White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy

The Wall in a Nutshell: It’s About White Racial Consciousness and the “Browning of America”

Of all things Trump, the most defining and distinguishing is his advocacy of, and identification with, a wall to curb illegal immigration across our southern border. It was the signature issue in the announcement of his candidacy, an issue no other major candidate would have dared to advocate, an issue that catapulted him into an immediate lead in the polls, and an issue which gained him the immediate and unprecedentedly vehement and bitter opposition and hatred of the “left-wing” media (even greater than their hatred of Nixon, with endemic comparisons to Hitler) and all the other branches of the Anti-White Coalition that dominates the political, corporate, academic, media and cultural establishment.1

Despite the dissimulating and misdirecting rhetoric to the contrary, chiefly from establishment Republican politicians, operatives and “strategists” attempting to rationalize their support for the wall by any means other than race, the wall is widely — and correctly — seen as very much about race, as part of the larger issue of mass non-White immigration and the displacement of Whites as the majority population group and their dispossession and replacement by non-Whites. So it is not surprising that its support and opposition are sharply divided on racial lines. Non-Whites (including semi-European and non-European Caucasians) know that the wall is about race and so they overwhelmingly oppose it. Mass support for the wall is limited to Whites, but because Whites are less racially conscious and because they are less motivated by their racial interests — and therefore more racially divided on political lines — than non-Whites, they support it by only a slight majority.2

While the debate over the wall has been exclusively defined in terms of secondary issues by its proponents, carefully evading and even denying the primary racial issue, its more radical opponents have been honest (and correct) to express their opposition to it racially, defining it as a racist (i.e., pro-White) and therefore immoral means to slow the racial transformation of the country from White to non-White now openly referred to, celebrated and advocated as the “browning of America.” The more moderate opponents of the wall, like its proponents, prefer to dissimulate and evade the racial issue by justifying their opposition in terms of secondary concerns, such as its cost (negligible compared to the expenses associated with illegal immigration) or its supposed ineffectiveness, with the strength of their opposition being the most accurate indicator of how effective they really fear it would be. But for both sides the wall is not really about the money. It’s about the racial future of the country. Read more

Another Moral Panic about Race: James Watson Again Excoriated for His Belief in a Genetic Basis for Race Differences in IQ

Editor’s note: I have posted two articles on the controversies surrounding Nicholas Wade and James Watson, both from 2014. Watson is in the news once again because he reaffirmed his belief in the genetic basis of Black-White IQ differences, resulting (of course) in a scathing article in the New York Times by one Amy Harmon. The article notes that despite apologizing “publicly” and “unreservedly,” Watson was forced to retire from his research position, resulting in a drastic loss of income. Since then, he “has been largely absent from the public eye. His speaking invitations evaporated. In 2014, he became the first living Nobelist to sell his medal, citing a depleted income from having been designated a “nonperson.’’

The latest NYTimes moral panic about Watson includes a comment that Watson’s views have been “supported” by “white supremacists,” with links to someone whose anonymous Twitter handle is Neo (with a grand total of 820 followers — Ms Harmon was clearly at great pains to find such a person ) and to videoblogger Stephan Molyneux, respectively. Here’s a recent tweet by Molyneux that reflects a race realist view on IQ but clearly denies that these differences have anything to do with “White supremacy.” Just the opposite. 

The problem with ruling out a genetic basis for race differences is that, as reflected in Molyneux’s tweet, the result is to invoke environmental explanations of Black and Latino academic failure, and of course this leads the hegemonic academic and media left to blame White “racism” for any failure of Blacks or Latinos — despite a complete lack of scientific evidence and while ignoring the success of some non-White minorities in historically White societies. If Whites are racist, surely they would have prevented upward mobility by Jews and East Asians. As noted below in a section on J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen, environmental explanations have a long history of failure to explain the difference.

Once again, we see the power of the left to censor inconvenient truths. James Watson must remain a non-person, his reputation forever destroyed:

Eric Lander, the director of the Broad Institute of M.I.T. and Harvard, elicited an outcry last spring with a toast he made to Dr. Watson’s involvement in the early days of the Human Genome Project. Dr. Lander quickly apologized.

“I reject his views as despicable,” Dr. Lander wrote to Broad scientists. “They have no place in science, which must welcome everyone. I was wrong to toast, and I’m sorry.’’

Science must welcome everyone? There is zero evidence that academic science has excluded people because of their race. On the other hand, Asians, especially East Asians, are ubiquitous in research in the hard sciences. No one is being un-welcomed because of their race. Blacks who can perform at the level needed to be a research scientist (probably IQ>140) would be welcomed with open arms.  

Here I post two previous comments, both dealing with the controversy surrounding James Watson. However, because Nicolas Wade’s book A Troublesome Inheritance came out around the same time as the Watson controversy, they also deal with some of the controversy surrounding Wade.  

Political correctness in reviews of Nicholas Wade’s “A Troublesome Inheritance”

There are a wide range of reviews of Nicholas Wade’s A Troublesome Inheritance, but some difficult implications are downplayed.  

1. With few exceptions (e.g., Jared Taylor, “Nicholas Wade takes on the regime” and Bo and Ben Winegard, “Darwin’s dual with Descartes“), a common tactic is to acknowledge that race exists but then claim that evidence for a genetic basis for race differences is completely speculative. Despite the central importance of race differences, Wade deemphasizes IQ research where most of the research has centered.

A good example of this tendency is evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne who agrees with Wade that races do exist and claims that “except for politically motivated denialists,” we have known that for a long time. (Actually, the idea that race is real is big news to pretty much the entire faculty in the social sciences and the humanities these days, but of course it is not at all far-fetched to label them “politically motivated denialists.”)

So, if for no other  reason, Wade’s book is most welcome. However the next move is to claim that there is absolutely no evidence for genetic differences between races. Coyne:

Wade’s main thesis, and where the book goes wrong, is to insist that differences between human societies, including differences that arose in the last few centuries, are based on genetic differences—produced by natural selection— in the behavior of individuals within those societies.  In other words, societal differences largely reflect their differential evolution.

For this Wade offers virtually no evidence, because there is none. We know virtually nothing about the genetic differences (if there are any) in cognition and behavior between human populations.

This is simply false.   J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen list ten categories of evidence based on their previous reviews of the literature:

The worldwide distribution of test scores; the g factor of mental ability; heritability differences; brain size differences; trans-racial adoption studies; racial admixture studies; regression-to-the-mean effects; related life-history traits; human origins research; and the poverty of predictions from culture-only explanations. The preponderance of evidence demonstrates that in intelligence, brain size, and other life-history variables, East Asians average a higher IQ and larger brain than Europeans who average a higher IQ and larger brain than Africans [a recent study indicates average African IQ of 75]. Further, these group differences are 50–80% heritable. These are facts, not opinions and science must be governed by data. There is no place for the ‘‘moralistic fallacy’’ that reality must conform to our social, political, or ethical desires.  (“James Watson’s most inconvenient truth: Race realism and the moralistic fallacy“)

These data cannot be wished away any more than one can wish away the data showing the existence of race. Read more

Did He Just Say That? A Review of “Someone Has to Say It: The Hidden History of How America Was Lost” by Tom Kawczynski

Someone Has to Say It: The Hidden History of How America Was Lost
Tom Kawczynski

Do you ever wonder what happened to America? Do you wonder how we went from a stable, prosperous land in the 1950s — a land whose cities were the jewels of the world with neighborhoods where no one locked their doors and an education system that was second-to-none — to a country where it isn’t safe to walk the streets at night, and where huge numbers of people graduate high school unable to read, but fully convinced that White heterosexual men (particularly those of the working class) are StupidEvilRacistSexistNazisWhoWannaKillSixMillionJews? Do you wonder where strident feminism came from? How about the “trans-gender” agenda? Do you wonder who’s behind the rise of militant black racism or open borders? Or why radical red guard-style communists, masquerading as “anti-fascists”, are free to roam our streets attacking any White person, they deem “racist”, or “sexist”, or “homophobic”, etc., with relative impunity? In short, have you wondered how we lost America?

In January of this year, Tom Kawczynski found himself at the epicenter of a manufactured national media firestorm designed to force him out of his position as the town manager of Jackman, a small community in rural northern Maine, for daring to ask these questions. Jackman’s loss was America’s gain. His forced resignation gave him the time to answer these questions and more.

In Someone Has to Say It: The Hidden History of How America Was Lost, Kawczynski weaves a tangle of apparently disparate threads into a sweeping historical account of the consolidation of globalist power that defines the history of the last century in the West; it tells the story of how we’ve become who we are. His slim (238-page), compelling “popular history” offers an expansive vision enhanced by his fluid style and sustained with remarkable clarity. It contains many insights, and touches upon every major issue of our time — from economics to the politics of identity, from the failure of our school system to the shadowy power of the “Deep State.” “This book is about the destruction of beliefs we once held”, Kawczynski writes, “and ideas that were important to us.” The following is a short list of just some of the topics about which our beliefs and ideas have been destroyed:

  • race
  • the battle of the sexes
  • the queer agenda
  • immigration
  • communism
  • socialism
  • World War II
  • hyper-taxation combined with federal mandates to local communities
  • the military-industrial complex
  • the security/police state
  • the controlled media
  • the myth of perpetual growth
  • invade the world/invite the world
  • the drug epidemic
  • the Kennedy assassination
  • respectable conservatives
  • technology
  • and much, much more

Read more

Populist-Socialism: The Economy of the White Ethno-State

Little consideration is given to the economic foundations of a White ethno-state. While many in the Alt-Right know conceptually what an ethno-state should be like in the abstract sense of demographics, the minutia of public and economic policy to obtain or maintain such a state is lost. While not exhaustive, the following paper is intended to steer conversations into more concrete terms addressing the economy of a White ethno-state. That is, an anti-materialist economy that serves the nation, versus the nation serving the economy in materialistic capitalism and socialist-communism. A Third Position meshing of populist and socialism is proposed.

The demagogues on the left and right both use the terms populist and socialist to malign their political opponents. Populism has become synonymous with right-wing authoritarianism to the left. The same argument is used by conservatives to associate socialism with communism. Indeed, the populist primacy of the people and the socialist primacy of the class are seen as contradictory ideals. In reality, elements of populism and socialism can be complementary to one another in a dynamic economy. Socialism’s securing the welfare of the people and populism’s emphasis on the common man’s economic growth and interests are not antagonistic to one another, but complimentary.

To many, the concept of socialism is distinctly leftist. Historically, Socialism has been associated with Marxism and “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” This Marxist Socialism aims at the elimination of all hierarchy which is natural to man. Communism aimed at the flattening out of wages and elimination of class distinctions altogether. Read more

Review of Kerry Bolton’s “Yockey: A Fascist Odyssey”

Kerry Bolton, Yockey: A Fascist Odyssey (Arktos, 2018)

What follows is my foreword to Kerry Bolton’s recently released book on Francis Parker Yockey.

This is the first time an exhaustive work on the prominent Euro-American Fascist activist and philosopher, Francis Parker Yockey, is being offered to a wide readership in the English-speaking world.  Naturally, for starters, a big question that comes to mind immediately is, “what’s the point of reading Bolton’s thick book and how relevant is Yockey’s anti-Communism and anti-Liberalism in dealing with the ongoing decay of the multicultural West, which is currently subject to an open invasion of non-European masses?” Since Bolton often uses the German word “Zeitgeist” in his description of the dominant political ideas of Yockey’s time, a neophyte might likewise wonder if and how Yockey’s political prognoses are being validated by the dominant political ideas of our time. For many nationalist old-timers, both in Europe and America, Yockey is a household name that is indispensable in studying the intellectual developments of cultural Fascism, yet, for many young identitarians today, regardless whether they sport the name Alt-Right, New Right or Traditionalists, the name Yockey, along with his magnum opus Imperium, may sound a bit outdated. Read more

“Suppressing a Truth of Nature Does Not Make It Go Away”: Guillaume Durocher Interviewed by Hubert Collins

Hubert Collins: You have written a lot—you have nearly 100 posts on Counter Currents alone, plus dozens more spread out across American RenaissanceThe Occidental ObserverThe Occidental Quarterly, and Radix. In as few words as possible: what motivates it?

Guillaume Durocher: I am thinking out loud, clarifying and systematizing my thoughts, sometimes encapsulating them in a succinct and evocative way. I am also trying to entice others to come down the rabbit hole . . .

Were you a voracious writer before you got involved in the dissident right? What did you write on before your primary focus became race? How did that transition take place?

I wrote about politics and economics. If you are really pursuing the truth and sticking to it, as I like to think I am doing, you’ll fall foul of some dogma sooner or later. In my case, this was the value of the nation. The nation-state is something which the authorities in Europe today openly despise. Raised as a good “end-of-history” democrat, I was appalled that European elites were shifting ever-more power from citizens to unaccountable international bureaucrats and rootless economic forces. In this respect, our leaders are going completely against the republican tradition of the Enlightenment. Rousseau and Jefferson valued sovereignty and autarky. John Jay and Henri Grégoire affirmed the importance of a cohesive national identity to social harmony and civic politics. I was greatly impressed by Raymond Aron, a liberal-conservative Jewish intellectual, who called the homogeneous nation-state “the political masterpiece,” the key to Western nations’ remarkable social organization and dynamism.

When I realized that this identity of Western nations was being almost irreversibly shattered through mass immigration, I went into something of a shock. The rest of the “awakening”—a new understanding of the most taboo topics, namely the Jews, fascism, and race—was very gradual and tortuous. Step by step the assumptions I had been brought up with, which we were all brought up with, were broken down. This was not easy. I try to remember that when I grow impatient with relations and a society still largely in the grip of political correctness.

As anyone familiar with your writing knows, you have spent quite a bit of time in both western Europe, particularly France, and the United States. Which society do you see as more degraded, more unlikely to right its ship? Why?

I’d say we are about equally awful. America tends to obesity, Europe to effeminacy. These are the two poles of postwar democracy, to which each nation gravitates, more or less.

In the short term, a successful national-populist turn, really curbing immigration, seems quite possible on both sides of the Atlantic. As to something more radical . . . we can only speculate. Western Europe is too comfortable. Eastern Europe is too disorganized. Russia may have potential. In America, secession seems like a viable option in the long run. Read more

William Pierce and a Play by George Bernard Shaw

William Pierce

The only real tragedy in life is being used by personally minded men for purposes you recognize to be base.

All civilization is founded on [man’s] cowardice, on his abject tameness, which he calls his respectability.

Men will never really overcome fear until they imagine they are fighting to further a universal purpose—fighting for an idea.

George Bernard Shaw

In the early part of this century, I published a portrait, as I called it, of the white activist William Pierce, who died shortly thereafter, called The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds.   I called the book a portrait rather than a biography because it was basically my sense of Pierce after spending a month living in close contact with him on his remote compound in West Virginia.

Pierce was the most remarkable human being I have ever been around.  He was incredibly intelligent and enormously committed to doing something of lasting worth with his life.   In stark contrast to how his adversaries depicted him, he was a decent and kind person, a gentleman, a gentle man.  I’ve never seen anyone work that hard—ten, twelve, fourteen hour days, seven days a week.  One of Pierce’s prime traits, he took ideas very seriously and lived in accordance with the ones that gave him direction in his life’s project of living an honorable and meaningful existence in the time he had allotted to him on earth (it turned out to be 68 years).   One major source of perspective and guidance for Pierce was a stage play, Man and Superman, by George Bernard Shaw.  The following is an excerpt from the Fame book about that play’s impact on him.

“As an undergraduate in college [at Rice University in Texas],” Pierce told me, “I had a nagging worry about whether I was doing the right thing with my life.  Did I really want to be a physicist, the route I was taking at that time?  What standards best assess the paths in life I might take?   I had an awareness of my mortality from a very early age, and it seemed to me that I shouldn’t waste my life doing things that weren’t truly important.  I didn’t want to be on my deathbed thinking, ‘I’ve blown it; I had one life to live, and I didn’t do what I should have done.’

“When I got to Oregon State as a professor of physics [in 1962], I started to do more general reading—before, with all my science courses, I hadn’t had the time—and gradually things started to take shape about what was important in my life.  It was a process of taking the insights and teachings from what I was reading and refining them and learning how to exemplify them.

“One of the things that helped me find direction was a play I first came upon at Caltech [where he had gotten his doctorate] back in 1955 or so—Man and Superman.  Act three of the play was the one that really struck me.  It expressed the idea that a man shouldn’t hold himself back.  He should completely use himself up in service to the Life Force.  I bought a set of phonograph records that just had that act.  As I remember, it had Charles Laughton, Charles Boyer, Agnes Moorehead, and Cedric Hardwicke—it was well done.

“Don Juan’s expositions were what resonated with me.  I listened to that set of records over and over and let it really sink in.  The idea of an evolutionary universe hit me as being true, with the evolution toward higher and higher states of self-consciousness, and the philosopher’s brain being the tool for the cosmos coming to know itself.  Over time, I elaborated upon this idea—I came to call it Cosmotheism—and discussed it in a series of talks I gave in the 1970s.” Read more