Racial Identity’s Gray Area: The Definition of Whiteness Continues to Shift

‘
Football great John Elway is a good racial representative of the original American racial stock.

In the North American context, a White man is someone who is genetically, racially wholly of North Western European and Protestant ancestory. All else is liberal/Marxist agitprop. In sum, an American is someone who racially represents the first colonists who were English, Scotch-Irish, German, and Scandinavian. All were of Nordic racial stock. They would’ve shuddered at the thought of including Southern and East Europeans in the category of White men and women. Of course, the U.S. census considers Jews, Middle Easterners, and many Hispanics as White. Hence, the official statistic that 72% or 73% of America is White is illusory and worthless.

When Barack Obama, whose mother was white, identifies himself as black, and when Bill Richardson, whose father was white, identifies himself as Hispanic, who is white?

Antiracism then and now

Not so elementary …

Rummaging around my late mother’s home, I came across a “study in the problem of race” called The Clash of Colour. It dated back to the 1920s and reflected a kind of soft anti-racism that now seems quaint … and impossible.

The author, Basil Mathews, discusses the injustice of a world where whites control nine-tenths of the world’s habitable surface. He denounces the hypocrisy of demanding self-determination for Eastern Europeans but not for Africans and Asians. Turning his attention to African Americans, he speaks even more caustically about Jim Crow laws and lack of equal opportunity. Finally, near the end of the book, he quotes a resolution that the World’s Student Christian Federation adopted in 1922:

We, representing Christian students from all parts of the world, believe in the fundamental equality of all the races and nations of mankind and consider it as part of our Christian vocation to express this reality in all our relationships. (Mathews, 1925, p. 149)

Yet, strangely enough, the author’s antiracism co-exists with a belief in racial differences:

When we talk of the unity of man, we do not mean the uniformity of man. Race is real. It seems certain that—as Dr McDougall says—

“Racial qualities both physical and mental are extremely stable and persistent, and if the experience of each generation is in any manner or degree transmitted as modifications of the racial qualities, it is only in very slight degree, so as to produce any moulding effect only very slowly and in the course of generations.

I would submit the principle that, although differences of racial mental qualities are relatively small, so small as to be indistinguishable with certainty in individuals, they are yet of great importance for the life of nations, because they exert throughout many generations a constant bias upon the development of their culture and their institutions.” (Mathews, 1925, p. 151)

These sentiments sound disturbingly similar to those of Dr. James Watson, the discoverer of the DNA double helix, who recently wrote, “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.” For these words, Dr. Watson was roundly condemned and forced out of his position at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.

James Watson published his book in 2007. Basil Mathews published his in 1925. Between these two dates, antiracism changed. What passed for progressive opinion in the 1920s is now inadmissible.

What happened? There was, to be sure, the world’s revulsion against Nazism. But that isn’t the whole story. Even in comparison to the 1970s, today’s antiracism has become much more radical.

Recently, President Bush pushed hard for an immigration reform that would have reduced white Americans to minority status by the year 2050 [sic-faster! ] while pushing the population total to half a billion. Such a proposal would have been unthinkable thirty years ago. It certainly would not have come from a self-professed conservative. Today, in 2007, such demographic change evokes scarcely a murmur of protest from the left to the right of the political spectrum. America’s elites have converted almost entirely to the anti-racist worldview. And this ‘consensus’ is defended not by debate but by an absence of debate—by a systematic silencing of any dissidence, such as Dr. Watson’s.

It’s unhealthy for any belief, however noble, to exist in an echo chamber of constant approval. This is, after all, what totalitarianism is about—the rise to hegemony of one opinion to the detriment of all others. Such is the state of antiracism today. It is no longer the voice of reason that speaks to the screams of bigotry and intolerance. [I suspect that “bigotry and intolerance” were always a lot more rational than the stereotypes promulgated by egalitarians. ] By a strange role reversal, it has become the very thing it used to oppose.

Antiracism, I fear, is painting itself into a corner from which it cannot extricate itself and which it will have to defend with increasingly totalitarian methods. Is this re-enactment of history really necessary? Can we not learn from the past? Must we follow the same trajectory that other hegemonic beliefs have followed with the same tragic consequences?

References

Mathews, B. (1925). The Clash of Colour. A Study in the Problem of Race. London: Edinburgh House Press.

Watson, J.D. (2007). Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science. Knopf

Source.

Race and Crime

To the trained liberal mind, racism alone explains the higher arrest rates and incarceration rates among certain minority groups.

“Jail numbers skewed by race,” deplores the Portland Tribune in fat, black letters (*). “Year after year, studies in Portland and elsewhere have shown African-Americans more likely to find themselves in handcuffs,” froths a Nick Brudnick (rhymes with nudnick). Not only that; to Brudnick’s and his editors’ horror, “in Portland, minorities and especially blacks are stopped and arrested far more frequently than their white counterparts. ” To top off the poisoned chalice of the bien-pensant, a new sheriff’s study has found that “once defendants are in the jails, the lopsidedness of minority representation keeps growing - especially for black inmates.”

Matthews is a mangy sewer rat

Matthews is a typical anti-White scumbag who welcomes the material dispossession and biological destruction of Whites. All ethnic and racial groups are becoming more race conscious and tribalistic, only Whites are expressly denied their racial identity. Like your typical pontificating, posturing, hypocritical liberal, I bet Matthews lives in an all White neighborhood, all his friends are White, and that he most certainly sent his kids to elite, all White schools and colleges. In point of fact, folks like Matthews lead a sheltered, self-segrating existence that poor Whites cannot have, because they don’t have the financial means at their disposal, they’re the ones who have had to deal with forced (at gun point!) racial integration. It’s fucks like Matthews who have taken away our freedom of association, while living in lily Whites neighborhoods themselves. Fuck you, Matthews, you fucking piece of shit! It’s Whites like you who are the biggest threat to our cultural and racial survival!

Are attitudes changing on IQ and race?

There’s a great debate going on over at the American Scene over Jim Manzi’s National Review cover article that cautions conservatives about embracing genetic research and evolutionary explanations of behavior.

Thoughts by an anonymous contributor: How are we to explain that educated opinion is farther removed from the scientific consensus on this question than are the opinions of high school dropouts?

I think that we can best understand this phenomenon by viewed the doctrine of biological equality as a sort of secular religion. This doctrine was conceived by Thomas Hobbes in a British political context in the 17th century, and was promoted during the 18th century “Enlightenment” by Rousseau, Locke, and others; but close contact with alien races led to doubts, and Hobbesian equality appeared to be “on the ropes” following the growing acceptance first of Darwinian theories of natural and sexual selection in the late 19th century, and then of Mendel’s rediscovered genetic theory in the early 20th. Yet the bio-egalitarian creed, down but not out, surged back to popularity following WW2, and achieved a great political triumph during the 1960’s, when it became the new legitimating ideology of European-derived cultures and political establishments. This course of development can reasonably be compared to the displacement of official paganism by Christianity as the legitimating ideology of the European political and cultural elite during late antiquity and the early Middle Ages, or the displacement of Christianity by Islam in Anatolia, the Levant, Egypt and North Africa–Christianit y survived as a minority faith in many of those lands, but the new legitimating ideology was Islam.

Now, one interesting but not well known thing that has been discovered about sociological “cults”–new or unfamiliar religious movements, such as Hare Krishna in a Western context, the Moonies, Mormonism when it was new, and even today outside its geographical stronghold in Utah, or Christianity in the early Roman Empire–is that most of their converts are not drawn from the lowest orders of their societies, but from people with above average literacy, social class, and, presumably intelligence. The reason for this is that the need to assimilate significant amounts of new doctrine and worldview poses an obstacle to the conversion of the less educated members of society.

In contrast, sociological “sects” offer more zealous applications of the “old time religion,” and the familiarity of their core tenets presents minimal intellectual barriers to the recruitment of the less educated.

So the egalitarian creed is very similar to a new religious creed–that is, it is a political “cult,” as sociologists use that word.. From the beginning, it drew its adherents mainly from educated elites, who progandized for their faith with increasing vigor. During the 20th century, and with an accelerating boost from the propaganda that accompanied WW2, this ideology of intellectuals increasingly filtered down to the hoi polloi. For example, even in the 1950’s, a majority of Americans had already become persuaded of the genetic equality of Whites and Blacks, and the majority’s new belief made possible widespread public support for, or at least acquiesence to, the radical social legislation passed in the 1960’s. With the passage of time, more and more the public has come to accept the new, fashionable creed, but, not surprisingly, the number of holdouts is larger as one moves down the educational ladder.

This is just one part of a larger pattern in which older, traditional beliefs–often summed up as “social conservatism” or “cultural conservatism, ” and which traditionally included a biological interpretation of the racial hierarchy that characterized the now unfashionable colonial age–a pattern in which a set of old, “Victorian” beliefs decline in popularity among the better educated, the better read, and the more intelligent; indeed, decline among most people who are well enough informed to be aware of, and interested in, the prevailing intellectual trends, fashions, and prejudices; and have their greatest number of remaining adherents among the more “backward” parts of the socio-economic pyramid. This is very much analogous to the pattern of conversion that occurred in northern Europe to Christianity, and in the Middle East to Islam. First the ruling classes adopted the new religion in Europe, or a new ruling class adhering to a new religion imposed itself through military superiority in the Middle East; the new religion with its distinctive moral code became the new legitimating ideology. Anyone with ambition was likely to adopt it, further raising its social status and finally leading to most of the population adhering to the new faith, some with more zeal than others. Eventually, the old religions of Europe died out, just as Christianity died out in North Africa and was reduced to a minority faith in the Middle East, where its numbers are still diminishing. And that is also what we saw happen in European-derived cultures during the 20th century: elites adopted a belief in biological equality, lending it prestige; it filtered down to the masses until a critical mass of adherents was reached; next it became unequivocally the new legitimating ideology from which no ambitious person dare publicly deviate; and then the rest of the population rapidly signed on to the new secular religion, except for a minority of “backward” holdouts who are assumed to be either stupid or evil, and possibly both.

But the weakness of the egalitarian dogma is that it is not a real religion. Instead, it claims to be a truth not about the spiritual world, but about the material world that is perceived empirically through the five senses. Because the egalitarians make claims not of divine revelation but claims of a scientific or pseudo-scientific nature, their claims can be shown, if not absolutely, at the very least beyond any plausible doubt, to be false. What saves their house of cards from collapse is their near-total control over the instruments of mass communication and over the schools. Thus, most people can be kept permanently ignorant of all or most of the information that would expose the absurdity of the egalitarian dogma. In the sixties, the new faith triumphed over a half century of scientific research in human heredity and related fields, and it has continued to consolidate its gains even as further research continues to confirm earlier findings. Although the new religion has much in common with primitive faiths, such as the belief that an assortment of gods dwell atop Mt. Olympus, and Apollo’s horses pull the sun like a chariot across the sky each day, I see no reason why the new myths, however counterfactual, cannot rule the minds of the majority and the elite alike indefinitely. Telling people today, especially in European-derived cultures, that the Victorians and the Nazis [National Socialists, please] were basically right about human differences and that most people today, and especially the best educated people, are wrong is much like telling the Muslims in Egypt, Syria, and Turkey that they should abandon Islam and return to the Christianity of their ancestors.

Thoughts du jour on colonialism and slavery

One often hears in these days of White racial decline and decadence Whites apologize for colonialism and slavery (apologies made by people who had nothing to do with the alleged misdeeds, by the way…in my naiveté I thought that one could only apologize for things he or she had done…most reasonable people would agree that to expect from me that I apologize for what my great grandfather might have done would be insane, but we don’t live in a rational world insofar as White history is concerned), but let me ask the following fundamental question: why should Whites say that they are sorry for vanquishing and dominating other people and races? Why apologize for being smarter, stronger, better, more advanced, more virile, more manly, more energetic; in sum, SUPERIOR? Why is being vanquished, dominated, subjugated, overpowered, crushed, defeated, ruled a virtuous thing? In ancient times, the Greeks were happy to boast that they vanquished their enemies the Persians, and that therefore the Greek warrior must be superior to the Persian warrior. Like all healthy, strong races, they took pride in their victories and denigrated their erstwhile enemies! The Greeks wrote reams of poems celebrating their victories on the battlefield and their philosophers gave impassioned orations praising Greek superiority!

Both colonialism and slavery have been with us since time immemorial; for instance, the Arabs expanded from the 7th century to the 12th century from the Arabian Peninsula to rule the world! In the process, they enslaved those foreigners they vanquished (mostly sub-Saharan Africans of whom they had a very low opinion, but that’s for another post).

Moreover, I have even heard Dr. David Duke, a man for whom I have immense respect, say in an interview that Whites don’t want to dominate other races. In my view, this is a further indication or symptom of our racial decline, corruption, and weakness. A spokesman of a winning, dominating race doesn’t speak in such terms. In some ways, such talk is similar to today’s Roman Catholic Church apologizing for the Inquisitions and the Crusades. It’s just another sign of her institutional weakness. When the Roman Catholic Church was strong and powerful, she didn’t seek anyone’s forgiveness hat in hand! On the contrary, she proudly denied basic civic rights to her critics, waged ruthless wars against all internal dissidents, showed no mercy for outsiders, and was knee deep in the blood of her enemies.

Oh tempora, oh mores!

A book to read

Race: The Reality Of Human Differences.

Steve Sailer.

Most people who consider themselves intellectuals pride themselves on how far removed their theorizing is from contact with mundane reality. After all, if daily life could provide answers to lofty questions, we might not need so many professional intellectuals. And that subversive thought must be suppressed at all costs!
Continue reading A book to read…

Indian leader praised Hitler [as all good and decent people should], said whites should rule South Africa [obviously…you don’t normally cede a country to stupid, lazy, violent man-ape hybrid subsubhumans…unless you’re a brainless White liberal bent on self-destruction]

There’s something I find really, really pleasing about the revelation that one of greatest gods in the liberal pantheon, Gandhi, was a racist, pro-apartheid Hitler sympathiser.

The age of educational romanticism [Charles Murray]

On requiring every child to be above average. I think he’s dead right, but then again, no nutritional fixes mentioned…

This is the story of educational romanticism in elementary and secondary schools —its rise, its etiology, and, we have reason to hope, its approaching demise.

Educational romanticism consists of the belief that just about all children who are not doing well in school have the potential to do much better. Correlatively, educational romantics believe that the academic achievement of children is determined mainly by the opportunities they receive; that innate intellectual limits (if they exist at all) play a minor role; and that the current K-12 schools have huge room for improvement.

Afrocentric “educators” [or the tragedy of racial integration]

The list of Afrocentric “educators” whom the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has invoked in his media escapades since Sunday is a disturbing reminder that academia’s follies can enter the public world in harmful ways. Now the pressing question is whether they have entered Barack Obama’s worldview as well.

Comments

Comments on Buried Prejudice.

The writers seem to assume that buried bigotry is undesirable, either for
the individual who has it or for others that he encounters. That assumption
really needs to be examined. No stereotype is going to be 100% accurate,
but if the costs of the “false positives” is less than the losses avoided
when the stereotype is correct, then the stereotype is beneficial to the
individual.

For example, most people, at least unconsciously, think blacks are
dangerous. They therefore avoid all blacks, even some who are not
dangerous, thereby losing any benefit they would have obtained by not
avoiding the non-dangerous blacks. The avoided blacks presumably also lose
by their avoidance.

On the other hand, if blacks are in fact more dangerous than whites, their
avoidance may save them from stolen property, physical harm, and even death.
Their avoidance will be harmful to the blacks who would otherwise steal,
harm, or kill them, but who cares? The only question is “Is the avoidance
of those losses of greater value than the value lost by avoiding the
non-dangerous blacks?”

***

I agree. Unfortunately anyone who says that is going to be labeled a racist.

I remember back when I was in college (late 80’s/early 90’s) a “study”
was done comparing violent crime rates in Seattle and Vancouver. The
conclusion was the United States’ gun laws were to blame for Seattle’s
higher crime rate. Someone else came in and broke down the crime
numbers by race. Blacks by far had the highest crime rate. Whites
had a low rate and Asians barely registered. The rates were identical
on either side of the border. He then pointed out how Seattle had a
huge black community in comparison to Vancouver while the Canadian
city had far more Asians. He proved it wasn’t guns, but you can
imagine the outcry from the knee jerk politically correct community.

There’s also the story of an elevator. If a weak animal in the wild
comes across a potential predator it runs away. But if a small woman
goes to get on an elevator occupied by a surly looking black man
she’ll be afraid it’ll be “racist” to wait for the next car and may
just be putting herself in danger. Non-PC, but still accurate.

***

I would suspect that what is called prejudice may be, in fact, quite normal observation, association and conclusions about our environment. The lack of judgment or toleration is no more emancipated than being superficial and unobservant. In fact, these conditions are remarkably alike. Show me someone without prejudices and you have just shown someone who is dead from the neck up and doesn’t realize it.

***

What that report was saying, in a nutshell, is that all
discrimination is ignorant prejudice. That is very Orwellian. How
can we fail to observe differences in colour, shape, sex, speech,
etc, etc. Why must we treat everyone as an equal?

I can see no advantage in mixing with other ethnicities. We should
have an instinct against it since miscegenation is a survival
disadvantage to a healthy ethnicity. (The more harmful genes in the
group the more the urge turns to outbreeding - fresh blood. This is
a disturbing fact.)

***

I just watched the “documentary” of the migrations of mankind on the “bradshawfoundation .com. Luckily, I have a strong stomach and had a nice settling breakfast this morning. What fanciful nonsense! I encourage everyone interested in this subject to watch this illustrated movie. One of the key and actually pivotal aspects of the theory presented consists of the effects of the explosion of Mt. Toba on the island of Sumatra in ~70kya. This documentary suggests that India and Pakistan were depopulated by this explosion and ashfall rather than Southeast Asia and South China. In other words, the authors suggest a very unusual behavior to the volcanic explosion of Toba. As a consequence of the earth’s rotation and prevailing winds (Jet Stream) volcanic fall out occurs to the east of exploding volcanoes rather than to the west. If you watch this illustration, you will see why they have the effects of Toba going west instead of correctly to the east. The geologically correct behavior of Mt. Toba would ruin an otherwise manageable tale. In other words, their migratory pathways together with the Mt. Toba event would have eliminated their East Asian population of migrants and potential migrants. None of this is surprising. This is what you get when you try to make facts fit a political preconception.

In addition to fudging the effects of Mt. Toba, this illustration suggests rather obliquely that the origin of Native Americans is some sort of amalgamation of migrants from India (straight north over the highest mountains on earth), Southeast Asia, and East Asia. They even have Japan populated from the north when it could been populated from nearly any part of North China and/or Korea. If anyone has any doubts about the frailty of the Out of Africa dogma, take a look at this bit of creative science.

Hispanic family values

Another ugly pregnant ’spic busted for D.U.I.

On the concept of biological race and its applicability to humans

Abstract Biological research on race has often been seen as motivated by or lending credence to underlying racist attitudes; in part for this reason, recently philosophers and biologists have gone through great pains to essentially deny the existence of biological human races. We argue that human races, in the biological sense of local populations adapted to particular environments, do in fact exist; such races are best understood through the common ecological concept of ecotypes. However, human ecotypic races do not in general correspond with ‘folk’ racial categories, largely because many similar ecotypes have multiple independent origins. Consequently, while human natural races exist, they have little or nothing in common with ‘folk’ races.

Read it here.

The Genetics of Race: Common sense is a better guide than liberal myths

Via Odessa Syndicate.

Everyone has heard the fashionable view that race is not a valid biological concept but is, instead, a suspect sociological category. The implication is that racial distinctions are a form of superstition, that there is no justification for wanting to preserve races, and that replacement of one group by another represents no genetic loss. More specifically, it implies there is no reason for whites in Europe or America to resist displacement because we are, in effect, being replaced by ourselves.

Hunger in Haiti increasing rapidly

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti: Hunger bashed in the front gate of Haiti’s presidential palace. Hunger poured onto the streets, burning tires and taking on soldiers and police. Hunger sent the country’s prime minister packing.

Every Nation Ruled by Low I.Q., Violent Nigger-Animals is a Total, Unmitigated Basketcase

Dinner is almost ready!

BLACK RULE = TOTAL LAWLESSNESS, MIND-BOGGLING CHAOS & ANARCHY, STAGGERING POVERTY, SADISTIC VIOLENCE, RAMPANT CANNIBALISM, MASS RAPE AND MURDER. A WHITE MAN WHO SO MUCH AS THINKS OF VOTING FOR A NIGGER-ANIMAL POLITICAL CANDIDATE SHOULD BE STERILIZED, LOBOTOMIZED AND SENT TO AN INTENSIVE LABOR CAMP FOR AT LEAST 30 YEARS …NO ENDS IFS OR BUTS. SCHNELL!

THE JOYS OF BLACK RULE, Part Un

Since we seem inclined to inflict the ineffable joys of black rule on our
own country, perhaps America could do with a little preview of coming
attractiions. The basket case nation of Haiti is the oldest black-ruled country in
the world. The Associated Press reports: “A desperate appeal from the
president Wednesday failed to restore order to Haiti’s shattered capital, and
bands of looters sacked stores, warehouses and government offices. Gunfire rang
out from the wealthy suburbs in the hills to the starving slums below as
9,000 U.N. peacekeepers were unable to halt a frenzy of looting and violence
that has grown out of protests over rising food prices.” (Now, think about
it.

That’s some pretty heavy rioting when 9,000 soldiers can’t rein it in.)
“Many of the protesters are demanding the resignation of the
U.S.-backed president, Rene Preval, and on Tuesday U.N. peacekeepers
had to fire rubber bullets and tear gas to drive away a mob that tried to storm his palace.

Preval delivered his first public comments Wednesday, nearly a week
into the protests. With his job on the line, Haiti’s president promised to press
importers to lower food prices and appealed to the rioters to go home.”
(Those of us with memories slightly more than two inches in length wll
remember that several years ago, when Preval was “elected” president,
he attempted to flee to the United States and had to be dragged off the
plane at the airport and forcibly returned to the palace by Bush’s Blackwater
gun thugs. Can’t say as I blame him; I got lumbered with the presidency of
Haiti, I’d try to flee the country too.)

According to AP, Mon President really laid it on his rioting
countrymen. “‘The solution is not to go around destroying stores,’ he said. ‘I’m
giving you orders to stop.’” (Hey, why don’t we try that one next time in Los
Angeles?) “But gunfire rang out around the palace after the speech, as
peacekeepers tried to drive away people looting surrounding stores. The
streets remained in the control of bands of young men carrying sticks
and rocks, who set up roadblocks of burning tires and stopped passing cars.
Businesses were closed and most people locked themselves indoors, as
mobs looted stores, warehouses and government offices. Black smoke billowed
over the city as protesters set tires ablaze. Sustained gunfire was heard
throughout Petionville, where many diplomats and foreigners live, and
in Martissant, a lawless slum west of downtown. On the road to the
airport, groups of protesters surrounded makeshift barricades and threw rocks at
passing cars. Looters could be seen sacking a supermarket and several
gas-station mini-marts. Radio stations reported looters also sacked a
government rice warehouse outside Port-au-Prince and the office of
Petionville’s mayor.” (Kind of sounds like what Al Sharpton has hinted
his own private negroid militia will do to Denver if Barack Obama isn’t
nominated.)

Okay, granted, for Haiti all the above is situation normal. Haiti has
been black-ruled for 200 years and for 200 years it’s been like this. But do
we really want to hand our own government over to BO and his posse like
Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Calypso Louis and Alcee Hastings? I’m curious:
what will it take before we finally come to understand that black rule
doesn’t work?

Gangstas making inroads in Australia

Gangs are predominantly divided on racial lines, with members usually belonging to the same race.

White History and Culture vs. Negro Stupidity and Indolence

German Nationalism challenged by murder?

Germans who still want to be Germans express normal xenophobic characteristics when non-Germans claim Germany as their home and kill Germans to assert their views/right to live in Germany.

Mugabe militants target whites farmers

HARARE, Zimbabwe - Militant supporters of President Robert Mugabe targeted whites Monday, forcing about a dozen ranchers and farmers off their land as Zimbabwe’s longtime ruler fanned racial tensions amid fears he will turn to violence to hold on to power.