It’s depressing to read the continual barrage of racial propaganda in the mainstream media. A December 28 LA Times’ op-ed, “The dark side of white,” by Gregory Rodriguez is a wonderful example of intellectual confusion and ethnic special pleading. He writes, “Oh sure, some dim-witted people thought [race] was a rigidly scientific category. But for the most part, the evolving definitions and elastic boundaries were subject to cultural bias and, let’s face it, whim and subjectivity.”
Races are descent groups. It couldn’t be more obvious or more rooted in the modern science of population genetics. Of course, there is a biological reality to race as even a brief glance at a diagram like the following shows.
Race exists as a biological reality and, as Frank Salter reminds us, race constitutes an important storehouse of genetic interests for all humans. The number of races is not set in stone but is a more a matter of where one wants to draw lines. The figure results in seven different racial groups, but one could easily combine some groups together and get a lower number.
Biological descent is not the whole story, but I suspect that Rodriguez is well aware that the cultural components of race are far more than “whim and subjectivity.” To a large extent cultural influences result from conflicts of perceived interest and political infighting, and multiculturalists like Rodriguez are experts at this game. Indeed, the #1 way that culture influences our concept of race is the denial by the political left that there is any biological basis for race at all.
As noted in a previous blog, by using our rational faculties (what psychologists label ‘explicit processing’), we can decide how to carve up the racial landscape to best suit our political and genetic interests. A good example is in crime statistics where “Hispanic” is considered as a victim category for “hate crimes” but not considered a category of offender. Another example is provided by Rodriguez: An Arab American leader complains “because we are not treated as white in society and by the government, but we also don’t qualify as minorities to get the benefits of some programs.” There are obvious benefits for being in an official victim category.
Rodriguez notes that the 2010 census will not have ethnic breakdowns for Whites — a tribute to the genetic and cultural assimilation among the pre-1965 White population. On the other hand, Latinos and Asians will have sub-categories (Mexican-American, Cuban; Chinese, Japanese). He then worries that “we as a nation care less about the many ethnic groups that helped build this country than the divisive racial categories that have generally served to divide it. … As the concept of ethnicity vanishes into whiteness, society’s alienation abounds.”
In Rodriguez’s ideal world, there would be no category of ‘White” at all—the peoples that now make up the category of White would remain separate — German-Americans, Italian-Americans, etc.
But it’s too late for all that: America has indeed been a melting pot for the various European ethnicities and there’s no going back. Getting rid of the category of White would be a great strategy for Rodriguez and his people but would be a poor strategy for Whites: For a European-American, it makes much more sense to identify with others who can trace their ancestry back to Europe before 1492, but quite possibly excluding Jews given the unusually long history of hostility and mistrust between Jews and Europeans and because most of their genetic background derives from the Middle East. We may not want to include Arab Americans because of the genetic distance and because their voting patterns are not similar to those of European Americans.
Rodriguez would love it if Whites identified themselves only as Scottish Americans or Italian-Americans because these relatively small groups have much less political potential in multicultural America than the category of White or European-American.
When push comes to shove in the US — and push will come to shove, it will indeed be Whites versus the non-White racial and ethnic minorities. We have already traveled a long way down this road, with 90% of Republican votes coming from Whites and an average of around 80% of non-Whites voting Democrat. The gulf will only become more obvious as time goes on. (Incidentally, including groups like Jews and Arabs in the White category functions to blunt perceptions of the racial divide in American politics because these groups are far more likely to vote with the multi-cultural Democrat coalition than people whose ancestry derives from Christian Europe.)
The concept of race is not set in stone. How we behave on the basis of this information is not at all determined by the genetic data. We Europeans must define ourselves in a way that makes strategic sense. And we have to make explicit assertions of racial identity and explicit assertions of our racial interests. No other strategy will succeed in staving off the dispossession of European America.
Facing the Future as a Minority
I believe that in the end Whites will form into a cohesive group, if only for a (long) temporary period as conditions worsen in the US. The non-whites will not unify, not work together well as a single group to put Whites down for the count, even with Jewish management. That things are starting to become unwieldy for the tribe when it comes to orchestrating minorities is becoming a bit more evident month by month. Other people I spoken with or have seen posting on the web have expressed the same beliefs. This eventual push back by Whites is when Whites will regain control of their destinies. It also pains me to say I also believe those who say things will have to get worse before this turnabout happens. But on the “bright side”, things are getting worse, so it means the opposite swing of the pendulum is on the horizon. I live in SoCal like Kevin MacDonald, and regularly peruse the LA Times just to see what manner of propaganda is on tap for the day. If it weren’t delivered to where I work, I would never see it though. I refuse to pay a nickel for that Bolshevik rag. It’s interesting that while readership steadily drops, the LA(tino) Times keeps plugging along, spewing the same garbage as the article pointed out in Dr. MacDonald’s entry. It isn’t only the internet that is killing newspapers. It’s the anti-white take they have on everything. Just ask people. They might be unaware of what’s going on, but the papers rub them the wrong way. But the Times keeps going, profits be damned. That tells you right there that profits are not the primary motivation for publishing the LA Times, NY Times (also in dire straits) and other big city Red Diaper Grandbaby birdcage liners. (I was up all night working, so excuse any typos etc)
Thanks to TOO for putting together this blog and giving some of us “regular” folk a chance to comment without worry of censors, like Ian Jobling when he was picking up donuts and getting coffee for the folks running Amren, just to get his chance to show he could be a good soldier, and weed out the undesirables on their “forum”.
Re Jason Bates’ comment: The LA Times keeps on doing its anti-White, pro-immigration thing even after the city has been ceded to non-Whites–very few of whom read it. The White base is mostly gone and with it the TImes’ readership. It would be great if they went out of business entirely. Kevin M
Re Jason Bates comment
some good analysis. But I dont see White elites like Bill Gtes waking up to the inevitable annihilation of his grandchildren when they are a tiny, tiny minority in the US–if current trends continue.
Furthermore, many Asians are encouraged to hate Whites. They can man the national security state apparatus and enforce our destruction. For example, there is a big push to reduce the % of the military academy graduates that are White. FBI etc are under similar pressure.
Unfortunately, MacDonald appears to be correct in arguing that the US is resembling the USSR in the 1920′s. Remember that ethnic minorities, with real and imagined grievances, other than the Jews played a key role in massacaring so much of Russia’s old elite and the the Kulaks. Many Asians, behind their politeness and reserve, have imbibed the anti White antipathy that is served up to them daily.
What happened to the blog link on the Occidental Observer main page?
The link to the blog works for me. Also, I just began putting in the most recent blog entries on the front page. Kevin M
There is not a non White person on the planet who does not have a clear knowledge that race matters and that we’re not all the same. Only White people are confused. No white person could discuss race as freely as Rodriguez. That would be racism.
There are around 35 Arab/Muslim organizations in Chicago alone. ARAB AMERICAN ACTION NETWORK “This year we provided social and immigration services to HUNDREDS of Arab families and continued to mentor Arab, Black and Latino youth”.
Don’t tell me they won’t gang up on us. Jews got into bed with Barack Hussein Obama.
I read
http://scriptcollector.blogspot.com/
I have exchanged emails with the person who owns the site and also posted at the blog about the anti Western propaganda in film scripts. I found out that the site owner is non Western and he says he’s from another continent but I don’t know where he lives. Probably in the USA. Why would he want to live on another continent? Nobody else does.
When I talk about anti White attitudes of Hollywood things become hostile between us. He said it didn’t bother him as long as its part of the script and isn’t “blatant”. From his POV its about how much representation his race gets in Hollywood and how much power. How much “opportunity” they can get to get all the advantages of Western Civilization.
They have no sympathy for us, they are gleeful about the things that are happening. They’ll stick together long enough to stick it to us that’s for sure.
Jews are like the CIA in a third world country. Except it only takes the CIA a few months to bring down a foreign government. Israel wouldn’t have taken us 60 years either.
The 9-11 terrorists were free to cross borders into our country, strut around our airports and enjoy all American freedoms. Now two Nigerian terrorists have enjoyed complete freedom. These people were on terrorist watch lists. (they want us to get attacked again so they can demolish Iran for podunk land-Jews must have us make them the ME hegemon)
David Duke has no freedom, he cannot exchange emails and readers cannot post on his blog. I have attempted to email him but unsuccessfully.
http://www.henrymakow.com/illuminati_sabotages_patriot_c.html
If you visit Duke’s blog its not any more offensive than Jesse Jackson’s. Duke’s problem is he champions the wrong race.
This is what really really really bothers me. Where are the White lawyers and law firms and why are they not suing everybody to Hell and gone for denying Duke his Constitutional rights? Allan Dershowitz and Al Sharpton have done very questionable things on behalf of their races. Yet they are not harassed and demonized.
Jane Harman voted to allow the government to do wiretaps :) and the NSA caught her in a telephone conversation, and got it on tape, making a deal with Israeli spies who promised to get her the Chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee. ISRAEL can make such a promise about OUR government.
Yet DUKE is the bad guy? How much worse do things have to get? This is supposed to be OUR country.
In the interests of unity, I’d normally let something I disagree on go. But the issue of race versus ethnicity is very important.
I do agree with Jason Bates that ad hoc alliances may very well come about in the near future. I think the Arab proverb, my brother and I against my cousins; my cousins and I against the world, applies here. Any alliances will be temporary, and will cease once the common threat abates.
Race is biology, and while important, it is not of any more interest to average whites than, say, astronomy or statistics. People are interested in other people, and that means culture, which in turn means ethnic groups. For example, there is a definite cleavage between African Americans and other blacks groups, such as Africans, and Latino and Caribbean blacks. What’s more, when numbers and circumstances permit, all these individuals will socialize with their coethnics. But they are very close racially.
Is the same true among whites? Of course. As Jared Taylor never tires of pointing out, most of our problems come from other white groups. Sure, certain Jewish groups, along with individual Jews, are a major problem. But lots of goyim enthusiastically participate in the destruction of their own people as well–despite the genetic affiliations we share as whites.
I’m reminded of de Maistre’s famous quip to the effect that he’d met Englishmen, Frenchmen, Mexicans, and others. But he’d never met mankind. And as far as he knew, no such thing existed. I think de Maistre is right. Universalism is a pernicious idea that is destroying our people. How about race? Could it be that the fixation of so many of us on race is due to the inherent tendency among whites toward universalism?
Again, I do think that whites should work together to deal with common threats. But since most whites identify with their own ethnic or national groups, I just don’t see some kind of pan-whiteness movement gaining much popular support over the long haul.
It is precisely because race is a matter of descent that it helps identify ethnic groups. After all, ethnic groups have as their core feature a belief among their members that they are descended from the same ancestors. That is a widely accepted definition in sociology and that is why it is important to know how related members of races are. After all, we don’t want to waste blood and treasure fighting for myths, do we? (And I think that is why this matter of fact is a flash point in the culture war and has been for a long time.) But the fact is that we share a lot of genes with members of our ethnic group and beyond that our race, just as we share them with our children and brothers and sisters. Not as many but a lot. According to Frank Salter our ethnic kin are about as genetically similar as cousins or grandchildren, depending on the context. If it is the right thing to protect our families, and also prudent as Kevin MacDonald points out, surely it is also right and prudent to protect our ethnic and racial cousins.
This is the finest articulation I have seen of what is implacably our goal:
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/to_do_what_we_must_to_remain_who_we_are/
The White Man will only be saved by the rising up of a small, strong white minority who drag the lazy, guilt-ridden, and cowardly masses of whites into a better world as they kick and scream from fear and the realization that they are being pulled up from the dung heap.
“It is not that China, or the Brown Man is on the rise, but that the West, the White Man, is in decline.”
Sherwood Smith
Doc—There is no link to the blog on the TOO front page. Now if it’s a snake…LOL
There is a link to the blog on the Frontpage–in the column on the right (naturally) along with links the 3 or so recent blogs. Works for me. Kevin M
Anon, I tend to agree more with JB. When things really get bad, it won’t matter what Bill Gates thinks, or what he’s been promised by the people in charge if he continues to toe their line. I sometimes think a lot of the elitist whites have been told that their bloodlines will be preserved, their lineage will live like Kings, blah blah. I believe they’ve accepted some wild promises. I also believe that if the Zionists were to get their way with complete rule, the first people to be publicly hanged or to face firing squads on HDTV would be the Gates family, the Bush family, all the rest of the white enablers. I think the whole mess is going to cave in and end up one big smelly heap. It will be up to whites to dig themselves out. The Asians can maintain technical infrastructure, that’s why they’re being brought here. They really are less imaginative and less creative, ask anyone who has worked with them in the real world. They’re compliant and will do what they’re told, but when the bucket hits the central air, they’ll be running for it like the other non-whites. There is no cohesiveness between any of the non-white groups, despite the media trying to make us believe otherwise.
Events are following a pro-White trajectory, by which I mean the situation is deteriorating. The resultant chaos can only benefit us, as the instability and chaos will offer us opportunities to seize back our country. Enough of the shadow-boxing and hurling insults at one another from both sides of a 15-foot border wall. We need open conflict. Until it ensues, we must remember consistently to push home our talking points with family and friends. The trends are with us.
some good analysis. But I dont see White elites like Bill Gtes waking up to the inevitable annihilation of his grandchildren when they are a tiny, tiny minority in the US–if current trends continue.
Furthermore, many Asians are encouraged to hate Whites. They can man the national security state apparatus and enforce our destruction. For example, there is a big push to reduce the % of the military academy graduates that are White. FBI etc are under similar pressure.
Your mistake is to attribute too much power to the establishment, the authorities, the government. They get their power from us, not the other way ’round. Consent of the governed, and all that. Sure, they’re the head and we’re the body, but what happens when we decide to grow a new head?
Unfortunately, MacDonald appears to be correct in arguing that the US is resembling the USSR in the 1920’s. Remember that ethnic minorities, with real and imagined grievances, other than the Jews played a key role in massacaring so much of Russia’s old elite and the the Kulaks. Many Asians, behind their politeness and reserve, have imbibed the anti White antipathy that is served up to them daily.
Whoops, forgot the rest:
Unfortunately, MacDonald appears to be correct in arguing that the US is resembling the USSR in the 1920’s.
So how’s the USSR doing now?
Remember that ethnic minorities, with real and imagined grievances, other than the Jews played a key role in massacaring so much of Russia’s old elite and the the Kulaks. Many Asians, behind their politeness and reserve, have imbibed the anti White antipathy that is served up to them daily.
And without the USA, maybe Germany would’ve rolled the Commies up.
KM, since you mentioned the topic of the site in general, I’m reminded that I haven’t congratulated you on TOO and TOO Blog. Big kudos, comrade. This site is awesome. I’m sure I heard when it went up, but either I didn’t know it was your doing, or didn’t take much notice because the site was new. So I “discovered” TOO only a couple months ago and I was blown away. Top notch, just flat-out superb. I can’t say enough kind words about the whole effort.
I was like a kid in a candy story, still haven’t been able to catch up all the way with the fantastic content that’s been created here.
P.S., for the first time in years, I recently attempted to bring some sanity to totally racially unaware whites in an online venue, just pouring cold water on their predictable stupidity, really. I find it very difficult to “speak their language” in the babying sort of way that I think would be best (don’t want to bruise their tender feelings, you see). Basically they’re like children, emotionally and intellectually, when it comes to race (and in general, really).
Have you ever given thought to setting up a URL with a sort of primer on race? Or rather, a primer to get a total wuss ready to maybe think about race? Something nice and soft to just make an easy introduction to these crybabies, containing as few excuses for them to flee as possible? It might be a pain to write, but it wouldn’t take anything beyond the initial effort, other than a gradual polishing.
Just a thought.
Lol, Willy Wonka, the Candy Story. Candy store, obviously. :)
“P.S., for the first time in years, I recently attempted to bring some sanity to totally racially unaware whites in an online venue, just pouring cold water on their predictable stupidity, really. I find it very difficult to “speak their language” in the babying sort of way that I think would be best (don’t want to bruise their tender feelings, you see). Basically they’re like children, emotionally and intellectually, when it comes to race (and in general, really).”
Mr. Svigor, you’re obviously a racial monist, yet from every post by you I’ve read, you haven’t a clue as to why.
Perhaps if you dispensed with your contemptuous attitude toward those you purport to be saving, you might learn a thing or two about your own views.
Is asking for civilized discourse really asking for too much?
MD, after a while I found I couldn’t speak their language any more. I don’t have the patience. As for civilized discourse, no, it’s not too much to ask – when have I denied it to you? If you mean civilized discourse about race with the racially naive, you must be joking. That’s like expecting civilized discourse with a troop of chimpanzees.
As for my obvious racial monism, explain it to me, as I haven’t a clue as to how, either.
First, I shouldn’t have lost my temper over your post.
I get aggravated with other whites too, but unless racial and ethnic realism are going to remain some kind of weird cult, we must acquire more popular support. And my experience dictates that that means we should compromise on everything but the most important stuff–especially when we are compromising in favor of tradition and tribe.
I work with “regular” whites frequently. It has been my experience that many of them instinctively agree with the need for ethnic, if not racial, identity. In fact, this is my reason for espousing ethnic identity over the strictly racial variety. Most people identify according to their nationality rather than other categories, such as race or religion. But most of them are also only too aware of the odious double-standards that always seem to discriminate against white groups.
Even if we don’t persuade these people to our point of view initially, at best we’ve planted the seed in their minds, and at minimum we’ve normalized our views. In either case, the next time they hear or read similar views, they will be more receptive. But this will be the case if and only if we’ve managed to leave them with a positive impression.
Dealing with regular whites proves patience is a virtue. It took Jews and other members of the PC faithful many decades to indoctrinate whites. We shouldn’t expect to be able to change decades of totalitarian conditioning in a few minutes. It takes time and a steady temper.
I have had some success dealing with liberals, but people who identify as conservatives seem to be much more open to a racially realistic message. And these conservatives are almost invariably nationalists and Christians. So, if we start spouting off about neopaganism or a pan-white nationalist movement, I have found these people dismiss you in a hurry. They perceive such things as being leftwing, and I can’t disagree with them. I can think of no venture more leftist in orientation than ignoring the human instinct to group into ethnies or of wanting to be like their neighbors.
As far as racial monism goes, you’ve just demonstrated that you don’t see whites as one big, indivisible group. But rather than see whites divided into nationalities the way most whites do, you’ve just told me that your taxonomy consists in two white groups: The overwhelming majority who disagree with you and the tiny minority who agree with you.
Full disclosure: I identify myself to regular whites as a reactionary. When asked, as I usually am, what this means, I tell them that a conservative is one who wants to slow down the rot; I want to reverse it. Then I treat racial and ethnic realism as an addition to–a fulfillment of–their views, rather than as some kind of negation of their views. The less we ask these people to change, the more successful we are in persuading them of the soundness of our ideas. Of course, these are my ideas. I bring them up only because they have worked better than anything else I’ve tried.
The antebellum South is the big reason we identify with race rather than ethnicity. Having lower average levels of intelligence, slaves were encouraged to see whites as whites, simply because it was less confusing. And slaves were encouraged to see themselves as blacks rather than as members of different warring tribes. In other words, the slaveholders had a vested interest in minimizing ethnic antagonisms among their slaves.
This system worked fine in a place where all whites considered themselves of the same ethnicity. But such a classification scheme leaves much to be desired in a world fraught with intra-racial white antagonisms.
The bottom line: whether they realize it or not, regular whites need us. And make no mistake about it, we need them too. We’ll have to learn to get along. The alternative is simply too painful to contemplate.
Finally, I’ll agree that you’ve always been courteous to me, and it is appreciated. But it is imperative to be nice to our detractors. If approached correctly, many of them will become our allies in the future.
The publisher and CEO of the Los Angeles Times is a Jew named Eddy W. Hartenstein.
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlLA/original/41hhh646338.jpg
L.A. Times: Eddy Hartenstein Named Publisher, Zell Promises Paper ‘Is a Keeper’
By Mayrav on Aug 16, 2008 02:10 PM
The L.A. Times has named former DirecTV exec Eddy Hartenstein publisher, according to a story in today’s LAT.
Hartenstein reportedly didn’t seek out the position and had to give it careful consideration before accepting Sam Zell’s offer:
“I wanted to know that I would have the ability . . . to call the shots,” said Hartenstein, who said his new boss made no demands concerning future staff cuts. Zell “basically said, ‘You’re the publisher and CEO. It’s yours to run,’ and that was pretty much it.”
Hartenstein said he also sought assurances that Zell had no intention to simply “dress up the paper for a sale.”
“One of the questions I asked Sam was: Are you going to keep this?” Hartenstein said. The answer “was a strong, affirmative ‘Yes. This is a keeper.’ ”
We think the LAT is a keeper, too. Difference is, we believe us when we say that.
Eddy Hartenstein Greets His New Staff
By Mayrav on Aug 18, 2008 10:02 AM
New L.A. Times Publisher Eddy Hartenstein sent the staff the following good morning:
Good day,
As an avid reader of The Times for more than 45 years, I never dreamed that I would awake one morning to find my name at the top of the masthead. I am honored to have the opportunity to lead this venerable institution, humbled to be in the building where journalists ply their noble craft, and sober to the difficult economic realities of the newspaper business.
You will find that I manage by walking around, try to listen more than speak, make decisions quickly after hearing all sides, and am not afraid to reverse course if we happen to stumble into the cauldron of unintended consequences.
We need to continue to be many things to many people, with the utmost urgency, and without ever sacrificing our integrity. I took this job because I firmly believe that we, the women and men of the Los Angeles Times, can show the rest of the world how the Fourth Estate can not only survive, but thrive in the 21st century. Whether our journalism is delivered electronically, on latimes.com, in the printed paper, or through some other medium, a vibrant newsroom is essential to our mission.
Please join me for an all-hands meeting this afternoon at 3 p.m. in the Chandler Auditorium.
eddy
http://www.latimes.com/services/newspaper/mediacenter/la-mediacenter-hartenstein,0,4859396.htmlstory
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/16/business/fi-publisher16
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/19/business/fi-times19
MD (and everyone):
Where to begin lol. You have some good points in that we need to stop marginalizing ourselves (as racialists) and our movement (or lack there of). The problem in taking the “lets compromise on everything but the most important issues” strategy is find ourselves compromising on so many points that we lose an essential part of what we are fighting for.
Basically this gets us to a place that leaves us in a weak enough position to where whites could very easily slip right back into a universalist and non-racial stance. Not only that but by the American Whites’ very nature they are divided. Many are so damn individualistic that they would never agree on enough things to unify long enough to become (and maintain) independence. Honestly it is radical individualism that got us to this position in the first place. We were doomed from the early days of the piece of trashed called the constitution. It is even more ridiculous that has been maintained all this time even after it has become completely obsolete. Anyhow, the fact of the matter is “conservatives” are wrong on soo many issues it wouldn’t matter if they were racially aware. By nature they cut their own throats. I believe TOQ has an essay available on this very topic of how Libertarianism and Racial Nationalism are completely opposed.
To get back to the larger topic we cannot as a racialist white movement assume only one strategy being for almost complete compromise (except on essential issues) or completely hard line. We need both and positions in between. One reason I love TOO so much is that it is a different approach. I would suggest that it is very to the point (as in pretty hard line but not ALL the way ‘there’) yet it provides articles written in a more scholarly and fact based way which can attract middle, upper-middle class, educated and rich/wealthy whites. This has not been offered quite the way it is at TOO to my knowledge.
I also try to bring myself closer to “average” non-racially aware whites when bringing these topics up in an effort to plant some seeds and break down the false walls that have been erected via brainwashing…even though I personally despise their political beliefs.
Look, if Whites don’t find a way to adopt a more coherent philosophy with racial nationalism (in other words MORE COLLECTIVIST) we are doomed to failure; plain and simple.
On the bright side Obama and the left are doing half the job for us in pushing for collectivism right now. They will help many whites realize the half truths of brotherhood etc. but it is OUR job to show them that many of these things ONLY work with a racially homogeneous society, and ONLY within the context of STRONG Nationalism.
So, I believe we must find a way to unify the WNs who are worth anything (the ones who are not radically individualistic) into an understanding that goes something like this. There should be three main categories. The first one will be groups/individuals who try to get everyday whites racial (prep them to become more radical). The second will be our middle, one who believes in many of the truths we know and pushes for a racially exclusive (or something damn close) socialistic nationalism. This group also knows how to make their arguments sound appealing and middle ground (even if they are very revolutionary in nature). The Third group would be much more radical and this groups purpose is to scare enough whites (and others) into excepting the “middle” grounders of the WNs. Similar strategy’s have been used before and have been effective. While the WN movement in general and esp. in America has been ineffective thus far. It is time to change our strategy.
I am also in agreement with Dr. MacDonald in his approach and attempt to reach intellectual and “elite” whites. No real effort has been put into them, esp. when you consider how much energy the leftists put into them (look how that turned out!). From Fascism in Italy to commies around the world we have seen that an intelligentsia/elite has been effective in pushing the majority of the masses into revolution or radical reforms and social change. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to put energy into capturing the White working class (like the BNP) but if we are to succeed we must understand it will not be by the working class alone (nor the libertarians, radical individualists etc).
Please forgive any misspellings/grammar errors I can barely keep my eyes open. Goodnight and Happy New Year comrades!
Anybody want to bet on how much longer it’s going to be before we are invaded by tens of millions of Mexicans?
The Fall of Mexico
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200912/mexico-drugs/2
Kevin,
You need to legitimize proracial behavior. You accept it, I accept it, but Average Joe has been told that it’s bad. He has been told that all white racial based behavior is icky.
To do this you need to fit it in a frame, which distinguishes types of behavior. We just have to do what Gays did.
Basically we need to start turning out a bunch of crap like this:
http://lesacred.wordpress.com/2009/12/17/is-proracial-behavior-racist/
KM writes:
Races are descent groups.
Noting that races are descent groups appears to lend an objective quality to the existence of race. It is on this seemingly solid ground that Rushton, KM, and others ultimately base their defense of race as a biological concept.
but
The number of races is not set in stone but is a more a matter of where one wants to draw lines. The figure results in seven different racial groups, but one could easily combine some groups together and get a lower number.
Biological descent is not the whole story, …[Emphasis added.]
However, if biological descent is not the whole story, and the number of races is ultimately determined by where one WANTS to draw lines, then an element of subjectivity is introduced to our taxonomy. Unfortunately, this introduced subjectivity immediately acts to poison the whole, with the effect of making the whole taxonomy of race subjective. This is so because if one, for instance, WANTS to draw the lines such that “all mankind” is subsumed into the same race, that is, in a sense, just as valid as any number of taxonomies in which finer distinctions are made, and a number of different human races are recognized. While KM, Rushton, and others would no doubt disagree with this “no race but the human race” point of view and consider it unscientific, it is hard to see why, if KM’s definition is correct, someone WANTING to draw less lines (or no lines) is more wrong than someone who draws more lines. Indeed, he says as much himself. It is, of course, easy to show that it is not as useful, from any number of practical standpoints, to subsume all races into one. To the extent that it is useful at all, the usefulness of lumping all human races into one race is political, not practical. But if we argue this, then we must confront the question of motive in taxonomy, which leads us once again deep into the morass of subjectivity. It becomes possible to object that the white man’s science is not really as objective as he would like to think. This is really at the core of all leftist objections to classifying humans according to race.
So we see that saying that “races are descent groups” by itself does little or nothing to make delineating races easier, since at some point all living humans, according to current theory, had a common ancestor from which everyone is descended. Far from removing the element of subjectivity, it merely kicks it up a level. It is still who defines the groups, which is subjectively determined at least in part by how they interact, that is the really important factor. From this, questions of power and the motive of the definer cannot be entirely eliminated, particularly in the case of classifying humans.
Perhaps we can somewhat envision what is needed in order to make race a truly objective taxonomic category. IF we could say that some measure X of genetic distance bwteen groups sufficed to differentiate a race, then that would be an objective measure that couldn’t be so easily subverted, wouldn’t it? This is similar to an idea advanced by Jared Diamond in his 1994 article in Discover magazine titled “Race without Color”, which Rushton later took pains to refute in his subsequent article, “Race as a Biological Concept”. Since the genetic distance between Africans and everyone else is so large, such a classification scheme might well separate humans into just two races: African and non-African. Such a classification scheme would accord with KM’s graphic from Cavalli-Sforza above. Perhaps we could even refine this by agreeing upon a certain quantum of genetic distance that would separate the various non-African sub-races. That would make our taxonomy more useful. But in the first place, we note that, just as in 1994, as yet there is no such standard. Also, if we look closer, we will see that genetic distance is not really going to be much help either. This is because it is not merely the size of a genetic distance that determines what is the significance of a difference between groups, but the functionality of the difference. Not all genetic differences have equal significance. It’s quite conceivable that two groups could be quite close in terms of genetic distance, and yet the difference that existed between them could be very significant, which might lead one into classifying them into two different races — Ashkenazi Jews vs. American whites, for example, since the (presumably) genetically-based differences underlying the greater ethnocentrism and higher IQ of the Jewish group are very significant in interactions between the two groups. Conversely, two groups might be just as widely separated as are American whites and Ashkenazi Jews in terms of genetic distance, but those genetic differences might not be considered significant enough to warrant classification of the two groups into separate races — Russians or Orcadians and the white American average, for example. See here for some interesting graphs and data on this. Unfortunately, although genetic distance is relatively easy to measure nowadays, it would seem impossible to objectively quantify and measure such a quality as the “significance” of a difference, and so we are led once again back into subjectivity in our attempts to delineate races.
A more sophisticated, but still not perfect definition was given by John Baker in his book Race, in which he settles on describing race as “a breeding population that is distributed over a specified geographic range”. This is a more dynamic definition in that it implicitly takes account of the fact that, worldwide, the greatest predictor of race is geographical location, and that geographic ranges can expand or contract, which tends to change breeding patterns as other races are encountered. This definition also implies that the way to destroy race is to remove either or both of the two conditions. If a breeding population abandons assortative mating and begins outbreeding with an invading group, or if it loses its own exclusive territory, then it will soon be destroyed. And in practice, of course, these two conditions are closely related. Noel Ignatiev, a Jew who has expounded at length on his wish to destroy the white race, wrote his infamous treatise How the Irish Became White in part to show how the racial category “white” expanded through time in just such a way; thus, in his opinion at least, validating the thesis that the term “the white race” described no objective biological reality, and was only a “social construct”. Even if the Irish were always white, as Ignatiev’s critics would no doubt contend, we can observe that events also were in accord with Baker’s definition. Socially at least, the Irish became white by locating themselves among whites and interbreeding with them. Further, this same path has been followed by the Jews, who are now accepted as whites by most whites. If history is any guide, and the USA continues on its current course, some future Ignatiev may one day have occasion to write a book titled How the Blacks Became White, or How the Mexicans Became White since both groups also are now living amidst whites and freely interbreeding with them.
and yet, KM concludes:
The concept of race is not set in stone. How we behave on the basis of this information is not at all determined by the genetic data. We Europeans must define ourselves in a way that makes strategic sense. And we have to make explicit assertions of racial identity and explicit assertions of our racial interests. No other strategy will succeed in staving off the dispossession of European America.
Isn’t the entire point of The Culture of Critique that genes play a powerful role in determining both our behavior and the behavior of our racial antagonists? No doubt KM would answer that while genes influence our behavior, they do not determine it. But at least in the case of white unity, to say that genes merely influence our behavior without determining it does not really accord very well with what we see. Whites worldwide have never formed a racial unity in the same way that the Jews have done. It would make sense to think that they could do it in response to a rational assessment of their genetic interests only if that is how the Jews did it. But they did not take such a cerebral approach. Jewish racial cohesion appears to be a natural phenomenon, just as does the white lack of cohesion. Perhaps the Ashkenazi Jews, with their comparatively high intelligence and greater racial cohesion, are a case of the much ballyhooed but ofttimes hard-to-find “hybrid vigor”, a product of mixing the genetics of a race from the Middle East with one from Europe. A recent paper by Need, et al., supports this idea.
Furthermore, if, as KM says, races — the biological entities — are not set in stone, and neither is the concept of race set in stone, then what about this whole discussion is? How can there be any such thing as racial interests without the existence of race being “set in stone” in the first place? And yet, setting it in stone is, as we’ve seen, very difficult. No one doubts there is strife between various population groups, but these groups are not necessarily the same thing as races. Hispanics are a good example of such a population group, one that does not amount to a race. While one may argue, as does KM, that the “real” cause of such strife is the conflict of genetic interests between such groups, this is non-obvious, particularly when the antagonists are groups that are not easily divisible along traditional racial lines. The conflict between whites and Jews, or whites and Hispanics, are instances of this. Falling back on Baker’s definition of race, above, it would appear that the most that can be said is that even if biological races at one time existed in humans, they are in the process of being destroyed. This age is an artificial one, an age in which the spread of technological civilization generally has tended to eliminate differences in environment, and the natural category of race, which depended upon such differences, is accordingly becoming obsolete. Particularly under the influence of mass media and mass educational techniques, the whole world is becoming one single place, one single technological environment. What transpires in one portion of the globe can instantly be known in another, a powerful influence in controlling and homogenizing culture. In an age of mass transportation techniques, separate geographical breeding areas — the condition under which the various human races arose in nature and which are fundamental to their continued existence — are being eliminated. In an age in which racial difference is increasingly no longer regarded as significant in choosing a breeding partner, assortative mating according to the old categories of race diminishes, and the destruction of race eventually becomes complete. Out of the genetic rubble, a new global man, Homo technologicus, is in the process of being formed.
“Out of the genetic rubble, a new global man, Homo technologicus, is in the process of being formed.”
This is a variant of the type of person I talk about the Progressive Fallacy. He even calls himself ‘Progress.’
Our old system is breaking down so we get our revolutionary thinks. My reply would be that the NEW man did not work last time a la Feurback or comte
“Out of the genetic rubble, a new global man, Homo technologicus, is in the process of being formed.”
This is a variant of the type of person I talk about the Progressive Fallacy. He even calls himself ‘Progress.’
Our old system is breaking down, so we get our revolutionary thinks. My reply would be that the NEW man did not work last time a la Feuerbach, Comte, Nietzsche, ect — so don’t hold your breathe.
People are group species. It doesn’t matter if they transform themselves from original Star Trek Klingons to Next generation Klingons. They are still going to be groupish and they will still compete in proportion to the scarcity of goods.
Since we already have a group, kind of, why start over?
“Out of the genetic rubble, a new global man, Homo technologicus, is in the process of being formed.”
This is a variant of the type of person I talk about the Progressive Fallacy. He even calls himself ‘Progress.’
Our old system is breaking down so we get our revolutionary thinks. My reply would be that the NEW man did not work last time a la Feurback or comte
That technological developments can have widespread, profoundly negative effects on the persistence of race and culture is a point so obvious that it hardly needs to be proved. E.g., it is unarguable that without scientific birth control techniques, feminism would be unthinkable, and the white birth rate would not have declined to below replacement level. Such techniques also encourage sexual experimentation with non-whites and hence outbreeding, as does the mere presence of non-whites brought in to white areas by mass transportation technologies.
The point is that ultimately, human races — whatever their existential status — are destroyed just like races in any other kind of animal. Destroy its ability to exclude other races from its territory and/or its desire to assortatively mate within its own race, and shortly that race of animal will no longer exist. (If it ever did.) Destroy the habitat of a race and you remove the basis for its existence. That’s not so hard to understand, is it?
“That technological developments can have widespread, profoundly negative effects on the persistence of race and culture”
Let’s agree that Race is a fuzzy term. So let’s talk about less Fuzzy things. Lets talk about traditional genetic populations, modern mixes, and cultural groups. Let’s call the first Ancestral population, by which we mean Saharan Africans, Caucasian, East Asian, ect. And let’s agree that there were mixed groups. Let’s call the second ‘genetic populations’ which would refer to relatively new mixes like Mexicans, ect. Let’s call the final one ethnos, by which we mean various groups that have enough similarity to allows them to self-identify as a ‘kind’ when put together.
Now your point is that those traditional Ancestral populations are going to start mixing… and somehow you derive: “Out of the genetic rubble, a new global man, Homo technologicus, is in the process of being formed.”
I would agree that they will start mixing, especially if they are encouraged to and put in a situation to. Or if they don’t think about race. Nonetheless, mixing will just make them into mixed Ancestral populations — that is genetic populations. You will get Mexicans or African Americans, who still identify genetically. You will also have ethnos. Mexicans will identify with some other so-called Hispanics and push for common interests.
So I really am not getting your transracial Progressivism. If it’s sincere, it seems rather silly. Anyways, whatever your goal is, this probably is not the best way to get people to feel raceless:
“Destroy the habitat of a race and you remove the basis for its existence.”
Ancestral
“And without the USA, maybe Germany would’ve rolled the Commies up.”
If our right to exist is a right absolute then National Socialism is a legitimate expression of our will to be in extremis.
This penned by Revilo Oliver sums up the quality and accomplishments of National Socialist Germany perfectly:
“. . . for the Germans of 1939-1945 gave proof of a heroism and courage unsurpassed in all history and unmatched in modern times. They were also the only nation that had a rational perception of the realities of the modern world and the exigencies they impose–the only nation that dared to perceive and confront the deadly danger that impended over all civilized mankind–the only nation on whom there does not now rest the inexpiable guilt of the Suicide of the West.”
“Perhaps the Ashkenazi Jews, with their comparatively high intelligence and greater racial cohesion, are a case of the much ballyhooed but ofttimes hard-to-find “hybrid vigor”, a product of mixing the genetics of a race from the Middle East with one from Europe.”
You must be kidding me. Do higher incidences of mental illness, heritable diseases, paranoia, diminutive size, unattractive faces that can be best described as distorted, and a general lack of athleticism ring a bell? Not exactly my candidate for the Master Race.
“Furthermore, if, as KM says, races — the biological entities — are not set in stone, and neither is the concept of race set in stone, then what about this whole discussion is? How can there be any such thing as racial interests without the existence of race being “set in stone” in the first place?”
“Furthermore”, do you feel a twinge of cleverness using that word? Here’s where it’s at, individuals who self identify by race/ethnicity cluster together genetically when tested. And, I must say it, furthermore, EGI is not served by expanding the definition of race. You know that, and that is why you are playing your slippery little games with what one defines the White race as. Just why would one want to do that if indeed they adhere to the concept of ethnic genetic interests? I’ll be blunt, because they are a coward, or a self interested manipulator and liar. What we who love our people will do is draw a line in the sand, form up behind it, and fight to the last man before we see the genetic continuity of our people compromised one iota.
Lesacre says:
I would agree that they will start mixing, especially if they are encouraged to and put in a situation to. Or if they don’t think about race. Nonetheless, mixing will just make them into mixed Ancestral populations — that is genetic populations.
Right, except not population(s), but rather a single population.
If I understand you, you appear to be saying that you think that the old races will undergo genetic change, but keep their old names; and further that you think that the gene mixing will never be uniform in its result, and that discrete races will continue to exist indefinitely into the future to the same extent that they do now. I disagree. In my opinion, in the long run, the uniform requirements of technological civilization will favor the alteration of the human genome to produce a single human race. Like any other animal, man must adapt himself to changes in his environment in order to survive, and for man, the global technological system is rapidly becoming the new nature.
I’d encourage you to think about the end of the process of man’s interaction with the global technological system; its consequences for his genetics. Since you appear to understand and agree that the races are encouraged to mix and will mix in the global technological environment, it seems obvious that given enough time, and as the technological system spreads and elaborates, drawing all of the people of the world into itself, a homogeneous genetic mixture will be the result. In other words, changes to culture compelled by technological change will have the effect of altering gene frequencies and patterns in the underlying world population. A uniform genetic mixture, Homo technologicus will be the end result: One single human race, best adapted to the uniform environment of the global technological system.
Captainchaos says:
“Perhaps the Ashkenazi Jews, with their comparatively high intelligence and greater racial cohesion, are a case of the much ballyhooed but ofttimes hard-to-find “hybrid vigor”, a product of mixing the genetics of a race from the Middle East with one from Europe.”
You must be kidding me. Do higher incidences of mental illness, heritable diseases, paranoia, diminutive size, unattractive faces that can be best described as distorted, and a general lack of athleticism ring a bell? Not exactly my candidate for the Master Race.
And yet few here would deny that Jews have attained power in the modern world out of all proportion to their numbers, in most accounts due at least in part to their ability to network and their comparatively high average IQ. How can we account for those genetically-based traits without having recourse to hybrid vigor, or something similar? They actually possess a racial cohesion of which whites like you can only dream. And though comprising only 3% of the population, according to some at least, they have taken control of your societies. See The Culture of Critique for verifying cites and details.
I’ll be blunt, because they are a coward, or a self interested manipulator and liar.
Those are the only choices?!? LOL. Pretty hard to argue with such … erm … logic. I can see why you call yourself Captainchaos. But why only a Captain? Shouldn’t such a master of rhetoric be at least an Admiral? I’m promoting you immediately.
What we who love our people will do is draw a line in the sand, form up behind it, and fight to the last man before we see the genetic continuity of our people compromised one iota.
Ah, but who is “our people”, Admiral? That’s the question. Deciding who is our people and who is not is the thrust of KM’s remarks above. For example, most American whites think Jews are white. How do you propose to convince them otherwise?
“Furthermore, if, as KM says, races — the biological entities — are not set in stone, and neither is the concept of race set in stone, then what about this whole discussion is? How can there be any such thing as racial interests without the existence of race being “set in stone” in the first place?”
One can take the position that all of the varying gradients of “race” – from ethnic group, to subrace, to race, to humanity – should be preserved, to maximize the existence of varied human genetic information (as practically as possible). The “line” can be drawn at different levels, and the distinctions at each level can be a “racial interest.” This gets to be an issue of semantics – genetic (and cultural/civilization) differences exist regardless of how they are labeled.
It seems to me that KmacD is not so much telling us to be flexible in drawing the lines of “race” itself but as to what we consider to be our “ingroup,” and where to invest in our “racial interests” (of course Kevin should tell us directly what he means; this is just my supposition). It’s valid for someone to be an English nationalist or to focus on northwest Europeans or or to focus on all Europeans (or, better, yet, to do all three together, dependent upon context). Of course, one can be a “humanist” and embrace all humanity, or various lesser components thereof. The thing is, though, that groups that are demographically secure and indeed expanding, do not constitute important focal points of racial interest for individuals belonging to more endangered groups, particularly groups endangered by the expansion of those others. So, yes, a Frenchman may have a “racial interest” in North Africans compared to Chinamen. The problem is that it are the North Africans who are expanding into France and directly endangering French “racial interests,” not the Chinese. It’s these kinds of “strategic choices” to which KMacD no doubt refers. This is aside from the issue of peoples sharing (or not) a core civilizational history, and the West-Islam divide, which underscores and amplifies the divisions of interests between the contracting French population and the expanding North African one.
“For example, most American whites think Jews are white. How do you propose to convince them otherwise?”
If Jews would assimilate and stop being hostile to the interests of “American whites” – check out the “cites” of KMacD’s work – this wouldn’t be a problem. On the other hand, if Jews continue behaving as they have been, it will be this behavior, and not anything we do or say, that will eventually convince “American whites” of Jewish status.
“Also, if we look closer, we will see that genetic distance is not really going to be much help either. This is because it is not merely the size of a genetic distance that determines what is the significance of a difference between groups, but the functionality of the difference. Not all genetic differences have equal significance. It’s quite conceivable that two groups could be quite close in terms of genetic distance…”
This is a matter of opinion; kinship interests are based upon genetic distance and not opinions about “functionality.” The relative importance of kinship vs. adaptive genetic interests is a part of the EGI theory which, like genetic structure, needs to be further elaborated. It doesn’t obviate however the salience of avoiding obvious maladaptive choices, such as Third World immigration into the West.
True enough, technological progress is altering the environments which have created and sustained racial distinctions. However, that same technological progress allows us to quantitate and evaluate these racial distinctions and to provide the information necessary to preserve these distinctions if the desire to do so exists. And that is the key to the situation – the will to survive – rather than any “inevitability.” The portability and global reach of technology can be a positive as well as a negative, as it allows the user to benefit from technological advance without requiring an influx of people to accompany the technology.
The Chinese, who seem to be in no danger of panmixia due to technology, use Western technology in the absence of an influx of Western peoples. For the foreseeable future, it is only Westerners who are in danger of panmixia – that despite the fact that most of the technology and memes are being produced in Western nations. The racial and civilizational destruction of the West is a conscious decision of Western “elites” and is not inevitable. Technology is a tool, a means to an end, not an end to itself. If the end chosen is panmixia, then panmixia we, and only we it seems, will get. If technology is used to create self-sufficient, more homogenous states, then that can be achieved as well.
Why Western “elites” are hellbent on the destruction of their own nations – and who is responsible – is a question for another day.
There is a choice.
I think some people are not seeing the main point of my post. I distinguish between the reality of biological descent and how people conceptualize race as part of ethnic warfare. The reality of biological descent makes us more related to other people in our race than to people from different races. This aspect of race cannot be changed apart from programs of intermarriage. As an evolutionist, following Frank Salter I think that common biological descent gives us ethnic interests that are worth defending. But as a psychologist, I am aware of how the concept of race can be used to further ethnic aims–prototpyically the goal of denying that biological descent is meaningful, but also to advance claims in our environment of affirmative action, etc. This depends on the ability of explicit processing to develop concepts and goals that may or may not reflect our biological interests. There is no contradition here. Just an acknowledgment of complexity. Kevin M
“Perhaps the Ashkenazi Jews, with their comparatively high intelligence and greater racial cohesion, are a case of the much ballyhooed but ofttimes hard-to-find “hybrid vigor”, a product of mixing the genetics of a race from the Middle East with one from Europe. A recent paper by Need, et al., supports this idea.”
Need et al. supports the idea that the Ashkenazi are so admixed, but says nothing about “hybrid vigor.” If Classical authors can be trusted, Jews were ethnocentric and had “racial cohesion” from the very beginning, before the formation of the Ashkenazim. Current theories of Jewish intelligence focus on selective pressures, not admixture or “hybrid vigor.”
“Since you appear to understand and agree that the races are encouraged to mix…”
The key point: encouraged. Another key point which you ignore: this encouragement is focused primarily (solely?) on majority white nations.
This is not an inevitable process due to impersonal forces that equally impacts all peoples and cultures.
It is a sociopolitical process *encouraged* by globalist elites and targeting a particular civilization.
The purpose of sites such as TOO is to oppose this process and propose an alternative in which “racial interests” as a “universal” collective good, is incorporated as a key value into the modern world.
Whether or not this will succeed is open to question; prospects seem grim.
However, the only chance of success comes with the attempt. “Surrender to the inevitable” is a self-fulfilling paradigm; indeed, “inevitability” is a tautology if taken seriously.
Better to try, and fail, then not to try at all.
Greg: Since you make fine points that I largely agree with, I think clarification is in order on several points:
First, when I speak of compromise I’m speaking of things like social issues, religion, how the economy will be run, etc. The things we should NOT compromise on are race realism, taking pride in our ethnicity, and the courage to level criticism wherever it is due. And this is a problem. Under pressure I’ve seen several WN’s crack. I’m not here to dispense blame, but rather to encourage all of us to stick to our guns on the important things. As you noted, isolated as individualists, we are weak. We can only be strong through solidarity.
I also think it is critical that we realize exactly what our real enemy is, specifically the post-Marxist/socialist left. Anybody who has read the wonderful articles by Professor MacDonald (KMD) and others on this website should realize that the modern left, as initiated by the Frankfurt School, seems to care little about whether our economies are capitalist or socialist. The modern left is only concerned with demonizing whites to bring down Western civilization. It is amazing to me that nobody has bothered to conduct a rigorous, comprehensive study of this post-Marxist left, or even given it a name. I will refer to it as Political Correctness in the remainder of my comments.
As I know of no aspect of PC that isn’t poisonous to whites and the West, I think it’s critical that we understand this movement fully.
I just finished up Tom Sunic’s book on the “New Right”. These European “rightwingers” eschew Christianity as destroying the West and initiating totalitarianism. I’m not criticizing Tom, as he’s only the messenger, but I think the New Right is wrong on this account.
What makes PC so effective is that it makes dissent into a serious moral offense. In other words, disagreeing with PC doesn’t make you just wrong; it makes you evil. One of the ways PC has managed to pull off this feat is by mimicking and perverting Christian imagery. So, what the New Right, and many other WN’s, criticize Christianity for actually has nothing to do with Christianity. What PC has done is to pervert Christianity to its own nefarious ends. As such, Christianity has no more responsibility for the death of the West than the gun used to kill Lincoln had for his assassination. Only humans with moral agency can be assigned moral blame.
I think the best tactic for WN’s in dealing with “regular” whites is to show them that PC isn’t only not moral, but in fact is decidedly immoral as it has as its goal the destruction of people like us. In this respect, the racial and ethnic problems whites face are merely symptomatic of a systemic problem.
Nietzsche noted that health isn’t an absence of disease, but rather the ability to withstand and overcome disease. And the post-Marxist left should be viewed as the AIDS-like disease that is destroying the immune system of the West.
The reason I call myself a reactionary is because of the problems you noted with conservatism. By definition, the right wishes to maintain the status quo while the left seeks to alter that status quo in some way. The downside of the otherwise healthy impulse of the right is that it tends to preserve the wealth and privilege of those who already have these things.
The modern right no longer seeks to preserve our traditions and culture. They only seek to enrich an elite class hellbent on our destruction. What’s more, increasing numbers of whites are becoming aware of this problem, if only vaguely and instinctively. You can see this in the current poll support for a TEA Party.
As a reactionary, I’m not advocating that we all go back to horses and buggies with the women all in petticoats and men in top hats. What I am advocating is that rather than engage in leftist social engineering that we look to our Western heritage for answers to our problems. BTW, Professor MacDonald has written some intriguing essays in his book, Cultural Insurrections.
If we assume Modernism is a movement contending that new is always good and old is always bad, then Modernists are some of the most arrogant people I know of. They assume that nobody before their time said or did anything worthwhile. As a reactionary I say our ancestors did have much to offer, and we owe it to ourselves and our people to take them seriously.
Greg, I also agree that egalitarianism and universalism are terribly insidious beliefs. And I’ve found that if we read history through a lens that rejects these abominations that is creates a completely different dynamic.
What I’m getting at is that the West sort of took a wrong turn during the Enlightenment when it took egalitarianism and universalism to heart. Hence we need to do some cultural, if not technological, backtracking to get back on course.
History also shows that such is the only sound course as social engineering simply does not work, whether done by anarchists, communists, the Politically Correct, or by White Nationalists. The only person capable of doing effective social engineering would be a person who not only understands the whole of his culture, but its entire history. It has been said that Aristotle understood the whole of his culture. If so, he was the last person who did.
Since leftist social engineering doesn’t work, the West will only flourish because whites again see the importance of embracing their organic cultures.
Progress,
“If I understand you, you appear to be saying that you think that the old races will undergo genetic change, but keep their old names.”
I am disagreeing with your biological Marxism. First, I am saying that there will always be biologically distinct groups — though I agree there will be more and more mixed groups –especially as promoted. Second, I am saying that getting rid of biologically distinct groups will not usher in a new world or a new man.
As for your silly Futurism/Marxism, as best I can tell, the ideas goes like this — if we can get rid of racial differences, we will all be the same and apparently we will transformed .. which will lead to some good things.
My point would be that people will continue to form groups and compete. I base it on the following logic:
1) Individuals compete in proportion to the scarcity of goods
2) In a competitive system group formations is advantageous
3) group formative and activity is facilitated by group cohesion
4) In the near future, there will be a scarcity of good
Ergo: In the foreseeable future there will be group formation and competition; further, more cohesive groups will generally out-compete less cohesive groups.
So given that people will form groups and compete, and given that they will have, as you acknowledge, the capacity to modify their genome, how do you come up with the ludicrous idea that the Future global population will be genetically uniform. I expect genetic group differentiation to be greater, not less. It might not be in the same manner that it is today — but it will not disappear.
That said, I heard this very idea recently spouted by an associate of mine, just last month. Since that person is in with all the latest pop fads — and since you seem to be too, I will assume there is a common source. Would you giving me the link?
Kevin,
“As an evolutionist, following Frank Salter I think that common biological descent gives us ethnic interests that are worth defending.”
Maybe you could clarify this. As I see it, we are both an Ancestral group and an Ethnos. We are like East Asians (say Korean and Japanese) and we are like Muslims (say Pakistanis and Berbers). Our ethnogenetic (biocultural) relatedness is probably equivalent to Chinese.
That said, being an ethnic group is not the same as being a political coalition. In no sense are US ‘Asians’ an ethnic group. Or for that matter ‘People of Color.’ But there is a sense in which ‘Muslims’ (say Persians and Berbers) or Latinos can be loosely said to be ones.
As it is, we have overlapping biological, ethnic, and political interests.
“And yet few here would deny that Jews have attained power in the modern world out of all proportion to their numbers,”
You haven’t addressed my criticism of Jews, only attempted to ‘balance the ledger’. Which tells me that you have no counter to the specific criticisms of Jews I made.
“…in most accounts due at least in part to their ability to network and their comparatively high average IQ.”
I’m glad you qualified your account of their power getting with “at least in part,” that was prudent. For there is far more to say as to how it was done, but it does not speak well of the Jewish people. No lie there, but the whole of the truth self servingly omitted.
“How can we account for those genetically-based traits without having recourse to hybrid vigor, or something similar?”
If you would widen the scope of your analysis beyond the crude little toy you’ve found in your “hybrid vigor” you may come to see that it is not needed at all to account for the traits you ascribe to Jews, nor would hybridity of Europeans and Middle Easterners tend towards the production of those traits either. How so? You mention two traits of Jews that you say if the result of hybrid vigor: ability to network and high average group intelligence. The ability to network as a kinship group is best accounted for by genetic similarity, high average collectivism and ethnocentrism. The populations of the Middle East are on average more collectivistic and ethnocentric, so then, if they were to interbreed with Europeans – who are on average less collectivistic and ethnocentric – we can expect the end product to be less collectivistic and ethnocentric than what the Middle Eastern stock was to begin with. Also, the final product would be less genetically similar than the original Middle Eastern group. It appears the original Middle Eastern group’s ability to network would actually be harmed and not helped when taking into consideration those criteria. As for higher average group intelligence, Middle Eastern populations have on average lower group intelligences than do Europeans, so we can expect the product of mixing to be of an intermediate level of average group intelligence. Perhaps a win for the original Middle Eastern group, but decidedly not for Europeans. And, if the newly formed group could be expected to have a lower level of intelligence than the original European group, then we can say that hybridity did not account in whole for the higher average group intelligence of Jews as above Europeans. So what accounts for the higher average group intelligence of Jews? MacDonald contends, and I agree, that it is due to a eugenic breeding strategy intra-group (that is it did not involve in the main nor depend upon hybridity!).
The clear implication: Europeans would be better served in increasing their ability to network and average group intelligence via endogamy and eugenics, not hybridity!
“Those are the only choices?!? LOL. Pretty hard to argue with such … erm … logic.”
I was overly generous, and should have included a third possible explanation for your behavior, that is that your intelligence is roughly equivalent to a bag of hammers. Which appears to be the case.
Lesacre says:
Progress,
“If I understand you, you appear to be saying that you think that the old races will undergo genetic change, but keep their old names.”
I am disagreeing with your biological Marxism.
Marxism? How so?
First, I am saying that there will always be biologically distinct groups — though I agree there will be more and more mixed groups –especially as promoted.
The major races appeared among humans, according Rushton and KM, because when humans ventured out of Africa some 110,000 years ago, the natural environments encountered were quite different. The challenge of dealing with having to plan for winter in Europe and Asia, for example, is said to have resulted in an increased brain capacity and higher IQ. In other words, racial differences resulted from such adaptations. If the environment again becomes uniform — and it will be, if the spread of global technological civilization can succeed in including completely all of the old races — the basis for the natural distinctions of race will disappear. This is basic evolutionary theory. You can disagree with it if you wish, but I think you’re wrong.
Your assertion that there will “always” be biologically distinct groups is also contradicted by the facts. Certainly the trend of history argues against it. The current global racial situation is far more mixed than it was even as little as 100 years ago. If we liken the global racial continuum 100 years ago to a lumpy oatmeal, with the lumps equivalent to Baker’s definition of race — “a breeding population within a specified geographic range” — then the oatmeal is far, far less lumpy today than it was then. Racial interbreeding is far more common, and quite unlike 100 years ago, it would be difficult to find anywhere on the planet that is not to a marked degree racially integrated. This loss of exclusive breeding territories for the old races will naturally promote even more interbreeding, forming a positive feedback loop. Projecting this trend indefinitely into the future, it seems clear we will eventually reach a state of lumplessness.
Even if the technological system takes a turn in the direction Aldous Huxley portrayed in his book Brave New World, where humanity had purposively devolved itself into castes, much like insects, I don’t know that I’d necessarily apply the term “biologically distinct groups” to the castes. They wouldn’t be equivalent to races, because they would be artificial products of the technological system itself. Certainly, as the technological system spreads globally, biological distinctions characteristic of the original natural races will tend to disappear. As you note yourself, “there will be more and more mixed groups”, and to this I would add that the mixing will in time be more and more thorough. But these mixed groups will all either prosper or fail insofar as they are adapted to the new technological environment. Extended far enough into the future, the end result can’t fail to be a single race, given that there will only be one global technological environment. How long that will take, or exactly what form it will take, no one can say.
Second, I am saying that getting rid of biologically distinct groups will not usher in a new world or a new man.
Sorry, but this is just nonsense. Doing such a thing would in itself be enough to produce a new man and a new world, by definition. It would be without precedent.
My point would be that people will continue to form groups and compete. I base it on the following logic:
1) Individuals compete in proportion to the scarcity of goods
2) In a competitive system group formations is advantageous
3) group formative and activity is facilitated by group cohesion
4) In the near future, there will be a scarcity of good
Ergo: In the foreseeable future there will be group formation and competition; further, more cohesive groups will generally out-compete less cohesive groups.
I will take you to be speaking of a genetically-based group cohesion.
This is an interesting argument, but it’s in essence self-refuting, since it appears to lead to the conclusion that a gene or gene combination for racial cohesion is so adaptive that it must necessarily spread throughout the whole population. If so, those who don’t have it will be eliminated, and the prediction of genetic uniformity comes true, at least with respect to that characteristic. We should note that white people may well be in that position right now vis à vis Jews.
That said, I heard this very idea recently spouted by an associate of mine, just last month. Since that person is in with all the latest pop fads — and since you seem to be too, I will assume there is a common source. Would you giving me the link?
My ideas are my own, although I will admit to owing a debt to many sources, not the least of which are Drs. KM and Rushton. Have you heard of either one, or read anything they’ve written?
Captainchaos says:
“And yet few here would deny that Jews have attained power in the modern world out of all proportion to their numbers,”
You haven’t addressed my criticism of Jews, only attempted to ‘balance the ledger’. Which tells me that you have no counter to the specific criticisms of Jews I made.
You’re certainly right, Admiral. I did not address your childish, insubstantial attacks. I thought to spare you the embarrassment.
“…in most accounts due at least in part to their ability to network and their comparatively high average IQ.”
I’m glad you qualified your account of their power getting with “at least in part,” that was prudent. For there is far more to say as to how it was done, but it does not speak well of the Jewish people. No lie there, but the whole of the truth self servingly omitted.
By all means, Admiral, feel free to fill us in about “the whole truth”. Yawn.
“How can we account for those genetically-based traits without having recourse to hybrid vigor, or something similar?”
If you would widen the scope of your analysis beyond the crude little toy you’ve found in your “hybrid vigor” you may come to see that it is not needed at all to account for the traits you ascribe to Jews, nor would hybridity of Europeans and Middle Easterners tend towards the production of those traits either. How so? You mention two traits of Jews that you say if the result of hybrid vigor: ability to network and high average group intelligence. The ability to network as a kinship group is best accounted for by genetic similarity, high average collectivism and ethnocentrism. The populations of the Middle East are on average more collectivistic and ethnocentric, so then, if they were to interbreed with Europeans – who are on average less collectivistic and ethnocentric – we can expect the end product to be less collectivistic and ethnocentric than what the Middle Eastern stock was to begin with. Also, the final product would be less genetically similar than the original Middle Eastern group. It appears the original Middle Eastern group’s ability to network would actually be harmed and not helped when taking into consideration those criteria.
Which should have told you right there your assumptions were wrong. But anyway, continue…
As for higher average group intelligence, Middle Eastern populations have on average lower group intelligences than do Europeans, so we can expect the product of mixing to be of an intermediate level of average group intelligence. Perhaps a win for the original Middle Eastern group, but decidedly not for Europeans. And, if the newly formed group could be expected to have a lower level of intelligence than the original European group, then we can say that hybridity did not account in whole for the higher average group intelligence of Jews as above Europeans. So what accounts for the higher average group intelligence of Jews? MacDonald contends, and I agree, that it is due to a eugenic breeding strategy intra-group (that is it did not involve in the main nor depend upon hybridity!).
The clear implication: Europeans would be better served in increasing their ability to network and average group intelligence via endogamy and eugenics, not hybridity!
This whole line of argument is a little surprising coming from an anti-semite of the hysterical kind like the Admiral here. After all, don’t such anti-semites usually like to rant about Jewish “gene stealing”? Here’s Holocaust Museum shooter James von Brunn in his book Tob Shebbe Goyim Harog:
KM attributes essentially the same theory in SAID to Ruppin:
Also, it appears he endorses the theory of Jewish gene stealing from Gentiles himself:
See http://www.ferris.edu/isar/bios/Macdonald/macdalliance.htm for more.
But however all of that may be, it’s important to note that hybrid vigor and the Jewish eugenics program as envisioned by KM aren’t mutually exclusive. Even if KM’s hypothesis is correct, hybrid vigor in the case of foundational Ashkenazi populations isn’t disproved.
The processes of meiosis are random, and don’t necessarily lead to the averaging of racial characteristics. Though on average the result of breeding a highly intelligent race with a less intelligent one will be offspring of intermediate intelligence, in a small sample it won’t necessarily be so. It’s quite conceivable that the Jewish merchants in Europe who bred with local women produced offspring that had genes for both high intelligence from their mothers and high collectivism from their fathers, especially since there were only a few of them. The hypothesis would be that the Jews may have then returned to endogamy, but these valuable traits persisted.
not yet Man-Thing says:
“Perhaps the Ashkenazi Jews, with their comparatively high intelligence and greater racial cohesion, are a case of the much ballyhooed but ofttimes hard-to-find “hybrid vigor”, a product of mixing the genetics of a race from the Middle East with one from Europe. A recent paper by Need, et al., supports this idea.”
Need et al. supports the idea that the Ashkenazi are so admixed, but says nothing about “hybrid vigor.”
I didn’t say it did. Need is one of several studies that affirm this admixture, however, which some still deny.
If Classical authors can be trusted, Jews were ethnocentric and had “racial cohesion” from the very beginning, before the formation of the Ashkenazim. Current theories of Jewish intelligence focus on selective pressures, not admixture or “hybrid vigor.”
Some of the current theories do, true. But as I say below in a reply to another poster, they aren’t mutually exclusive.
“Since you appear to understand and agree that the races are encouraged to mix…”
The key point: encouraged. Another key point which you ignore: this encouragement is focused primarily (solely?) on majority white nations.
This is not an inevitable process due to impersonal forces that equally impacts all peoples and cultures.
At the current time, of course, white nations are where technological development is greatest, so whites are the most seriously affected. It will equally affect other races and cultures as they are drawn deeper into the global technological system.
It is a sociopolitical process *encouraged* by globalist elites and targeting a particular civilization.
As I earlier stated, miscegenation in Western societies is facilitated by techniques of scientific birth control, along with the presence of non-whites in what used to be exclusive breeding territories of the white race. For example, it seems obvious white women who need no longer fear getting pregnant are much more likely to experiment with non-white males as sex partners. But of course, once they start having sex with them, a lot of them eventually will take the next step and have children by them. Given human nature, it’s an outcome inherent to those technologies themselves. Women now do these things because they can. Technological developments have enabled it. That’s also why in the past, such things weren’t nearly so common.
The purpose of sites such as TOO is to oppose this process and propose an alternative in which “racial interests” as a “universal” collective good, is incorporated as a key value into the modern world.
Whether or not this will succeed is open to question; prospects seem grim.
I would agree that the prospects seem grim. A worldwide return to a previous state of technological development and/or a return to exclusive white breeding areas is the only way to achieve this, I believe.
However, the only chance of success comes with the attempt. “Surrender to the inevitable” is a self-fulfilling paradigm; indeed, “inevitability” is a tautology if taken seriously.
Better to try, and fail, then not to try at all.
The “inevitability” of technological advance making it into an “impersonal force” seems to be an idea that a lot of people here have a big problem understanding. But it’s really not hard to understand at all. More Darwinian than anything, it’s a characteristic that pervades all aspects of the global technological system. Here’s a simple example. If your adversary develops a refinement or advance in his weaponry, you MUST answer with the same or better advance. What begins as a fist fight changes immediately when your enemy picks up a knife. Now you must answer with at least a knife. If he later escalates to a gun, then you must escalate to at least a gun. Of course, you may fail or refuse, in which case you will simply lose the battle. Most will not voluntarily choose to die.
So it’s true that the technological system doesn’t really force us to do anything, in a metaphysical sense. Nothing is inevitable. It only becomes so when human nature is factored in. The compulsion comes from the fact that if you don’t take the most technologically efficient course, you will lose to someone who does. So when I say that developments within the technological system force changes in the underlying culture, I am making the (usually reliable) assumption that people will not wish to lose. For example, no one is “forced” to use a car or a computer. You could walk, ride a bicycle, or do everything by hand that you use a computer to do — calculating, writing, record-keeping, etc. But because you want to avoid losing economically and socially to others who use these things, you are indeed forced. Similarly, women who use scientific birth control techniques aren’t “forced” to do so. They could choose to lose out in the breeding competition to other women who do. Mysteriously perhaps, they don’t usually do this however. ;-)
You misunderstand. I am not talking about the inevitability of technological advance, I am talking about the inevitability that such advance must always, in all circumstances, lead to world-wide panmixia.
Which leads to:
“…a return to exclusive white breeding areas is the only way to achieve this, I believe.”
I agree, which is why I support this option. I am not saying it is likely; most likely, we are doomed – as we are the only people in history whose own elites favor their people’s destruction. However, given the choice, I’d rather attempt an extremely unlikely possibility that allows biocultural continuity to coexist with technology (which is the choice to which I refer, not the choice to abstain from technology), rather than passively accept the outcomes planned by genocidal elites.
It’s sort of like playing the lottery. The chances of winning are very small indeed. But those chances are zero if you don’t play at all.
Adam [progress]
If you want to discuss this issue further, leave a post over on my blog and we can go over it. Don’t bother replying to me here. You arguments boils down to: Ancestral populations should out-breed out of existence because:
1.They probably don’t exist. They clearly do.
2.They will inevitable do so on their own. History isn’t linear; and if it is, why are you wasting you time with stubborn people?
3.They will be forced to do so as their lands are being invaded. This is a reason to resist and organize, not the reverse.
4.Their old world environment won’t maintain the same selection pressure. Look up Group selection.
5.Their homogeneous future world environment will select for homogeneity. And the lambs will lay down with the lions.
6.All future populations will be the same anyways. Will they or will they not?
7.But I mean Ancestral groups will eventually disappear? From dust to dust, ashes to ashes…and yet we keep blogging on, how strange.
8.It’s important they do so for progress. That’s pretty reckless.
Genetic diversity is healthy — it offers a species evolutionary resilience and adaptability. Did you ever hear of the Potato famine?
9.They will be better off for it, via inbreeding. That’s a pretty crude method of eugenics — I would hope in the future we could do better than that.
10. It’s the wave of the future. Sounds rather eschatological.
Is there anything I’m missing?
not-yet Man thing
“It’s sort of like playing the lottery. The chances of winning are very small indeed. But those chances are zero if you don’t play at all.”
I really can’t imagine why people have trouble with this. Individually, we are all in the same position of ‘doom.’ We know we are going to die someday, and yet we live on. At very worse, we are like the heroic cancer patient, who fights on and refuses his doctor’s ‘end of life counseling.’
There is nothing more meaning-giving and revitalizing than struggle. Let Progress have his Liberal Nirvana and Marxist heaven on earth. We are Western. And what is more fundamentally western than Greek tragedy and that Norse struggle in the face of doom.
not yet Man-Thing says:
You misunderstand. I am not talking about the inevitability of technological advance, I am talking about the inevitability that such advance must always, in all circumstances, lead to world-wide panmixia.
Which leads to:
“…a return to exclusive white breeding areas is the only way to achieve this, I believe.”
I agree, which is why I support this option. I am not saying it is likely; most likely, we are doomed – as we are the only people in history whose own elites favor their people’s destruction. However, given the choice, I’d rather attempt an extremely unlikely possibility that allows biocultural continuity to coexist with technology (which is the choice to which I refer, not the choice to abstain from technology), rather than passively accept the outcomes planned by genocidal elites.
It’s sort of like playing the lottery. The chances of winning are very small indeed. But those chances are zero if you don’t play at all.
I wouldn’t agree that the contemporary West is the only empire that has had elites that actively participate in their own people’s genetic destruction. That has actually been a characteristic of all empires. Even the Assyrians used the technique of population transfer. Also, recall that Alexander the Great encouraged his men to take local wives. This is the action of a race-unconscious empire builder, not anyone who is pursuing a vision of an all-conquering master race. That this sort of tendency would be magnified later in the much more extensive and bureaucratic Roman Empire makes sense, in historical terms. The Jew-laden Bolshevik regime under Stalin was even more aggressive with population transfers and deleting gene pools it did not care for. It is a clear and, I would argue, a necessary tendency of all government to want to destroy potential rival centers of power. Ethnic groups, race, tribes, even the family all are enemies of the state.
The force of the global technological system to compel change in human culture, and through that, ultimately to change human genetics, derives both from the nature of technique and human nature. There is a Darwinism to the growth of the technological system. Each new innovation that persists represents an increase in efficiency, and a relative loss of efficiency to those who do not adopt it. It certainly is true that in some theoretical sense people could decline to participate in the technological system or decline to accept its innovations. For example, if they chose — and if they were otherwise than they actually are — people could choose to live the life of ascetics. Yet because most people are not ascetics, they are forced to accept the changes the technological system imposes or lose out in their life struggle to others that do accept them. So you are correct that there is a freedom to reject the technological system or certain of its innovations, but the price of embracing that freedom is failure or death. It is simply human nature that most will reject these alternatives. As an example, let’s allow that whites may be best suited from a genetic point of view to flourish in small, agrarian, libertarian-style democratic republics such as Jefferson envisioned, except that unlike the historical example he set they would be racially pure states. How then did we get from there to here, our current predicament? Each step that was taken was dictated by the development of the global technological system. First, because it would increase their ability to exploit the land, the white planters felt they had to import niggers. If free white laborers would have been more efficient, I’m sure they would have used them, but they didn’t. Anyone using them would have lost the eternal competition with his neighbors for MORE – more money, more power, more land, more prestige, more women, etc. In other words, what happened was an interaction between white racial and cultural predispositions of that time and available technology — the state of development of the technological system. Again and again this same scenario has been repeated in American history. Starting in the 1880s, to fill labor needs and expand the population base, large numbers of Jews and Eastern and Southern Europeans began arriving. This didn’t happen for no reason, or some arbitrary reason. It was compelled by the expansion of the technological system. It was felt that the country needed more people, and regrettably, our ancestors weren’t too choosy about whom they let in. In today’s America we face the Mexican invasion. Even if we agree with KM that the Jews were the proximate cause of breaking down the previous immigration system, at the current time non-white immigration has many bases of support. Churches support it, big agribusiness supports it, small business supports it, the education system supports it, the health care industry supports it, government workers support it, etc. — and they all support it mostly not because they are “tricked” into doing so by propaganda, but because it is seen as to their individual power and economic advantage to do so. The propaganda, if anything, is an afterthought, a justification for what they want to happen anyway.
This growth is all non-arbitrary. Each step taken is dictated by the previous ones, and is inevitable and compelled, given human nature. Nor can one arbitrarily return to a previous state. This is why I think it is vain to believe that, barring a complete collapse of the global technological system, ZOG will disintegrate into small, libertarian ethnostates. Despite occasional retrenchments, the clear trend of development of the technological system throughout the modern era has been to move to larger and larger units of economic and demographic size. This explains the EU, NAFTA, and the ongoing North American merger with Mexico, and Central and South America. These accretions are taking place because large economies in large countries (or blocs of countries) with a large resource base have an inherent Darwinian advantage in the struggle for dominance among nations. Even at its current size, some other countries or blocs of countries have the potential to dominate the US, and that is why it must continue to grow. If the US did break up into such small states, and they were truly independent, they would be unable to compete in such a world and would be gobbled up by larger, more powerful states. Nationalism is on its way out. It’s a losing strategy within a technological system that’s gone global.
The bottom line is that such tendencies to accretion and assimilation are inherently destructive of race and culture, and especially to the most highly technicized of races, the white race and its culture. Yet all over the world, throughout history, the same paradigm of technological growth has been followed: Economic relationships between nations/races -> Political relationships between nations/races -> Social integration of the respective nations/races -> Genetic integration of the respective nations/races. The expansion of the global technological system is relentless and totalitarian in effect, and aggressively takes a role in destroying cultures, nations, and races.
not yet Man-Thing says:
You misunderstand. I am not talking about the inevitability of technological advance, I am talking about the inevitability that such advance must always, in all circumstances, lead to world-wide panmixia.
Which leads to:
“…a return to exclusive white breeding areas is the only way to achieve this, I believe.”
I agree, which is why I support this option. I am not saying it is likely; most likely, we are doomed – as we are the only people in history whose own elites favor their people’s destruction. However, given the choice, I’d rather attempt an extremely unlikely possibility that allows biocultural continuity to coexist with technology (which is the choice to which I refer, not the choice to abstain from technology), rather than passively accept the outcomes planned by genocidal elites.
It’s sort of like playing the lottery. The chances of winning are very small indeed. But those chances are zero if you don’t play at all.
I wouldn’t be so quick to say that the contemporary West is the only empire that has had elites that actively participate in their own people’s genetic destruction. That has actually been a characteristic of all empires. Even the Assyrians used the technique of population transfer to control their conquered lands, and this led inevitably to genetic mixing even back then. Also, recall that Alexander the Great encouraged his men to take local wives. This is the action of a race-unconscious empire builder, not anyone who is pursuing a vision of an all-conquering master race. That this sort of tendency would be magnified later in the much more extensive and bureaucratic Roman Empire makes sense, in historical terms. The Jew-laden Bolshevik regime under Stalin was even more aggressive with population transfers and deleting gene pools it did not care for. It is a clear and, I would argue, a necessary tendency of all government to want to destroy potential rival centers of power, because rivals interfere with its smooth operation; with its efficiency. For that reason, ethnic groups, distinguishable races, tribes, and even the family all are potential enemies of the state. The larger the technological state grows — and it must grow, or die when it falls victim to other states or empires that have — the less those latter things matter, and the less power they will have.
The force of the global technological system to compel change in human culture, and through that, ultimately to change human genetics, derives both from the nature of technique and human nature. There is a Darwinism to the growth of the technological system. Each new innovation that persists represents an increase in efficiency, and a relative loss of efficiency to those who do not adopt it. It certainly is true that in some theoretical sense people could decline to participate in the technological system or decline to accept its innovations. For example, if they chose — and if they were otherwise than they actually are — people could choose to live the life of ascetics. Yet because most people are not ascetics, they are forced to accept the changes the technological system imposes or lose out in their life struggle to others that do accept them. So you are correct that there is a freedom to reject the technological system or certain of its innovations, but the price of embracing that freedom is failure or death. It is simply human nature that most will reject these alternatives. As an example, let’s allow that whites may be best suited from a genetic point of view to flourish in small, agrarian, libertarian-style democratic republics such as Jefferson envisioned, except that unlike the historical example he set they would be racially pure states. How then did we get from there to here, our current predicament? Each step that was taken was dictated by the development of the global technological system. First, because it would increase their ability to exploit the land, the white planters felt they had to import niggers. If free white laborers would have been more efficient, I’m sure they would have used them, but they didn’t. Anyone using them would have lost the eternal competition with his neighbors for MORE – more money, more power, more land, more prestige, more women, etc. In other words, what happened was an interaction between white racial and cultural predispositions of that time and available technology — the state of development of the technological system. Again and again this same scenario has been repeated in American history. Starting in the 1880s, to fill labor needs and expand the population base, large numbers of Jews and Eastern and Southern Europeans began arriving. This didn’t happen for no reason, or some arbitrary reason. It was compelled by the expansion of the technological system. It was felt that the country needed more people, and regrettably, our ancestors weren’t too choosy about whom they let in. In today’s America we face the Mexican invasion. Even if we agree with KM that the Jews were the proximate cause of breaking down the previous immigration system, at the current time non-white immigration has many bases of support. Churches support it, big agribusiness supports it, small business supports it, the education system supports it, the health care industry supports it, government workers support it, etc. — and they all support it mostly not because they are “tricked” into doing so by propaganda, but because it is seen as to their individual power and economic advantage to do so. The propaganda, if anything, is an afterthought, a justification for what they want to happen anyway.
This growth is all non-arbitrary. Each step taken is dictated by the previous ones, and is inevitable and compelled, given human nature. Nor can one arbitrarily return to a previous state. This is why I think it is vain to believe that, barring a complete collapse of the global technological system, ZOG will disintegrate into small, libertarian ethnostates. Despite occasional retrenchments, the clear trend of development of the technological system throughout the modern era has been to move to larger and larger units of economic and demographic size. This explains the EU, NAFTA, and the ongoing North American merger with Mexico, and Central and South America. These accretions are taking place because large economies in large countries (or blocs of countries) with a large resource base have an inherent Darwinian advantage in the struggle for dominance among nations. Even at its current size, some other countries or blocs of countries have the potential to dominate the US, and that is why it must continue to grow. If the US did break up into such small states, and they were truly independent, they would be unable to compete in such a world and would be gobbled up by larger, more powerful states. Nationalism is on its way out. It’s a losing strategy within a technological system that’s gone global.
The bottom line is that such tendencies to accretion and assimilation are inherently destructive of race and culture, and especially to the most highly technicized of races, the white race and its culture. Yet all over the world, throughout history, the same paradigm of technological growth has been followed: Economic relationships between nations/races -> Political relationships between nations/races -> Social integration of the respective nations/races -> Genetic integration of the respective nations/races. The expansion of the global technological system is relentless and totalitarian in effect, and aggressively takes a role in destroying cultures, nations, and races.
Adam said:
“The expansion of the global technological system is relentless and totalitarian in effect, and aggressively takes a role in destroying cultures, nations, and races.”
That means it is in the interests of those racially-conscious Whites to do everything they can to sabotage and destroy the existing economic and technological systems. One way of doing that would be to reduce the world population by as large a number as possible, as fast as possible, using any means available. If this happens there will be much less need for technology.
Our predicament is not being caused by the growth of technology alone. Whites and White countries are being deliberately targeted. Since it has been established that there are very hostile forces out there who have been using immigration law, anti-discrimination laws, hate-crime laws, and forced racial integration as ways to subdue us, it’s fairly safe to say that a state of war exists between us and the Jew and other non-whites.
It’s getting to the point where we have little to lose by discussing (in hypothetical and fictional terms) and at some point implementing, some very radical, but very effective, measures in an attempt to save our people from extinction.
Given the conditions, I think that we are morally justified in using on a global scale some of the deadliest weapons ever produced against the non-white world.
This thing can be talked to death, but unless and until the sentiments on this and other “White survival” websites are expressed on the battlefield we will continue to falter.
Mark says:
Adam said:
“The expansion of the global technological system is relentless and totalitarian in effect, and aggressively takes a role in destroying cultures, nations, and races.”
That means it is in the interests of those racially-conscious Whites to do everything they can to sabotage and destroy the existing economic and technological systems.
It’s important to understand that there is really only ONE global technological system, which is nothing but the sum total of all techniques. This includes every technique or system of techniques, both physical and non-physical. There are economic techniques, propaganda techniques, manufacturing techniques, political techniques, psychological techniques, etc. By “the global technological system” then, we don’t mean merely physical machinery (although that too is a part of it), but also the entire system of production and support, which forms an interlocking global network.
One implication of this for those who oppose it is that any attack on such a system must be global in scope and wipe it out completely, once and for all. If the attack is only local in its effect, then the result, no matter how initially devastating, will be only temporary. The system will simply be regenerated from the sectors which are not brought down. For example, if such an attack or series of attacks weaken the countries that form the empire of the West, all that will happen is that they will be taken over by the empire of the East. Worse, it’s certain that a regenerated system would evolve to be more totalitarian and oppressive than ever. This makes the problem very difficult.
In spite of all its negative effects, we also can’t expect people to simply decide to voluntarily abandon technology. They love the pleasure and material comfort it brings them too much to do that. That means that when the destruction of the global technological system happens, it’s unlikely to be a result of a large group decision. But it will not require the consent of a majority, and perhaps not the consent of even one person. It could even occur by accident from a technological mishap, or as a result of a natural disaster such as an asteroid strike. In fact, in many ways, this seems to me even more likely than a deliberate attack. However, in such cases the outcome would be random, and not guaranteed to favor the white race.
One way of doing that would be to reduce the world population by as large a number as possible, as fast as possible, using any means available. If this happens there will be much less need for technology.
Our predicament is not being caused by the growth of technology alone. Whites and White countries are being deliberately targeted. Since it has been established that there are very hostile forces out there who have been using immigration law, anti-discrimination laws, hate-crime laws, and forced racial integration as ways to subdue us, it’s fairly safe to say that a state of war exists between us and the Jew and other non-whites.
The Jew is the proximate cause of many current difficulties, but the expansion of the global technological system is the ultimate cause. It is invading the natural world, causing severe disruption to its ecology. Destruction of the races of man is just one small part of that, upon which we are focusing our attention here in the self-centered way typical of humans. In addition to the races of man, entire species have been and are continuing to be eliminated, whole biomes destroyed through desertification and pollution. It can even credibly be claimed that the further development of the global technological system threatens all life on the planet. Given that fact, what should be done to ensure our continued existence?
First, defenders of the white race must realize that the Jews would have no power over white people without the existence of the global technological system to support it. E.g.: No mass media = no Jewish mind control. No mass transportation techniques = virtually no immigration. No scientific birth control techniques = no feminism. No computers or electronic communications = no federal or state gov’t = no ZOG. Without the technological system to force them together, the races would naturally self-segregate. Once the global technological system has been destroyed — and brought down on a global basis, not just locally — Jewish power will vanish like dew in the morning sun.
Second, they should realize that we are now in an age in which the global technological system itself poses a greater threat to the continued existence of the white race than even the Jews. The next 50 years will see genetic engineering techniques that will make the natural category of race obsolete and meaningless. Already even today genes are being spliced between species. The expansion of the global technological system will eventually make man/animal hybrids common. Worse, by means of its very structure, the global technological system culls the best from the herd. Its very existence is poisonous to us. If a man like Thomas Jefferson were born today — if he were not prevented from being born in the first place by scientific birth control techniques like abortion or the Pill — he’d end up bankrupt, dead, or in prison. The culture of miscegenation and death that the system promotes is intrinsic to it, and not just the result of Jewish efforts. This culture resulting from the global technological system changes gene frequencies within the white population, and thereby affects and has already affected the underlying genetics of race. Further, it is easy to show that such a system must inevitably act to reshape white genetics to better accord with itself and its expansion. This flaw is both irremediable and profound. It has already produced a race of soft, feminized white men, almost all of whom are unwilling to take the necessary steps to save their own race.
Third, they should try to acquire knowledge of techniques for bringing the global technological system down. Areas of study likely to produce such knowledge are: genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and AI/robotics. See here for more. It’s likely that these techniques could be used to save whites against their will, without their consent. Their deployment doesn’t require a mass movement. No more than a very small group or cell would be required, perhaps even one man working alone. In any case, once the knowledge of how to bring the system down exists, it is inevitable that it will be used.
What will a post-technological era look like? That would depend on a lot of factors, especially the exact method of destruction. Certainly, there will be a much reduced worldwide population. If for no other reason than that white people constitute only a tiny minority of people in the world (about 8% or so), the overwhelming majority (>92%+) of deaths would be among non-whites. Global population might be reduced to one tenth or even one hundredth what it is now. Under certain scenarios, the white race could end up as the only race on the planet. In any case, under primitive technological conditions where there remains more than one race, we can expect the races to self-segregate.
It is probably impossible to destroy primitive techniques such as spear points and snares, but that isn’t really necessary. Perhaps a post-technological world would end up looking like ancient Athens or ancient Rome. But, if they can get that far, what will prevent them from quickly building the global technological system back again? I’m glad you asked. In ancient times, there was still plenty of easy to find materials with which to build technological civilization. Those are gone now, all used up. Resources vital to the technological system such as oil, iron, copper, aluminum, zinc, tin, gold, silver, etc., now require high technology to obtain. If that technology goes away, then they will in effect be permanently unobtainable. In the short term, cities could be effectively mined for materials only if enough people remained to do that, and a distribution network still was in operation, both to distribute the mined materials and to support the miners with food and other necessities of life. This might well not be the case. Such activities are also somewhat constrained by time. If sufficient time passed before salvage began, much material would already have decayed to unusability. Wood and cloth rot, steel rusts, glass fogs and shatters, gasoline and oil oxidize and absorb water and go bad, plastic becomes brittle. A century or two of darkness, or much less, depending on the resource in question, and salvage would be unproductive. A blow to the system of sufficient power to cause a worldwide collapse and a population decrease of the magnitude we are talking about might well be something from which the global technological system could not recover. If an interruption to global technological society is imposed that lasts long enough — a new Dark Age — then the tools to extract those resources will no longer exist, nor the tools and resources to make those tools. In a few generations, even the knowledge of how to do so will be lost.
“But the expansion of the global technological system is the ultimate cause. It is invading the natural world, causing severe disruption to its ecology. ”
What happened to the ‘embrace the inevitable technological utopia?’ Why now the sudden ‘resist the and seek a post-technological arcadia?
Adam said:
“It’s important to understand that there is really only ONE global technological system, which is nothing but the sum total of all techniques.”
“What will a post-technological era look like? That would depend on a lot of factors, especially the exact method of destruction. Certainly, there will be a much reduced worldwide population.”
“It is probably impossible to destroy primitive techniques such as spear points and snares, but that isn’t really necessary. Perhaps a post-technological world would end up looking like ancient Athens or ancient Rome.”
That’s an interesting theory. I hope you’ll pardon my cynicism, but I’m always a little skeptical when I see someone try to shift the focus and the blame AWAY from the Jew and onto some inanimate object that is difficult to deal with and that would require much time. This same tactical theme appears regularly on “White Nationalist” websites.
There’s no doubt that technology has allowed the enemy a far-reaching capability, just as it’s allowing us the same now. Let those who can attack the technological apparatus do so. Even if we entered a new Dark Age as you have described, I’d prefer that to the known outcome of the current path. At least we’d have a fighting chance because we would most likely be in control what technology there was.
In the meantime, we’ll continue to point the finger at the Jew, what he has done and continues to do, until such time that he can be removed from his influence-wielding positions and disposed of.
Mark says:
In the meantime, we’ll continue to point the finger at the Jew, what he has done and continues to do, until such time that he can be removed from his influence-wielding positions and disposed of.
In biology, it is axiomatic that all relationships between parasite and host tend towards symbiosis — a state in which both parties receive some benefits from the relationship. This is because when a parasite kills a host, it often dies too, so it is plainly not in its interest to siphon off too much of its host’s vitality. Ideally, it will even offer the host some benefits, which will further incentivize the host to keep it around. Disease/host relationships are like this too. The ideal disease is a stable one that can co-exist with the host, perhaps even hiding in its genetics like the herpes virus. The cleverest viruses may even offer some benefits to the host, such as cross-immunity to similar viruses, or something even more ingenious. Evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins, for example, speculates that the herpes virus makes the host more attractive to others during its active phases, both assisting the host to propagate its own genetics and helping spread the virus.
Taking into consideration your analysis, my metaphor would be that the Jew is a racial disease, principally of white people, that attempts, via its control of the technology of money, to establish a symbiotic relationship with its host. The benefit to the Jew is obvious. He finds a home and is protected from predators by his host, and even intertwines with the host on a genetic and a cultural level. In the case of the Jew-infected white race, the benefit is that the Jew aids the expansion of the global technological system, which helps, at least in the short term, to increase the efficiency of its operation — which is the primary goal of all technological innovation, after all. His internationally-distributed racial network, with its keen understanding of finance, is indispensable to its growth. By his actions, he helps dissolve the resistance of race, nationality, and culture that would otherwise oppose its expansion; the sophistries he emits in the course of his activity are like memetic enzymes that eat away the moral fiber of nations. The corruption that this Jew-disease brings to the peoples he infects is a precondition for their integration into a global economy and a global government, the basis of a New World Order. Sometimes this disease flares up too much, and threatens to kill the host, just as it did in 1930s Germany, or after the breakup of the USSR under the Jewish oligarchs who were plundering the country. In such cases, a brief fever of the host can kill or expel the Jew-disease locally, but it always returns shortly thereafter. Only a global fever, strong enough to completely burn away the entire technological system, would be sufficient to permanently rid the world of the disease we know as Jews.
It’s noteworthy that both in Weimar Gemany and in Stalin’s USSR the Jews did eventually lose their positions of control, although only temporarily. In Germany, the Jews were re-installed by the allies after the defeat of the Nazis, and when the Soviet Union fell, the Jewish oligarchs plundered the country, once again assuming de facto control. This demonstrates that Jewish power and the course of development of the global technological system are separate, but related things. Even if the Jews are overthrown temporarily, the global technological system continues to expand without them, and eventually brings them back. The racially-networked, mass-media-dominating, money-obsessed Jew, with his comparatively high intelligence and skill in international finance, appears to fill an indispensable niche in the ecology of the global technological system. We can conclude that if the global technological system did not have Jews, it would find it necessary to invent them.
Lesacre says:
What happened to the ‘embrace the inevitable technological utopia?’
That is your strawman, evidently based on your confusing my description of certain historical trends with recommending a course of action. It’s not based on anything I ever said.
Adam,
“In biology, it is axiomatic that all relationships between parasite and host tend towards symbiosis”
Obviously, you have never studied parasitology. http://www.cnrs.fr/Cnrspresse/n385/html/en385a05.htm
Look, if your interest is ‘what’s good for the Jews,’ I have argued elsewhere that the relationship between the gentile and the jew under Christendom was often symbiotic. That is, Europe was unified under Christianity, which was a system that forbade usury. Jews were needed by the European nobility to get around the ban on Usury. Jews, benefited, which is why, on the whole, they thrived in Europe.
Now, given that Jews stuck together (they could have, after all, melted into the population like the Huns did) and engaged in activities that gentiles were not allowed to, in addition to other factors, they often engendered hostility. Now given that Europe was Christian and given the historic relation between that once Jewish sect and what Judaism became, and given that the nobility worked through the Jews, hostility was often promoted. But, if you look at the relationship as a whole — and not from selective perspective, the Jewish/Gentile relationship was more or less symbiotic.
My point would be that the relationship was much less predatorial and parasitic than you are imagining. It began becoming so, more and more, after the 1800′s. What it will be is another matter. Head over to the ‘American Thinker’ and witness Jews waking up to the idea that being pro-white might be good for the Jews.
Jews have back ‘anti-racism’ and diversity for decades. To help sell it, they sold it as a self-critique. My group has already largely been deconstructed. At this point, I am rather ambivalent — and a good deal nihilistic. I am tempted to throw my towel in and join the diversity crowd — and help makes sure those white people get what they are said to deserve and pay what they owe– especially those rather affluent cosmopolitan ones.
Lesacre says:
Obviously, you have never studied parasitology. http://www.cnrs.fr/Cnrspresse/n385/html/en385a05.htm
Really?
“The idea that host-parasite relationships should evolve towards mutualism can be found throughout the parasitology and medical literature.”
If it’s found throughout the literature, then a lot of people who have credentials in that discipline are under the same impression I am. Your link asserts the above proposition is false, but offers no proof.
This idea, which is false, comes from the observation that certain diseases are more virulent when there has not been a long history of co-evolution. This observation is biased, as we only observe the cases in which the introduction of a disease causes problems.
No, the idea actually comes from the evolutionary logic I mentioned: a parasite or disease that quickly kills its host is usually a dead, unsuccessful parasite. Either a disease or a parasite will be more successful if the host survives so it can spread itself around. Cf. Typhoid Mary.
As for the Jewish symbiosis with whites, we do appear on the surface to have some rough agreement. But the devil is in the details, after all, isn’t it? Someone who thinks that 2+2 = 4.1 is in rough agreement with someone who states 2+2 = 4, but the difference is still important. The one answer is correct, the other wrong. My explanation is superior to yours because it explains things yours does not. E.g., it explains the persistent role of the Jew throughout the expansion of the global technological system, from ancient times up to today. At a much more primitive level of technological development, the Jew had accordingly less power. From this we can derive that that will be true again, should the global technological system be destroyed. The Jew needs the global technological system, and the system needs the Jew. As I said, if he did not exist, the system would have to invent him.
In this connection, I might note that there actually have been a number of attempts by the system to invent the Jew. The job description of elite class of nation-wrecking parasites calls for an international tribe that is at once highly intelligent, ethnocentric, money-grubbing, and aggressive. Intelligent and ethnocentric, the money-grubbing Overseas Chinese would be good Jews except that they are not aggessive enough. The white Puritans and Transcendentalists, or the British upper classes of the British Empire period, were both intelligent and aggressive, in addition to being very greedy, and they would have sufficed except that they were too moral and not ethnocentric enough — the perennial white failing. The Gypsies (Roma) would have been perfect except for their low intelligence. But the Jew! He has that ideal combination of ethnocentrism, aggression, intelligence, and greedy acquisitiveness that the system was looking for in an international people. In addition, he is for all practical purposes devoid of morals, and due to his long tenure dwelling among whites, he even has the outward appearance of a white, so he can live and circulate among them without arousing suspicion. He’s tailor-made. Perfect!
Adam said:
“In biology, it is axiomatic that all relationships between parasite and host tend towards symbiosis — a state in which both parties receive some benefits from the relationship.”
Well, you and I will just have to disagree on whether or not we need the Jew. I don’t view the relationship between White and the Jew as symbiotic.
In any case, I’m willing to eliminate the Jew and let the chips fall where they may. We have nothing to lose by eliminating them.
We know that the Jew is engineering our racial death; we know the outcome of the current set of trends. There is no indication that the Jew will not completely consume us. The Jews’ control of us is unacceptable. The dominant opinion on White Nationalist websites is that the Jew will be removed from White society, if not the Earth.
I don’t think that many people are of the opinion that we need the Jews and will have to invent them if they’re not readily available.
Mark says:
Adam said:
“In biology, it is axiomatic that all relationships between parasite and host tend towards symbiosis — a state in which both parties receive some benefits from the relationship.”
Well, you and I will just have to disagree on whether or not we need the Jew. I don’t view the relationship between White and the Jew as symbiotic.
Detaching just that one sentence distorts my meaning. The “benefit” that whites derive is the spread of the global technological system, which the Jew promotes by breaking down races, nations, and cultures. This benefit — the good the technological system brings — is something that most so-called white nationalists are more than happy to accept. But they don’t count the price. They’re wrong in thinking they can have the benefit of the system without its costs, its negative externalities. Everything has its price.
It works like this: The international spread of the global technological system requires a race of international parasites. Resource competition will inevitably spread the system, and will call the parasite into existence if he does not exist. See my remarks to LeSacre below re: Overseas Chinese, Gypsys, Puritans, etc.
In any case, I’m willing to eliminate the Jew and let the chips fall where they may. We have nothing to lose by eliminating them.
That has been tried many times. But he always comes back, for the reason I’ve explained. He has an ecological niche to fill in white society, within the technological system.
The dominant opinion on White Nationalist websites is that the Jew will be removed from White society, if not the Earth.
That would require building a mass movement among whites, which at this late date is probably impossible. Even Hitler, with the power of all Germany united behind him and all his SS Legions did not succeed at it. Moreover, the last 60 years have shown the futility of trying to construct another such movement. Continuing to try the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the very definition of insanity; it’s a prescription for failure.
On the other hand, destruction of the global technological system does not require a mass movement, and without that system, the Jew will have no power. There is also the threat from the future: Genetic engineering techniques will soon make the natural category of race meaningless. I’ve already mentioned man/animal hybrids that are in the near future. But such techniques also might make it possible to boost the negro IQ, for example, making him more like whites and of much better use to the system. Some people might even approve of this, even though it would come with the cost of promoting a lot more race mixing. There are a lot of folks more interested in hating Jews than solving these problems or similar ones, it seems. You guys need to broaden your horizons and consider the big picture.
Saving the white race isn’t for everyone, I guess. ;-)
Adam said:
“Detaching just that one sentence distorts my meaning. The “benefit” that whites derive is the spread of the global technological system, which the Jew promotes by breaking down races, nations, and cultures. This benefit — the good the technological system brings — is something that most so-called white nationalists are more than happy to accept. But they don’t count the price. They’re wrong in thinking they can have the benefit of the system without its costs, its negative externalities. Everything has its price.”
Concerning removing the Jews from White society:
“That has been tried many times. But he always comes back, for the reason I’ve explained. He has an ecological niche to fill in white society, within the technological system.”
“There is also the threat from the future: Genetic engineering techniques will soon make the natural category of race meaningless. I’ve already mentioned man/animal hybrids that are in the near future.”
Can you provide a hyperlink concerning that?
You know, I can’t think of a single prominent White Nationalist, or any race scientist, who promotes a view similar to yours. For your argument to have any validity we would have to see that. It can’t come from a faceless, nameless person on the Internet and be valid. Sorry.
Mark says:
Adam said:
“There is also the threat from the future: Genetic engineering techniques will soon make the natural category of race meaningless. I’ve already mentioned man/animal hybrids that are in the near future.”
Can you provide a hyperlink concerning that?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0125_050125_chimeras.html
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2001/aug/01082404.html
You know, I can’t think of a single prominent White Nationalist, or any race scientist, who promotes a view similar to yours. For your argument to have any validity we would have to see that. It can’t come from a faceless, nameless person on the Internet and be valid. Sorry.
I expected better of you, but it doesn’t matter. I’m not making propaganda for my views in order to win converts. Among the few people intelligent enough to see the problem perhaps will be a few capable of crafting a solution. It will only take one, really.
Good luck.
Adam said:
“There is also the threat from the future: Genetic engineering techniques will soon make the natural category of race meaningless. I’ve already mentioned man/animal hybrids that are in the near future.”
Can you provide a hyperlink concerning that?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0125_050125_chimeras.html
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2001/aug/01082404.html
(The second article is derived from the first.)
You’ve got to be joking! You think that’s going to catch on? You think that will make human races non-existent?
Even if this kind of research did increased, it would then be very difficult for them to criticize the German National Socialist movement and its efforts to improve human quality by what some critics call the “master race” program.
Not only will that not catch on, but the very few people who have conceived of these things, along with their creations, can be eliminated without too much effort.
Do you really think that the content of those articles is going to convince any normal White person that we should allow the Jew to continue to breathe?
Adam said:
“I’m not making propaganda for my views in order to win converts. Among the few people intelligent enough to see the problem perhaps will be a few capable of crafting a solution. It will only take one, really.”
Those people don’t exist. It’s a fantasy in your mind and that’s why you can’t name any well-known person who is saying the same things as you or who is suggesting the same things you have in your comments here.
Mark says:
(The second article is derived from the first.)
So the second article, written in 2001, is derived from the first, written in 2005, eh genius?
I see I’ve way overestimated you. You’re a dolt.
NEXT!
Adam says:
January 6, 2010 at 12:17 AM
Mark says:
(The second article is derived from the first.)
“So the second article, written in 2001, is derived from the first, written in 2005, eh genius?
I see I’ve way overestimated you. You’re a dolt.
NEXT!”
I see that you really have no answer for the core of my last post. I didn’t think that you would.
You need to get a girlfriend and move out of your mother’s basement.
Mark, don’t argue with clowns like Adam who spout ridiculous “theories” that they themselves don’t believe. It’s just more blather in the hopes of consciously or subconsciously convincing a reader that what Jews engage in is normal behavior, dictated by forces outside their own conscious thought, that there’s no malice intended and so on.
Tired of the Lies says:
[some blather]
Hi Mark!
“Mark, don’t argue with clowns like Adam who spout ridiculous “theories” that they themselves don’t believe. ”
Agreed. Adam/Mr. PROGRESS is either a moron or a troll. If he’s Jewish, he’s surely one of the low IQ ones.
As for this:
“In biology, it is axiomatic that all relationships between parasite and host tend towards symbiosis — a state in which both parties receive some benefits from the relationship.”
Evolution, like history and sociology, is NOT PROGRESSIVE.
Refer here:
Evolution has no eye for the future – it does not operate with a view to the attainment of teleological ends or typological goals. In particular, neither evolution nor the presence of particular characteristics can properly be characterized as a steady march of progress toward traits beneficial (in our minds) to the species as a whole. As Ewald has observed:
Scientist’s errors can often be traced to the belief that natural selection will favor what is best for the long-term stability and survival of the species. In fact natural selection is powerless to favor such long-term survival when it runs counter to short-term competitive gains. By the time the long-term benefits would be accrued, the individuals that could provide them would have vanished from the species by competition. This misunderstanding owes much to the catchiness of the phrase “survival of the species,” which emphasizes the species rather than the competitors within the species” [[11]:xiv].
Such misconceptions are intimately linked to the mistaken view that evolution in the context of host-parasite relationships is a steady march to a state of “benign coexistence,” and hence to mistaken expectations about the evolution of virulent pathogens and parasites. Again, as Ewald pointed out:
Natural selection favors characteristics that increase the passing on of the genes that code for the characteristics. If more rapid replication of a virus inside of a person leads to a greater passing on of the genes that code for that rapid replication, then replication rate will increase even if the more rapid growth of the virus population within a person causes the person to be severely ill, or leads to an overall decrease in the numbers of the virus among people, or hastens the eventual extinction of the virus [[2]:4].
This phenomenon can be explored in the context of within-host selection. Diseases differ with respect to virulence. For most of us the common cold is a nuisance. The rhinovirus works its evolutionary mischief by keeping its host mobile – and hence typically in contact with other susceptible persons who in turn help with the reproduction and dispersal of the virus. By contrast, highly virulent strains of malaria (e.g., that caused by Plasmodium falciparum), rapidly immobilize the host and kill millions of human each year.
Since malaria is propagated by biting mosquitoes, the parasite pays no penalty for an immobilized host – especially one too weak to swat the insect vector. Moreover, simultaneous infection with different strains of P. falciparum with varying degrees of virulence creates a competitive environment. In such a situation, those strains that attain highest concentrations in the host’s blood in the least amount of time (thereby wreaking havoc on the host) are those most likely to be sucked up by biting mosquitoes, who then spread the progeny of these virulent strains to other susceptible hosts [2]. Another example concerning the illogic of obligate evolution to a state of benign co-existence, is provided by Nesse and Williams:
What good would it do a liver fluke to restrain itself so as not to harm the host if that host is about to die of shigellosis? The fluke and the shigella are competing for the same pool of resources within the host, and the one that most ruthlessly exploits that pool will be the winner. Likewise, if there is more than one shigella strain, the one that most effectively converts the host’s resources to its own use will disperse the most progeny before the host dies [[12]:57].”
http://www.peh-med.com/content/2/1/4#B2
You made some Good points there. I did a search on the topic and found most people will agree.
Nice!, discovered your post on Bing.Happy I finally tried it out. Unsure if its my Safari browser,but sometimes when I visit your site, the fonts are really small? Anyway, love your site and will return.Bye