Listen to Harold Covington’s podcast on Hitler and the ten principles of National Socialism that he recorded this April 20th.
Today is the anniversary of Adolf Hitler. I have just read the following article, The measure of greatness at Counter-Currents (originally, a 1989 National Vanguard article), which published also another article on Hitler and National Socialism that I had previously quoted in the previous incarnation of this blog.
April 20 of this year  is the 100th anniversary of the birth of the greatest man of our era — a man who dared more and achieved more, who set his aim higher and climbed higher, who felt more deeply and stirred the souls of those around him more mightily, who was more closely attuned to the Life Force which permeates our cosmos and gives it meaning and purpose, and did more to serve that Life Force, than any other man of our times.
And yet he is the most reviled and hated man of our times. Only a few tens of thousands of men and women, in scattered groups around the world, will celebrate his birthday with love and reverence on April 20, while all of the scribblers and commentators of the controlled news media, the controlled politicians, and the controlled churchmen will pour out their hatred and venom and lies against him, and those lies will be believed by hundreds of millions.
What is the measure of greatness in a man?
Only the most vulgar and doctrinaire democrat would seriously equate greatness with popularity — although in any polling of average citizens on their choice for the greatest man of the century there are certain to be substantial numbers of votes for Elvis Presley, John Kennedy, Billy Graham, Michael Jackson, and various other high-visibility lightweights: charismatic entertainers on the stage of politics, rock concerts, spectator sports, or what have you.
More serious citizens would pass by the lightweights and choose men who have changed the world in some way. We would hear choices like Franklin Roosevelt (“he saved the world from fascism”), Albert Einstein (“he taught us about the nature of our universe”), and Martin Luther King (“he helped us achieve racial justice”), depending upon whether one’s personal inclinations lay more in the direction of politics, science, or racial self-abasement, respectively.
But if the poll asked instead for the most evil man of the century, or the most hated man, or the man having the most negative influence, at least three-quarters of the blue-collar and the white-collar pollees alike would name one man: Adolf Hitler. This, however, would be merely a reflection of the role assigned to him by the controlled mass media, rather than a truly informed and reasoned choice.
All of this raises several very interesting issues. There is, for example, the question of how we came to the preposterous state of affairs prevailing today, wherein we place the destiny of our nation, our planet, and our race in the hands of a mass of voters whose powers of judgment are manifested in such things as the type of television entertainment their preferences have pushed into prime time and the type of men they have elected to public office. And there is the equally weighty question of how, knowing the ease with which this mass is misled, we permitted virtually all of the media of mass information and entertainment to fall into the hands of a race whose interests are so diametrically opposed to our own.
Perhaps even more pertinent to a consideration of human greatness, however, is the question of how our system of values came to be turned on its head, so that Franklin Roosevelt is regarded as a hero and Adolf Hitler as a villain, not only by the stolid and stunned masses, but also by a majority of the supposedly “educated” elite, many of whom pride themselves on their intellectual independence.
Whether we judge the greatness of a man by his intrinsic qualities of character and soul or by his accomplishments, Adolf Hitler had greatness of a very high order — if we use the standards which have been traditional in our race.
We cannot, of course, make comparisons with all the “mute, inglorious Miltons” whose lack of notable accomplishment has made them anonymous, despite the sterling inner qualities they may have possessed. But when Hitler’s character is held up beside those of other 20th-century political leaders, he stands as a giant among pygmies.
At the prosaic level, we can note his ascetic personal habits, compared with Winston Churchill’s habitual drunkenness and notorious self-indulgence; or his personal loyalty to those who had been his comrades in the days of political struggle, compared with Joseph Stalin’s habit of murdering his former comrades by the dozen, as potential rivals, as soon as he no longer needed their services; or his direct, frank, and straightforward manner, compared to the cunning deviousness which was Franklin Roosevelt’s trademark.
At the spiritual level, the inner differences between Hitler and his contemporaries are even more striking. Hitler was a man with a mission, from the beginning. The testimony of his closest associates, from his boyhood days to the end of his life, agrees with the observations of more distant and impartial observers: Hitler had a mystical sense of destiny, a sense of having been singled out and called by a higher power to devote his life to the service of his race.
His childhood companion August Kubizek has related extraordinary evidence of this when Hitler was only 16 years old (August Kubizek, Adolf Hitler, mein Jugendfreund [Graz, 1953], pp. 127–35). Twenty years later, while he was in prison after an unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the government, Hitler himself wrote of his motivation in a way which suggested the range of his vision:
What we must fight for is the security of the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the maintenance of the purity of our blood… so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted them by the Creator of the universe.
Every thought and every idea, every doctrine and all knowledge, must serve this purpose. And everything must be examined from this point of view and used or rejected according to its utility. Then no theory will stiffen into a dead doctrine, since it is life alone that all things must serve…
The National Socialist philosophy finds the importance of mankind in its basic racial elements. In the state it sees on principle a means to an end and construes that end as the preservation of the racial existence of man…
And so the National Socialist philosophy of life corresponds to the innermost will of Nature, since it restores that free play of forces which must lead to a continuous mutual higher breeding, until finally the best of humanity, having achieved possession of this earth, will have a free play for activity in domains which will lie partly above it and partly outside it.
We all sense that in the distant future humanity must be faced by problems which only a highest race, become master people and supported by the means and possibilities of an entire globe, will be equipped to overcome…
Thus, the highest purpose of a National Socialist state is concern for the preservation of those original racial elements which bestow culture and create the beauty and dignity of a higher mankind. We, as Aryans, can conceive of the state only as the living organism of a nationality which not only assures the preservation of this nationality, but by the development of its spiritual and ideal abilities leads it to the highest freedom…
A National Socialist state must begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape…
It must set race in the center of all life. It must take care to keep it pure. It must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. It must see to it that only the healthy beget children…
The National Socialist state must make certain that by a suitable education of youth it will someday obtain a race ripe for the last and greatest decisions on this earth…
Anyone who wants to cure this era, which is inwardly sick and rotten, must first summon the courage to make clear the causes of this disease. And this should be the concern of the National Socialist movement: pushing aside all narrowmindedness, to gather and to organize from the ranks of our nation those forces capable of becoming the vanguard fighters for a new philosophy of life…
We are not simple enough to believe that it could ever be possible to bring about a perfect era. But this relieves no one of the obligation to combat recognized errors, to overcome weaknesses, and to strive for the ideal. Harsh reality of its own accord will create only too many limitations. For that very reason, however, man must try to serve the ultimate goal, and failures must not deter him, any more than he can abandon a system of justice because mistakes creep into it, or any more than medicine is discarded because there always will be sickness in spite of it.
We National Socialists know that with this conception we stand as revolutionaries in the world of today and are branded as such. But our thoughts and actions must in no way be determined by the approval or disapproval of our time, but by the binding obligation to a truth which we have recognized. (Mein Kampf)
Hitler’s opponents, Churchill and Roosevelt, were party politicians, with the minds and souls of party politicians. Great, impersonal goals, just as truth, meant nothing at all to them. The only thing that counted was the approval or disapproval of their times: the outcome of the next election, a good press claque, votes. Only Stalin shared in any way Hitler’s disdain for approval; only Stalin was motivated to any degree by an impersonal idea. But the idea that Stalin served was the alien, destructive idea of Jewish Marxism. And while Hitler served the Life Force with the instincts of a seer, Stalin served Marxism with the instincts of a bureaucrat and a butcher. A comparison of careers leads us to a similar ranking of greatness of soul. Churchill and Roosevelt were born into the political establishment. They fed at the public trough for years, in one office after another, grabbing greedily at opportunities for a bigger serving of swill. But it was circumstance, not their own efforts, which thrust them onto the stage of world history.
Stalin hacked out his own niche in history to a much greater extent than his western allies, and he was an incomparably stronger man than either of them. He was tough, ruthless, infinitely cunning, and utterly determined to prevail, no matter what the obstacles. Even so, his struggle for prominence and power was entirely within the Bolshevik party and its predecessors. He was the consummate bureaucratic infighter, not the innovator or the lone pioneer.
Only Adolf Hitler started literally from nothing and through the exercise of a superhuman will created the physical basis for the realization of his vision. In 1918, recovering in a veterans’ hospital from a British poison-gas attack, he made the decision to enter politics in order to serve that vision. He was a 29-year-old invalid, with no money, no family, no friends or connections, no university education, and no experience. Liberals, Jews, and communists ruled his country, making him and all those to whom he might appeal for support outsiders.
Five and one-half years later he was sentenced to five years in prison for his political activity, and his enemies thought that was the end of him and his movement. But less than nine years after being sentenced he was Chancellor of Germany, with the strongest and most progressive nation in Europe at his command. He had built the National Socialist movement and led it to victory over the organized opposition of the entire Establishment: conservatives, liberals, communists, Jews, and Christians.
He then transformed Germany, lifting it out of its economic depression (while Americans, under Roosevelt, continued to line up at the soup kitchens), restoring its spirit (and much of the territory which had been taken from it by the victors of the First World War), stimulating its artistic and scientific creativity, and winning the admiration (or, in some cases, the envy and hatred) of other nations. It was an achievement hardly paralleled in the history of the world. Even those who do not understand the real significance of his creation must concede that.
And what was the real significance of Hitler’s work? One of his most earnest admirers in India, Savitri Devi, has given us a poetic answer to that question. She wrote:
In its essence, the National Socialist idea exceeds not only Germany and our times, but the Aryan race and mankind itself and any epoch… it ultimately expresses that mysterious and unfailing wisdom according to which Nature lives and creates: the impersonal wisdom of the primeval forest and of the ocean depth and of the spheres in the dark fields of space; and… it is Adolf Hitler’s glory not merely to have gone back to that divine wisdom — stigmatizing man’s silly infatuation for “intellect,” his childish pride in “progress,” and his criminal attempt to enslave Nature — but to have made it the basis of a practical regeneration policy of worldwide scope, precisely now, in our overcrowded, overcivilized, and technically overevolved world, at the very end of the dark age” (Savitri Devi, The Lightning and the Sun [National Socialist World No. 1, p. 61]).
More prosaically, Hitler’s work, in contrast to that of his contemporaries, was above politics, above economics, above nationalism. He had mobilized a powerful, modern state and placed it at the service of our race, so that our race might become fit to serve as an agent of the Life Force.
Perceptive and idealistic young men from every nation in Europe — and from many nations outside Europe as well — recognized this significance, and they flocked to serve him and to fight for his cause, even at the cost of censure and ostracism from their more parochial and narrowminded countrymen. There was never before an elite fighting force to match the SS, which by the end of the Second World War had more non-Germans than Germans in it.
The war, of course, is counted as Hitler’s great failure, even as the proof of his lack of greatness, by his detractors. It merely proves that he was a man, not a god, even if a divine will worked through him, and that he could not perform miracles. He could not defend himself forever, with the governments of nearly the whole world allied in a total war to pull him down and destroy his creation, so that they and the interests they served could return to “business as usual.” Even so, he gave a far better account of himself than any of his adversaries.
And what will count in the long run in determining Adolf Hitler’s stature is not whether he lost or won the war, but whether it was he or his adversaries who were on the side of the Life Force, whether it was he or they who served the cause of Truth and human progress. We only have to look around us today to know it was not they.
Besides the video embedded below, for an introduction of IQ studies the reader might also be interested in a brief entry in this blog, “The Bell Curve.”
Here I reproduce “The New Enemies of Evolutionary Science,” an article by Philippe Rushton of the Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario:
On January 19, 1989, in the Sausalito Room of the San Francisco Hilton Hotel, my life changed forever. I stood before a lectern speaking to a symposium of scientists belonging to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The title of the brief paper I proceeded to present to the meeting was “Evolutionary Biology and Heritable Traits (With Reference to Oriental-White-Black Differences).”
I reviewed the international literature recently published in academic peer-reviewed journals. I summarized data about traits like brain size, temperament, speed of maturation, family structure, and reproductive variables. I tentatively concluded, roughly speaking, that East Asians, on average, were slower to mature, less fertile, less sexually active, with larger brains and higher IQ scores than Africans, who tended to the opposite in each of these areas. Whites, I found, fell between the other two groups.
I further contended that this orderly tri-level hierarchy of races in average tendency had its roots not only in economic, cultural, familial, and other environmental forces but also, to a far greater extent than mainstream social science would suggest, in ancient, gene-mediated evolutionary ones. Heredity, or nature—to use the term popularized by Francis Galton, Charles Darwin’s younger cousin—was every bit as important as environment or nurture, often more so.
To account for the racial pattern in brain size and the other “life-history variables,” I proposed a gene-based life-history theory familiar to evolutionary biologists as the r-K scale of reproductive strategy. At one end of this scale are r strategies, which emphasize high reproductive rates, and, at the other K-strategies, which emphasize high levels of parental investment. This scale is generally used to compare the life histories of widely disparate species but I used it to describe the immensely smaller variations within the human species. I hypothesized that Mongoloid people are, on average, more K-selected than Caucasoids, who in turn are more K-selected than Negroids.
I also mapped this theory onto human evolution. Molecular genetic evidence shows that modern humans evolved in Africa sometime after 200,000 years ago, with an African/non-African split occurring about 110,000 years ago, and a Mongoloid / Caucasoid split about 41,000 years ago. The farther north the populations migrated, “out of Africa,” the more they encountered the cognitively demanding problems of gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, making clothes, and raising children successfully during prolonged winters. As these populations evolved into present-day Europeans and East Asians, they did so by shifting toward larger brains, slower rates of maturation, and lower levels of sex hormone with concomitant reductions in sexual potency and aggression and increases in family stability and longevity.
I did not claim to have established the truth of these hypotheses. They may never by established in their entirety. But if they, or any part of them, or even any parallel hypotheses were eventually confirmed, we would have an explanation of why the measured traits are statistically distributed among racial groups in the distinct patterns evident in the data I had examined. The theories provided testable hypotheses and consequently complied with two fundamental goals of any science: the search to provide causal explanations of phenomena, and the search to unify separate fields of thought. These powerful incentives pulled me forward.
I emphasized two caveats in my presentation before the AAAS. First, because there is enormous variability within each population and because the population distributions overlap, it is always problematic to generalize from a group average to any particular individual. Secondly, because genetic efforts are necessarily mediated by neurohormonal and psychosocial mechanisms, many opportunities exist for intervention and the alleviation of suffering.
My hypothesis so stunned AAAS organizers that they quickly called a press conference to publicly dissociate themselves from my remarks. At the press conference, the president of the AAAS, Dr. Walter Massey, vice-president for research at the University of Chicago, told reporters that my credentials as a psychologist were good and that scholars participating in the conference were free to draw any conclusions they choose. Massey affirmed that the AAAS would never consider muzzling any scholar because the free expression of views was the essence of academic discussion. He went on to say that I had made “quite a leap of faith from the data to the conclusions” and that he found the paper “personally disturbing” and its conclusions “highly suspect.” The scene was eerily reminiscent of the closing sequence of the film Rosemary’s Baby with the media setting up to take pictures of the newborn devil, cloven hoofs and slit eyes, ready to raise hell on earth. I was about to become an academic pariah.
By the time I returned from the conference to my home in London, Ontario, and my job as professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, the uproar was in full swing. “Canadian Professor Provokes Uproar With Racial Theories,” proclaimed Canada’s national newspaper, the venerable Globe and Mail. “Theory Racist: Prof Has Scholars Boiling,” declared the influential Toronto Star. “UWO Professor Denies Study Was Racist,” trumpeted the local London Free Press.
Newspapers took my views to hostile social activist groups and got their predictably hostile opinion. They said I should be fired for promoting hatred. The press then took this idea to the president of the university who upheld the principle of academic freedom. The ongoing conflict was serialized for weeks. Student activist groups soon entered the fray, demanding that I meet with them in a public forum.
TV coverage of my theories juxtaposed photos of me with footage of Nazi storm troops. Editing and voiceovers removed any mention of my qualification that the race differences I had identified were often quite small and could not be generalized to individuals and didn’t mention that like any decent human being I abhor Nazi racial policies. Newspapers caricatured me as wearing a Ku Klux Klan hood or talking on the telephone to a delighted Adolf Hitler. The Toronto Star began a campaign to get me fired from my position, chastising my university and stating “This protection of a charlatan on grounds of academic freedom is preposterous.” Later, the same paper linked me to the Holocaust saying, “[Thus] there emerged the perverted ‘master race’ psychology of the 20th century, and the horror of the Holocaust. Oddly, the discredited theories of eugenic racism still are heard, most recently from an academic at an Ontario university.” I had no choice but to hire a prestigious law firm and issue notices under the Libel and Slander Act against the newspaper. This brought the media campaign against me to a halt.
Hate Crime Laws
In the U.S. there is a First Amendment to protect the right of every citizen to free speech and there is not much the government can do to silence unpopular ideas. In Canada and many Western European countries, however, there are laws against free speech, ostensibly enacted to inhibit “hate” and the spreading of “false news.”
Two weeks after my AAAS presentation, the premier of Ontario denounced my theories. My work was “highly questionable and destructive” and “morally offensive to the way Ontario thinks,” he said. It “destroys the kind of work we are trying to do, to bring together a society based on equality of opportunity.” The premier told reporters he had telephoned the university president and found him in a dilemma about how to handle the case. The premier said that he understood and supported the concept of academic freedom, but in this particular case dismissal should occur “to send a signal” to society that such views are “highly offensive.”
When the university failed to fire me, the premier asked the Ontario Provincial Police to investigate whether I had violated the federal Criminal Code of Canada, Chapter 46, Section 319, Paragraph 2, which specifies: “Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of an indictable offense and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.”
The police questioned my colleagues and members of the administration and professors at other universities, demanded tapes of media interviews, and sent a questionnaire to my attorney to which I was obliged to reply in detail. (There’s no Fifth Amendment in Canada either.) After harassing me and dragging my name through the dirt for six months, the Attorney General of Ontario declined to prosectue me and dismissed my research as “loony, but not criminal.”
This did not halt the legal action. Eighteen students, including seven Black students, lodged a formal complaint against me to the Ontario Human Rights Commission claiming that I had violated Sections, 1, 8, and 10 of the 1981 Ontario Human Rights Code guaranteeing equality of treatment to all citizens of the province. In particular, I was charged with “infecting the learning environment with academic racism.” As remedy, the complainants requested that my employment at the university be terminated and that an order be made requiring the university to “examine its curriculum so as to eliminate academic racism.”
I was outraged. A more flagrant attack on the right to freedom of expression was difficult to imagine in a supposedly free country. “Human rights” tribunals were becoming a menace—a direct threat to the very human rights and fundamental freedoms they were supposed to protect. The Ontario Human Rights Commission could no more change the truth about human races than could the Christian Inquistion about the solar system or the KGB about the genetics of wheat. I found it difficult to accept the increasingly obvious fact that in the post-Soviet world, an academic was freer to say what he believed about some things in Russia, than in Canada.
Four long years after the complaint was lodged, the Ontario Human Rights Commission abandoned its case against me claiming it could no longer find the complainants to testify.
Events at the University
In its relations with the outside world the university administration stood firmly for academic freedom. The president gave a press conference to state categorically that there would be no investigation of me, that I would not be suspended, and that I was free to pursue any line of research I chose.
Behind the scenes, however, I became the target of a witch hunt by some of the administrators. Dismayingly, my dean, a physical anthropologist, publicly declared that I had lost my scientific credibility and spearheaded an attack on me in the newspapers. She issued a series of preemptive statements making plain her negative opinion of me and my work.
“What evidence is there for this ranked ordering of the evolution of the human races?” she wrote. “None.”
Claiming that her views represented only her academic opinion she emphasized that she was not speaking in any administrative capacity. Her letter was nonetheless widely interpreted in the media as a refutation by my “boss.” Henceforth, in order to support me, a person would now have to go up against the dean in addition to prevailing opinion. Next, the chair of my department gave me an annual performance rating of “unsatisfactory” citing my “insensitivity.” This was a remarkable turnaround because it occurred for the same year in which I had been made a Fellow of the prestigious John Simon Guggenheim Foundation. My previous twelve years of annual ratings had been “good” or “excellent.” Indeed, my earlier non-controversial work had made me on of the most cited scholars in my university.
Because unsatisfactory ratings can lead to dismissal, even for a tenured professor like me, I contested the rating through various levels of grievance, wasting an enormous amount of time and emotional energy. The proceedings that followed were Kafkaesque, terrifying when they weren’t simply funny. For example, the grievance procedures required that I first appeal the Chairman’s negative assessment to the Dean. The Dean had already spoken out against me, so I asked the Dean to recuse herself from hearing the case. She refused. So I had to appear before her.
At my hearing, the Dean’s folded arms and glowers of fury made her decision obvious, and six weeks later, she upheld the Department Chair’s decision. In a seven-page letter justifying her decision, she cast aspersions at my “sensitivity,” and my sense of “responsibility,” and questioned whether ther were, in fact, “any” papers that had ever been published that had supported my perspective other than those I had written myself.
I decided on a more drastic defense. I wrote to colleagues around the world and received over 50 strong letters of support, many endorsing the evidence I had presented. When the Dean found out about this she went absolutely ballistic, on one occasion screaming and spitting at me in fury.
I eventually won my appeal against the Dean and the Chair and two separate grievance committeess chastised them for their actions against me. My annual performance ratings are back to receiving grades of “good” and “excellent.”
Some radical and Black students mobilized and held rallies, even bringing in a member of the African National Congress to denounce me. In one demonstration, a mob of 40 people stormed through the psychology department, banging on walls and doors, bellowing slogans through bull horns, drawing swastikas on the walls, and writing on my door “Racist Pig Live Here.”
The administration responded by barring me from the classroom and ordering me to lecture by videotape on the pretext that they could not protect me from the lawlessness of students. Again I launched formal grievances. After a term of enforced teaching by videotape, I won the right to resume teaching in person, though then I was required to run a gauntlet of demonstrators shouting protests and threats. Only after several forced cancellations of my classes did the administration warn the demonstrators that further action would lead to suspension and legal action. That brought the protests to a halt.
De Facto Censorship and the Corruption of Scholarship
As a graduate student at the London School of Economics and Political Science in 1973, I witnessed a physical assault on Hans Eysenck, who was studying the biological basis of intelligence and had recently published his book Race, Intelligence, and Education (1971). The slogan of that day was “Fascists Have No Right To Speak,” and Eysenck became a target for attack. No legal charges were brought for the widely witnesses assault because another popular slogan of the 1960′s, for those who approved the message but disapproved the tactic, was “There are no Enemies on the Left.”
Today, many campus radicals from the 1960′s are the tenured radicals of the 1990′s. They have become the chairs of departments, the deans, and the chancellors of the universities: senior political administrators in Congress and Houses of Parliament, and even the presidents and prime mimisters of countries. The 1960′s mentality of peace, love, and above all, equality, now constitutes the intellectual dogma of the Western academic world. There are laws to prohibit platforms for those denounced as “fascists” and others deemed to be not politically correct.
In his book, Kindly Inquisitors, Jonathan Rauch showed that even in the U.S. with the First Amendment in place, many colleges and universities have set up “anti-harassment” rules prohibiting —and establishing punishments for— “speech or other expression” that is intended to “insult or stigmatize an individual or a small number of individuals in the basis of their sex, race, color, hankicap, religion, sexual orientation or national and ethnic origin.” (This is quoted from Stanford’s policy, and is more or less typical.) One case at the University of Michigan became well known because it led a federal court to strike down the rule in question. A student claimed, in a classroom discussion, that he thought homosexuality was a disease treatable with therapy. He was formally disciplined by the university for violating the school’s policy and victimizing people on the basis of sexual orientation.
In Canada and Western Europe, governments can and do prohibit speech on topics they consider obnoxious. In Denmark, a woman wrote a letter to a newspaper calling national domestic partner laws “ungodly” and homosexuality “the ugliest kind of adultery.” She and the editor who published her letter were targeted for prosectution. In Great Britain, the Race Relations Act forbids speech that expresses racial hatred, “not only when it is likely to lead to violence, but generally, on the grounds that members of the minority races should be protected from racial insults.” In some parts of the world you can be jailed, exiled, or even executed for expressing forbidden opinions.
Irrespective of religious background, or political affiliation, virtually all American intellectuals adhere to what has been called ‘one-party science.’ For example, only politically correct hypotheses centering on cultural disadvantage are postulated to explain the differential representation of minorities in science. Analyses of aptitude test scores and behavioral genetics are taboo. Cheap moralizing is so fierce that most people respect the taboo. This intellectual cowardice only encourages viscious attacks by activist groups on those who are engaged in legitimate scientific research showing that there is a genetic basis underlying individual and group differences.
The high-placed pervasiveness of the egalitarian orthodoxy is scary. Even more frightening than what happened to me is the experience of Christopher Brand, professor of psychology at Edinburgh University. On February 29, 1996, Brand’s book on intelligence, The g Factor, was published in the United Kingdom by the British subsidiary of John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. On April 14, newspaper reports of interviews with him began to appear saying that he thought black people had a lower IQ than did whites and that these were probably partly genetic. On April 17, Wiley’s company in New York denounced Brand’s views as “repellent” and withdrew the book from bookstores. A blizzard of “refutations” of Brand appeared in the U.K. media under outraged headlines. Protests from members of Parliament, student boycotts of his lectures, and calls for his resignation by faculty at the University of Edinburgh all predictably ensued. Brand’s refusal to be silenced and his defense of free speech led him to be fired (on August 8, 1997) for bringing his university into disrepute. There but for the grace God, go I.
In 1995, my monograph Race, Evolution, and Behavior was published by Transaction Publishers. Subsequently, the book was translated into Japanese (1996) and released as a softcover edition (1997) with an Afterword updating the science since the hardback went to press.
The book garnered a lead review in the New York Times Book Review (October 16, 1994) where Malcolm Browne, the Times science writer, discussed it along with Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray’s The Bell Curve and Seymour Itzkoff’s The Decline of Intelligence in America. Browne concluded his analysis with the statement that “the government or society that persists in sweeping this topic under the rug will do so at its peril.” Dozens of other journals, including the National Review, Nature, and The Nation, also reviewed it.
Its publication by an important academic press touched off a new round of hysteria. A lurid article screaming “Professors of HATE” (in five-inch letters!) appeared in Rolling Stone magazine (October 20, 1994). Taking up the entire next page was a photograph of my face, hideously darkened, twisted into a ghoulish image, and superimposed on a Gothic university tower. In another long propaganda piece entitled “The Mentality Bunker” which appeared in Gentleman’s Quarterly (November 1994), I was misrepresented as an outmoded eugenicist and pseudoscientific racist. A photograph of me was published in brown tint reminiscent of vintage photos from the Hitler era.
Incredibly, Canada Customs seized and witheld copies of one shipment of the book for nine months while they tried to decide whether to condemn the book as “hate literature” and ban it from entering Canada. The fact that an academic book was even the subject of an investigation stunned my publisher: “I’ve never heard of such a thing,” said Mary Curtis, Chairman of the Board of Transaction. “This is not supposed to happen in Canada. The last time the company had trouble shipping scholarly works was in the mid-1980′s, when some books shipped to the Moscow Fair didn’t make it.”
Michel Cléroux, a spokesman for Canada Customs, said Customs were just following orders by investigating possible hate propaganda. A departmental policy prohibiting hate propaganda includes this definition: “Goods alleging that an identifiable group is racially inferior and/or weakens other segments of society to the detriment of society as a whole.” After an “investigation” lasting nine months, Canada Customs relented.
Harassment continued at another meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The AAAS routinely allows the militantly disruptive International Committee Against Racism (INCAR) and Progressive Labor Party (PLP) to have official “Exhibitor” status, along with a booth, at its annual meeting. At the February 1996 meeting in Baltimore, INCAR and PLP festooned their booth with posters of Karl Marx and signs taking credit for interfering with the University of Maryland conference on “Genes and Crime” in September 1995.
At the AAAS meeting, INCAR targeted my poster presenting a review of the literature on brain size and cognitive ability. When INCAR encountered me the day before the poster presentation, they yelled so many death threats that the AAAS called the Baltimore police, who dispatched an armed officer to stand by the presentation. Despite the guard, INCAR continued to utter threats. One demonstrator took photographs of me saying they were for a “Wanted: Dead or Alive” poster. “You won’t be living much longer,” he said. Incredibly, instead of cancelling the Exhibitor Status of organizations that threaten violence, the program director of the AAAS’s annual meeting said, in an interview published in The Scientist (March 4, 1996), that AAAS would tighten up the screening process to make it more difficult for presentations like mine to get on the program!
As Charles Murray has observed in the aftermath to The Bell Curve, social science is corrupt on the topic of race. Yet, the genetic hypothesis for the pervasiveness of the three-way racial pattern across so many traits, and which calls into question simple explanations based only on social factors like discrimination and poverty, needs to be discussed.
In his commencement address to the graduating class of 1997 at the University of California (San Diego), U.S. President Bill Clinton called for a new dialogue on race and for “deepening our understanding of human nature and human differences.” But apparently there are some aspects of human nature and human differences he’d rather leave unexplored.
I’ve learned a great deal since that day in 1989 when I stood before that meeting of scientists and presented a summary of my research, thereby making myself the target of harassment by the politically correct and the object of intimidation by the government of Canada. Despite the viscious campaign against investigation of the possible genetic basis of group differences, my interest never wavered. Work on other topics seemed shallow by comparison. Spurred by attacks and aided by colleagues, I have sought out more definitive tests of the genetic hypothesis and continue to publish my research.
I’ve also learned how important freedom of inquiry is to science, which must always remain to pursue truth without regard for where that pursuit leads. I’ve learned to treasure such remnants of freedom of speech as I enjoy as a citizen of Canada, and remain more committed than ever to the search for truth. As Benjamin Franklin observed more than two centuries ago, “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom, and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.”
In the first part of this YouTube audio Harold Covington addresses those whites who will resist us in the coming civil war.
A magnificent piece by Christian Miller from Majority Rights:
White identity politics is a form of heresy, and heresy has grave consequences. Advocating White nationalism or merely defending White interests often results in a loss of social standing. Moral cowards, amoral sycophants, and racial traitors are rewarded while heroes and righteous guardians are demonized. Pretending that Whites are social constructs or have no legitimate interests to defend is accepted, even celebrated, in a society infested with anti-White multiculturalism. White racialists realize that the cornucopia of cultures is designed to exclude any White culture, and the future rainbow of races is actually a muddled mess of miscegenation. It is therefore a tremendous challenge to remain in steadfast support of the White extended genotype. The anti-White opposition is well-funded, well-organized, malicious, and persistent.
White advocacy is beset on all sides. Campaigning against White genocide attracts derision and scorn from anti-Whites. Lamenting the decline of the White population into minority status is attacked as intolerance. Merely calling attention to, let alone denouncing, the maliciously disproportionate amounts of violent interracial crime committed against White people is paradoxically described as hate. Protecting the continuity of family lineage by expecting exclusively White marriages and White procreation is seen as backwards, provincial, or outdated. Suggesting that many trends or ideas that harm White interests have been disproportionately created, organized, disseminated, or financed by Jewish interests can lead to accusations of insanity or mental instability.
This derision, scorn, and accusations of intolerance, hate, and insanity are reactions that require White nationalists to have a thick skin in order to maintain their viewpoints. It is hard to be a heretic. But the requisite resilience to carry forward is about more than insensitivity to insults or threats. It is inspired by the love of truth. White racialists know that race is real and that it has important consequences for civilization and ethnic genetic interests. White nationalists realize they are being systematically dispossessed and ethnically cleansed from their homelands. Defenders of White identity understand that there is nothing hateful or unhealthy about wanting to continue their heritage by having White babies in White societies.
The steely resolution that guides a White nationalist is a personality trait or perhaps a spiritual constitution that values eternal truth more than ephemeral social standing. A patriotic White man understands that truth can be directly opposed to popular opinion, and that such a situation is not without historical precedent. An exemplary White man is willing to act in accordance with that wisdom. A heroic White man can marshal these convictions into effective action and change the dynamics of society. The White race is in desperate need of more heroes.
White people are known to be more individualistic than other races. In a White-dominant society, free from ethnic or racial competition from non-White groups, this individualism helped propel White people beyond the established limits of science, technology, philosophy, and religion. The individualist refusal to conform to the “popular consensus”—which always opposes scientific breakthroughs or heretical ideas—is precisely why so many White historical figures persist within the collective memory as titans of Western civilization. Nobody remembers a conformist, but everybody remembers a successful catalyst of righteous revolution. The reward for success in such a struggle is immortal fame. How could it be any other way?
Why would anyone remember Galileo Galilee if he were not individualistic and self-assured enough to confront the ruling dogma of a geocentric universe? Whose bookshelf would carry the works of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn if he decided to bow his head to Soviet oppression because speaking out was not worth going to the gulag? Who could call themselves Protestant if Martin Luther lacked the courage and conviction to stand before the Catholic Church and criticize it without fear? All of these White men had radical ideas that stood directly against the ruling orthodoxies of their societies. These men would be scattered to the winds of time had they not found everlasting fame by tenaciously promoting important ideas despite intense societal opposition. These were all rebels with a cause, and that cause was truth. Truth is heresy before it is accepted as truth, so all of these men were once called heretics.
White nationalists face similar pressures because being pro-White is heresy in modern America. Professors will express hostility to ideas about White interests, and this may translate to lowered grades or a denial of tenure in the academic world. Employers often terminate workers who openly defend the civil rights of Whites in their private lives. Former friends may cut ties when they sense the imminent risks to social standing that follow from associating with a racially-conscious White person. Sometimes even immediate family members will choose material security and peer-group acceptance rather than support a relative who is protecting the entire extended family. Heresy has social consequences, as Galileo, Solzhenitsyn, and Luther knew all too well.
“Racist!” is the modern equivalent of “heretic!” Words like “intolerance” and “hate” are used as shibboleths to shout down dissension and preclude debate. The words have changed, but the methods of social ostracism remain the same. Cry “heretic!” or its equivalent, and let the crowd take care of the rest.
History is replete with examples of entrenched orthodoxy stultifying new ways of thinking in an oppressive manner. In more primitive times, the mystical shamans or oracles consulted with the gods in order to divine wisdom for tribal consumption. To deny the oracle’s wisdom, or to suggest the shaman was merely influenced by psychotropic drugs, was grounds for ostracism from the tribe. Only a heretic would oppose the dominant spiritual class because it was social suicide.
Skip forward thousands of years. Oracles and shamans became priests. The mystical priests consulted with God and the Bible in order to divine wisdom for public consumption. To deny the priests’ monopoly on the word of God, or to suggest they were power-hungry sycophants, was grounds for excommunication from the Church and society—a lesson Martin Luther learned the hard way. The charge of heresy was used to preclude reasonable debate, just as racism or anti-Semite is used today.
The modern ruling orthodoxy follows political correctness—the anti-White bastard child of Cultural Marxism. Nietzsche declared the death of God, but nature abhors a vacuum. In His place, the elite cabals in academia, finance, media, and politics erected a new totem pole to worship and venerate. Whether it is called liberalism, egalitarianism, Cultural Marxism, multiculturalism, or diversity, the dynamics of enforcing this untenable, genocidal, and anti-White worldview remain the same: ridicule, isolation, defamation, prosecution, ostracism, or humiliation— but never open debate. Heresy is not to be debated.
While most of humanity has evolved beyond burning heretics at the stake or performing ritual human sacrifice, the same procedural thought control remains, consistently corrupting and subverting impressionable White minds. Anyone who denies the existence of ritual sacrifice is not looking closely enough. If an influential figure violates the dogma of multiculturalism, the gatekeepers will quickly close ranks. Instead of ominous tribal drumbeats, the background music will be cries of “racist!” or “hater!” or “anti-Semite!” as the eager executioners prepare the sacrificial altar. Instead of carving out the heretic’s heart, the mainstream media and its supporters will try to ruin the heretic’s reputation as he is defamed as an intolerant, hateful, and bigoted person.
Public persecution of heretics persists in the modern age. Remember that the public sacrifice is also a warning. It is a powerful message to the rest of the group: heresy has serious consequences.
Unfortunately, the heretical path of White nationalism, White identity, and White interests is a narrow one. The trailblazers of the movement must deal with the prickly thorns, rough terrain, and back-breaking labor needed to clear the brush so others may be enticed to follow. At this stage, it is inevitable that some people will sever social connections with a pro-White person once the nationalist motivations are made clear. It seems strange that these same people would gladly continue the friendship, or express glowing admiration, if the cause at issue concerned the rights of any other racial group except for White people. This promiscuous out-group altruism is at the height of absurdity when an ostensibly White person rejects the company of another White person who advances both of their shared interests. But this is the reality of anti-White multiculturalism. The perverted ideas that have poisoned American discourse are designed to marginalize, ostracize, and demonize any remaining White person who dares to stand against the rolling tide of White dispossession.
What keeps a White nationalist from throwing in the towel? Why trudge on, when the road ahead is uphill and laden with obstacles at every turn? Beyond an undying love for one’s people, it is the same determination that drove Henry Ford to publicize Jewish subversion in the Dearborn Independent despite the imminent threat it posed to his financial interests. It is the same zeal for truth and liberty that compelled Thomas Jefferson to pen the Declaration of Independence.
The same love for truth burns in the heart of every White nationalist, and no amount of social pressure, slander, or temporary isolation is enough to extinguish the flame. The fuel source is the righteous indignation that arises when one man recognizes a cosmic injustice and is willing to fight through Hell to rectify it. The temptation of capitulation is great, the course of retreat is enticing, and the punishment for having the gall to continue is severe, but the footprints of so many great men of the past are enough to inspire forward progress. Spiritual man values virtue infinitely more so than material comfort or fleeting adoration from those not worthy to provide it. Patrick Henry confirmed his status as a spiritual man when he thundered his revolutionary call-to-arms to the Virginia House of Burgesses: “give me Liberty or give me Death!”
The movement for White identity and White interests needs more spiritual men. This is not intended to be a criticism of capitalism, profits, or material success. White nationalism needs donors, financiers, talented businessmen, and creative capitalists. But it is an inescapable conclusion that defending White people is not a get-rich-quick scheme, and it is not guaranteed to win more friends than enemies in the short term. Arthur Schopenhauer said “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as being self-evident.” White identity politics is somewhere between ridicule and violent opposition. The goal is to move towards Schopenhauer’s third stage. It will not be easy.
White nationalism is not for the weak, the timid, the gullible, or the emotionally dependent—instead, these attributes describe the demoralized and deracinated White person. The strong have always helped the weak; right now, the White race is in a position of weakness. Those who have not fallen under the spell of White guilt must reawaken their White brothers and sisters. Those who have looked beyond the horizon and gazed upon the possibility of White extinction must warn the unenlightened about the reality of White genocide. Those who value truth and who retain a healthy sense of White pride and White identity must shoulder the burden for the rest of the group who have been robbed of their heritage.
Leadership, integrity, persuasive ability, organizational skills, and inspirational ideas are sorely needed in the White nationalist movement. The genetic capacity to express these skills and traits has not been lost—yet. The potential remains within the White genotype, whether expressed or dormant, waiting to be expressed in the next familial iteration. Preserve that potential as an irreplaceable treasure. Remember that the spirit of conquest, scientific discovery, opposition to tyranny, bravery in the face of adversity, and most importantly, unshakeable determination in the pursuit of truth are all fundamental aspects of White genetic and historical heritage. The same individualism that has been cruelly exploited to disenfranchise Whites in the midst of hostile minorities can be redirected to fight against the injustice of White dispossession.
The inherently White characteristic of Western individualism can be rescued from its current subversion and redirected towards the improvement of White society. There was a time, not so long ago, when protecting the White race, the White nation, the White village, or the White family was a heroic and virtuous act to be celebrated, rather than a reason to be called a “racist.” This spirit of brotherhood, kin, and race has not been completely extinguished from the White population.
The task ahead is to awaken the yearning for truth, focused determination, sense of justice, ethnic identity, and iron will that resides within the White race. Part of the struggle is to destroy taboos and transform heresy to accepted truth. When that day comes, the titans will stand up, yawn, and throw off the shackles of anti-White multiculturalism with an effortless shrug of the shoulders. Charges of heresy will be ignored and fade away. Unencumbered and emancipated, the White race will continue its eternal march throughout history, breaking philosophical barriers, reaching higher plateaus of health and virility, discovering profound scientific truths, inventing exciting new technologies, and achieving greater zeniths of civilization. Who will lead the charge?
The article “The Jews and White Nationalism” republished on October 4, 2009 at The Occidental Quarterly Online when it was under the watch of Greg Johnson opens with the sentence:
Surfing the blogosphere, I stumbled upon The West’s Darkest Hour, a blog written by a TOQ Online reader and Lawrence Auster fan who has some concerns about the presence of anti-Semitism in the White Nationalist movement. Like Tanstaafl, it appears that Chechar learned of us through his involvement in the anti-Jihad movement. In his previous post about White Nationalism, Chechar described his odyssey from liberalism to spectator of the racialist underworld as being like awakening from “The Matrix.” Each revelation is the tip of a much larger iceberg.
The next year after the article was published I deleted the two above-linked articles because they spoke of a stage when I still held politically correct views about the Jews and Judaism. In this article I will briefly recount how after a series of revelations I finally woke up.
In an unpublished work that consumed a decade of my life, Hojas Susurrantes (Whispering Leaves), I recount how I grew up in a traditional family and how I was relatively well treated in my childhood. Alas, both of my parents started to abuse me and my sisters when we reached adolescence.
Since in those times nobody talked about child abuse or was willing to listen, my sisters and I grew up carrying over ourselves massive doses of unprocessed pain. In fact, my Hojas is a sort of mourning to deal with the pain caused by our parents’ betrayal and the society’s deafness toward the calls for help coming from the minor that I was. The mourning I endured since my late teens and throughout my twenties allowed me to see through the society’s denials. And it was precisely the long mourning and the consequent soul-building what allowed me, a year ago, to see the stark realities of the Jewish question.
Perhaps only those whose souls have been ploughed through pain could understand what do I mean. In the chapter “The Soul and the Barbed Wire” of The Gulag Archipelago Solzhenitsyn wrote insightful passages about how the human soul rotting in solitary confinement finds salvation through a metamorphosis that allowed him to turn the abyssal pain into wisdom. Like so many abused children and teenagers, the barbed wires of the Gulag islands drove many Russians mad. Solzhenitsyn managed to escape psychosis through soul-building as his defense mechanism. This is not easy. Not easy at all. But every time I read those Gulag pages I see myself through all those years in the self-imposed confinement of my study to find out how on Earth could such tragedy befell upon my beloved family. However, what Solzhenitsyn calls the ascent of the soul is such an enormous subject—wasn’t it Voltaire who said that man could know the universe but that it would need eternity to learn something about his soul?—that I will leave it like that.
* * *
Fleeing from Zapatero’s degenerate Spain, on September 11, 2009 I printed and ring-bind twenty-five articles of The Occidental Quarterly. One of the first articles that I started to read crossing over the Atlantic, “The Seven Pillars of White Nationalism,” fascinated me, especially the author’s stance about how “National Socialism might save us.” I had never read anything like that in a serious journal. The author’s views seemed extreme to me; I stopped reading the article, and tried to get some sleep in the plane.
The following days, weeks and months the whole business of White Nationalism struck me as extremely engrossing. Despite of what I then perceived as a flaw in the movement, anti-Semitism, I found myself discovering that the matrix in which I was previously sleeping was far deeper and alienating than what I previously thought. So alienated from reality I was that it may be said that in the last fifteen years I have been awakening from a series of different though inter-chained matrixes, with “each revelation as the tip of a much larger iceberg,” until reaching the real awaking point.
In 1995, after a long process of digesting the literature of the skeptics of the paranormal, I gave up my old belief in psycho-kinesis: the subject of the first entry of my blog. (Since my late teens and twenties I had gone astray in New Age magical thinking precisely because it was my flawed defense mechanism during my dark night of the soul—a night in which I quixotically strove to heal the family wounds through paranormality.) Alongside with my awakening from para-psychological beliefs, in my thirties Octavio Paz’s essays debunked in my mind much, though not all, of the ideologies of the Spanish-speaking Left. His many critiques in Vuelta represented a fresh waking up from the dogmas I had been taught in High School.
But those awakenings were transformations allowed within the matrix system in which I still mentally inhabited, as was my next awakening.
Closely related to child abuse are the mental health professions that during intergenerational conflicts always side the parents, and therefore, the perpetrators of the abuse at home. For example, on the parents’ behalf some psychiatrists prescribe psychiatric drugs to rebellious, albeit sane, children, especially males. It was not until a 1998-1999 mental health course at the Open University of Manchester that I discovered the most important books of the main critics of psychiatry and psychoanalysis. I awoke to the fact that such professions function like a political pseudoscience to enforce the will of abusive parents, which moved me to write down those findings in my native language.
What precipitated that awakening was the footnoted information that I collected still within the fringes of the university system. Then in 2002 I discovered the work of Swiss psychologist Alice Miller, who unlike the previous critics of the mental health professions is a real taboo in the academia. Only thanks to her I discovered that the psychic toll of parental abuse on children is a forbidden issue in all societies (I write about this in the third book of my Hojas).
But that was not all. In 2006 another non-academic author surprised me. Lloyd deMause answered my email questions about child abuse in the Ancient World and advised me to read a couple of chapters of one his major works.
I was impressed. The discovery of deMause’s psychohistory widened the vision I had previously learnt in Miller’s works. After assimilating psychohistory I found myself with a meta-perspective that comprised child abuse studies from early civilizations to modern man. The “unified field” provided by my inward soul-searching process thanks to Miller, and the outward historical research provided by deMause, made me feel I had an unrivalled point of view to see the tragedy of my family in particular and of Homo sapiens in general.
I was deluded, if we take into account that psychology is not unrelated to sociology and that an authentic free press only started with the advent of the Internet.
By the end of September of 2008 I discovered the blogosphere; watched some online documentaries about the Islamization of Europe, and learnt how the prolific Muslims may overrun Western civilization by the end of the century. Originally skeptical about these apparently preposterous claims, in Madrid I purchased a translated copy of Bruce Bawer’s While Europe Slept. By the end of 2008 I was still a liberal and could only read fairly liberal stuff. Since the family that destroyed my life are very traditional Catholics, conservatives had been anathema thoroughout my intellectual life. Only after Bawer convinced me that there was indeed a demographic problem in Europe I dared to purchase English-Spanish translated copies of both Oriana Fallaci’s trilogy on Islamization and Robert Spencer’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam. Spencer is only a scholar on Islam. But it took me a Sabbatical year to digest the material from the more intellectually-inclined counter-jihad blogsites in English.
The extensive reading on these broader sociopolitical issues not only shattered my former liberal worldview and turned me into, God forbid, a conservative: it convinced me that those concerned about the Islamization of the West were right, and their Lefty detractors in gross denial. Now I surely was mature psycho-historically and politically, I thought.
Nope! I was a chick still struggling to break free from his eggshell to glimpse the real world. By the time I started to read The Occidental Quarterly at the international airport I knew that there was a group of people who in the previous decade had coined a new term, White Nationalism. It is true that by the end of 2009 I still disagreed with the nationalists about the Jewish question. This difference aside, after discovering the existence of such an important group of intellectuals that the system had screened off from my vision for half a century of my life, I felt I had finally broken the last of the Russian dolls-like eggshells and that I could finally hear the voice, “Welcome to the real world!”
Alas, I was still sleeping!
But the last Morphean dream could not last long. Thanks in part to the efforts of Tanstaafl, in February of 2010 I was “struck by a lightening bolt” that cracked the last shell. I realized that I had gotten the Jewish question all wrong and that the Jewish problem was not hallucinatory as I believed. It was all too real after all!
Before that most crucial day of February 24, 2010 I used to interchange emails with two of the best Jewish minds in the blogosphere active in counter-jihad. Paradoxically, these pair helped me to wrap my head around the question of their tribe. Of course: both got mad after I flipped sides. But what convinced me of the essential truth of anti-Semitism is that neither of these two intellectuals could say anything rational about my February challenge:
If by March I don’t get a convincing rebuttal of Avery Bullard’s statement [that Jews are never overrepresented in movements that represent our interests, only in those that weaken us] from those who have advised me in e-mails to shun those who criticize the Jews, I will have no option but to remove the “non anti-Semitic” clause before “White Nationalism” in my blog’s masthead.
After this provocative challenge the pair did not engage in civil discussion. They simply ignored the new world I was starting not only to glimpse beyond the outer, now ripped membrane, but ignored too the clarity of my vision once I finally passed through the shell and stepped outside this last prison for the white mind.
One of them said in his webpage that he would never talk to me again unless I reverted my paradigm back to my previous views on the Jewish question. The other intellectual behaved even more irrationally. Infuriated, he told Tanstaafl, “I see you as my direct and mortal enemy” and threatened in my blog that he would “have nothing to do with Chechar as long as he has anything to do with you.”
The Jekyll-Hyde transformation of a famed author for the readers of The Brussels Journal took me by surprise. But the reaction of the non-Jews—the Christian, agnostic and pagan commenters at the blogsite Gates of Vienna where I had originally met them all—taught me a lesson. The GoV admin emailed me telling that he would stop publishing the rest of my psycho-historical book. Obviously, neither he nor other of these deracinated whites dared to discuss the issues. For we gentiles, criticism of Jews is considered beyond the pale. Nationalist readers will find comical that the Norwegian Fjordman, one of the most notable gentile bloggers in counter-jihad, has stated: “It appears that the only people who can denounce genuine anti-Semitism yet at the same time criticize liberal Jews are people who are part-Jewish themselves, such as Larry Auster or Takuan Seiyo.” In other words, only the Jews can criticize Jews. [Note of August 2011: It now looks that Fjordman is Jewish on his father's side]
These gentiles are beyond our reach however we approach them. The sad truth is that due to their unwillingness to see the elephant in the room these whites, who fancy themselves as defenders of the West, are, inadvertently, undermining their civilization.
Granted: like them I was a philo-Semite most of my adult life. I blame Hollywood and the general culture for this nasty and incredibly hard to crack outer shell that walled-off my mind from the real world for so long. But the main difference between me and these Jews and non-Jews who cling to neo-conservatism is honesty or the lack thereof.
* * *
If there is a moral that can be deduced from my spiritual odyssey is that the dishonesty of the family, psychology friends and counter-jihad conservatives I left behind is a byproduct of deep, ingrained cowardice.
In my teens, when I was abused at home, I believed that compassion was the main virtue of humankind. In my twenties and thirties, when I struggled with the religious demons of my parental introjects, I believed that reason in the sense of the Enlightenment philosophers was the main virtue. In my forties, when my haughty family refused to read the heartbreaking autobiography I had written, I believed that humility was the main virtue.
In my middle age I have come to realize that all is about valor and honesty.
Kievsky’s recent article “What’s Wrong with White Americans?” provoked an exchange between smart white nationalists and those clueless about racial issues that moved me to quote excerpts of it (no ellipsis added between unquoted sentences):
@ Matt Parrott
But hopefully you can understand, from that framework, why I believe it’s imperative that we preserve the White population and our unique attributes.
No, I don’t understand why we’re making race-mixing an issue. If it’s such an issue, then what is your proposal as to a solution for this problem? Do we get rid of everyone who is mixed? Do we marginalize them as African-Americans were done in the past to the fringe of our culture?
Furthermore, without a solution, you prove of how little substance you and the rest of the white elitist movement (call it Racial Realism, if that makes you feel more like Jared Taylor and less like David Duke) are made of. I want to know how you and the rest of the white elitists plan to re-establish yourself as the dominant class. Or, because I doubt that will happen, the surge in reproductive rates in minority communities will eventually establish another ethnic group as the ruling class in a few hundred years. White elitists such as yourself have already been marginalized to the confines of the web and intellectually racist publications such as the Occidental Quarterly and American Renaissance. Neither you nor Kievsky would have the balls to say something to me if you saw me on the street with my African American girlfriend and future wife. You are confined to the web to espouse your hate and that gives me immense satisfaction.
I hope you’re happy with your decision to marry a Black woman. I’m sure your children will be immensely benefited by the Black genes. I bet you’re so happy that you have extinguished the White heritage of your family.
Some White people want to remain White and not have propaganda shoved down their throat and down their children’s throats about how it’s cool to race-mix. It obviously worked on you. You think it’s cool and that you are morally unimpeachable.
I’ve got news for you. You’ve made a huge mistake, and there is a reason people are staring at you and your pet minority. It’s because you have chosen to mix with one of the most undeveloped people on Earth. They think, “What is wrong with that White man, to stoop to that level.” I assure you, even the anti-White diversity lovers think this in secret.
We all know race is real and it matters.
Enjoy your mulatto children. Don’t blame us when half of their genes revert to the Black American IQ of 85. Don’t blame us when they grow without any real identity, confused as to whether they are Black or White, when in reality they are neither. Don’t blame us when they most likely side with and consider themselves part of the Black culture, which will give you plenty of blessings of diversity.
Matt Parrott said…
No, I don’t understand why we’re making race-mixing an issue. If it’s such an issue, then what is your proposal as to a solution for this problem?
Simple. Let those of us who are White leave. Then don’t follow us. There are regions of America that are almost completely White. And even an Orania-style enclave will do. After all, most White Americans are eager to shed their ethnic identities and plunge into the Cosmic rainbow nation, so a humble little reservation ought to be sufficient.
Do we get rid of everyone who is mixed? Do we marginalize them as African-Americans were done in the past to the fringe of our culture?
Yes. You get rid of the ones who are mixed. You don’t “marginalize” them or exploit them as underlings, second-class citizens, or anything. That’s one of the best features of you letting me depart – you no longer have to deal with me lording my racism and White Privilege over you. It’s win-win.
What are the stringency tests for racial purity and being “white”?
Not that stringent at all. If the person looks like he’s probably of overwhelmingly European descent and he embraces his White American identity to the exclusion of non-White American identities, then he’s in. No DNA tests. No craniometry. Just intuitive straightforward stuff. And if some people with fractional Black ancestry end up there, then that’s okay, since this is about ethnic identity, not biological purity.
If you do not have a platform to stand on behind what you deem a “problem”, then you are just espousing white elitism.
I’ve been very very clear about rejecting “white elitism”. In case you hadn’t noticed, “white elitism” is the default state we’re in right now. Rich White guys dominate and exploit Mexican immigrants, the Black underclass, and overseas sweatshop laborers to enrich themselves. The platform I’m building (it’s not sturdy enough to actually stand on just yet) is one in which we Whites who wish to carry on as Whites will gladly hand over every bit of America’s infrastructure to you, every bit of it’s most fertile land to you, and every bit of its wealth and global influence to you, in exchange for being allowed to go off and simply exist.
It doesn’t seem like I’m offering you a bad deal.
I want to know how you and the rest of the white elitists plan to re-establish yourself as the dominant class.
I am fighting harder than anybody else to dislodge us from being part of America’s dominant class.
Or, because I doubt that will happen, the surge in reproductive rates in minority communities will eventually establish another ethnic group as the ruling class in a few hundred years. White elitists such as yourself have already been marginalized to the confines of the web and intellectually racist publications such as the Occidental Quarterly and American Renaissance.
No question. Folks like me who are trying to secure the basic rights we need to continue as a people are getting our asses kicked, are being marginalized, and have been reduced to nothing but a handful of websites and self-published books.
Neither you nor Kievsky would have the balls to say something to me if you saw me on the street with my African American girlfriend and future wife.
I wouldn’t have anything to say to you and your girlfriend unless you asked. You have every right to be in an interracial relationship and be in an interracial community. More power to you. No judgment, here. Now please extend the same courtesy to those of us who choose to remain among our own kind. You act like I’m the one who’s trying to control you when my core message is the exact opposite of wanting anything to do with you. You’re the one threatening me.
I take my message to the street very regularly. Less than a month ago, I stood on the statehouse steps and delivered my message, unfiltered, to a mob of Mexicans, Blacks, and “anti-fascists”. With the exception of the anti-fascists, who continued barking at me, the others politely debated me, conceded some points, made some good points, and acted like adults.
You are confined to the web to espouse your hate and that gives me immense satisfaction.
The only one espousing hate on the Internet is you.
Realist, Go fuck yourself. That is all.
Don’t blame us when half of their genes revert to the Black American IQ of 85.
Huh? That doesn’t even make any sense. Children’s IQ’s are at least half inherited from their parents, not from their parents’ races average IQ.
Cameron said: “the surge in reproductive rates in minority communities will eventually establish another ethnic group as the ruling class in a few hundred years.”
Actually miscegenation or even the growth of brown or black populations does not establish new ethnic ruling classes. In fact, it only makes that population more susceptible to the whims and control of the typical ethnic ruling classes.
This is precisely why elites in USA are happy to race-replace (i.e. genocide) White Americans to minority status in favor of brown Mexicans and Third Worlders. There are many places where miscegenation or the growth of brown populations has happened for hundreds of years. Guess what? It gets worse. They turn Third World.
Do you think Brazil is some multicultural utopia? Sure, some Brazilian will lie to your face and say they don’t think about race because it’s so mixed. It’s BS. Brazil is incredibly racially stratified. The favelas (ghettos/shantytowns) are all filled with Blacks and some browns. The White (German/Italian) and Japanese and Jewish elite live in houses with barbed wire and tall fences or walls. Is this utopia? The lighter-skinned mulattos, if they happen to achieve material success, invariably “marry up” by marrying a lighter or White person. All countries and cultures do this.
Did you know India used to be ruled by Indo-Europeans (White people)? That’s why they instituted to the caste system. Over time, the system failed. Now India is mostly brown. Is India a wonderful place, or is it a teeming mess of Third World brown people with starving children and flies and disease everywhere?
Haiti used to be the Jewel of the Caribbean, when the evil White Frenchman ruled it. It exported 40% of global sugar. Then the African slaves killed all the French, and even killed the mulattos. Guess what? Haiti is now all-black, and it is the embarrassment of the Western hemisphere. A little Africa.
Ever notice how the South American countries with the highest White populations are the most stable and have the best economies? Gee, what a coincidence. Ever notice how the industrial capital of Brazil is Sao Paolo, with a higher concentration of German, Italian, and Japanese immigrants? How strange.
While anti-Whites spew their filth about ending race, what they really mean is the end of the White race. Nobody says Africa is too Black. Nobody says Mexico is too brown, let’s flood it with non-Mexicans and create a blended humanity.
Yet every White nation and only White nations are “not diverse enough” so we have to flood them with non-Whites and encourage “integration” (i.e. miscegenation). Even if you couldn’t object to this on the genocide that it is, at least look at it from a utilitarian perspective.
You’re trying to kill the goose that lays golden eggs! If this evil plan works, I wish the best for your sloppy mongrel descendants who sadly live in a brown society of stagnation and decline. But hey, it was all worth it, right?
Alte: It’s called “reversion to the mean.” The genes of the parent are not in isolation. So two 120 IQ Black people that have a kid are more likely to have a smarter-than-black-average kid, but the kid’s IQ nonetheless has a tendency to “revert to the mean”, which for blacks is 85 IQ (USA, 20% White blacks) or 70 (real blacks, Africans).
Gorilla: truth is hard, I know. It’s very hard to either (a) realize you’re not White and that racial differences are real or (b) if you are White, realize that everything Mommy Professor told you in college about race isn’t really true.
Thinking exercise: replace everyone in Haiti with Japanese people. In 50 years, who can honestly say that this experimental group will not exceed actual Haiti (all black) in 50 years? You’d have to be nuts to not realize that different groups (races) have different abilities to build and sustain civilization. And the pattern is quite clear. Whites and Northeast Asians are very good at this. Browns are not so good at this. Blacks cannot even create anything remotely approaching civilization. Ever visited Africa? Blacks cannot even sustain civilization when it is handed to them, e.g. Haiti, Detroit, Gary, Watts, DC, Chicago, or… any significantly black neighborhood, area, swath of land, nation or continent.
Everybody says there is this race problem. Everybody says this race problem will be solved when the third world pours into every white country and only into white countries.
The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this race problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and “assimilating” with them.
Everybody says the final solution to this race problem is for every white country and only white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was this race problem and this race problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into every black country and only into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a race problem. I am talking about the final solution to the black problem?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a nazi who wants to kill six million Jews.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
If Genghis hadn’t passed away all of Europe might have fallen to the Golden Horde. Islam had its hey-day too – one of the most important words in mathematics “algebra” has its origin in Islam.
That’s a very fancy way to avoid the simple truth: Whites build superior societies, and then non-Whites try desperately to follow them to said societies. You can talk all day about correlation or phenotype or anything else that impresses the easily impressed, but you can’t refute my simple truth. White people (and North East Asians) make great civilizations. Brown people make stagnant or declining civilizations. Black people ruin and are incapable of creating or sustaining civilization. Some Whites just want to be left alone in their White societies, even if there are super-genius, power-lifting, Ivy league Blacks/browns/mongrels to serve as the “exception.” I’m sorry, I know you this amazing mamzer is a valuable individual, as Parrott said, he’s “Super.” But he’s not White. And not average or representative, rather, he is an outlier.
Does anyone here dispute there is such thing as a Black person? An Asian? Probably not, if they have a lick of sense. But due to decades of anti-White “critical studies” and academic race-denial, there are credulous people still piping off about how there is no such thing as white people.
OK, fine. No such thing as White people. So you don’t mind if we have a world of exclusively White people, right? Nothing wrong with that, it’s just a social construct. Please. Race is real and there is a racial type that can be further broken down into subgroup: White… Nordic… Alpine… Dinaric… Mediterranean… Call it whatever you’d like, Caucasian, European, Europid. But don’t feed us these lies and distortions about doubting the existence of White people.
P.S. Genghis Khan conquered a lot. They also say he had red hair. But either way, he did not build complex societies. He just conquered a lot of land. Amazing in its own right but that’s not a good example of building a successful civilization. He was an insanely-success warlord.
The delusional narrative in the minds of most White Nationalists and White Supremacists is one of “The Immutable Superiority of Whiteness”. That is, that the current geopolitical, social, cultural and economic hegemony held by Anglo-Europeans is due strictly to partitioned genetic factors.
It is not due to the narrow “Fertile Crescent” of highly arable land extending diagonally from Turkey up to Germany which allowed for stabilized agriculture and animal husbandry for thousands of years.
It is not due to geography and irregular resource distribution driving historical inter-ethnic conflict and cross-continental exchange which then spurned the advancement of martial and utility technologies up to the modern age.
It is not due to brutal domestic class stratification and then worldwide colonialism giving rise to relatively cheap manpower, goods and energy sources.
It is not due to the U.S. corporate, banking and military industrial complexes exploiting the all but destroyed infrastructure and geopolitical spheres of allies post World War I and World War II for gain.
It is not due to any of these rational and easily corroborated facts; No — It is due to their belief in the mystical ability of that socio-cultural concept known as whiteness.
To those skeptical of the claims and aims of White Nationalists and White Supremacists, know that the nature of their faith in their Elected Nature as the vanguard of their “Peoples” prevents them from seeing any logistical or logical fallacy that bolsters their ego and self-esteem.
For this reason, much like any zealotous cultist you may encounter, it is best to be wary and aware of them — But generally to avoid being drawn into their perceptual frame of false victimhood through argument.
Anytime someone defends White interests, people bring up superiority. Question: If Whites want racial partition, how can there be any of this oppression or supremacism, at all? There cannot. It is impossible. All we’re saying is that we don’t want non-Whites to hang around us and leach off of us, and what do we get for it? People call us supremacist.
Supremacy and Superiority. No race is supreme or superior. You can only compare the average ability or best examples of a race on specific abilities. West African Bantus are superior at sprinting and jumping (watch the 100 meter dash or the NBA). They also have superior bone density. But that same density makes them poor swimmers. Here’s where the “supremacy” BS comes up. Whites seem to be superior in the things that count. Civilization. Intelligence. Creativity. Joseph Sobran:
“Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It’s Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don’t grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it. And, superiority excites envy. Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call minorities.” [Chechar's bold and italics]
Minorities realize they are the children of the White world, desperately clinging to the guardianship and good will of others, never able to live as free and independent adults. So Whites get called supremacists and oppressors. After decades and trillions of dollars of non-White handouts, redistribution schemes, and social programs, Whites are still these evil supremacist racists.
“Socio-cultural concept known as whiteness”.
Let’s point out the obvious: nobody denies the existence of any other race. It is only Whites who are demonized and denigrated as a social construct. I will not accept your evil, genocidal characterization of my race. It is wrong to deny the existence of my race just so you can wipe it off the planet with miscegenation, anti-White discrimination, and the imminent violence that happens whenever Whites find themselves in the minority (e.g. US inner cities, South Africa, former Rhodesia).
You have no right to deny the existence of the White race. If there’s no White race, I suppose you won’t mind if the entire world consists of only White people? Of course you would. That’s wrong. Every race has the right to exist, including the White race.
The biggest supremacists and haters and bigots are not White Nationalists or defenders of White rights. The worst of the lot are anti-White people who do nothing but spew venom against Whites, blame them for everything, and call for their slow genocide through intermarriage, income distribution, and overwhelming non-White immigration into all White nations and only White nations.
Tell us, why do you hate Whites so much? Why are you so anti-White? What did Whites ever do to you that make your heart so cold and black? How can you justify White genocide?
By the way, Ruby Rothstein, your Mommy Professor forgot to tell you something about the Fertile Crescent. Africa has the largest and most fertile farmland and natural resources in the world, bar-none. Why isn’t Africa booming with intelligent and productive people?
Oh, I forgot. You believe in environmentalist explanations, like that which Jared Diamond proposes in Guns, Germs, and Steel. That’s cute. The problem is that theory is completely and 100% false, and Jared Diamond is a known race-denier. He denies it right at the beginning of his book!
How can environmentalism and natural resource endowment theory explain the rise of Japan (tiny island, few natural resources). Why isn’t Mexico a bigger economic player, since it is teeming with natural resources and arable land (hint: it’s full of Mexicans). How in the world is Iceland doing so well in that cold, desolate place?
Some people will just never admit what is front of their noses: race matters. Culture and civilization is the expression of race.
Race is not a social construct. Society is a racial construct. If you replace Mexico with Swedish people, it will improve. If you replace Sweden with Mexicans, it will devolve.
If Africa and Europe switch populations, in 100 years Europe will be using candles and hacking each other’s arms off, and Africa will be a major center of commerce with stable and successful civilization.
Well said, Realist. You’re obviously correct, and the detractors here are obviously motivated by anti-white sentiment.
The thing is, when someone points out some accomplishment of Asians or Jews you aren’t going to see butt-hurt Whites crying, whining about oppression, or playing the victim and demanding compensation. This is what Blacks do, for example, because they don’t have any historical achievements to take pride in. Hell, they haven’t even contributed a cogent religion or philosophical system. And no, voodoo doesn’t count. They are parasitic everywhere they go, and there’s nothing oppressive about Whites wanting to live without them. “If the Negro is entitled to lift himself up by enforced association with the white man, why should not the white man be entitled to prevent himself from being pulled down by enforced association with the Negro?” – William T. Polk.
Err… wow. Philosophically, I’m all for finding a place where you can be as white as you want to be. Practically speaking, there’s not an infinite amount of land.
I don’t have time correct your misinformation in detail, but you should read Jared Diamonds book in closer detail. His thesis was that north south transfer of agriculture and pastoralism was much more difficult than east west transfer. He backed this up with up a wide spectrum of evidence. Please don’t try to contradict Jared Diamond with such poor justification. I’m open to the idea that he is wrong and a race-denier, but simply stating does not make his idea wrong (ad hominem fallacy).
Black people have been very unlucky and it’s unfortunate, because as a result a lot of their accomplishments get lost in the fray. If you stop saying negroes suck for a second you might start finding examples of what American blacks have done, as well as evidence of large African empires that impressively resisted colonial rule. Africa is a clusterfuck of colonialism that is useless for the purpose of extrapolating inferences on negroes.
In South America, the mapuche adapted European technology quickly and were able to hold their independence until they helped with Chilean independence and then got screwed over as a result.
Japan is a poor example due to vibrant trade with China. When they shutdown and stagnated our dear Rear Admiral Perry showed up with advanced ships and intimated the Japanese into the future. China got raped by Japan in WWII.
If you really want a place for whites, where you’ll be left alone, you’re going to have to find an inhospitable piece of land that nobody wants. Otherwise, you’re gonna have a heck of time defending it without your non-white separatist former countrymen. You could start something like the free state project that the libertarians tried – Alaska has tons of natural resources and a clean food supply. They’ve already got a good pro-white base and if you all moved there and seceded I’d be all for it. If white are so good at empire building you could eventually take over Canada and show the world how it’s done.
Matt Parrott said…
Err… wow. Philosophically, I’m all for finding a place where you can be as white as you want to be. Practically speaking, there’s not an infinite amount of land.
This is transparent BS. There are vast swaths of relatively habitable land in the United States alone that are essentially uninhabited. The bottom line now is that we have no political power, so you can play your cheeky shtick of “Sorry, little buddy, the Earth just doesn’t have enough room for any White people.”
Of course, if I were to invert the equation and declare that there wasn’t enough room in the world for mixed-race people, I would be vilified.
I don’t have time correct your misinformation in detail, but you should read Jared Diamonds book in closer detail. His thesis was that north south transfer of agriculture and pastoralism was much more difficult than east west transfer.
Diamond begins his book with an explicit declaration of bias against White people and an irrational refusal to consider that humans have innate group differences in intelligence. His book is overwhelmingly true, but it deliberately leaves out a huge piece of the puzzle: Those serendipitous geographical advantages in agricultural, animal domestication, and military technology shared throughout the fertile temperate belt also conferred a genetic advantage over time.
The 10,000 Year Explosion maps out how a lot of these relatively recent factors, many of which Diamond brings to bear, appear to have genetically altered us, as well. How could things with such a dramatic effect on our habitat not genetically alter us?
If you stop saying negroes suck for a second you might start finding examples of what American blacks have done, as well as evidence of large African empires that impressively resisted colonial rule.
Black people are awesome, and much of America’s cultural contributions have been due to the cultural and artistic synergies that come with Whites leveraging their resources and media technologies to tap into the Black American imagination. They ain’t that bright and they ain’t that safe. But I’ve never said they suck. I guess if there’s a race out there that really sucks, it’s the Andamanese negrito. Those folks have nothing going for them.
For this reason, much like any zealotous cultist you may encounter, it is best to be wary and aware of them — But generally to avoid being drawn into their perceptual frame of false victimhood through argument.
Translation: Their arguments are persuasive. But as the adult in the room, I order you to dismiss them as crazies and keep walking. Don’t let them suck you into their hypnotic “We have a right to exist” voodoo word games. Nothing to see, here.
Nullpointer April 1, 2011 at 2:03 pm
You will maintain intensive agriculture on this land, how? You’re going to have to trade with some very unsavory folks as well as people who aren’t going to trust you. You think a large more effective society won’t ever disenfranchise you? Doesn’t necessarily need to be a multi-cultural one. Chinese, Indians, and others have a lot of mouths to feed. It’s gonna get rough.
I’m not disagreeing with you on the possibility that populations have innate differences. I’m saying you have no metric, with which to turn that into a useful statement. Populations have parameters and you can estimate those parameters from samples of a population, but you can’t extend that into a useful mathematical framework for expressing your idea of whiteness. I can’t cite this, but if I recall correctly intra-racial variation in blacks is greater than the inter-racial variation between whites and blacks. Mitochondrial DNA comes from what seven women.
In addition, I don’t see a conclusive link between the environment and increasing complexity that justifies the accelerated evolutionary claims you make. Mexicans had wheels they just used them on toys (just a single example). I’m sure there’s somebody out there with a theory about how spending all your time fighting and doing agriculture made white people smarter, but pre-pastoral cultures could identify thousands of herbs and effects by memory alone.
Whites have a history of taking other people’s ideas and using them in creative new ways (advanced sailing & pastoralism from Arabs as an example). This maybe a result of forced interaction within the small space in Europe and trying to eek out every advantage possible to kill each other, but there’s been plenty of other societies in Eurasia that had equal or greater success (in particular the Chinese), but due to their isolation lost the impetus. Has this made the Chinese dumb? Does losing Jerusalem to renewed Islamic vigor in the later crusades make the West dumb or weak? As the mapuche in the south of Chile showed, taking technology, mastering it, and improving it is not an inherently “white” quality.
Looking at a successful society is the ultimate source of success bias. You only see the society we’re in that made it, you never see all the other societies that were identical (often made up of white people) who were not so lucky and just died out (at some point in the past). Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there are some differences, but I think there’s a lot of assumptions that I don’t think we’ll be able to settle.
Matt Parrott said…
I never claimed to be somehow “pure” of influence of non-White non-gentile cultures. I’m all about learning about and learning from other people. I just believe there’s a line to be drawn the crossing of which results in threatening the integrity of your people. You can learn karate and enjoy Cohen Brothers films without agreeing to the wholesale replacement of your people.
You will maintain intensive agriculture on this land, how?
If Icelanders can have paradise on Earth atop a craggy island in the frigid North, Dutchmen can create their own nation from scratch through draining the ocean, and Mormons can establish a celestial homeland in the arid West, then we can figure it out. Don’t worry yourself about whether we sink or swim once you allow us off your boat.
I can’t cite this, but if I recall correctly intra-racial variation in blacks is greater than the inter-racial variation between whites and blacks.
Stop for a moment and try to actually parse what you’re saying. It means nothing. It’s as asinine as noting that physical strength varies more within gender than between gender, as if that negates the very real differences in the strengths of the two genders.
Mitochondrial DNA comes from what seven women.
That was a really long time ago. And it’s not like this means there were seven chicks during the bottleneck, only the seven of the female lineages exist unbroken into the present. While this would only mean there had been a bottleneck about 120,000 years ago, it means even less in light of the discovery that Eurasians have a small but significant amount of Neanderthal admixture, pushing the actual evolutionary divergence between the populations higher than 500,000 years.
A casual stroll will confirm that there was no shortage of genetic diversity within the genome for humans to diverge into radically different forms with radically different characteristics in a relatively short span of time.
In addition, I don’t see a conclusive link between the environment and increasing complexity that justifies the accelerated evolutionary claims you make.
In a sparsely populated and environmentally challenging habitat, you don’t have to worry as much about being killed by somebody who’s smarter than you. The higher population densities and more free time that people in the temperate belt had afforded them more opportunities to engage in male territorial aggression, causing a race condition in which human intelligence evolved in competition with human intelligence. It’s a familiar evolutionary template.
The human brain is analogous to a deer’s antlers or a rhino’s horn. It’s there for killing other male humans. The fact that increased intelligence also enabled them to even more efficiently populate the environment was merely an added bonus, one that caused more overpopulation and more male territorial aggression. Female humans are almost as intelligent, but only because most of the genes for increased intelligence were gender-neutral.
Female thinking is evolutionarily vestigial. Women have abstract thoughts for the same reason men have nipples.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there are some differences, but I think there’s a lot of assumptions that I don’t think we’ll be able to settle.
At the beginning of this back and forth, I asserted that my official reason for separatism was a simple wholesome nationalist love of my ethnic extended family that didn’t need justified and existed independently of all this scientific stuff. I just indulged in a digression. I agree that blog’s comment section is not the most fruitful medium for seriously resolving these more subtle and specific tangents.