? I wondered if that were so, why hadn't Africans discovered the causes of the diseases which were plaguing the continent? Why hadn't African missionaries and explorers headed off into the wilds of Europe? Why hadn't African countries established trading ports in Europe as European countries had in Africa, India and China?
It was a puzzlement. But I continued on to page 177 and read what he had to say about Charles Darwin's half-cousin Francis Galton, who began thinking of how science might improve humans, a concept he called 'eugenics;' the use of selective breeding to improve the gene pool. This was hardly a huge stretch as exactly the same concept is used in improving the breed of horses, cattle, pigs, wheat, fruit trees and pumpkins. Still it comes as a shock to Niall.
The crucial point to note is that a hundred years ago work like Galton's was at the cutting edge of science. Racism was not some backward-looking reactionary ideology; the scientifically uneducated embraced it as enthusiastically as people today accept the theory of man-made global warming. It was only the second half of the 20th Century that eugenics and the related concept of 'racial hygiene' were finally discredited with the realization that genetic differences between the races are relatively small, and the variations within races quite large.What a mouthful! What a concept! Niall is suggesting first that the differences between races is minor and secondly that you can't average them and compare the averages. And yet, he's just done so! He's admitted Africa is a "dark continent" that has so little electricity, you can see how backward it is from space. He's told us European science was key to eradicating African diseases, and yet he suggests that "differences between the races are relatively small" in a book about why Europeans succeeded where other big, rich civilizations — like the Chinese — did not.
Ferguson with his wife Ayaan Hirsi Ali
What he has overlooked is that the European race was far more successful than the Chinese, African, Asian or South American peoples. Why is this? I would argue that Europeans had exactly the right genetic combination of intelligence and aggression to master races without it. Africans had a surplus of aggression and the Chinese of intelligence, but neither were successful imperialists, and neither could withstand the advance of Western Civilization once it really caught fire.
If the difference in genetics was so small, as Ferguson would have us believe, why was the difference in outcomes so large? Indeed, since eugenics is nothing more than breeding in other mammals, a scientific process which has been proven over millennia, how can he dismiss it and still be scientific.
Well, of course, he can't.
This is what you get when modern historians steeped in political correctness set themselves to analyze cultural differences without observing the racial differences that caused them in the first place.
Have another look at the photo at the top of the post. Yes, those are Africans trying to escape the squalor of Africa by moving to Europe. They won't though. You can't escape yourself, no matter how far you travel, or how dangerous the journey. When you get there, you're still who you were in the first place.
In this case, you're still back in Africa.
One can only hope a new crop of historians will take a truly scientific look at why Europe succeeded; one that is unafraid of putting science ahead of politics.
