Have a hug. Read Atlas Shrugged.

Part 1: A careful examination of Mikko Ellila’s article, Society Consists of People

Update, Sunday June 10 2007, Cincinnati time: Mikko hasprovided an authorized English translation of his article, Society Consists of People, which I’ve posted HERE

Over several posts I will carefully examine,step-by-step,the reasoning and the claims made by Finnish blogger Mikko Ellila(also spelt:Ellilä and Ellilän) in his article “Society Consists of People” (See original in Finnish here, or English translation here.)

[By the way, Sydney Kendall is also doing a detailed analysis of the Mikko article. Highly recommended!]

Let’s get started ….

Society Consists of People
By Mikko Ellila

In the discussion of immigration and multiculturalism many people seem to forget, that every society and culture is created and upheld by certain kind of people.

European culture and modern western society is created by white people.

One could see in Africa societies and cultures created by black people, if there were no railroads, airplanes, streets with asphalt, stone houses, electricity, telephone, television, etc.

Even if it’strue that some or many or even most of the people who “created” modern Westernculturewere “white”. They were also many other things too.

Why is the “white” bit relevant?

Is “white” a distinguishing attribute? Or is there some more fundamental attribute/characteristic at work?

New concepts andnew ways of doing things, defining and defending and promoting freedom, and creating wealth are functions of independent, individual thinking.

Volition/Free Will has nothing to do with race or biology. All humans, regardless of race have inherent free will and therefore the capacity for creative thought.

Many of the best defenders of free speech and individual rights today are not “white”.

Consider heroes such as: Danny Nalliah, Justice Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Aayan Hirsi Ali, andmany, many more such … INDIVIDUALS.

They are all special kinds of individuals.

Consider …

Ayn Rand (For the New Intellectual):

Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light. He was considered an evildoer who had dealt with a demon mankind dreaded.

But thereafter men had fire to keep them warm, to cook their food, to light their caves.

He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had lifted darkness off the earth.

Centuries later, the first man invented the wheel. He was probably torn on the rack he had taught his brothers to build. He was a considered a transgressor who ventured into forbidden territory. But thereafter, men could travel past any horizon. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had opened the roads of the world.

That man, the unsubmissive and first, stands in the opening chapter of every legend mankind has recorded about his beginning.

It is individuals who create. The capacity for creativity is an attribute of the individual.

And, as we can gather from Ayn Rand’s article, “white” individuals livingin a “white” society, who created, innovated, and discovered the new, were persecuted by their fellow “whites”.

There have always been and there continues to be and there always will be independent, courageous minds in every group of individuals.

It is in fact not correct that “European culture and modern western society is created by white people.”

This statement: “The people who created modern western society were white European.”

even if it were true, is not equivalent to …

This statement: “European culture and modern western society is created by white people.”

The first statement describes an observable attribute and makes no claim about whether or not it’s causal.

Here are some more such statements: The people who created modern western society wore trousers. The people who created modern western society drank water. The people who created modern western society had hair when they were young.

The second statement howeverclaims that the attribute “white”is significantorcausal or that it is connected in some necessary manner to an attribute which is significant or causal.

In that second statement, “white people” as a whole and across history get the credit for creating “modern western society”. A biological/genetic/racial attribute gets credit for what is actually not biological/genetic/racial.

Now,what if we looked around us today and saw that the freest and most prosperous parts of the world are predominantly made up of “white” European types. And we alsoobserved that the least free and poorest places are, today, predominatly non-white?

Does this indicate that race/genetics/biology is necessarily significant? No.

Thomas Sowell argues that factors such as culture and geography may go a long way to explaining the disparities of wealth andabilities between peoples – disparities that at first glance, to the naive observer, appear to be racial or biological.

Thomas Sowell: … geographic disparities are by no means exhaustive. But they are suggestive of some of the many ways in which physical settings have expanded or constricted the size of the cultural universe available to different peoples.

And yet, he notes …

Thomas Sowell: … in more recent centuries, China has been overtaken and far surpassed by Europe. Yet neither region of the world has changed genetically to any extent that would account for this dramatic change in their relative positions.

This historic turnaround also shows that geographic limitations do not mean geographic determinism, for the geography of the two regions likewise underwent no such changes as could account for the reversal of their respective positions in the world.

Modern western society did not suddenly spring forth out of nothing. There were pre-conditions – including earlier inventions. Many of theseearlier inventionswere not created by white/Europeans.

Stone tools?Fire? Boats?Counting? The wheel? Fixed settlements? Domestication of animals? Scales? The city state? Bridges? Woodwork? Sailboats? Silk? Dams? Glass? Cotton cultivation? Rope? Papyrus? Ink? Schools? Map making? Iron products? Formal medicine? The alphabet? Chocolate? Water tap? Chariot? Stellar navigation? Cavalry? Music notation? Windmill?

Between 10,000 BC and 600 BC, Europe and Europeans hardly rate a mention. Why not?

If “white”/Europeanscould have come up with these marvellous inventions and discoveries, why didn’t they? Why did non-white, non-Europeans come up with them?

Furthermore, regarding “white”/European people, wecan look at different “white” countries and find significant differences between them over the last couple of centuries.

Over the 17th and 18th Century and the first half of the 19th Century, England was by far the most inventive nation in the world.

During the second half of the 19th Century, the United States shot way ahead.

France, Germany, and Scotland werequite inventive, but never came anywhere close to the early English phase or the later American phase.

As for the rest of Europe, if we were to use Mikko’s way of looking at the world we’d have to wonder whether they werein a different …”race”! 😉

But seriously, what was the rest of the “white” European race doing while England was creatively and commercially womping the planet?

Not only was the rest of Europe equipped with that supposedly extraordinary “white” biology, it also had the advantage of a powerful role modelin England. Yet it justplodded along.

Except for the USA. Weknow what the Americans were up to. They were gearing up to become humanity’s supreme productive power.

Interestingly enough, this was at about the same time that slavery was finally ended and America’s blacks began to be treated as full human beings.

That’s it for this instalment. More soon!

Oh! One other issues …

One of the pictures on Mikko’sarticle is this one:


This is taken from this sitewhich is dedicated to Nazi era film maker Leni Riefenstahl who wrote to Hitler, after he conqured France:

Your deeds exceed the power of human imagination. They are without equal in the history of mankind. How can we ever thank you?

If you mouseover the pic on Mikko’s site, you see the term “homo africanus” comes up. However my research indicates thatthis is NOT a picture of Homo Africanus.

Could Mikko explain whyhehas titled this picture Homo Africanus?

As I understand, Homo Africanus is often a term synonymous with Australopithecus Africanus who is meant to look somethinglike this:


Bye for now. 🙂

– – – – – – –

Some of the other blogs covering the Mikko issue:

Please let me know of any others. Thanks.

– – – – – – – – – –

Report This Post


  1. Mikko Ellil

    “Finnish blogger Mikko Ellila (also spelt: Ellil

    Report This Comment


    Mikko: My surname is Ellil

    Report This Comment

  3. Beach Girl

    Not butting in here but on “European white”, I just spent some time researching demographics of various nations. Interestingly to me, Argentina which is 97% white (Spanish and Italian); the United States census shows 77% white, 13% black, 4.2% Asian, 6% – I don’t know, didn’t write it down. However, in the United States, we have or are told we have 40 million folks of Hispanic ancestry yet the census department classifies everyone who is not black or Asian or American Indian, as white – I know this is not part of your discussion here on Mikko’s article but it does go to the way nations classify the ethnicity of their populations. France shows no ethnic groups of Middle Eastern ancestry and other than native French, shows only North African as the only other ethnic group.

    It is difficult to discuss “ethnicity” today in concrete terms as nations/governments are showing and classifying people as they want. Italy shows 58 million population but indicates no ethnic Muslims, yet they indicate a growing Muslim immigrant community with 2.1 immigrants per 1,000 people.

    Of the numbers I checked, I would tend to believe only two: Saudi Arabia with 90% Arabs and 10% Afro-Asians and 100% Muslim for religion. Iran likewise is 69 million people, no immigrants, 98% Muslim.

    All this to say that flourishing societies seem to have certain cultural traits. To put all the blame on European whites is slightly “harsh” since we are not and cannot be responsible for other peoples and cultures.

    Look at the “productive” nations and the unproductive nations – in a business sense. Define the characteristics of these nations and perhaps the discussion would move nearer to the mark.

    Excuse the interruption. I got the demographic data from the World Factbook – which of couse is sponsored by the CIA. Hmmm….

    Just a note – when I am asked to fill-out a form indicating ethnicity, my only choice these days is non-Hispanic white – so in the United States, unless you are an American black, an American Indian, identifiable as Asian, you are white.

    I plan to re-visit this site and also to read Mikko’s articles. I may or may not concur with his or anyone else’s characterizations but I will defend his right or theirs to publish government data and statistics, as I will defend his right to present an opinion and a thesis in defense of his culture. I just found in my search that data is not easily found.

    What is so good here is that we can share ideas and discuss them. As of yet, they are not marching bloggers in the US down to the precinct for questioning or for agitating “racial” conflict. Lord knows we have enough various race-baiters who would have to be called in long before we would.

    Sorry I interrupted your flow – just delete and be on your way. You both seem to have it under control. As an American, it is good for me to see and know of the discussion. Thanks.

    Report This Comment

  4. Beach Girl

    “Volition/Free Will has nothing to do with race or biology. All humans, regardless of race have inherent free will and therefore the capacity for creative thought.”

    As a linguist with a tad of travel experience under my belt, let me just suggest here, that while we may have “free will” at birth and the “capacity for creative thought”, from the second we are born, the mores and expectations of the given culture are taught to us through lessons or through the responses of other people to our behavior. I was teaching at a university in our Southwest, working with American Indians, Najavo and Pueblo. One Najavo lady started missing class over an extended time. Finally, I called her at Acoma (sp) Laguna Pueblo – asked her why she had not called me about missing classes. Her response was that I was important, I was the leader, “chief”, and she could not interrupt me – she knew I would call her when I had time to call. She wasn’t kidding. The tribal laws of behavior dictate her responses starting at birth.

    Without getting into too much detail, whatever the free will or creativity we are born with, the mores of a society come first.

    One other societal difference by way of example – in Japan, I was living there at the time and know this story to be true – a bus, like a local village to village bus, broke down. Two GIs were on the bus. The rest of the passengers were native Japanese. The bus driver called for help – it would be a long-time coming. All passengers with the exception of the American GIs – I don’t know their ethnicity, the only blacks allowed into Japan are US Military on active duty – but the GIs’ ethnicity doesn’t matter. What matters is the cultural expectations “trained” into them from birth. The American GIs commenced to begin to repair the bus with the materials available.

    In the culture of the American GIs, the expectation is for creative thinking and for solving problems even if we are wrong, we must try. The Japanese culture is very ordered and has a set caste system – creativity and free will not withstanding, everyone else waited, in Japan everyone knows his or her place. I assure everyone has a place.

    My comment / observation is not “racist” – it is fact. There are 127.3 million Japanese and zero % immigration. The Japanese are generally highly intelligent but “free will” does not play a large part in their culture, going back to the Shoguns and before. The society is highly matriarchal (sp) [excuse my mistakes – very tired over here], highly structured. The first son inherits all and the daughter who marries well and has a “first son” for her husband and his family is highly rewarded and esteemed.

    Cultures are different as much as multiculturalists which to say otherwise and opposing cultures cannot occupy the same space for long without one seeking dominance. Good, bad, or indifferent – that is the truth and “free will” or “creativity” have little to do with it – unless one culture has been centered around “free will”, “individual creativity”, and “individual freedoms.”

    Report This Comment

Leave a Reply

© 2021 the PRODOS blog

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑

Report This Blog