In the wake of the recent Oxford University study that sought to identify psychopharmacological cures to White racism (see my previous article on the subject), and in view of the study’s links to a modern advocate of eugenics, we are left with the question of what the anticipated resurgence of eugenics will mean for European-descended peoples in a cultural climate dominated by the liberal equality ideology.
Until now we have not associated eugenics with liberal egalitarianism, even though the eugenics movement of the early twentieth century had a notable progressive component, as best exemplified by pacifist eugenicist David Starr Jordan. (Jordan’s 1915 book, War and the Breed, was an impassioned attack on war as dysgenic.)
However, the abovementioned study, plus the fact that eugenics was never really abandoned since we still conduct pre-natal screenings, arises the prospect of egalitarian eugenics. Professor Julian Sepulescu of Oxford University’s Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, would be an example of this new paradigm.
As I previously stated, Savulescu’s thesis is that humans are biologically and psychologically unfit for the societies we live in, and that, absent a programme artificially to enhance our species, humanity faces extinction within a hundred years. In Sepulescu’s purview is the need to limit our commitment to liberalism, engage in more extensive surveillance of citizens, emphasise moral education, and favour long-term strategies over short term ones centred on election cycles. Among his long-term strategies he advocates the use of drugs on embryos to suppress psychopathic or other undesirable traits and, further down the line, using genetic engineering to breed a race of more peaceful, nicer, high-IQ humans.
Evidently, since the Oxford study classes racial consciousness as immoral, we can conclude that Sepulescu envisions a eugenic programme that breeds out racial consciousness.
In what follows I explore the implications of egalitarian eugenics. Some of it may seem like science fiction, but it is worth remembering that science begins with science fiction, and that science fiction, besides entertainment and a quintessentially Western literary form, is also a tool for ascertaining our ethical, moral, and ideological positions.
Possible Scope and Method of Implementation
In Western societies, the evaluation of racial consciousness as pathological and immoral is not a minority opinion held by alienated professors in the catacombs of university humanities departments. It is the view sponsored by the entire academic, political, and media establishment. Conversely, racial consciousness is treated as healthy and righteous in most other societies around the world. Only Western societies have instituted policies and erected social taboos that discourage and persecute expressions of racial consciousness among their indigenous White populations.
Thus, in the event of eugenics becoming once again culturally acceptable in the West, one can easily imagine that the promotion of amiability and equality would be one of any such eugenic programme’s key aims. Similarly, because other nations share with the West neither its commitment to equality nor its aversion to indigenous White ethnocentrism, one can easily imagine that such a eugenics programme would be implemented in the West alone.
One can further imagine three possible implementation scenarios.
One would involve citizens being encouraged to make a voluntary decision, either to self-medicate or to opt in for suppressing the psychochemical mechanisms involved in racial bias at the moment of ‘designing’ their child.
Another scenario would involve varying degrees of overt compulsion. Citizens would be required either to go on anti-racist drugs and hospitals would be mandated to select out a standard set of undesirable traits (schizophrenia, spina bifida, etc.) The psychochemical mechanisms of racial bias would be lumped alongside with psychopathy or deformity.
Yet another scenario would involve covert implementation. Anti-‘racist’ drugs would be introduced into bread or the water supply, and / or genetic modification would be performed on embryos unbeknownst to the parents, even where embryo design would be optional and voluntary for selecting in or out any number of other traits.
Policy makers would easily justify any eugenic programme with arguments analogous to those already used to justify the introduction of carbon taxes and other, more radical environmental measures. The marketing of such a programme would be couched in enlightened, progressive, moral language, reinforced by doomsday rhetoric.
It would be naïve, however, not to expect resistance. Conservative Christian groups would object at interfering with the human genome, no matter what the threat to our species. Libertarian groups would object at any kind of compulsion or government sponsorship. And ethnic minorities would press for exemptions, arguing that racial bias is a necessary defence mechanism needed against pervasive White racism. The latter argument would be harmonious with the notion, prevalent among Whites too, that only Whites are capable of racism. A liberal fascist state would likely crush the first two forms of opposition, and make concessions to minorities.
Upward Closing of Global IQ Gaps
What follows is more far-fetched than the above-described scenarios, but it is a hypothetical proposition to which we would need to know the answer if we are ever successfully to articulate a morality for White racial consciousness and self-assertion.
Assuming the emergence of a practical programme of egalitarian eugenics in the West, a logical extension of it would be to attempt an increase in the world’s average IQ, with particular emphasis on regions where populations score lower, so as to reduce or eliminate population gaps in human intelligence. Such an effort would constitute a form of foreign aid, and would indeed be in the spirit of the progressive Western ideology of Third World development. Its implementability would of course depend on a cheap and simple delivery system, such as a pill that permanently boosts brain function.
It bears asking whether we could support such an initiative, for one of the primary arguments used by critics of diversity in the West is its cost, on account of the economic underperformance of Third World settlers due to their lower IQs and associated behaviours, such as propensity to violent crime. It is conceivable that proponents of diversity would see the closing of world IQ gaps as a means of eliminating resistance. It is also conceivable that some opponents of diversity would see this closing as a means of removing the incentive of Third World peoples to immigrate, since poverty is a driver of emigration from the Third World and higher IQs would mean higher economic growth in regions now classed as poor. A predictable supporting argument would be that a more equal IQ distribution at a higher level would boost global economic growth, reduce conflict, improve governance, produce well-run Western-style techno-industrial societies everywhere, and create new markets for mature developed nations.
On the surface, this seems attractive. Yet, a world of uniformly high-IQ humans would have a significant impact on European peoples. European peoples would lose their advantage, particularly if ways are found also to increase creativity. Europeans peoples would be faced, in fact, with fierce competition from everywhere, not from just from China, Japan, and Ashkenazi Jews. What is more, peoples with historical grudges against Whites would be much more able effectively to devise policies of extraction, particularly if racial consciousness has been eugenically bred out of the White race. In addition, chances of interracial pairings would increase, since by breeding out racial consciousness and eliminating cognitive gaps would further eliminate barriers to miscegenation, and since race differences in fertility would favour a gradual global shift towards a predominantly Negro population. Ultimately, egalitarian eugenics would have the same genocidal implications for Whites as existing so-called ‘egalitarian’ policies.
Mention should be made also of the environmental impact of a fully developed planetary civilisation. Existing demographic trends within developed nations suggests that global populations would decline rapidly among European-descended peoples and South East Asians. However, higher libido among Negro populations would cause these rapidly to increase. If less aggressive than present Negro populations, their mortality would also be lower. Presumably ways of lowering fertility would be considered by non-Negro populations and promoted on environmental grounds. What our planet’s sustainable population maximum is remains open to question, but even if technological advances mean our planet would be able to sustain higher populations than predicted at present, there would still be a maximum, beyond which off-planet colonies would become necessary.
With egalitarian eugenics, therefore, the White race disappears, the most common human ends up a Negro—although Asian man would also be very numerous—and humanity becomes a space-faring civilisation, with a history written from an Afrocentric and Asiacentric perspective. The Aryan Promethean fades uncredited.
Conclusions: (1) egalitarian eugenics for us means extinction, even when not intended; and (2) IQ or economic arguments serve not the cause for the White race, and may actually harm it. It seems trivial when stated, but many racial conservatives have yet to accept this view, as they continue to formulate criticisms of diversity on the basis of functionalist arguments.
The Rights of Man
One of the cornerstones of the liberal egalitarian ideology is the notion that man has fundamental, inalienable rights that are universal. Yet, this notion presupposes that abstractions like ‘human rights’ exist independently of the empirical world, somehow above or outside human affairs, whereas, in fact, human affairs cannot be separated from ‘human rights’. In practice, rights exist only so long as there are humans who accept them and are able to enforce them.
From this perspective, conceiving the cause for the White race as a question of human rights, arguing that Whites have as much a right to exist as any other group, seems preposterous in the present climate. Other groups, being generally ethnocentric, are not concerned with the right of Whites to exist; they are concerned with the right of their own group to exist, and even in many of these cases they do not think in terms of rights, even where they have appropriated Western rhetoric; they think in terms of eating or being eaten. Worse still, not even Whites—save a small minority—are presently concerned with the right of Whites to exist. If Whites will not enforce their own right to exist, we cannot say that such a right exists at all, even if a small minority believes it does.
It follows then that the terminal decline of Whiteness resultant from egalitarian eugenics would be seen as unproblematic by Western nations breeding the Homo equalis. The decline of Whites would be rationalised as it is today by the most radical ‘egalitarians’: as a casualty of human progress, necessary, even, for the greater good of humanity. The Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man would become The Selective Declaration of the Rights of the Coloured Man with the Biggest Stick.
A universal declaration of human rights makes sense only in a homogeneously White Western society or in a world where Western White man is dominant. Otherwise it is hypertrophic: universality ends where non-Western man’s dominance begins. And since the latter tends not to think in terms of ‘human rights’, even if he appropriates the rhetoric for strategical reasons, so happens with ‘human rights’. Like anything else from the Left, then, egalitarian eugenics is ultimately a negation of ‘human rights’, and since by implication a society founded on ‘human rights’ is the aim of egalitarian eugenics, the latter ultimately achieves the opposite of its purported aims.
Equality vs. Difference
As stated earlier in this article, eugenics, though now long out of favour, has never been abandoned. Western societies still pursue eugenic practices, even if said practices are called something else or are overwhelmed by others that are dysgenic. As a professor affiliated with a prestigious university, eugenics advocate Julian Savulescu, although for the moment representing perhaps a vanguard opinion, demonstrates that a rehabilitation of eugenics is possible within a liberal egalitarian framework. It thus becomes conceivable that the decline of liberal democracy may give way to a form of liberal fascism that would support eugenic programmes with the stated aim of promoting world peace and human progress. Absent the formulation of a compelling morality of White racial consciousness, it would be difficult to mount an opposition to Homo equalis in the West since the prospect of universal genetic human enhancement, even if it were never to be achieved in practice, would negate the functionalist arguments presently used by critics of diversity. In other words, all the collected statistics about diversity-related crime and race differences in IQ would be out the window, since a universally beneficial solution would have been ‘found’.
A moral statement for White racial consciousness founded on notions of superiority would not likely gain traction in a society that understands implictly, however explicitly egalitarian, that Whites are cognitively at the top of the human league, if just under Ashkenazi Jews and South East Asians. Race differences in IQ are flattering to us, but politically they are inconvenient because sympathy is with the weak rather than the strong. However, a moral statement for White racial consciousness could be framed within the larger framework of a moral statement for human difference. The advantage of this approach is that it has common ground with liberal notions of diversity as well as with liberal notions of individuality and the right to self-determination. It goes without saying that if equality and anti-racism are code words for anti-White, egalitarians will concentrate their efforts to divorce difference from race by, for example, denying the existence of race. We can expect advances in genetic science eventually to negate this strategy, particularly with the emergence of race-specific pharmacology. It would, nevertheless, be advantageous further to develop metaphysical conceptions of race—following Spengler and Evola—to supplement purely biological raciology and avoid the trap of genetic reductionism and the problems of blurred racial borders. The existence of areas of common ground with liberalism would make a morality of difference easier to defend, since rejecting it would imply also rejecting fundamental tenets of liberalism. Still, a morality of difference is not egalitarian, because difference implies quality, identity, and uniqueness—defining concepts of tradition.
The answer to egalitarian eugenics would, therefore, be qualitative eugenics: human enhancement designed to maximise the unique desirable qualities of a population, where humans become progressively more specialised and different groups—though not all—are forced to cooperate, or at least work with others, on the basis of their unique specialisations and in the measure that these are needed. This would lead to a highly differentiated world where some human societies maintain highly developed, energy-intensive civilisations while others remain pre-industrial and are less demanding on the Earth’s environment and resources. The survival of the human species would be enhanced given that there would be a greater variety of adaptations, and therefore a greater number of alternative survival strategies in the event of a changing environment. Thus, qualitative eugenics would not only permit the survival of our race specifically, but would also allow each a source of collective pride and be more harmonious with the way nature works and human societies are organised.
Facing the Future as a Minority
I’ve long noticed that the new ethno-marxist totalitarianism is being rebranded as ‘ethics’. It seems all manner of ‘ethic institutions’ are sudenly poping up all over the world offering “ethics classes”. Perhaps some really are about the stuty of ethics but I somehow suspect many will be another “Frankfurt School of Critical Research”. Some are even offered by the newely agnostic churches. It seems to be lucrative. In NSW Australia ethics classes are being offered at schools. I expect such things will start of slowely and end up with the hideous Jane Elliot of “Blue Eyes” infamy exercising her brand of psychological warefare.
Professor Julian Sepulescu of Oxford University’s Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, huh? I’m not really surprised this idea comes out of Oxford.
It’s long understood by those that study conspiracy theory that the Ruling Elites at the top (implementing the NWO) begins with England. Their Royal Academy of Science, for instance, could well be behind Sepulescu’s ideas. (There’s also a Royal Acedemy in Stockholm and Sweden.) In a video link to the talk given by Sepulescu (Romanian name), I was wondering just who his audience might be, listening intently to his ideas on egalitarian eugenics. I was thinking his ideas are off the wall, but given he’s an Oxford professor it’s best to think again. Someone posted a link awhile back to the 2-part talk, Genetically enhance humanity or face extinction – PART 1 .
There are some aspects of egalitarian eugenics that I like (the weeding out of psychopathic and sociopathic behaviors). And certainly humanity can use an upgrade when it comes to the future. But I don’t think egalitarian eugenics is the way to go, as Alex Kurtagic makes a good case to show the dissolution of the White race as a result of such future policies.
His conclusion that humanity is becoming more and more specialized, this is true enough. But I’m not sure a rationale against egalitarian eugenics is made here, where he states: “This would lead to a highly differentiated world where some human societies maintain highly developed, energy-intensive civilisations while others remain pre-industrial and are less demanding on the Earth’s environment and resources.” The Third World would consider they would be left in the pre-industrial age, same as they are now, while the rest of humanity enjoys the high tech good life.
Maybe if Alex could flesh out this statement how the high-developed, energy-intensive part of humanity benefits the pre-industrial portion, it would be helpful to see the vision of such a future world.
Interesting article!
Frankly, I find this piece strange, not for its imaginative speculations, but because it appears here on TOO. Isn’t there more important material around, like what is happening in Europe and espec the French elections? In today’s jewyorktimes Sarkozy is stealing thunder from the National Front and the JYT is not amused. Joe
The author of this article has, perhaps inadvertently, contradicted everything else being said on White survival on this site.
It is my understanding that the destruction of White identity has ALREADY occurred through a Jewish-inspired cultural assault. Hence the need for a massive attempt at racial resuscitation through, for example, events such as the get-together at Crescenta Valley.
Mr Kurtagic seems to be saying something different. He is warning that ‘liberal eugenics’ will, in the FUTURE, lead to White race death. Well, which is it? Has the White race already died a cultural death, or is it under a future threat of racial assassination?
Regulated, mandatory eugenics for any goal other than the advancement of the European race is going to be inherently harmful to us. The same way leftists mandate that White tax money be used to benefit non-Whites, they will will make sure that White genes also benefit non-Whites.
We also need to understand that the tribe, as usual, will enthusiastically promote these ideas, but not adopt them themselves. They will use eugenics to further their own race and use them to ravage ours, and they will be exempt from all laws and regulations due to their wealth and power.
@Ellin:
Ellin – there are lots of related but different characteristics. White collective explicit identity is one. Objective existence, identity or not, is another.
You’re still a bit of a mystery. Maybe the explanation is something disappointing like mood swings. More likely, it’s knowing that your people are in real danger, but not knowing whether WN’s are talking about essentially the same thing. Also, there’s some obvious tension between wanting to communicate and the hangover of a lifetime of considering WN’s as scum of the earth.
I dig it man…I’ve been through all that not so long ago.
@Mickey Meadows:
Come to think of it, mood swings wouldn’t be such a disappointment. It’s a moody business.
First off, brilliant article! I really enjoyed the way you put your past two papers together. I completely agree and identify with the trends you mention and elaborate upon. I always pay attention when I see your name pop up and I want to thank you for your hard work.
I’ll add just a couple of thoughts. I was immediately reminded of a book that I read in the past couple of years, Peter Levenda’s “Sinister Forces.” Anyhow, Levenda brings up the role of Canadian-born psychiatrist, Donald Ewen Cameron, in thought control projects in the US, post WWII, especially focusing on his efforts to scramble and reprogram the mind of patients as part of CIA experimental studies. Cameron was the one who actually evaluated Rudolf Hess’s sanity at Nuremberg. If you check the wikipedia entry of Cameron, there is also this interesting statement regarding the Germans, seen as a “problem” in the future:
“Before his arrival in Nuremberg Cameron wrote a paper titled The Social Reorganization of Germany. Cameron argued that German culture and its individual citizens would have to be transformed and reorganized. His analysis of German culture was that it is made up of people who had the need for status, that they worshiped strict order and regimentation, desired authoritarian leadership and had a hostile fear of other countries. The paper continued to state that German culture and its people will have offspring that in 30 years from 1945, would be the biggest threat to world peace. As a consequence the West would have to take measures to reorganize German society to prevent the coming of the offspring that would threaten world peace and order. Cameron focused on destroying the social organization of Germany which throughout history had repeatedly given birth to fearsome aggression. Cameron wanted to remove the social order of Germany that continually gave rise to the monstrosities of World War II. His arguments made it precisely a problem particular to the people of Germany and of the German race.”
This is alarming, of course, because there certainly cannot be that much difference between indigenous mainland Germans and White Americans and Britons, especially those hailing from the Germanic parts of Europe. I think Cameron would have seen the strong racial consciousness element in Germany’s soul to be a central part of “the problem.” Cameron reminds me of this Egalitarian eugenics slant that you are warning about. It continues to trouble me because our intelligence and security agencies are toxically mixed up in these affairs. I think the recent railroading of Edgar Steele is a clear case of FBI malfeasance that was overlooked because of Edgar’s politically incorrect racial convictions, which made him a victim of one of the most egregious judicial oversights in regard to the normal protocol for fair trials that I have ever analyzed.
However, it is true, I believe, that there were many negatives under the banner of totalitarian domination that Germany did end up succumbing to. And, I think, in many ways, we don’t want to repeat that. So, despite the fact that we do share, very closely, a great amount of ancestral genetic material and “tendencies” with the Germans, there have been other political models that we would do better to emulate, especially those that facilitate a centrifugal motion rather than a centripetal one.
In the American experiment, we are still, unfortunately under the persuasion of the centripetal political doctrine, which has been under the lock and key of the “abolitionist dispensation” for over a hundred and fifty years. Our centrifugal genius was primarily knocked out in 1865, with the death of the Old South and the annihilation of the tenth amendment. That’s why I always encourage whites to really study up on John Calhoun’s political philosophy. To my knowledge it is the absolute best vision of centrifugal federalism of which I am aware. I believe this will produce the ideal heterogeneity and diversity of evolutionary strategies that you mention in your paper. Also, Calhoun, being a Southerner, was absolutely racially conscious. His writings and speeches are voluminous with warnings about the “lunatics” as he called them who were beginning to gain ground in Washington.
So, the only way, I think, we are going to be able to change things is to simultaneously develop racial consciousness AND an intelligent centrifugal federal organism or mechanism.
I’m afraid the US is going to go down the drain with Israel, but there still is much of value to salvage from some of the traditions that have evolved in North America.
This is why I don’t always trust a writer like Yockey. For instance, in Imperium, he goes full on into embracing Hamiltonian federalism as the great boat that we somehow missed when Jeffersonian democracy won out. I think he had a shallow vision of American history and didn’t see things deeply enough to perceive that in the long run, it was the Hamiltonians who triumphed, to all of our dismay. He really thought that Hamilton was the best statesman that the US produced.
There may need to be a corrective period of “power seizure” somehow someway in order to reorient the body politic but I sure hope that the philosophy that ends up “winning the world” is the centrifugal federalism of John Calhoun and not the centripetal doctrines of absolute power concentration in one single unit.
Anyhow, I enjoyed the paper. Thanks again.
@Ellin:
Obviously the White race isn’t extinct, is it? European history and European culture is still alive and well. In America things are a bit different, since it’s a nation built on immigrants coming here. I’m not sure there exactly *is* a specific ‘White culture’ in America, as I’ve been looking for it myself now for many years. But Whites in America are still plenty aware of the changed society they *once* thought of as America: Mom, country, apple pie. A lot of Whites in America still can’t pinpoint exactly what or who is behind the dissolution of what they once thought of as America, but they do gripe about government regulations, high prices, and are aware that their once privileged status has been cut down a peg or two. I figure these Whites will simply have to suffer a little more for them to wake up. But, on the other hand, plenty of other Whites are light years beyond them because they were racially aware to begin with and know what’s going on.
Alex Kurtagic has not contradicted anything. Whites still exist. He is arguing for a qualitative eugencs to counter notions of a future egalitarian eugenics. And by all means eugenics is on the table. No one can deny Mankind is in need of a major upgrade to exist in a future world. An upgrade in Consciousness too, which is already happening.
If the Jews take advantage of eugenic practices to enhance their own race, my advise is that Whites better get on board with it also, and forget Christian hand-wringing over it. In the Bible it says in several places: “Know ye not that ye are gods.”
I’ve thought about this subject before, but Alex is the first writer I’ve seen to squarely address it. It would not surprise me at all if, at some future point after we have achieved a White Republic, our enemies employed eugenics to create particularly attractive and appealing non-whites. The goal being, of course, to undermine white resistance and to encourage the dissolution of our gene pool.
This also shows the danger of white nationalism concentrating too much on IQ, differential crime rates, etc. While these issues are important, and may be quite useful in making certain points and exposing anti-white malice, ultimately they can’t get us where we need to go.
Every white in a racially mixed society knows at least some non-whites who are pleasant, law abiding, and intelligent. In short, the “nice” ones. I’ll take a slight detour and point out that these “nice” non-whites are generally not speaking out against anti-white policies, so that calls into question just how nice they really are. You can bet your bottom dollar, for example, that the nice black you bantered with earlier today is more than happy to avail himself of any affirmative action, set asides, or governmental assistance that is going. The affable black that smiles at you is, nonetheless, going to head into the voting booth and vote for politicians that seek to actively harm you. And cross such a non-white’s racial interests? Then the knives, hopefully only metaphorically, come out. How nice is that?
But I digress. The point is that, as we all know, there are plenty of non-whites that are smart, well behaved, and at least in a general sense, decent human beings. Probably eugenics could produce more of them.
And yet, however nice many may be, and even if through eugenics we could make all of them nice, their mixture into our societies still must inherently harm us, and ultimately destroy us. Nice or not, racially mixing a society tends to lead toward one of two outcomes (or various hybrids thereof): supremacism or universalism. Either the founding stock attempts to maintain its dominance outright, or it gives way to a universalism that by its nature has to attack and undermine the founding stock. Under universalism, the history books must be rewritten, new heroes substituted for old, the entire narrative of who we are, where we came from and where we are going must also change. The role of the founding stock must be greatly diminished in this narrative, up to and including instilling shame and guilt in the children of the previously dominant group. Whites come to believe that they have no culture; culture is for the non-whites. Whites can no longer tell their story accurately and in a way that helps them move forward as a people and a culture.
Let’s take slavery for example. In a future white ethnostate, the history of slavery should be taught honestly. It happened, and there is no point in denying that it happened. But slavery existed all over the world, and the only thing unique to slavery and white civilization is that we were the only people to take active pains, and pay great costs, to end it. Slavery would still exist all over the world were it not for the West. There is absolutely no basis for falsely instilling guilt and shame in young white children over such an issue. In fact, there is much in it for them to be proud. However, they should be taught the phenomenal costs ordinary whites have paid as a result of bringing in non-white labor. It has been a disaster of such magnitude that its cost is literally beyond compute. Then there is the issue of reparations. Making someone “whole” is a goal of restitution. What if returning someone to their prior state (a slave owned by other blacks in Africa, living in a dung covered hut) actually makes him worse off?
I could go on and on, but here is the point: can you imagine being able to teach such a thing – even though it desperately needs to be taught – in a classroom in which black and brown students are also mixed in?
Obviously, it would be impossible. It would in fact be highly insulting of the blacks and browns, and unfair to subject them to it. Slavery is also a part of their peoples story, but from a very different vantage point, and with different lessons learned, and would be taught differently as a result. There is nothing wrong with such an outcome.
Racial mixture inherently and inevitably limits what can be taught and what issues can be explored. Truth is its first casualty, and freedom of expression for whites not far behind. Then freedom of association, and so forth, as the casualties mount.
It’s inevitable in a racially mixed society. The fact that a non-white may be smart, law abiding, and “nice” doesn’t alter the outcome by so much as a whit.
This Suppression in the Name of Universalism has been so brazen in our own time that anyone reading this has been a personal witness to the process.
In other words, “nice” or not, intelligent or not, law abiding or not, non-whites introduced into a white society can only harm us, retard or distort our natural development and, not to sound too silly, makes it all but impossible for us to sing our own songs and tell our own stories.
Our way forward must be based on our distinctive traits, our history and tradition, our blood connection with our ancestors, and our apsirations for the future. A philosphy, or even a religion, that emphasizes an important link between one’s ancestors and descendents would be nice.
Those whites of each generation who don’t feel such a connection and shared purpose should be free to leave and live in a multiracial community. If they wish to miscegenate at that point, and have non-white offspring, so be it. But they should not have the power to unilaterally impose that non-white offspring on the white community, thereby forcing that white community to choose between supremacism or suppression in the name of universalism. Miscegenators are essentially using their children as pawns (the child didn’t choose to be born at all, much less to be born racially mixed and positioned as a minority in someone else’s culture) in order to undermine the white community, all the while free riding off of the benefits of said community. Why should such irresponsible and self-centered people be able to unilaterally impose all of this on others?
We want to be ourselves, sing our own songs, and develop our own particular destiny. You can’t capture that in crime statistics and pie charts. Further, if we ground ourselves in what we fundamentally are, we have established a morally and spiritually unassailable foundation to work with. That’s something that pie charts and statistics can never do.
@Rednick:
You should write an article for TOO. That was excellent.
If you do, go into detail about centrifugal and centripedal federalism, as I have no idea what this means. I don’t know a thing about John Calhoun either, so an in depth article by you would be beneficial to this site!
I am shifting toward the arguments made by , among others, Michael O’Meara, that our main problem is ourselves, our liberalism, our do-gooding natures, and in this regard am starting a study of liberalism , both secular and religious. We know almost nothing about our religious history, especially the British and the American Protestant history. The following is a piece I penned a few days ago. J
beralism’s spawn…communism…anti-racism…White self-hatredMonday, March 5, 2012 1:38 AM
From: This sender is DomainKeys verified”joe webb” View contact details
To: “coalition iraq”
Cc: “joe webb”
I was a leftie for many years, yet, always anti-communist. I know the history of the Left relatively well…throughout the 19th Century and into the 20th C. Of course LIberalism began in the 18th C. with the Enlightenment and the French revolution of 1789 and the American Revolution of 1776. Arguably Christianity , with its universalism, and egalitarianism, especially in Protestantism, is a forerunner. And preceding these Ideas… is White genetic character, which is particularly vulnerable to ideologies of egalitarianism, due to our evolutionary history which is significantly different than other races.
I often use the clever formulation of , I think it was, Wilmot Robertson (The Dispossessed Majority): “LIberalism is the pimping little sister of communism.” This is cute, and satisfactorily apprehends the times we live in, but it is inaccurate.
Communism was the stinking, cretinous child of LIberalism. Out of communism, with its 100 or so million dead world wide, came our current zombie liberalism, and for those without historical learning, it just seems as if liberalism is the spawn of communism. It is, for us today, but has a long history.
Why zombie? Well, the term enjoys a currency today which is interesting. The half-dead, or the demon-possessed, the person you thought you knew who turns out to be a psychopath or sex-crazed freak or …as we say today…whatever…but somehow not really human to us after all, be it narcissism, fanaticism, cowardice, greed, etc., the popularity of media zombie shows may actually be on to something in the zeitgeist.
Something is going on and Mr. Jones is feeling it. Contrary to the jew subverter Dylan, what is going on is the beginning of counter-revolution, not the revolution of the New Left of the 60s, or the New Age, or the LIberal catechisms of race equality, internationalism, globalization-is-good-for-you, cosmopolitanism, and …whatever. Most White people feel the anxiety…they don’t like the filth offered up by liberals…on TV, movies, pop nig-jew kultur, etc. Another story.
LIberalism was both a consequence of revolutionary socialism in Europe giving up on revolution in the late 19th C. and settling for social democracy, and more importantly for the US, the English and American non-revolutionary, pragmatic, idealistic social reform movements that began in the early 19th C. In the US it was, of course, centered around anti-slavery Abolitionism, many utopian communities like Brook Farm, expanded white male suffrage, later agitation for women’s suffrage, the muckrakers of the early 20th C., democratic socialist movements, populism, missionaries going abroad as well as staying at home and spreading the Good Word…lots of Do-Gooding in general.
England had an especially pronounced social LIberalism in the 19th C. that began with its abolition of slavery in 1807 at home and its extension of abolition to the colonies in 1833. It gathered momentum and became more missionary work, Ruskin’s return to medievalism, worker’s societies, Fabian socialism, and silly folks like H G Wells, and finally the socialists like Sidney and Beatrice (?) Webb who went to the USSR and were debauched.
Of course, Evolution and Darwin became popular with liberals, who did not quite understand it. They took Darwin as a social improver; He was not. Liberal Christianity thought that the hand of God was behind Evolution. They thought that Evolution could be accelerated. On the other hand, racialist thinking was everywhere, and it did not need Darwin to justify it.
Somehow, LIberalism co-existed with racialism. In the US, Abolitionists, before Darwin, did not believe that Negroes were the equal of Whites, and most of the Abolitionists agreed with Lincoln that Blacks should be freed but returned to Africa. Virtually all Whites held this view.
Liberalism was originally tied to “liberality” of spirit, to openness to alternative ideas, courtesy, and general respect for all.
There is a strong tendency for Logic to go to its Extreme End. Start out with liberality of spirit, and end up with the Gulag. Start out with illiberality of spirit, and end up in Fascism.
That is what Logic, can do to one who runs on Ideas. Actually, illiberality of spirit can avoid Fascism by being more realistic and combating liberalism that leads to the kind of social insanity that Fascism rose up to meet. Beyond that, it is arguable that a small f fascism is the natural evolutionary unit. But we leave that be for now.
Evolution however does not run on Ideas. Evolution runs on pragmatism. Evolution demands Fitness. Fitness is not abstract. You and your group, or tribe, or now, Nation, either make it in your particular environment, or you do not. Evolution does not care who or what is successful at reproducing, surviving, or prospering. However, those folks who figure out Evolutions’s rules, are the tribes or nations that survive. Those who do not figure out the rules, die.
Liberalism has never understood Evolution’s rules. It dreams that a pure state of Universal Peace and Harmony can be achieved if we just Think it.
There has never been Peace and Love, etc. It is always struggle between groups, tribes, races. This is so because of our hard-wiring, the result of at least a half-million years as hominids. However, I am not going to go thru all of this here.
Liberalism is the result of Thinking in non-Evolutionary terms. Evolution is not the evolution of Ideas, it is the evolution of creatures who adjust to their environments. Environments have always been hostile. It is possible to dream up an End to resource competition with, if your recall LIttle Abner’s Dogpatch…where schmoos just keel over dead for you when you are hungry, but this is not going to happen.
Also, even if there was a technological fix for material want, there would still be our minds, which were constructed over millions of years in situations of resource competition and in-group v. outgroup. We are stuck with our brains the way they are. Amity for our in-group, and enmity for the out-group (from Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics).
Then , we have even stronger reinforcements for in-group v. out-group with the extreme racial differences of our world. All the races have been hermetically sealed off from one-another for hundreds of thousands of years…and we are, consequently, very different. Evolution likes these sealed off groups, like the Bible and the Tower of Babel. God likes genuine Diversity too.
Back to LIberalism. LIberalism is a complete refusal of our biological diversity, and our biological hostility to out-groups. Take the Jews, please. They are still here because of extreme ethno-centrism, endogamy, and hatred of the Other. Many ethnys of old are gone and forgotten, because they lacked sufficient technology, smarts, military preparedness, cohesion, breeding strategies, discipline, and hatreds of Outsiders. Good liberals lose. It is that simple.
Not only do they lose, but nowadays, they actually cause more war than they prevent. Nations are the breeding cohorts, the evolutionary units of evolution today. Nations that allow a liberal tolerance of outsiders, Thinkers of Good Thoughts, and a myriad of scribblers to wail about soldiers killing innocent people, and the like, who claim there are no enemies, that others are just like us, etc, etc, wind up being taken over by Others, and their evolutionary journey is stopped. Lines of descent of genes that have been traveling for tens of thousands of years, or even millions…are wiped out. That is neither here nor there for Evolution, but if your genes are wiped out, you may have some concerns about it. If not, you are already dead.
Communism was the logical extension of Liberal thinking that Utopia was right around the corner, if people would just get along. Communism had it that classes were naturally in conflict, and that a classless society could end war, etc. Communism also refused an organic view of society, that society has been around a long time because the various groups within a given tribe or nation, had figured out how get along because they had a lot of genetic similarity, and if that was not enough, they had Enemies next door that had to be dealt with. Tradition, culture, history, religion…all were cast away on the dustbin of History…and the Thoughtout Utopia was at hand. Right.
Well, Communism did not work out too well, but the ghost lingers on today in our Liberal pimps who now say that Equality will pave the way to Utopia.
Races are equal, people are equal, and money is the great equalizer. A universal consumer paradise of racially mixed slobs watching TV and screwing like animals…this is the liberal Freedom and End to History.
It ain’t going to work out that way because Evolution-designed human brains are not going to adapt to the brave new world of liberal sappiness of peace and luv. Our “primitive” brains are not going to Change! per Obongo the bum magician. They are going to do what they have been programmed to do over the millennia…love one’s friends and tribesmen, and outwit, out-fight and kill one’s enemies. That is who we are’ lovers and killers. This is Good.
If you are not ready to kill the enemies of your family and tribe and nation, you are already dead, unloving and probably unloved.
War will come, and it will be Good. War is good because it resists the universal state, the one-world of homogeneity, the end of evolution’s many experiments in diversity. People want to be themselves. People want to be independent, they want to be sovereign in their groups or races. There is nothing wrong in that. There is everything Good in it. Many bio-culture, real Diversity, not the totalitarian jumble of racial amalgamation blared from the loudspeakers of our near concentration camp existence today.
That is freedom is our political lexicon. It is free-association, family, and community in the context of Social Animals, and it is local, organic, and intimate in the context of the way human brains work.
Our brains work with Feeling, not Reason. Reason has a very limited role, mostly technocratic. When it comes to human relations, we are animals. We love our familiars and distrust the stranger. That is just the way it is.
LIberalism proudly proclaims the Age of the World Citizen. The actually existing human being does not care about the World, and that is Good. He cares about his family and tribe. That is what God or Evolution has decreed. Good fences make good neighbors. You cannot love what you do not know. Of course you can fall in thrall with some Ideas. You can daydream your way to Utopia, but while you daydream or welcome in the stranger, you and your family will be subverted, deracinated, out-maneuvered, and finally killed off.
If you awaken from your thrall , you will find yourself in a war that could have been avoided thru mutual agreements and a strong right arm to back it up.
Liberalism of course has also allowed the Jews to subvert us generally, and hijack our natural hostility to strangers for war-for-Israel.
However, the First Cause of our distress is not jews, it is our own Liberalism, which is lodged in our White Generosity Genes. We must overcome our genetic tendencies to luv Everybody, and learn to draw the line, build fences, and fortify our psychological defenses against childish Ideas of Universal Brotherhood, etc.
Not long ago, say before the propaganda after World War 2, we were racialist, if still generous and well-wishing to the Others. We need to return there. Otherwise it is evolutionary death to the White race, and to civilization. War is good if it can be kept to a minimum, just enough to maintain separate evolutionary experiments. LIberalism is bringing on more war and bigger war.
Nationalism is good, for all the reasons touched upon. The doomed attempt to eliminate it will lead to more war. Nationalism, like the human brain, and actually existing human beings ( you may recall “actually existing socialism” from western marxists trying to undo Stalinism) must be respected and celebrated as the vehicle for the thousand flowers blooming, at least in the White world.
As for the Third World, we owe it nothing. Leave it alone, and keep them out of our world. Expel those who are here, or we are finished as a people. Joe
———–
We need to understand our history. It is who we are despite cultural “distortions” and the rest of it. Particularly , we need to know why and how we can be distorted. Joe
Go to Previous message | Go to Next message | Back to Search Results | Full Headers
Mail SearchReply Reply All Forward Forward
WelcomeInboxNewFoldersMail Options
Copyright © 1994-2012 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Terms of Service – Copyright/IP Policy – Guidelines
NOTICE: We collect personal information on this site.
To learn more about how we use your information, see our Privacy Policy – About Our Ads.
Would the hebraic world order ever actually favor something that would collectively increase the IQ of humantiy? How would that benefit Jews? That would actually be their worst nightmare; imagine millions of Arabs with the Ashkenazic IQ.
No, what the tribe would be aiming for, as they have done with everything else, is the levelling of human intelligence, not its advancement. High-IQ White and Asian genes would be mixed in with low-IQ Black, Arab, and Hispanic genes to create a global race of mediocre mongrels. Meanwhile the tribe itself would work to increase its own fitness and intelligence without mixing with others, as they would naturally be the leaders and regulators of all the eugenics movements.
The only eugenics movement we can support is one that favors the advancement of the European peoples and no one else. But before any explicitly pro-White eugenics movement can be implemented there needs to a pro-White government in place that will not bow to the usual jewish meddling that seeks to keep us down.
I’m sorry, but science will never make a genius out of a black. There is a little too much fiction in this science fiction for me, and I am inclined to echo Joe Webb’s first comment. Jeez, let’s not decline to the level of cranks discussing the possibility of a pill that makes blacks super-smart. THINK about the technology involved in that, and the light years we are away from it. The stupid Oxford study did not reveal an anti-racist drug. It revealed that that particular beta blocker decreased anxiety and discrimination generally I.e. the same patient would be more trusting of ex-cons etc as well as blacks. Given that the drug also diminished the patients sense of danger, how would you rate the survival prospects of such a person? I say heavy death toll. Our fears and our prejudices evolved with us for specific reasons – to keep us safe. Take them away and watch your neutered liberals drop like flies.
This article goes beyond the ground on which I care. If the world can upgrade its IQ and creativity that’s a good thing, period.
The main issue is whether the people in charge can be trusted and whether a happier higher IQ psychopath free world really would be the objective.
The answer to that question comes in the form of rendering it irrelevant by pointing out that the various possibilities presented by a biotechnological revolution cuts both ways and Whites produce enough genius to make that cut.
Interesting, I thought I might mention that Roman Catholicism already opposes eugenics on moral grounds. The usual practical effect is that seriously observant Roman Catholics will sometimes bring a Downs syndrome child to term rather than abort. Interesting then that the suggestion advanced by this article, coincides. Has anybody noticed that forty or fifty years of tolerance of abortion and contraception in the West has lead to a collapsing birth rate among whites, principally, more so than any other resident group? Again, coincidentally, one might surmise this Catholic social teaching favors white survival, in spite of whether or not one agrees with the mystical premises.
Eugenic abortion which is promoted by the medical field non-racially– such as it has promoted abortions of Downs fetuses– not only has been going on for decades it is signficant part of health policy premised on existing biological and medical research into heritable diseases. See, Backdoor to Eugencis by Troy Duster, a book I read back in 92 perhaps– which has been since revised and republished. Lots of info there in heritable illnesses per racial or tribal groups, including the notorious illness Tay Sachs inherited by Jews.
Putting aside the morality of the practice, I think it is possible that a white nationalist government could curtail abortion and contraception with wide public support (especially from men) but probably abortions for medical reasons would need to be lawful.
I think this is the direction a lot of the prolifers would like to see it go, including evangelicals, and again, religious framing or not, for purely practical reasons of tribal survival.
Historically liberalism is deriavative of the failure of the Roman Catholics to win the Thirty years war culminating in Westphalia. That enshrined the notion of religious tolerance and indifferentism and sovereignity at the national level. Thereafter religious determination was allowed to kings and parliaments and the Emperor renounced trying to reconstitute religious unity in Western Europe by force.
There followed a short period of national-religious determination, ie, the Bavarians were Catholics, the Dutch were Reformed, the Scots Presbyterians, the English Episcopalians etc. Tolerance of religion at the individual level was still not legally widespread until the Puritans and Deists and other dissenters finally got their way with success in the American War of Independence. Which of course was shortly followed by the aggressively tolerant and secular French Revolution. And we are still basically right there, stuck with the failed premises of the Enlightenment. And now the Muslims are showing throught their forceful reproduction and aggressive expansion how religious in-tolerance, how gender un-equality, and how religious belief, rather than religious skepticism, actually makes for a healthier and more successful people as a whole. An atheist can see this and read the tea leaves. in fact the atheists have read it which is why the atheist Jews have provoked us into wars with Islam because it is their only hope not to be competely demographically annexed and destroyed in a hudnred years hence, that is, if we meaning “the west” squanders its remaining vitality on protecting little Israel with all its noble, democratic, individualistic, supposedly Enligthened bullshit. Which the Jews of course do not really believe deep down, remaining firm collectivists in their tribal religion which unites them.
I think the only people that have maintained a long term successfully atheistic society are the Han Chinese. And yet, they certainly are not diseased with tolerance and individualism; rather they have been infused with a tribal collectivist culture since the days of the genius moralizer Confucius. not sure anybody else besides them can really accomplish that. I sure dont see it happening in the West.
Communism was the stinking, cretinous child of LIberalism
Trashy remarks like this mean only one thing- Joe Webb is back in town.
Liberalism came from REASON and led to INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. The French system was group based (general will) and called for MORE statism. The two systems are diametric opposites. The Age of Reason (AND THEREFORE OF LIBERALISM) has been over for a long long time. Modern “liberalism” stole the word liberal and turned it into its opposite. You should know this. Modern “liberalism”: means more state activity, just like the French system.
To blame communism on liberalism is like blaming it on REASON. COMMUNISM AND ALL THE STATISM OF THE LAST CENTURY ARE PRODUCTS OF ANTI-RATIONAL PHILOSOPHY, LARGELY GERMANIC IN ORIGIN, MOSTLY FROM KANT AND HEGEL. (Hegel was a pantheistic lover of bureaucracy- “the state is the closet to the Divine on earth.” Pure filth!) American Transcendentalism was mostly from Kant. American pragmatism was adopted from GERMAN IDEALISM.
@Joe Webb:
Right, this would be perfect for Alex Jones, or Jeff Rense on a slow night.
@Trainspotter:
Great comment.
I totally agree with everything you wrote. And it connected on the soul level and helped me.
Thanks for sharing. Take care.
@Arthur:
Well Arthur, that just ain’t so. Once there is sufficient understanding of the dna that makes the brain, there’s no reason why dna of the best white lineages couldn’t be spliced over into the dna of another race.
But no matter. The really important thing to understand about the coming revolutions in genetics and biotech, is out of this will come our get-out-of-jail-free card.
If civilization survives long enough to get the revolution, the continuity of euro-descendent will be assured. It will mean that one way or the other our descendents will be beautiful, joyful and free.
Dr. Frankenstein Lives!
Brillinat man!…all the right conclusions….his SOLUTION will be a monster!
This is a BETTER ANSWER;
Stop sending the best and brightest to die for Israel.
Stop allowing Idiots and imbeciles to breed.
Stop having more kids than you can PROPERLY care for, and……….stop voting for your own destruction. Simple.
Stop having more kids than you can raise properly
@Henry Baxley:
Sorry about the exta line above.
This modern society we live in is so ramped up, most people are under so much stress, they have to deal with stress as the biggest problem in their lives.
Modern society is a form of slavery, to enslave us for the elite to make their profits.
Studies show that biracial children are more at risk for genetically inherited problems. So the idea that race-mixing is good is all talk. Just as the hybridization of plants can stop the good genes from expressing themselves, miscegenation will produce a subspecies of man.
I believe the races are species of man, hence they can interbreed, but the differences are as great as a poodle from a greyhound.
Hybridization is not natural.
There are many, and I am sure those on here have heard it said, that all of the races need to mix to completely outbreed any racial uniqueness, then all of our problems will be solved, then there will be no racism, blah blah blah.
Anyone who has studied evolution and genetics knows why man is composed of various groups, and why some of those groups are more successful. Why some groups have to live off the successful ones, and why some ancient civilizations were more successful than anything in Africa today (with the exception of S. Africa).
@Ellin:
White culture in my opinion died a long time ago. White IDENTITY is growing. giving birth to a NEW WHITE CULTURE
@TabuLa Raza: along with your potty mouth, you come with zero u;nderstanding of 19th C and 20 th C religion.
I am reading The Age of Atonement, by Boyd Hilton which discusses the religious liberalism of the first half of the 19th C. Religion heavily informed political and economic thinking.
The problem is not just Reason, it is Emotion (which is amply demonstrated in you response to my post.)
Probably Reason is largely determined by what one chooses to look at, and that is because of Emotion. Christianity is our fundamental cultural characteristic. It has been largely Liberal for almost 200 years, with a pronounced accent on Giving and Saving others.
This list is getting so bad , same old characters, same old jew-thing, same old trash talk. I am about to give up on it and leave it to the trolls. j
I kind of like Christianity although I am agnostic. Without irony, some of the best folks I know are Christians. I think that Christianity is well -suited to our genome, for good and ill.
Those who despise it are usually cranks, childless, and have nothing to do but make money and spread their particular form of venom around them.
Christianity in some forms, has accomodated itself to Evolution. That is very important. Those who trash Christians should be expelled from our midst. However, that does not mean the Christianity should be given a pass and held beyond criticism. Somehow Christianity used to accomodate racialism before the flaming liberals got hold of it. Slavery was opposed not on the basis of racial equality, but on the basis of human freedom, free will.
That is a Christian notion, and not a bad one at that. What folks do with their free will is another matter, and they therefore should be allowed to both swim or sink. Also, their sinking should not be tethered to us. That is Christian doctrine, more or less, except for Mercy.
At least Christianity has addressed fundamentals , and given the general thoughtlessness of our time, including some WN folks, Christianity should be valued as part of our Western Heritage. ( I hear the bitter remark that Christ was a Jew…and therefore…) If he was a Jew, he was not very Jew-ish. etc.
Since 80 to 90 per cent of our fellow Whites in the US identify as Christians, one might suppose that WNists would have a certain respect for the opinion of mankind…at least our good White Christian people.
But…the enraged child swings his stick wildly. j
Hermann Joseph Muller, a jewish immigrant and Marxist professor in the US in the 1930′s, was an enthusiastic eugenicist. He thought society could breed children with qualities similar to those of Marx and Lenin. Seriously. And he championed this cause at the same time Hitler was promoting his own ideas about eugenics.
Just exactly how one could endow children with Marx-like qualities, I don’t know, but it wouldn’t surprise me if jewish genes were somehow involved. Muller probably had it figured out – he’d received the Nobel Prize for genetics.
Muller escaped to his communist utopia (the USSR) in the 1930′s, then escaped from it a few years later. His letter to Stalin (below) is chilling. It reads like the ranting and raving of a mad scientist from an old horror movie. Never the less, America welcomed him back into the academic fold after all of this, fully aware of his proclivities, which is even more chilling.
http://www.mankindquarterly.org/muellersletter.pdf
But how much negative stuff do you hear about Muller? Not much.
@Anty Ep:
I’m sorry, what do you mean by that statement. It sounds like you said not aborting a Down’s Syndrome child coincides with this article?
Also, I would suggest the lower birth rate among Whites is a reflection of not having more kids than one can afford, and thereby allowing greater resources to be given to the 2.5 children most have today. In other words, Whites consider the quality of the upbringing, not the quantity of having as many kids as possible.
Lastly, not allowing abortion (with a artificial rationale that ‘it’s not good for the white race’) is tantamount to the forced birthing of children and women not being allowed control over their own bodies (like it was in the past, before pro-choice), and we are back to Square One again.
@Jim:
That was interesting about Herman Muller. The letter to Stalin, unusual insight.
A general scan about Muller at wiki shows he wasn’t quite as off the wall as I thought he might be:
In 1946 Muller was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, “for the discovery that mutations can be induced by x-rays”, and
‘The Nobel Prize, in the wake of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, focused public attention on a subject Muller had been publicizing for two decades: the dangers of radiation. In 1952, nuclear fallout became a public issue; since Operation Crossroads, more and more evidence had been leaking out about radiation sickness and death caused by nuclear testing, and Muller was one of the foremost experts.
I noticed he worked on the Manhattan Project, but didn’t know what it was. Interesting.
Imagine this, where it says ‘He was also the first to describe what since has become termed “irreducible complexity”,which has been used as an argument in favor of “intelligent design” by creationists opposed to the theory of evolution. ‘ Ironic, isn’t it? lolll
But I’ll go along with Alex Kurtagic, that egalitarian eugenics, as proposed by Herman Muller, would not be beneficial to the White race. I doubt even Muller was factoring in the Third World and what it would mean when he thought up his ideas on eugenics.
@Joe Webb:
Christianity is fine, but they should just live it, and do as the Jews do which is to keep it to themselves. One doesn’t see Jews going about proselytizing. A separation of church and state needs to be maintained. The Founding Fathers had a reason for wanting it that way. Since it was to be a New Republic, they didn’t want to make the same mistakes as in the Old World.
The last 4 paragraphs of Joe Webb’s post are spot on. Most of the damage done to the U.S. and the Whites can be laid at the feet of the Kennedy promoted 1965 Immigration act that opened the flood gates to 3rd worlders – the very people that we deliberately kept out in prior years for good reason. One just had to look at the hell holes those people made of their own countries.
Another blow came from Johnson’s The Great Society Program that enshrined liberalism, social engineering and the welfare state – which in turn allowed minorities to become permanent wards of the state and a powerful voting bloc for Democrats and become a cancer as well, one that eats away at our cities. Detroit is a classic advanced case of this. A 3rd world city that one would normally see in South Africa or the later stages of Mugabe’s Zimbabwe.
During this era another thing happened. The take over of the Democratic party by the White liberal and Jewish elite. Out went the WWII Dems with their working class economic populism and nationalism and in with Social engineering(IOW attacks on White culture and Whites in general), promoting the welfare state and growth of government, affirmative action and nascent neo-globalism, etc.
@Ellin:
The reports of the death of the White race have been greatly exaggerated. — Mark Twain
@Joe Webb:
You can always spot a preacher and a politician….They talk for hours without actually SAYING anything…
Observe:
“I kind of like Christianity,……… though I am agnostic”
“Those who trash Christianity should be expelled from our midst……….
However, that doesnt mean that Christianity should be given a free pass and held beyond beyond criticism”
“WNs should have more respect for the eighty or ninety % Of Americans who profess Chistianity” (He obviously means we should respect the Jew-loving majority)
“I am thinking about leaving this site to the trolls”
(Thank you Jesus! Don’t let the door hit you in the ***)
A bit off-topic, in case anyone is interested in listening. Courtesy of Final Conflict ( http://finalconflictblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/gk-chesterton-on-expulsion-of-jews-from.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FinalConflict+%28Final+Conflict%29&utm_content=Yahoo!+Mail )
GK Chesterton on the Expulsion of the Jews from England.
Listen to GK Chesterton’s The Curse of the Golden Cross here .
The past and present collide to provide another mystery to solve for GK Chesterton’s clerical sleuth. Stars Andrew Sachs.
It may only be on BBC iplayer for a few days so go quickly.
The charming story includes a brief history of money-lending Jews and their expulsion from England. It’s not often that appears uncritically on the Beeb.
AI will destroy the human race one day so the Marxist will not have time to fulfill their fantasy of destroying the White Race.
How harmless little white lies evolve into the religions of men>
A prehistoric father-son talk; “Hey Pop, where did the moon come from?” Dad answers…..ahhh,, er ah wellll it uh, uuuhhhh came frommm… duhh…. erahhh
………GOD!. And don’t ever doubt what I tell you or God will punish you! Oh and go kill me a rabbit or God will punish you.
I thought it interesting that the graphic at the top has the so-called peace symbol not only to the lower left of the woman’s face but in all four corners. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this symbol is a deliberate inversion of the old Norse rune Algiz. According to one website, Algiz is the “Rune of the essential link or connection with the patterns of divine or archetypal consciousness.” To put it a bit more mundanely, it is the rune that links us with higher culture and the highest human potential, knowledge, and experience. To invert it would seem to desire the opposite–loss of the link to the divine or higher culture, a sort of malediction even, at a minimum a symbol of pacification and not just “peace.” Runes being an expression of what some consider the whitest of white cultures, the Scandinavians, this inversion, if it is deliberate, would seem aimed directly at whites per se and not just anybody.
The two faces of Christianity;
They SAY they are pro-family. But VOTED for;
No-fault divoce.
Consenting adult law. (free sex)
Free speech (porn) …….everything but “hate” speech
Equal “rights” …..This was the death blow to the institution of marriage.
Oh, and they overwhelmingly vote to support the foreign “Nation” of Israel over the interests of their own Nation. But none dare call it treason.
To add a little to my argument: It seems to me the peace symbol could have come about in two ways. First, it could have been chosen arbitrarily. That seems a bit odd given its simple and not very artistic or commanding nature. It also fails to relate as a symbol to anything modern or natural except perhaps a twig or tiny branch, but even that would be weak representation of peace and would at best represent young life or the potential for growth, like a twig growing into a branch, not peace. In any case, as a peace symbol it was turned upside down, hardly an endorsement of life, which is considered to grow upward toward the light. Second, because this is a weak symbol in modern terms, it leaves a good bit of scope for a basis elsewhere such as in an existing symbology, and thus the Algiz.
@blue rose:
You wrote:
Christianity is fine, but they should just live it, and do as the Jews do which is to keep it to themselves. One doesn’t see Jews going about proselytizing. A separation of church and state needs to be maintained. The Founding Fathers had a reason for wanting it that way. Since it was to be a New Republic, they didn’t want to make the same mistakes as in the Old World.
Sometimes you seem very preachy yourself.
(I know that I too can appear that way. I’m a big proponent of chastity and sobriety, and believe they, along with a genuine desire to know and serve God, are essential to the overall success of any pro-White movement.)
Regarding the idea of separation of church and state:
T.O.O. commenter Pierre de Craon addressed this topic in one of his comments under another article. I saved it, and will copy and paste it here in case anyone else is interested.
Sir, read the quotes’ sources again, read the Constitution again, read the Articles of Confederation again, and most of all, read further in the huge mass of documentary material—formal writings as well as correspondence—created by the movers and shakers of the Revolutionary and Federalist epochs. The only ”separation of church and state” that interested them was that involving the relationship of the new central government of the confederation of free and still almost completely independent countries, or states, and those free states themselves.
At the time the quoted statements were written, almost every single state had its own “establishment of religion”—which is nothing more than another way of saying “established church” [Christian, of course]—and the Jefferson and Madison statements that you quote (with a misunderstanding of their true intent) were nothing more nor less than assurances that it was the intention of the federalizers never, ever, to allow differences of opinion among Protestants to lead to a repetition of the English Civil Wars or of Calvin’s campaign of human torchings and somewhat less brutal forms of murder aimed at literally everyone who disagreed with him. Not coincidentally, neither TJ nor JM ever expressed the slightest displeasure with the legislatures of Virginia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, or any other state for establishing a church of their choice. (I haven’t checked my sources, but I believe that Massachusetts was the last state to disestablish a church, the Congregational Church, and that was only in the 1830s.)
Think for a moment about the opening words of the First Amendment: “Congress [i.e., not a state government or legislature] shall make no law respecting [i.e., with regard to] an establishment of religion. . . .” The wording is precise. Note especially that it makes no attempt to limit or otherwise regulate a state’s right to designate or not designate an established church. Nor does it deny or abridge the Congress’s authority to make laws regarding religion that concern matters other than establishment (of course, it doesn’t encourage the Congress to make any such laws either). The language employed is legal because the matter is legal, not social or even for the most part religious!
I wish it understood that I am not suggesting that you are deliberately twisting the plain intent of the Framers and others. The “twisting” has been taking place in American education, both public and private, for almost a century. My parents, whose secondary schooling was completed by 1930, both knew what the language of the amendment meant because that is how they were taught to understand it. By the time my older brother and sister finished high school (1950 and 1951), however, the new, improved, Judaically influenced “meaning” of “separation” was the only one taught anywhere in this country outside the occasional graduate seminar, where presumably those in the know agreed not to upset the apple cart. This wholesale rewriting through “reinterpretation” of both the Constitution and the documentable facts of early American history was as much a facet of the culture of critique as the “nation of immigrants” and “proposition nation” rubbish that today only Nazis, white supremacists, and other haters contest. (I suppose those categories include me, you, and most other TOO columnists and commenters.)
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/01/lee-siegel-the-horror-of-implicit-whiteness/?show=comments#comment-59134
BR:
‘One doesn’t see Jews going about proselytizing.’
Jews are activists and get others to fight their battles.
Sssh, dont tell.
Actually, the White birth rate is now 1.7 children. We are not even replacing ourselves. Massive immigration is making the situation much worse by causing a lower percentage of Whites overall. It’s difficult keeping up with the 4-6 children per female of child bearing age in the Muslim and Hispanic communities.
Despite the numbers of immigrants we already have, ceasing immigration of those with high birth rates would certainly help.
There might be an advantage to Obama’s forcing free birth control pills on everyone. Hopefully, the right ones take it.
Whites must inform their Representatives and Senators, that immigration from Third-World countries must stop. That probably is naive; however, if many Whites continued to hound them, who knows.
The 1965 Immigration Law actually discriminates against Whites of European ancestry, favoring those of Third-World countries. Very few Whites are allowed in every year compared to over a million non-Whites.
Not sure many Whites really know the seriousness of the situation. I heard about the decline one time on the news. There was no discussion about it.
A physician, pregnant with her second child, was horrified to learn of the decline and the massive numbers of non-Whites immigrating a few weeks ago. Busy Whites are not digging into the internet looking for it if they don’t know about it and it’s not on the mainstream media, that’s for sure. When no one is talking about it, how do we know? Many still live in mostly White states or at least towns and cities. If we don’t hear or read about or see it, it isn’t happening.
The best way to inform them is through television; however, few in the media will touch it.
Our duty should be to inform everyone we know, encouraging them to email, write, or phone their legislators demanding legal and illegal Third-World immigration stop and that we know the law is discriminatory.
All of this was probably covered here, previously, but it’s worth reminding everyone. Hound your legislators.
Blue Rose said: “Lastly, not allowing abortion (with a artificial rationale that ‘it’s not good for the white race’) is tantamount to the forced birthing of children and women not being allowed control over their own bodies (like it was in the past, before pro-choice), and we are back to Square One again.”
The choice of the words Blue Rose has used here suggests feminist propaganda.
What exactly is this ‘forced birthing’, exactly? Is it the state raping people with turkey basters? This is the sort of shite only feminists say, and its suspicious to say the least. And how is it an “artificial rationale” if someone points out that a general perspective is dysgenic for your own people? And isn’t the argument about women ‘having control over their own bodies’ feminist? You might notice the lack of concern for white demographic decline in the same post.
I’m saying this because over on the Telegraph website, some obvious sock puppet named Cartimandua’s been trying to push feminist ideas using appeals to cultural differences, so I wouldn’t be surprised if others are trying it.
Since there was a bit of a scandal here in the UK about South Asian abortionists performing illegal gender selection over here, Carti suddenly began trying for the first time to gain support from anti-immigration and anti-Moslem types, by contrasting South Asian culture to “our culture of gender equality”. And this was together with the implied association of Islamic and South Asian attitudes with ‘anti-woman’ traditional culture here in the UK before “our culture of gender equality”. This even got to the point where Carti actually suggested that we must protect immigrant women by not deporting them, because “our culture of gender equality” demands that we protect women. Funny that!
All this assumes Blue Rose isn’t just some random troll or one of those loony fringe contrarian people whose kind of opinion only exist online.
One of the trends I’ve noticed is ridiculous, pompous people who dont really understand eugenics but still likes the idea of it, because they see themselves as superior (aka ‘unwarranted self importance’). These idiots inevitably expose themselves by statements about their superior education being hereditary or something (seriously!), or repeating the line about a “war against the poor” because they read a straw man against eugenics. Of course there’s nothing wrong with the kind of eugenics that weeds these people out lol.
What eugenics does society really need, beyond something like Project Prevention, the sterilisation of certain gene carriers and encouraging good mate selection for the successful? The majority of white people are just fine.
And there I was thinking that white and black DNA had already been spliced – the product is all over, even in the white house! I don’t want to get too esoteric here but I believe the white race is more than the sum of its parts. It is more than IQ and creativity. It is a ‘race soul’ built on tradition and millennia of minute evolution-derived traits. I think that there are certain things that science will never be able to accomplish.
Google (startpage)” ringworm babies “. This was a Eugenics program of Ashkenazi Jews against Sheparidic Jews from N. Africa. Never really read about it, but hearing it on talk radio here and there. Its all over the web.
@Richard:
Pierre I think is Catholic (or Orthodox). The religious folk will look at the intent of the separation of church and state clause and twist and turn in the wind to find loopholes in the intent of what the Founding Fathers ‘meant’ in order to justify a Judeo-Christian founding of this nation. He brings up the issue of State’s Rights and reads into that also a Judeo-Christian intent.
Granted we do see Christian iconography in state buildings, the carved 10 Commandments and all. But I myself was never aware each state had its own establishment of religion, which happened to be Judeo-Christian. I always thought such iconography was there merely to point up we were a nation ‘under God’, where the ‘inalienable rights’ come from.
I would think that Judeo-Christian iconography exists in state buildings most likely because most people in the USA are Christian. But I would not think a state establishment of Judeo-Christianity would be totalitarian to the extent that it interferes with state politics, but I see that it does. Hence the war on pro-choice and the killing of abortion doctors by the ‘good Christians’. I notice the twisting and turning, the word play — focusing in on what ‘not was written’, and thereby rationalizing the Christian/Catholic perspective in Pierre’s ideas,
If the Founding Fathers established a Republic, they were products of the Enlightenment period and held Enlightenment views, and to understand the actual intent of the Founding Fathers for this entire Republic, the thing should be looked at through their eyes, not Judeo-Christian eyes. Most of the Founding Fathers were Deists, and did believe in a Creator, but were enlightened enough and intelligent enough to know that the Creator is beyond our understanding and cannot be named. (Jesus Christ was an Ascended Master, a Bodhisattva, a highly evolved spiritual being.)
My feeling is that in those early days there was big discussions on states rights and how states fit into the Republic. The people who made up the populations of states, descendants of the Anglo-Saxon Protestants of the Calvinist belief system (kicked out of England for being a nuisance there and then coming here and being a nuisance) took advantage of the states rights thing to confiscate for themselves and simply declare this state or that state as having established a Judeo-Christian religion. This is simply not the intent of the Founding Fathers’ vision for the New Republic as being based on Enlightenment Principles of Logic and Reason.
@blue rose:
Neither your thoughts, feelings or lack of awareness have any relevance to the facts regarding the religious thought of the founders. Of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, 49 were protestant and 3 were RC. Jefferson, Franklin and Thomas Paine, held unconventional views, and certainly all were influenced by the Enlightenment, but that does not change the fact that the overwhelming majority of the people of the colonies were Christian. We have separation of church and state, not state and temple or mosque. Please check the facts.
@Skadhi_the_Raverner:
Oh please. “The choice of words I use suggest feminist propaganda”. What horsesh*t.
For better or worse, my perspective has always been NOT to just namby-pamby accept whatever thing I was told I must believe, with no rational reasons given. Especially when the things I saw went against reason and logic, like the hypocrisies of religion, the stereotyping of females into breeder roles, to the exclusion of the fact that not every female child’s dream is to be a breeder. (That could come later, after the child herself as an adult makes that decision.) These were views I had at least as young as 5 years old, I saw it, the way I was being pushed into it, and this was LONG LONG BEFORE FEMINISM ever came on the scene.
Forced birthing is one of the things I saw, where females, married or not, were MADE to give birth because there was no other way around it. Including giving birth to deformed babies. If this isn’t FORCED BIRTHING, I don’t know what is. I did not like the way women were not allowed an ounce of control over their own bodies and were made to submit to gender stereotyping to the exclusion of a woman’s OWN MIND. “Keep ‘em barefoot and pregnant” I heard my father say once, and I saw what ignorance.
TOO BAD if you think anything I say smacks of ‘feminism’. Choke on it. What I think doesn’t have a thing to do with Feminism (except for some of its more rational parts that I agree with), no matter and regardless what you think. I come from my own observations about humanity, its lies, its hypocrisies, its falseness, its ignorance, no more no less.
If Whites don’t ‘breed’ as heavily as the non-whites, I say this is a sign of intelligent family planning, going for quality, not quantity. And if you think forcing white woman to pop out kids by the dozens just to ‘save’ the white race, it’s YOU who is an idiot.
In that future White Utopia, I look to the day forced birthing and gender stereotyping are done away with completely, where both sexes are allowed to be fulfilled in whatever way they choose. Some females prefer learning useful trade skills like men are taught from a young age on, and the last thing o their mind is the dubious ‘joys of giving birth’. So what’s wrong with that? In your narrow, little, mind controlled world — everything.
@Alice Teller:
I am not interested in what the ‘overwhelming majority of the people’ were. I am interested in the Enlightenment views of the Founding Fathers in setting up a New Republic. What their vision was.
@Alice Teller:
And I will bet the same goes for you.
A tour of Washington DC’s Greek, Pagan, and Masonic sculptures and symbols everywhere would make for a wonderful two-day weekend tour of the Capitol.
“It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus Christ) in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentence toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore him to the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, the roguery of others of his disciples. Of this band of dupes and imposters, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and the first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus.” —Thomas Jefferson. Letter to William Short, 1820
“That but a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in church and state: that the purest system of morals ever before preached to man has been adulterated and sophisticated, by artificial constructions, into a mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves, that rational men not being able to swallow their impious heresies, in order to force them down their throats, they raise the hue and cry of infidelity, while themselves are the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the real doctrines of Jesus, and do in fact constitute the real Anti-Christ. –Thomas Jefferson. Letter to William Baldwin, January 19, 1810
Just two of many documents. Too numerous to list here.
@blue rose: Really, Blue Rose? Everything you’ve said is in fact feminism. In fact its identical to the thinking of Jewish leftists. And if “not every female child’s dream is to be a breeder” that’s surely because peoples aspirations don’t come from nowhere and the media is full of antinatalist messages. Now guess who put them there, eh?
Do you really expect anyone to believe you’re father actually said “Keep ‘em barefoot and pregnant”? This is a straw man that was invented by the feminists.
And I’m really stumped by you’re astonishing claim that when you were five years old you were pushed into being a breeder. Do you mean they wanted you to wear dresses and play with dolls? Oh the injustice.
Or are you claiming you were fucked by your daddy as a little girl, like all the feminists have their sob stories we must take at face value, in case we’re ‘haters’. You’re coming awfully close to bashing the family itself.
“For better or worse, my perspective has always been NOT to just namby-pamby accept whatever thing I was told I must believe, with no rational reasons given.”
Really? Because it seems to me you were labelling an argument as ‘artificial rationale’ to avoid just that. Please answer me this – how exactly is one rationale more or less artificial than alternative rationales?
What on earth’s irrational about saying women are there to have babies, its just an observation of gender function which no one sane objects to if its made about any other dioecious species. Regarding pro-choice… lets just say it makes no sense at all, from a conservation perspective, to smash acorns before they can grow into oak trees or fertile bird’s eggs before they hatch into birds. Endangered birds. I find it remarkable I’m needing to explainthis
And if you’re really not a troll or a paid sock puppet, you probably don’t ‘accept whatever thing I was told I must believe’, you must be one of those online i-dots who picks and chooses inconsistent ideas because you think it’ll make you stand out like an individual. (Antinatalism to save the white race indeed.)
These people are a plague of the internet, most of them grow out of it by the time they’re 25 and the rest of them have psychiatric problems – Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
@blue rose:
Does’ We the People’ ring any bells?
@blue rose: Blue Rose, I don’t mean to get on my high horse again but there is a Greek aspect to your views on Jesus (I can hear you groaning!). When you say you are enthused by many of the sayings attributed to him (and repelled by others) I urge caution.
90% of the New Testament was written in Greek. Luke was a Greek doctor, so he writes well; so does Paul because he was clearly educated. Since you are not reading it in the original language, you will not be aware of the variability in quality of the texts.
Second, you would be surprised at some of the liberties taken by translators. In English, Christ is usually referred to as ‘Lord’. In the original, the Greek usually retains the Hebrew word Ravi i.e. Rabbi. Yes, Rose, people usually addressed Jesus using that term. Like it or not, he was a Jewish Rabbi. Another well-know mistranslation is the reference to his mother as a virgin. The Greek word ‘parthenos’ can mean a virgin but also just an unmarried girl. There are schools in Greece called ‘Parthenagogeion’ that are clearly for girls and not virgins!
Translation is a difficult business. That Mark Twain quote you gave me reminds me. Don’t you really have to be American to ‘feel’ Twain? The Poles claim you have to be Polish to really feel the music of Chopin.
@Ellin:
Well, the Hidden Mystery is that Jesus Christ was an Ascended Master. He happened to have chosen to be born into the Jewish race. Poor choice there, if you ask me.
Otherwise, not sure what you’re saying about the Greek and all, but if you say so I’ll go along with it.
Yes, I expect one has to be American to ‘feel Twain’. However he writings are timeless and well worth reading, including his novels.
@Alice Teller:
There are many of us who already KNOW what the Founding Fathers had in mind for a New Republic, and it wasn’t an Anglo-Saxon Protestant Calvinst Puritan totalitarianism making the laws in this country.
So don’t talk to me about ‘bells’. Go ring them somewhere else.
@Ellin:
Incidentally, Ellin, I used a play on words with Twain’s saying. He actually said “The reports of his death have been greatly exaggerated”.
We’ve really strayed of topic here Ladies and Gentlemen.
The essence of the problem is that the ethno-marxist left is hoping to use drugs or other techniques such as implants, surgery or genetic engineering to “stop racism”
If succesfull, and it will be eventually, the side effect will be to completely anihilate any sense of implicit Whiteness and the abillity of us to continue our race. People subjected to such drugs just won’t care.
One can easily immagine that anyone (like Heroic English woman Emma West) acccused of racial hate speach will be subject to more than just arrest, enforced sensitivity ‘training’ but imposed drug regimes.
These people will stop at nothing. They are utterly hideous in regards to this.
It should be obvious that there is plenty of (likely Jewish money) behined this and that this was going to happen when we started to read news articles of “researchers” using Brain Scan technology to identify “hidden” or suppresed racism. Left leaning pop science magazine “New Scientist” is full of such things.
It reminds me of the Dystopian Kurt Vonnegut Satire Harrison Bergeron “It is the year 2081. Because of Amendments 211, 212, and 213 to the Constitution, every American is fully equal, meaning that no one is stupider, uglier, weaker, or slower than anyone else. The Handicapper General and a team of agents ensure that the laws of equality are enforced.
@Skadhi_the_Raverner:
I really don’t give a damn what the hell you think, Skadhi. If you think I’m a Feminist then choke on it.
@blue rose: Blue Rose, there seems to be so much dissension on this site it’s hard to believe these people want to unite to fight a common enemy! Don’t you agree?
It seems to be just an assemblage of people trotting out their pet hates and favored ‘magic solutions’. I mean there’s a guy on this thread who’s just posted something on the Runes! I was wondering when we’d get to the Runes. I think I’ve just about had enough.
Interesting article. It deals with a lot of subjects that are uncomfortable to Whites, such as the possibility that intelligence could be engineered in the future.
There is already some evidence that certain aspects of the environment (including food intake, chemicals and rearing patterns) are having a negative effect already. Perhaps these pressures are not making people less racist. But lets consider for a moment the drastic reduction in sperm count in the last 30-40 years amongst males in the Western world. Perhaps this correlates with lower testosterone and as a result, lower rates aggression and perhaps intelligence (Crime has been dropping anyway). Perhaps even by some miracle White genomes are especially susceptible to these environmental pressures (it is quite possible). Maybe this wasn’t planned. After all, more susceptible species (frogs, alligators) have already shown astronomical rates of sexual dimorphism difficulties. However, the outcome could be a male population with extremely reduced aggression and perhaps less than healthy rates of in-group bias. It would be interesting to see a comparison of T levels from White men in the 19th Century-Early 20th Century vs. today.
I fail to see how people like Sepulescu reason their way into this. I’d be interested to know if he was Jewish, because then at least I would understand his motives. If he is in fact a gentile, I don’t see what his motivation is for creating this “new” race other than the crazy universalism and reaching for utopias that is so prevalent amongst Whites. After all, what are we trying to preserve here? Humanity, or some abstract idea of humanity? Not to be nihilistic, but what are we really striving for? Just sheer survival of some ultra nice robotic humans?
Furthermore, would someone like Sepulescu be even more satisfied if computers became self aware and exterminated humans? After all, if we were to posit that A.I. would theoretically be even nicer than humans, have less effect on the environment and be astronomically more intelligent, then why not just replace the whole human race with this computer intelligence? Why value one species over another if perhaps we could even call a remarkably sophisticated A.I. a new species? I think based on his argument, he is saying that if we want the human race to survive we must become his version of an “ideal” and yet, we are no longer the human race anymore. We would be a different species essentially and what species advocates to exterminate itself?
@blue rose:
No one but you ever said that the founders wanted any kind of religious totalitarianism. Are you really unaware of the irony of you invoking rationalism when by your own account we should all be guided by the insight of a five year old?
It is not actually considered a highpoint of rational thought to reply to any challenge to your argument with an emotional outburst.
@Ellin:
Yes, there’s often a lot of static, but we just have to bear with it.
The guy with the rune idea was interesting. The sign does look like one. So, it’s off to wiki to get an idea on the origins of the peace symbol:
“The internationally recognized symbol for peace was originally designed for the British nuclear disarmament movement by Gerald Holtom in 1958. Holtom, an artist and designer, made it for a march from Trafalgar Square, London to the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston in England, organised by the Direct Action Committee to take place in April and supported by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND).Holtom’s design, the original of which is housed in the Peace Museum in Bradford, England, was adapted by Eric Austen (1922–1999) to ceramic lapel badges.”
@Mickey Meadows:
Wait, so you don’t care about the White race? You just care about a generally smart race? Why are you even here?
@Alice Teller:
I never said anyone should be guided by the insights of a 5 year old, now did I?
Your comments are a classic case study in techniques of mind control — and I don’t like it — so get off my back.
@Henry Baxley:
(Thank you Jesus! Don’t let the door hit you in the ***)
Uncalled for!
Joe Webb is a fine thinker and writer and he makes many very good and valid points.
With your remark you state who you are only. Joe Webb said more note-worthy information in his comment, then you do in some of your comments put all together, as you are being against anyone, even the thinking Christians all together. Will see who has what it takes to survive, the white Christians who are also naturalists and a evolutionists, or the white none-Christians who is only the later two?. I bet on the first.
“I believe the races are species of man, hence they can interbreed, but the differences are as great as a poodle from a greyhound.
Hybridization is not natural.”
I usually refrain from dog breed analogies, since breeds were developed artificially over a very short period of time. Human races, on the other hand, are the product of many thousands of years of natural evolution.
Leftists will use the dog breed analogy to point out that mutts (as Obama has called himself) are generally healthier than purebreds. This is true, but only because “purebred” dogs are, in truth, often just freakish genetic experiments based on freakish notions of a genetic ideal (not unlike the notions of Muller, co-author of the leftist Geneticist’s Manifesto.)
As advocates for the white race, we are, to a great degree, racial preservationists, and eugenics is at odds with some of our most basic instincts, yet it’s portrayed by the media as one of our underlying philosophies/tactics, since we believe in maintaining racial integrity.
In no way, shape or form am I an apologist for, or an associate of, Nazism, but this is a very interesting statement taken from the Eugenics article on Wiki:
Two scholars, John Glad and Seymour W. Itzkoff of Smith College, have questioned the relation between eugenics and the Holocaust. They argue that, contrary to popular belief, Hitler did not regard the Jews as intellectually inferior and did not send them to the concentration camps on these grounds. They argue that Hitler had different reasons for his genocidal policies toward the Jews.[129] Seymour W. Itzkoff writes that the Holocaust was “a vast dysgenic program to rid Europe of highly intelligent challengers to the existing Christian domination by a numerically and politically minuscule minority”. Therefore, according to Itzkoff, “the Holocaust was the very antithesis of eugenic practice”.
@blue rose:
Please explain the mind control techniques I have used, other that a request to rely on facts and logic?
Your sense of entitlement is mind-numbing. You feel entirely free to regal us with any stray thought that crosses your mind, including regret that you didn’t marry your Jewish boyfriend, how good Jews are at addressing social ills, motherhood is denigrated to” popping them out”, and the odd erotic daydream.
You reduce the classic vision of a moral agent’s responsibility for the predictable consequences of their actions, that is the concept that with the exception of rape a woman has moral responsibility for the fruits of her sexual activity, as forced birthing. You feel quite free to insult and degrade anyone who annoys you. You accuse one of the most intelligent and thoughtful posters on the site, Pierre de Craon, of twisting the facts and you demand that no one challenge you.
No I won’t get off you back.
@Alice Teller:
As you wish. I’ll just ignore you.
@blue rose: “A general scan about Muller at wiki shows he wasn’t quite as off the wall as I thought he might be:”
I think most of his ground breaking work had to to do with fruit flies. The human applications were mostly theoretical.
But your observation shows that if prominent historical figures are in the good graces of current prevailing political thought, then they are defined only by their successes and contributions. If they aren’t, then they’re defined by their worst failings and hysterical rants.
@Jim:
Well, no. He was against National Socialism and against the anti-immigration ideas of Eugenics, so he wasn’t all that bright. I only meant his overall scientific career seemed to be interesting. Like giving him the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, “for the discovery that mutations can be induced by x-rays”. At least he was a Gentile, even though a communist. Can’t win ‘em all I guess.
But yes, you’re right that scientists are judged according to how well they fit in with the good graces of current prevailing political thought. Which rather negates the Scientific Method itself.
@Jim:
They argue that Hitler had different reasons for his genocidal policies toward the Jews.[129] Seymour W. Itzkoff writes that the Holocaust was “a vast dysgenic program to rid Europe of highly intelligent challengers to the existing Christian domination by a numerically and politically minuscule minority”. Therefore, according to Itzkoff, “the Holocaust was the very antithesis of eugenic practice”.
I’m getting confused where white racial preservationists stand when it comes to Eugenics and the new developments in developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies, if they feel these new technologies odds with their ‘basic instincts’, as Jim phrased it? Somehow I sense there is a reluctance.
With regard to the Glad-Itzkoff paper, who argue that the Holocaust was “a vast dysgenic program to rid Europe of highly intelligent challengers to the existing Christian domination by a numerically and politically minuscule minority”. Once again, it’s ‘all about the Jews’, but it’s my understanding the Jews in Germany at the time were simple peasant type Jews, the Yiddish. Who were Glad-Itzkoff talking about?
Also, from documentaries I’ve seen of N*zi Germany, the regalia surrounding it, all seemed to be more Germanic Pagan, or the bringing back the old religion. There might have been a mystical Christian element to it. But how would small neighborhoods of Yiddish go about bringing down even this existing Christian ‘domination’ as it might manifest in N*zi regalia?
Sorry, this is getting confusing.
@blue rose:
Hi. Actually, from what I’ve read, Muller was of jewish heritage on his mother’s side (Mankind Quarterly). His affiliation with the unitarian church means little since many jews migrate there due to it’s noncommittal theology.
You’re right, he did have an interesting career and he was a brilliant man. He was just someone America shouldn’t have welcomed back.
, from what I’ve read, Muller was of jewish heritage on his mother’s side (Mankind Quarterly).
Jesus, these Jews are everywhere. I give up.
@European:
It was called for. And what sort of weird interpretation of Christianty equates Fairy tales legeonds and distorted history with Natural Law and evol;ution. these two concepts are irreconcilably opposite. You sound a lot like him…a lot!
@Bob Johnson:
AI (artificial intelligence) is already destroying America, take a close look at the robotic educated fools in congress.
@Jim:
“Seymour W. Itzkoff writes that the Holocaust was “a vast dysgenic program to rid Europe of highly intelligent challengers to the existing Christian domination by a numerically and politically minuscule minority”. Therefore, according to Itzkoff, “the Holocaust was the very antithesis of eugenic practice”. ”
It was eugenic from the German perspective because they were (supposedly) destroying a harmful element of the German nation and promoting their own ethnic interests. Obviously from the Jewish perspective it was the opposite. When two sides are at war, that war is obviously going to be eugenic for one side and dysgenic for another.
Look what happened in the USSR: the Jews butchered the entire Russian and Ukrainian intelligentsia and their families, which meant that they could occupy the top spots in government, the arts, etc. It was dysgenics from a Russian perspective but eugenics from a Jewish perspective. And in spite of their power did the Jews manage to produce any writers worthy of Dostoyevsky or Chekov? Nope.
@Joe Webb:
Thanks, Joe. I think that most Christians only ask for respect. Another reason not to trash Christianity is that if we lose the religious tradition and sensibility of our ancestors, we lose the ability to have a full appreciation of their great works of art in all disciplines. I fear that the easily offended secularists among us will indulge in the kind of nonsense going on in England, where there are demands to ban Dante from the reading list.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/9140869/Dantes-Divine-Comedy-offensive-and-should-be-banned.html
“I’m getting confused where white racial preservationists stand when it comes to Eugenics….”
I’m not, because I have no idea where they stand. I was never trying to speak for everyone else.
I only have an idea where I stand. It seems to me there’s an inconsistency between “positive” eugenics – artificially creating a population of “geniuses” who never before existed (as Muller wanted to do), and preserving the white race, something beautiful that occurred naturally.
@fender:
“It was eugenic from the German perspective because they were (supposedly) destroying a harmful element of the German nation and promoting their own ethnic interests. “
I see your point, and thought about it even as I posted that passage. I wondered if Glad and Itzkoff were jewish. It does illustrate how words are manipulated and changed to suit the political purposes of those using them.
Not just Glad & co., but everyone. “Eugenics”, “dysgenics” and “positive” or “negative” eugenics.
The American Eugenics Society (AES) changed it’s name in the early ’70′s to the Society for the Study of Social Biology for purely political reasons. The scope of their work has remained the same to this day.
There’s nothing inherently evil in the impulse at the heart of eugenics. We all want to marry someone who’s intelligent and attractive (and shares our conspicuous traits.) We all hope our kids will share their parents good fortune. It’s natural.
When a national or federal government dictates the impulse, however, that’s when the problems arise. It may appealing to some white advocates on the surface, but it has the potential to do much more harm than good (as we are now seeing.)
@Jim:
But at the end of Alex Kurtagic’s article he speaks of a qualitative eugenics as an answer to leftist egalitarian eugenics. Though he actually doesn’t definite qualitative eugenics, I always thought of eugenics, in general, as taking advantage of the new developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies, at least in giving birth to healthy children.
Muller and his ideas have nothing to do with these new developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies. But I guess if WN and white preservationists are reluctant or hesitant to make use of these new technologies on religious grounds or grounds having to do with ‘natural law’ or something, I don’t know why Alex’s article is even here then.
Barbara, Are you aware of Obamas Diversity Visas?
And a Brit told me 6 countries cant get into green card lottery, UK is one.
I assume they are all white / christian countries………..
Yet Muslim and terrorist ? states can send us their ‘teeming masses’
[no thanks emma lazarus...a zionist racist subversive].
@Jim: The problem is the idea that eugenics must apply to everyone in society, instead of being a selective tool to eradicate serious hereditary diseases by sterilisation on the one hand, and encourage successful people to have larger families on the other.
“….I always thought of eugenics, in general, as taking advantage of the new developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies….”
Eugenics has been around longer than those “new developments”.
@blue rose:
My perspective on Eugenics and Natural Law:
Nature (God) created us more or less perfect FOR THE EARTH AS IT WAS THEN. Sure there were anomalies (genetic diseases, deformaties) now and then. and we should strive to correct these as best we can. But to artificially play around with drugs to make us smarter or less violent, less racist etc. is not the way to go and is in fact dangerous. Do you remember pre-frontal lobotamy’s ? it was supposed to be a new “miracle” treatment for mental patients who were hard to handle. many teens and young adults who were acting out and violent were subjected to this treatment and were amazingly rendered calm and serene, of course they lived out the rest of their lives as little more than vegetables, but cutting off the frontal lobes of their brain sure calmed them down…forever.
Then there was the new miracle drug Thalidamide, prescribed by brilliant Doctors for pregnant women. and there are thousands of horribly deformed 70 year-olds crawlimg around today with no arms or legs because of it.
The way to cure racism is separation so each race can have space and dignity
The way to cure violence is stop all this “equality” crap so that kids are raised without the spector of violence in the family…kids that experience violence in the home become violent, Google psychohistory
And most importantly, get rid of “Democracy” (government of the lowest common denomenator)
@Jim:
Eugenics has been around longer than those “new developments”.
Yes, I know that. I agreed with some of the early Eugenics ideas also. Like sterilization of the unfit. I don’t mean forced sterilization, but it was apparent in those days that the population had degraded. I guess this is a moral issue, but as I’ve tried to bring up before about this -50 IQ man who had been made to be sterilized, the media brings him on in a nice suit telling us he ‘would have liked to have had children’. The judge in his case long ago stated (and I can’t find the exact quote now) that several decades of idiots [meaning IQ level] was enough. I don’t know how you feel about a white -50 IQ man breeding, and then his children breeding, and so on. I know in certain quarters some people don’t have a problem with this on grounds of ‘human rights’.
And forget Hermann Muller. I don’t mean any of his ideas when it comes to today’s Eugenics.
What I mean are the new developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies, at least with the ability or choice NOT to have genetically defective children. Also maybe with improving the DNA, though I am not familiar with genetics or how these things work.
Basically I am interested in the ideas of qualitative eugenics. Apparently even this goes against the grain with some Christians and others on grounds having to do with ‘natural law’, whatever they mean by it.
Typo. I mean “I know in certain quarters some people DO have a problem with this on grounds of ‘human rights’.”
@Henry Baxley:
I agree with you totally, Henry. The things you mention are the point to Alex Kurtagic’s article about this Oxford professor who is giving lectures on these ideas of egalitarian eugenics and parents being given the choice to ‘opt in’ to suppressing the psychochemical mechanisms involved in racial bias, when it comes to ‘designer children’.
Designer children is one thing, but this egalitarian eugenics approach is definitely alarming. I don’t believe for a moment there is ANY such medication that can do away with racial bias, so I don’t know exactly what the Oxford Prof. Savulescu is tinkering with — but the fact this is an idea that is coming out of Oxford is also alarming. As I mentioned above, those that study conspiracy theory know that it all begins with England — the Elites running the world and the changes they are implementing.
My feeling is, while there is still yet time, it’s best to be open-minded about qualitative eugenics, if by that term Kurtagic means the new developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies. Even the possibility of improving the genetic DNA code sounds like something Whites should be open too also — as the Jews are doing exactly this already, maybe not to a great extent, but seriously they have the money to improve their DNA, so I imagine many are doing just that.
@blue rose: The basic objection to eugenics is that it blocks human progress. It is the easiest thing in the world to say ‘Sterilize that person because we don’t want that deformity spreading’. But deformities (and all other genetic ‘mistakes’) are very valuable because they force us to develop means to assist these people and, indirectly, that helps us. here’s a concrete example.
I’m not saying Stephen Hawking should be helped because he is a mathematical genius. I’m saying that – in order to communicate from his wheelchair and with only eyelid movement available to him – a computer program has been developed whereby he can write and speak by looking at the characters on a screen. His ‘bad gene’ has been the driver for a big leap in Artificial Intelligence.
So, it is foolish to react eugenically to mutations: ‘Sterilize them’; ‘Kill them’; ‘Protect the gene pool’. The smart move is to live with it and improve or change it.
@Ellin:
“But deformities (and all other genetic ‘mistakes’) are very valuable because they force us to develop means to assist these people and, indirectly, that helps us.”
This is a variation of the “breaking windows helps the economy” type fallacy, where local rubbishmen get work cleaning it up, the police get work investigating it, the glass company get work putting the new pane in, the people at the insurance company get jobs in admin…etc etc. Superfically it seems to add up, but work through the cost/benefits and it’s a cost.
Besides, there will always be accidents that cause disability and some disabled births. The unavoidable disabilities are sufficient for any innovation.
@Ellin:
But deformities (and all other genetic ‘mistakes’) are very valuable because they force us to develop means to assist these people and, indirectly, that helps us.
Yeah, that’s very nice, Ellin. Tell that to the deformed child growing up, or the child born with some genetic disease and must endure years of operations, and assuming such a child even has cognizance of anything, he/she would be aware of themselves as not normal, which doesn’t help any trying to live a fulfilled happy life. Some manage it, and good for them trying to eke out a ration of happiness. Not every such child is a potential Stephen Hawking either.
It would seem the way to do would be to have birth defects and disease done away with due to the new advances in genetics. Even the Jews have this much sense and apparently active use the new technologies to improve the DNA of their young.
But if Whites want to go the bleeding heart line, so be it. I just hope they don’t demand the tax payer pay for the upkeep of their genetically deformed babies.
The basic objection to eugenics is that it blocks human progress.
Laughable. What do you think Eugenics IS?
@Mickey Meadows: Well, if you say so, it must be true.
@blue rose: It’s nothing to do with bleeding hearts and all about self-interest. Let me ask you this. If there were a magic button that would instantaneously vaporize all computer hackers, would you press it?
I can tell you one thing. No IT professional would press it because hackers – though technically criminals – are far too valuable. They spur IT security on to ever-greater levels of sophistication. That’s what genetically-defective babies are to a geneticist – a massive learning opportunity. And that learning will someday benefit us all. The ‘kill it’ approach is just dumb.
@blue rose: Apropos your point about ‘Jews improving their DNA’, I have no idea what you could be referring to. Every Jew I’ve ever met is busy improving him/herself by putting in long hours studying serious subjects like law, medicine, mathematics, physics, finance etc etc. This, in contradistinction to posters on this site who invest a lot of time and energy on runes, Adolf Hitler, and of course, ….. eugenics.
@Ellin:
Apropos of your uncertainly of the Jews improving their DNA, I got it from these comment boards. It was also on some article or other awhile back where mention was made of it, and I posted that I recalled seeing a genetics medical facility in a Hasidic and Orthodox neighborhood once, while driving through. It also had words written in Hebrew on the front. I didn’t understand at the time what such a medical facility would be doing in a Orthodox/Hasidic neighborhood. Now I have a little more insight why.
As to your comment about IT hackers, just answer me if you are in favor of a MINUS 50 IQ white man breeding children? That’s all I want to know.
Every Jew I’ve ever met is busy improving him/herself by putting in long hours studying serious subjects like law, medicine, mathematics, physics, finance etc etc. This, in contradistinction to posters on this site who invest a lot of time and energy on runes, Adolf Hitler, and of course, ….. eugenics.
Well maybe, if the brilliant White race would look beyond it’s religious objections that come from a man-made religion and a pulpit, and this thing they keep mentioning — ‘natural law’ — and stop having this knee-jerk reaction every time they see the word ‘Eugenics’ — they too would be studying serious subjects like law, medicine, mathematics, physics, finance.
@blue rose: One final point. A strange feeling has come over me these past few days. After ‘interacting’ with the posters on this site, I find myself thinking ‘Maybe the Jews aren’t so bad, after all’. And I think i know why I’m having these thoughts. The Jews are SMART and evil; but that’s infinitely preferable to DUMB and evil. Nothing personal.
@ Ellin
No IT professional would press it because hackers – though technically criminals – are far too valuable. They spur IT security on to ever-greater levels of sophistication.
Yeah, right. And this works out very well for the System that has you in its computer databases from six ways to Sunday and is accessible to the authorities and to the Elites that might want to take you out. See how it all works out nicely for them?
@ Ellin
That’s what genetically-defective babies are to a geneticist – a massive learning opportunity.
That works out very nicely for the geneticist, I’m sure. The suffering baby should refer himself to the geneticist for gain solace knowing the geneticist is earning a paycheck.
The deformed baby, the one born with severe multiple sclerosis, the one born with no brain, or half a brain (I forget the medical term for that one. Nice pictures if you’d care to google what it looks like), Babies left to become adults, and if they can, to eke out a modicum of happiness if they are lucky. We can have more reality shows like “The Little People”.
And all the while new developements in genetics, genomes, and reproduction are all going a-begging, except for people smart enough to use them.
@ Ellin
Talk to Mickey, Ellin. I’m glad to read what he posted.
@Ellin:
Oh you calling me ‘dumb and evil’ now? Figures.
You’re just another frightened person who could not take the time to read what the actual eugenicists thought at the time, and why they thought it, because your religious background got in the way.
The ignorant only see the one word — ‘eugenics’ — and that’s all they need to see for their one-size-fits-all knee-jerk reaction to it. I’ve seen it a thousand times play out. Not a one of them is an actual geneticist either. If they were in the field they would think about all the issues involved, and know the value of their work to humanity is and be working towards that end — the reduction of needless human suffering, for one. If people like you can’t get passed the concept of improving human DNA, well ok then. It’s too much for you. But at least the reduction of needless human suffering is worthwhile is a goal to aim for? The ‘human condition’ can be improved. WHY DO YOU THINK GOD GAVE US THE KNOWLEDGE TO DO IT? ‘KNOW YE NOT THAT YE ARE GODS’ IS IN THE BIBLE IN SEVERAL PLACES.
But if feels more like throwing pearls to the swine right now — and the Bible warns me against that.
@ Ellin
Ellin’s “reasoning” is that we should be happy with problems because they force us to find solutions for them. But if we can prevent those problems then we don’t need those “solutions” at all!
I had a “strange feeling” about you right from the beginning when you started praising the Jews for their socalled “courage” in war time. Since then you have been attacking WN and praising multiculturalism as if you are yourself a Jew with an anti-White agenda. Strange feeling indeed.
@Franklin Ryckaert:
The little ‘tard’s next move will be reverting back to calling us nasty names in Greek.
@Franklin Ryckaert: There are some words that you absolutely love. ‘Agenda’ is one of them. Why? I’ll tell you. It’s because you can’t fathom how someone could see you as an idiot plain and simple. It has to be part of a conspiracy, an ‘agenda’. Not so, Franklin. Ponder a while and it will come to you. karapoutana ollandeza. gamiesai kai saresei, mounopano.
@blue rose: Cool it Rose. If I tell the High Eugenics Council about you, they’re gonna come knocking.
@Ellin:
Cheese it, Ellin. I see you already changed your name to ‘Theo’.
Why’d you skip town and ignore Mickey Meadows’ point about your using a variation of the “breaking windows helps the economy” type fallacy?
And why didn’t you answer my question if you were in favor of a MINUS 50 IQ white man to be allowed to breed?
Both of these things could have furthered the discussion,, had you answered.
Your Ichor isn’t flowing today. Or, what happened to the ‘hand’? Looks like our love affair is over.
I’ll go look for that ethereal golden fluid in the blood of the gods and immortals elsewhere then.
@blue rose: What do you think Ichor is Rose? That golden fluid in the veins of the Gods that keeps them forever young. It is Mercy. Compassion. Standing with the weak and the oppressed. Or, as we say in Greek, ‘never going over dead bodies to achieve an end’.
Before your country became jewified, it stood for those things too. That’s why America was always young ….. and smiling.
@Ellin:
Does Ichor cover using foul language in Greek when you don’t get your way?
Ellin
Anyway you are quite wrong. In Greek myth Ichor is the ethereal golden fluid that is the blood of the gods and/or immortals. You ought not to add to it your own notions according to your own agendat. The gods and goddesses will not be amused.
@blue rose: If you mean the things I say to Franklin, you don’t understand. When I write those things, I’m cracking up with laughter. I wish he would reply in kind. I went to Dublin once. Loved it. But I was amazed to see they have this thing too. They call each other foul names and no one minds. Just like us. One man said to me: ‘So you’re a focking Greek from focking Greece. Have a focking Guinness’.
@blue rose: By the way, you use ‘foul language in Greek’ too. You do it every time you use the word ‘eugenics’.
@blue rose: Even though he’s Hispanic.
@Bobby:
I would put nothing passed that little liar at this stage. I something even think he’s a she.
@blue rose: rose, I apologize for my repitition of this assertion, sure I can’t prove it, identity on the internet is miserably hard and was one of the earliest topics discussed by commentators who dealt with the meaning of the internets dynamics. But Ellin, he or she, has so often brought up topics involving burritos, taco’s, hate for hispanics, we should fee guilty for this or that way of thinking involving mass Mexican,etc. immigration, that he/she practically drove me to this conclusion. I find it bizarre, that a Greek person would be so sensitive about this stuff.
@blue rose: It’s ‘past’ not ‘passed’. And you want the Hispanics to learn English?
@Bobby: There are 4 glaring spelling mistakes in your last post. Who told you to go straight to Thinking 101? Was it Rose? Forget Rose. She’s being hunted down right now as we speak by the Supreme Eugenics Council. They’ve discovered a small mutation on her chromosome 12 – it’s a gene that controls the higher cognitive processes (absent in her case). She’s got to go. We can’t have dirty things like that corrupting our gene pool. So, you’re on your own Bobby. OOh, Aah!
@Ellin:
*I* don’t have a higher cognitive function, little girl?
I think that means having a mind ope enough to be able to see all sides of the coin. And that I do have. Unlike yourself, you brainwashed in-the-box thinking little Christian ‘maroon’, passing herself off as having had built a Temple to Zeus, when all the while your silly little backwards pulput-received Christian notions against Eugenics shows through, little girl.
You frightened little girl. Just WAIT until Russia Today sends out more videos of rioting in GREECE, bubba. I’ll post every one of them :) We’ll all enjoy watching the destruction by your own selves of your own little country :) I can’t WAIT til the Spring and Summer riots begin!!! :) Maybe they’ll even attack your little villa with the 8 bedrooms and tear it down, you little feeb:
’8 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 2 storerooms, large study/office, 22m living room (includes open-plan kitchen), 16m dining room (with teak dining table seating 14 people), large entrance hall, private inside parking (sliding gate), small private temple (dedicated to Zeus Eleftherios).
‘The property is not registered ANYWHERE; I have never obtained planning permission for any changes I have made to it; I have never paid any kind of tax on the property.’
https://www.economist.com/users/ellin/comments
@Ellin
‘The property is not registered ANYWHERE; I have never obtained planning permission for any changes I have made to it; I have never paid any kind of tax on the property.’
Incidentally, I didn’t want to tell you this awhile back, but my boys have already gotten this bit of information to the proper authorities. And if that don’t work, we’ve got our top boys who go by stealth in the night to see the job’s done, little girl.
@blue rose: Rose, I commend you for your efficiency in tracking down my posting history. But, as to ‘sending in the boys’ etc, they have much to do. There are another 3 million properties just like mine!
As for rioting, you should try it sometime. Almost as good as sex. When you come to Greece, I’ll arrange one for you to try (rioting, not sex). We can’t do sex until I’ve checked your DNA profile. It’s got to be pristine.
@Ellin:
Little girl, you’re easy enough to track down, and our magic bag is just brim full of tricks
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1
@blue rose: Well, ok, but it doesn’t seem to have worked too well against the Jews, does it? They just waltzed in and took your country away from you without you realizing at all. Now you’re busy trying to get it back by building a White Identity based on …… Runes, Adolf Hitler, and Eugenics. The ‘whako’ springs to mind. But, anyway, keep trying. You never know, pigs might fly (one day).
@Ellin:
Little girl, give us your thoughts on whether a -50 IQ white man should be allowed to breed. So we can get on with the discussion regarding your understanding of Eugenics.
While we hold our breaths waiting for Ellin to give us his thoughts on Eugenics, some here might enjoy this video in the meantime
Brian Eno – Strange Overtones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DQyusKTAh4&feature=my_favorites&list=FLoBK6CH4DfOUkiJAe4JErkw
The whole issue of eugenics is huge. But I don’t see a problem with Israel’s use of it. What they are doing seems reasonable and rational. Reducing the incidence of genetic disease seems rational.
Liberal eugenics (as mentioned below), from what I read clicking on the link, seems different than egalitarian eugenics, but Alex Kurtagic would know better if it’s the same or different. I’d be interested to know because on the face of it I don’t see a problem with liberal eugenics from reading about it at wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
‘Dor Yeshorim, a program which seeks to reduce the incidence of Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis, Canavan disease, Fanconi anemia, familial dysautonomia, glycogen storage disease, Bloom’s Syndrome, Gaucher disease, Niemann-Pick disease, and mucolipidosis IV among certain Jewish communities, is another screening program which has drawn comparisons with liberal eugenics.[187] In Israel, at the expense of the state, the general public is advised to carry out genetic tests to diagnose these diseases early in the pregnancy. If a fetus is diagnosed with one of these diseases, among which Tay-Sachs is the most commonly known, the pregnancy may be terminated, subject to consent.’
Anyways…
It would be best to agree that eugenics is necessary; that it ought to be distanced from alienating IQ fetishists and transhumanism, whose suggestions may be contrary to our best ethnic interests anyway; that it be done as humanely as possible (avoiding abortion, infanticide and euthanasia as much as possible); and never disposing of those who could to contribute to the group.
The libertarian objection to eugenics might be harder to work around, because compulsory eugenic practices are obviously useful at some point. But its easy to see how both public and private health care for people with hereditary disease could be made conditional upon elective sterilisation, and so could state support for people with addictions to drugs and alcohol.
@blue rose: You don’t fool me Rose. Gene therapy (as it’s usually called by sane people) is, of course, perfectly ok. But that’s not what you have in mind with your ‘eugenics’.
You’re drooling over the possibility that, one day, there will be a long list of boxes that you can tick and become other than what you are. What you want is: an olive complexion that tans easily; a perfectly proportioned body; slim hips; a straight nose that comes straight down off the forehead; luxuriant black, wavy hair; almond-shaped eyes; hands that I’ve already told you about; unmatched survival genes; and an IQ to die for. And that, Rose, is why I’m against your ‘eugenics’. You just want what we’ve got but without having to work for it. And not just you – the blacks, the orientals, and the Jews are all going to tick those boxes too.
By the way, check it out: the man with the highest IQ in the world is one of us. He teaches mathematics in France.
@Ellin:
The person with the highest IQ in the world is not an obscure Greek about whom nobody has heard, but a Korean man, Kim Ung Yong (b. 1962) who has an IQ of 210.
In the list of the 8 people with the highest IQs in the world no Greek name is found. Apparently ichor in your veins is not of much help!
BTW, it is simply untrue that all women want to have “luxuriant, black, wavy hair”. Rather they want to have blond hair, hence the wide spread practice bleaching, which you even find among people who racially cannot be blond such as the Japanese.
@Franklin Ryckaert:
Erratum : …wide spread practice of bleaching…
@Franklin Ryckaert: ‘Evangelos Katsioulis, a 35 yearold Greek, who is a math and computer science professor in the University of Lyon, France is the man with the highest IQ (258) in the world’. Google it Franklin and then have the decency to come back here and apologize.
@Franklin Ryckaert: As to the ‘black wavy hair’ is it not obvious Franklin that I’m referring to the male of the species? You know, the one that MILLIONS of the female blond types you mention come to Greece every summer to find. Flights from Stockholm landing every hour on Rhodes full of nothing but Swedish secretaries. Why do you suppose they do that? Could it be that they desire some respite, albeit temporary, from the Franklins of this world? I don’t know. You explain it. (ton perneis)
@Ellin:
No, no apology is required. When I google “highest IQ in the world” I get several entries in nearly all of which the Korean Kim Ung Yong (IQ 210) is mentioned. Only in one an 11-year old Indian girl, Vishalini (IQ 225) is mentioned, but no Greeks.
When I google “highest IQ in the world Greek” I get : 35-year old Greek, who teaches mathematics at the university of Lyon, but his name is Nikos Lygeros and his IQ is 189.
When I google : “Evangelos Katsioulis” (of course I couldn’t have known his name, until you told me), I get a youtube and a few other rather obscure entries with no mention of an IQ of 258. I am however prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt and consider the possibility that this man has indeed such a high IQ but that he simply is not yet well known in the world.
Anyway for the Greeks at large it doesn’t help much as their average national IQ is 92, the one but lowest of the white world (only Croatia has lower : 90).
What this means has to be seen in the global context.
There is such a thing as a racial hierarchy in terms of IQ.
In the highest tier is the yellow world :
107 : Hong Kong, 106 : South Korea, 105 : Taiwan, 103 : Singapore (only for 76,8% Chinese).
Then comes the white world :
102 : Austria, Germany, Italy, Netherlands.
101 : Sweden, Switzerland.
100 : Belgium, China (PRC), New Zealand, UK.
99 : Hungary, Poland.
98 : Australia, Denmark, France, Norway, USA.
97 : Canada, Czechia, Finland, Spain.
96 : Russia, Slovakia, Uruguay.
95 : Portugal, Slovenia.
94 : Israel (!), Romania.
93 : Bulgaria, Ireland.
92 : Greece, Malaysia.
91 : Thailand.
90 : Croatia, Peru, Turkey.
As you see Greece and Croatia, the lowest of the white world, already overlap with the brown world.
Now the brown world proper. This ranges from 89 Indonesia down to 78 Qatar and contains Arabs, Iranians, Indians, South East Asians, Mestizos and other mixed-race peoples.
The lowest is the black world, ranging from 77 Zambia to 59 Equatorial Guinea ( there are only black countries in this category).
Then you have the lowest of all : 62 Australian Aboriginals and 54 Bushmen and Pygmies (for comparison the “IQ” of an intelligent dog is estimated at 40).
So there you have it, the Greeks are the one but least intelligent people of the white world and no genius like an Evangelos Katsioulis (if he is real) can change that.
Etsi ine i pragmatikotis. Sygnomi!
.
@Franklin Ryckaert: There are 3 subjects I avoid like the plague: national suicide rates, national IQ levels, and football. The first two are usually discussed in the manner of the third. In England, they call it a ‘pissing contest’ i.e. who can piss the furthest. Not for me Franklin. But I will say this.
Psychologists now distinguish several types of intelligence: emotional, athletic etc. I assume you are aware of that. Take emotional intelligence. That was discovered when they gave an IQ test to all staff at many companies including the bosses. To their surprise, they found that in none of the firms did the boss have the highest IQ. So, what did he have? He was the boss after all. They called it emotional intelligence – knowing how to co-opt others to your purpose.
So, I am quite willing to accept that a Russian in his lonely and freezing apartment in Moscow – doing nothing but reading and playing chess all day – can repeat more digits backwards than I can. And I give him credit for that. But that is not really intelligence is it? Raising humanity from the Simian state and ruling much of the world for the past 3000 years must constitute some kind of intelligence, don’t you think? But, then again, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Greece is on a par with Malaysia. If it comforts you, believe it.
@Ellin:
“they called it “Emotional Intelligence”….knowing hoe to co-opt others to your purpose.”
I call it Big Brother Syndrome; Being born 1st, rich, and good looking.
I am a forth born consecutive son of poor parents who quit school in the seventh grade, but was at least two grades behind in actual ability. So I function at the fifth grade level in most areas. But…I speak two languages, am an inventor, a dog trainer, musician/singer/songwriter with an IQ of 118 according to the Minisota Multiphasic Personality Inventory aka MMPI
What makes people successful is EGO; (one will have as much money as they think they are worth) It is really no more complicated than that.
This is the reason 1st borns are so successful, they had the undivided attention of their parents (Not neglect/abused too much) and so developed a high sense of self worth.
@Ellin:
I know that some people talk about “emotional intelligence” or even “athletic intelligence”. It is advisable however to use the general term “talent” and then call intelligence proper “intellectual talent” besides all other kinds of talents. In this way we will avoid calling a stupid man who can run fast “athletically intelligent”, better call him athletically talented.
As for “emotional intelligence” , what is really meant with this term is social talent i.e. the talent to get along with people. For success in life this is of course very important, as seen in your example of the bosses of companies who often are not so intelligent (intellectually talented) but who definitely must be socially talented.
It is also better not to talk about “artistic intelligence”, better use the term “artistic talent”. The talent of creative visual imagination (in the case of painters) or of creative auditive imagination (in the case of composers) is really different from what is usually meant with intelligence. In the modern West analytical intelligence is mostly one-sidedly stressed, hence the inclination to call all kinds of talents “intelligence”.
BTW, Malaysia consists for 30% of Chinese, and those people have a high IQ. So when it is said that Greece and Malaysia have the same IQ, it doesn’t mean that Greeks have the same IQ as Malays (mia mikri parigoria).
@Franklin Ryckaert: Thank you for the comfort – I always thought we might have the edge on native Malays.
Look at the email above yours from Henry. It’s rare that I totally agree with anyone on this site but that sums it up nicely. I’m reminded of Musashi’s saying: ‘Learn to distinguish what is important from what is not important’. For me, as for Henry, IQ tests are just not important. We’re too busy succeeding in life – and enjoying life.
@Ellin:
Ellin – this is a funny UK Indian series about a character that reminds me of you a little (in a humourous way). He keeps going on about how everything is indian.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln5QgeCL1fs
@Franklin Ryckaert: While we’re on the subject, IQ isn’t the only bad predictor of success. Race is another one.
You remind me of a museum curator Franklin. You’re so prissy about everything being in its place: ‘I have pronounced you a brown person with a low IQ. You shall not succeed. Go back to your cabinet in the Retards Hall’. You see the world the way you want to see it and the way you want it to be. It’s a dangerous and losing strategy.
It’s dangerous because you’ll never defeat the Jews that way. My advice is, abandon this belief in your innate superiority, roll your sleeves up, and get in there and prove your superiority. Don’t take false comfort from these IQ tests. As the New York taxi driver said to one of his obnoxious customers: ‘if you’re so f***ing clever, why ain’t you got any f***ing money?’
@Mickey Meadows: Two remarks: first, it’s a very old series – seen it.
Second, he’s wrong about everything being Indian – how can it be, if it’s all Greek? Come on, Mickey, you’re not thinking straight.
@Ellin:
Ellin I agree…even the series is Greek. They do look Greek:o)
@Mickey Meadows: It’s possible – we conquered them so we probably left a lot of our DNA behind.
@Mickey Meadows:
LOL; this is a funny skit.
On a more serious note, I HIGHLY recommend the movie “the Namesake” and the book by the same title, written by Jhumpa Lahiri. Brilliant movie; Warning, there is no sex or violence though it does say a lot about what is wrong with America.
@Ellin:
First you said : ‘…check it out : the man with the highest IQ in the world is one of us…”
When I said that I could only find a Korean man with an IQ of 210 but no Greek, you insisted that it was Evangelos Katsioulis with an IQ of 258. I should google it and then come back and “have the decency to apologize”. When I wrote back that I found him but with no definite information about his IQ and added that Greece’s national IQ is 92 , the one but lowest of all white countries and equal to Malaysia, you suddenly began talking about “emotional intelligence” and how that is more important to succeed in life. Finally you wrote : “For me, as for Henry, IQ tests are just not important. We are too busy succeeding in life and enjoying life.”
Well, Ellin this is a classical example of sour grapes, you know from Aesop’s fable The Fox and the Grapes , where a fox tries to get grapes from a tree, fails and then says that they are sour so that he doesn’t want them anyway. First you start boasting about a Greek with a super high IQ, suggesting that you find that important, then when I say that Greeks have on average a rather low IQ you say that IQ isn’t actually that important. Sour grapes indeed!
hmm, isos o anadelfos laos ine anexypnos laos?.
@Ellin: Who cares about spelling mistakes? Only those that have nothing better to say. How are you connected to La Raza is the question I’ve asked you twenty times.
@Franklin Ryckaert: I mentioned the Greek with the highest IQ as a humorous aside. Surely a man with your IQ would understand that. No? Must be something wrong with IQ tests.
@Bobby: Now, now, Bobby. Just because they gave you a uniform and a whistle and put you in charge of trailer park security. Don’t go imagining ‘reds under the bed’ all the time. You’all have a good day now.
Are things here always off topic slanging matches, there’s two people in this thread would be banned at many places IMO, and it must look bad.
@Skadhi_the_Raverner: It is an ongoing problem. It is sad really. And, yes it does look bad.
“A moral statement for White racial consciousness founded on notions of superiority would not likely gain traction in a society that understands implictly, however explicitly egalitarian, that Whites are cognitively at the top of the human league, if just under Ashkenazi Jews and South East Asians.”
*Northeast Asians, you mean.
South East Asians are Thai, Cambodian, and Vietnamese and in this writer’s opinion (from actually traveling to those places), they are less intelligent than Europeans. Northeast Asians excel over us in some areas; but even with respect to those areas I hesitate to say they are more intelligent than us as a whole. Certainly they have something over us which IQ scores do reflect.
@Ellin:
IQ tests that tested me or that Greek? (efthumografi paratirisis).
@Franklin Ryckaert: Franklin, you mentioned once that you are Dutch. I’d like to confide something in you. I’ve never liked the Dutch and I’d like to tell you why. Actually, there are 5 reasons but I’m only going to talk about one here. The others, I’ll Just list without comment:
1. You spawned the Afrikaaners
2. Your language is an affront to the human ear
3. The very, very loose morals of your women
4. Your cowardly dereliction of duty at Srebrenitsa
5. Your cowardly performance in WW2.
It is only the last of these that I wish to say something about.
There is a group of countries in Europe whose performance in WW2 miserable and cowardly. They basically allowed others to do the fighting and dying for them. Apart from the Dutch, this group is made up of Denmark, Sweden, and Switzerland.
In the case of Holland, all it took were a few aerial bombardments of Rotterdam to bring you to heel. After the war, you and the other bunch, were relatively unscathed and took advantage of the general destruction of the rest of Europe to get a head start in trade and commerce.
Why do I mention this now? Because for you to turn round now and look down on Greece after the price we paid for taking a manly stand in WW2 is contemptible. This is what Hitler said in a speech to the Reichstag on 4 May 1941: ‘For the sake of historical truth I must verify that ONLY the Greeks, of ALL the adversaries who confronted us, fought with bold courage and highest disregard of death’.
Now, run along and Google it and don’t come back again to tell me you can’t find it. Then wash your mouth out three times Dutchman before the word ‘Greece’ crosses your lips. Even to praise Greece is way above your station.
@Ellin:
Cherete
Here are my answers :
1) The Afrikaaners made a modern, first world country out of a wasteland. To protect their identity they practised apartheid, under which the Blacks had a far better life than they have now. Their major fault was to think that this situation could go on for ever. They should have reserved part of the country for themselves and settle the Blacks in the rest. They didn’t and now they have lost everything.
2) It is difficult to judge your own language, but I can imagine that others don’t find that Dutch sounds beautiful (I personally find Italian sounds more beautiful). The “ugliness” of Dutch lies perhaps in the much used sound of ch, often in combination with s or even s and r : sch, schr, but doesn’t Greek also have such sounds, like in chora or schedon?
3) That is only since the 1960′s when in the whole Western world this degeneration set in. Perhaps it comes as no surprise that a popular TV show that mocked all traditional values and virtually started this whole process was stage-managed by a Jew.
4) Very cowardly indeed. I can only say that is was part of a whole structure of cowardly behaviour of the European powers present at the time. But it was shameful.
5) This was a typical case of force majeure, a small, ill prepared country against a formidable power. The government had hoped to stay out of the war again like in WWI when its neutrality was respected by Germany. The battle was already lost when the Germans threatened to bomb the whole of Rotterdam if we refused to surrender. Further sacrifices would be pointless.
Sweden and Switzerland were neutral, if you call that cowardly. Denmark, same as Holland : a small and ill prepared country.
The Greeks did indeed fight bravely (already in Albania), that must be said. I give honor where honor is deserved.
With this let’s end this conversation, other people here are getting irritated already.
Ya sou.
@Ellin: Still can’t answer the question, proving you’ve been nailed kiddo. Have a nice day.
There is a group of countries in Europe whose performance in WW2 miserable and cowardly. They basically allowed others to do the fighting and dying for them. Apart from the Dutch, this group is made up of Denmark, Sweden, and Switzerland.
If only more countries had fought that fratricidal war more “cowardly” , then whites would not be in the mess today.
Some things are not worth fighting for . Too bad more of the british and americans and the greeks , etc etc , were not wise enough to know this.
If Americans are to refuse to fight Iranians since they would be fighting for the sake of lies and war propaganda and to further the same zionist global agenda , will they be cowardly too ?
@John hearns: Your point is hardly worth answering.
Resistance was necessary in WW2 because Germany INVADED. When you’re invaded, you’re supposed to fight.
Iran isn’t invading anyone’s country.
Try to understand and don’t try to make cheap points. You’re talking about war dead. Show a little respect.
@Bobby: Are you sure you got to 5th grade?
@Bobby: Burrito-lover
@Ellin:
“Your point is hardly worth answering.
Resistance was necessary in WW2 because Germany INVADED. When you’re invaded, you’re supposed to fight.
Iran isn’t invading anyone’s country.
Try to understand and don’t try to make cheap points. You’re talking about war dead. Show a little respect.”
Exactly. It amazes me how people just can’t seem to get it through their skulls that Germany (and even Japan) were invaded and that the Western countries doing the invading were never at any risk of invasion to begin with. Yet, Germany is still the sacrificial lamb. People just don’t want to accept facts. And then they stamp their feet that liberals won’t accept facts about IQ. It’s very hypocritical.
@John hearns: Your point is hardly worth answering.
Resistance was necessary in WW2 because Germany INVADED. When you’re invaded, you’re supposed to fight.
Iran isn’t invading anyone’s country.
Try to understand and don’t try to make cheap points. You’re talking about war dead. Show a little respect.
*yawn*
Your take on history shows you to be very common.
If truth were to be known, and it is by some, I wonder how many would see Germany more as liberator than invader. Certainly most of Europe would see it that way today as it is being invaded from all points third world.
In respect to the war dead let the truth be told.
@Ellin:
your history literally is 4th grade public school.
@Ellin:
Ooops. I just realized I misread your post when I responded previously. I read “was invaded” instead of “invaded.” Yeah, I echo the posters who say you are evoking grade school history. It does not follow that because Germany had a land dispute with Poland (which was legitimate), that the “Allies” were right to destroy Germany. Germany offered peace twice. It was rejected because England would rather have destroyed Germany than been second fiddle in Europe. They also sabotaged German/Polish relations so that war over Danzig was inevitable. Not a sound value judgment on England’s part to say the least.
Under your logic, Germany is responsible for everything, but the “Allies” are exonerated for escalating the war at every turn.
@John hearns: ‘Germany as ‘liberator’. You wish, Fritz!
@John hearns: Learn first to begin your sentences with a capital letter, Fritz. Then you can lecture me on ‘history’.
@Ellin:
Ellin – have you considered offering pop-up spelling/grammar services in applications like Microsoft Word?
It occurs to me that with the worsening unemployment situation one-to-one advice in such applications would make sense for a lot of people. I would much prefer getting an actual person than a dumb piece of software.
I am considering becoming part of a ‘door bell’ system for a rich household, where the caller pulls a rope the other end knotted to my neck…
@Mickey Meadows: You forgot to take the pill again, Fritz.
ah elly , you have resorted to matters of punctuation.
such importance.
*shrugs shoulders*
@John hearns: I thought it was important to YOU that Hispanics and others learn English. A fine example you set, Fritz (not that your German is any better).
As the author of a novel that deals with the approaching extinction of whites amidst a world of teeming non-whites, I had to decide why whites deserved to survive.
The answer, for me, was simple: whites are the spark of fire in the cold night of humanity. They are the flame that burns bright, the torch that lights the way, the streak of flame in the heavens above.
If eugenics eventually create a Universal Man, however – one that is equally intelligent and creative no matter the color – then whites as whites need no longer survive. At such a point, having blue eyes, for instance, will merely be a fashion choice – and not an indicator of any deeper significance, as was true in my novel Hold Back This Day.
If Universal Man ever comes about, one that is equal in capability and intelligence to every other man, then whites should lay down their swords and struggle no more. For us, it will surely be that final good night.
But that day has not yet come. I hope it never does.
The Future of Whites On Earth…If We Fail