|
|
Race and Religion: Awkward Friends of the White Man, Part I
Tom Sunic
January
8, 2010
There is a widespread idea among White nationalists
worldwide that Whites need to resurrect their Christian heritage in order to be
better able to retrieve their racial, religious and cultural identity. Another
proposal common among White nationalists is that the liberal system needs to put
an end to non-White, non-Christian immigration, which would then pave the way
for polishing up the vanishing White gene pool. Another far-flung idea is that
the influence of Jews must be curtailed if not stopped altogether, so that all
social ills can be cured. Last but not least, the liberal system needs to be
replaced by a nationalist, nativist, populist, “right wing”, White government.
However credible these proposals sound, they are naive
in their formulations, superficial in scope, and dangerous in their possible
implementation. They deal with the political consequences of the problem rather
than probing into its philosophical and historical causes. Even if miraculously
all non-White, non-Christian residents were to disappear from America and the
European Union and even if all liberal policies were to be abandoned, it is
unlikely that the White man would solve deep-rooted problems of his own racial
and religious identity.
Science and Quackery
Before even attempting to offer some salutary
suggestions, one must be aware of the oppressive weight of the dominant ideas
and their “scientific” — aka “politically correct” — ambience in the modern
liberal system. Our postmodern epoch is profoundly saturated by egalitarian and
economistic dogmas. Regardless how much empirical artillery one can muster in
defence of the uniqueness of the White gene pool, and regardless of how many
facts one can enumerate that point to diverse intellectual achievements of
different races, no such evidence will elicit social or academic approval. In
fact, if loudly uttered, the evidence may be considered a felony in some Western
countries. In our so-called free and secular society, new religions, such as the
religion of racial promiscuity and the theology of the free market have replaced
the old Christian belief system. Only when these new secular dogmas or political
theologies start crumbling down — which may soon be the case — alternative views
about race and the meaning of the sacred may appear.
The historical
irony is that it was not the Other, i.e. the non-White, who invented the arsenal
of bashing the White man. It was the White man himself — both with his Christian
atonement and now with his liberal expiation of the feelings of guilt.
Therefore, any arguments
offered in defence of racial separation will inevitably be perceived by the
Other, i.e. by a non-White (and his guilt-ridden White masters) as racist. Not
wanting to contravene the moral imperatives that they invented, Western man must
once again posture as an example of global justice that needs to be copied by
all races — albeit this time around as a negative role model.
Alain de Benoist
writes that
liberalism has been a racist system par excellence. In the late 19th century, it
preached exclusive racism. Now, in the
21th century it preaches inclusive
racism.
By herding non European races from all
over the world into a rootless a-racial and a-historical agnostic consumer
society and by preaching ecumenical miscegenation, the West nonetheless holds
its undisputed role of a truth maker — of course, this time around under the
auspices of the self-hating, self-flagellating White male.
It must be stated
that it was not the Colored, but the White man who had crafted the ideology of
self-denial and the concomitant ideology of universal human rights, as well as
the ideas of interracial promiscuity. Therefore, any modest scholarly argument
suggesting proofs of racial inequality is untenable today. How can one
persuasively argue about the existence of different races if the modern system
lexically,
conceptually, scientifically,
ideologically, theologically, and
last, but not least, judicially,
forbids the slightest idea of race segregation — except when it evokes skin-deep
exotic escapades into musical and culinary prowess of non-European races?
Most American White
nationalists use Thomas Jefferson as their patron saint, frequently associating
his name with “good old times” of the American Declaration of Independence. Those were the times when the White man was
indeed in command of his destiny. The White founding fathers
stated: “We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these
are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Yet the abstract words
“all men” combined with the invocation of a deistic and distant “creator” had a
specific significance in the mind of Enlightenment-groomed Jefferson. Two
hundred years later, however, his words ring a different bell in the ears of a
real Muslim Somali or a Catholic Cholo planning to move to the United States.
Who can, therefore
deny to masses of non-European non-Christian immigrants from all parts of the
world to freely extrapolate,
for
their own racial
benefit, Jefferson’s words that “all
men are created equal”? The self-perception of Jefferson and his Enlightenment-influenced
compatriots of 18th-century Europe and America were light miles away from the
perception of his words by today’s non-Whites in search of “the American dream.”
Wailing and whining that “Jefferson did not mean this; he meant that” — is a
waste of time. Similar to many historical documents claiming
“scientific “ or “self-evident” nature, be they of the religious,
historical or judicial provenance, the American Declaration bears witness to the
classical cleavage between the former signifier and the modern signified which
has become the subject of its own semantic sliding — with ominous consequences
for Whites worldwide.
A witty Southern
antebellum lawyer, a racialist writer, with a good sense of the language, John
Fitzhugh, calls Jefferson’s words “abstractions”.
The verbal tricks such as "we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men
are created equal”, are bottomless
pits out of which torrents of modern new demands keep arising:
It is, we believe, conceded on all hands, that men are not born
physically, morally or intellectually equal — some are males, some females, some
from birth large, strong, and healthy, others weak, small and sickly — some are
naturally amiable, others prone to all kinds of wickedness — some brave others
timid.
(George Fitzhugh,
Sociology for the South, or the Failure of
Free Society 1854, pp.177-178).
Contemporary
geneticists and biologists are no less vulnerable than philosophers and
sociologists to dominant political theologies. What was considered scientific
during the first part of the 20th century in Europe and the United States by
many prominent scholars writing about race is viewed today as preposterous and
criminal. The dominant dogma idea of egalitarianism must give its final blessing
in explaining or explaining away any scientific discovery.
This is
particularly true regarding the endless debate about “nature vs. nurture”
(heredity vs. environment). If one accepts the dominant idea that the factor of
environment (“nurture”) is crucial in shaping the destiny of different races —
then it is useless to talk about differences among races. If all individuals,
all races, are equal, they are expandable and replaceable at will!
The dogma of the inheritance of acquired
characteristics is a matter of life or death for Marxism.
This was recognized with precision by the Soviet rulers…. As
[Fritz] Lenz, one of the
most important eugenicists [“racial
hygienists”] pointed out, the Soviet rulers must for one obvious
reason cling on to the doctrine of the inheritance of acquired characteristics.
They need this doctrine for calming their conscience. If everything really
depends on the environment, this means that the slaughtering carried out by
Bolshevism of so many carriers of valuable hereditary endowment, is not an
irreparable loss, but rather a state-regulated change of the environment.
(Gustav Franke,
Vererbung
und Rasse [Heredity and Race],
1938, 1943, pp. 113-114; my trans.)
Needless to say,
Franke, Lenz and thousands of German and other European anthropologists,
geneticians and biologists disappeared from the reading list, after being
denounced either as “bad Nazis” or “atheists”. Although the field of the former
Soviet social sciences is considered today as quackery, its egalitarian, Marxist
residue of omnipotent
inheritance of acquired characteristics is
religiously pursued
by the post-Christian, neoliberal capitalist West. In layman’s terms, this means
that the floodgates for mass immigration of non-Europeans must be kept wide
open. Racial promiscuity and miscegenation must be enforced. It is science! It
is the law!
Racial Promiscuity in the Age of High IQ Morons
“Dorks”, “idiots”,
“morons”, “halfwits”, “dimwits”, are words used daily in the portrayal of our
pesky interlocutors. But what if some of our intelligent interlocutors are
indeed stupid? It is a historical truism that most world explorers, famous
statesmen, most scientists, most Nobel prize winners, have been White people
with predominantly Nordic stature and dolichocephalic skull.
It is a truism that most prisoners in America and Europe are crossbreeds
of non-European out-groups, with the remnants of Whites, whose criminal record
can be traced to inborn genetic disorders in their family tree. A long time ago
William Sadler, a forgotten eugenicist from the Chicago Medical School, wrote a
book about “the aristocracy of the unfit”
that cannot be improved by any amount of do-good sermonizing:
“Mental
defectiveness (moronism) is hereditary and constitutional, and consequently not
amenable to our preachings, asylums, hospitals, reformatories, penitentiaries,
etc. We must ever bear in mind that each year a new quota of defectives is born
with statistical regularity.” (Race
Decadence, 1922, p. 254).
The modern media-induced dumbing down process, combined with inborn mental
deficiencies of an ever growing number of White people is being accelerated by
massive inflow of low IQ immigrants, already conditioned to capitalize on
post-Christian and liberal guilt feelings of the White man. As in the ex-Soviet
Union, the dominant theology of egalitarianism and TV shows incessantly
role-modeling interracial sex only accelerate the culture of mediocrity and the
culture of death.
People get arrested for financial fraud or homicide. Yet professors in
humanities in America and Europe, when propagating Lamarckian science fiction
and egalitarian pipe dreams get promoted. A physiologist and a Nobel Prize
winner, the late French racialist
Charles Richet, in
his book “The Stupid Man” (L’homme stupide,
1919),
understood that high IQ is not a trademark of intellectual
disinterestedness or a sign of value free judgments. Stupid, abnormal decisions
are often made by high IQ people, who are driven by utopian belief systems.
High IQ among
Whites, if not accompanied but good character, psychological introspection,
nobility of spirit and a sense of honor — is worthless. The architects of the
largest serial genocides in the history of mankind, writes Rudolf Kommos (Juden
hinter Stalin, 1938, 1944),
were intelligent
Bolsheviks, mostly of Jewish origin, whose inborn millenarian, eschatological
and chiliastic mindset, had led them to believe that dozens of millions of
Russian civilians needed be wiped out.
Stupidity does not mean that a person has not
understood something; rather it means that he behaves as if he did not
understand anything. When a person
moves headlong toward disaster in order to satisfy his prejudices, his errors,
his defective and false reasoning — this is inexcusable. It is far better to be
deprived of intelligence than to make poor use of it.... Judging by our acts we
become more stupid as we become less ignorant.
(Charles Richet,
L’homme stupide, 1919), p 15.( my trans.)
European and American history has been full of highly intelligent individuals
endorsing abnormal religious and political beliefs. This is in particularly true
for many temporary White European and American left-leaning academics who,
although showing high IQ, are narrow-minded, spineless individuals of no
integrity, or race traitors of dubious character. Low IQ Cholos or affirmative
action Blacks are just happy pawns in their conspiratorial and suicidal game.
The father of European racialism and a man whose work left an important impact
on the study of race in the early 20th century,
Georges Vacher
de Lapouge, summarized how cultivated men, when driven by theological or
ideological passions, commit deadly mistakes:
It is virtually impossible to change by means of
education the intellectual type of an individual, however intelligent he may be.
Any education will be impotent to provide him with audacity and initiative. It
is heredity that decides on his gifts. I was often surprised by the intensity of
gregarious spirit amidst the most instructed men. ... Each minor manifestation
of an independent idea hurts them; they reject a priori everything as pernicious
errors that has not been taught to them by their masters. (Georges
Vacher de Lapouge, Les sélections sociales,
1896, p.104; my trans.)
Is
this not a proof that the worst enemy of the White man can often be his fellow
White man?
To be continued.
Tom Sunic (http://www.tomsunic.info;
http://doctorsunic.netfirms.com)
is author, translator, former US professor in political science and a former
Croatian diplomat. He is the author of
Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age
(2007). His new book of essays, Postmortem
Report: Cultural Examinations from Postmodernity, prefaced by Kevin
MacDonald, will soon be released.
Email him.
Permanent link: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Sunic-RaceV.html
