Why the Alt-Right is Too Alt for Me

Tags

2016, 4chan, alt-right, America, American Liberty, anime, anti-Semitism, BBC, Blog, blog blog blog, Christopher Caldwell, Civilisation, Coffee, dark enlightenment, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, DTMW, dtmw dtmw, Facebook, frog, Internet, internet internet, Japan, milo, modern world, Multiculturalism, Music, Muslim, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, pepe, pepe the frog, political, politics, race, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, subcultures, Twitter

Internet subcultures are so often exaggerated in scale and importance by the mainstream – offline – media that most reasonable folk tend instinctively to dismiss reports of their influence as hyperbole. Such was the case when Hillary Clinton devoted almost an entire speech to warning America of the insidious agenda of the ‘alt-right’, an internet coalition of racists, misogynists and Islamophobes allegedly in cahoots with the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump.

Strangely, and unlike so many cyber phenomena reported in the media, the tribe to which Ms Clinton referred is notable for being very real, or at least very widespread. Though there is no single agenda or set of principles agreed upon by the alt-right, there is certainly a general Weltanschauung strong and clear enough to gravitate like-minded people towards it. This worldview is well-described in the following YouTube comment taken from under a video of the Clinton speech: “We (the alt-right) are anti neo-libs. That is the only reason we are alternative. Neo-libs/cons have been the conservative mainstream since 9/11. We are a backlash against that. Neo-cons are not real right.”

By ‘neo-libs’ and ‘neo-cons’ (Neoliberals and Neoconservatives) the commenter is likely referring to a consensus known elsewhere as the ‘New World Order’, the 1%, or (vaguely) as ‘Zionism’.

Rumours of a ‘New World Order’ have gained currency on the right-wing fringe in recent years

These labels, although having little to do with each other in fact, are used as synonyms for the force that is actively shrinking the world into a liberal, multi-racial, multi-cultural free-trade zone, in yet another word – the force and ideology of globalisation.

The idea that conservatives should be pro-globalisation is actually a very recent one. Traditionally, as the alt-right notes, right-wing political thinkers have been strongly nativist and culturally protectionist. The shift in conservative thought, beginning during the Reagan-Thatcher era, to laissez faire globalism is attributed retrospectively to the influence of non-native forces, often (predictably) to that of the Jews (sometimes referred to in euphemism as ‘capitalists’/’big business’/’bankers’/’the banks’).

The alt-right wishes to return the conservative movement to where it was before that transition; before economics became more important as a right-wing principle than blood, soil and culture; that is, before paleo became neo.

The alt-right has no single birthplace, but there are nevertheless a few websites and forums indelibly associated with it. Prime among these sites is the Japanese-cultural forum 4chan and in particular the /pol/ (politically incorrect) messageboard. Here, a right-wing political consensus has become entrenched, often (but not always) expressed with dark humour, that has subsequently bled out into the wider internet universe, evidenced by the broad use of memes like Pepe the Frog as well as words and phrases like ‘degenerate’ and ‘dindu-nuffin’ (the latter invention being used to refer sarcastically to African-American criminality).

The English-language messageboard 4chan is commonly associated with the alt-right

The alt-right is connected to, but distinct from, the ‘Dark Enlightenment’ phenomenon I have written about previously. Unlike the latter, the alt-right is more realistic and less philosophical. While the Dark Enlightenment recommends absurd initiatives like the abolition of democracy and the return of divinely-appointed’ Kings, the alt-right prefers to concern itself with more achievable and substantial ideas, such as the abolition of third-world (non-white) immigration, building an opposition to political Islam and degrading the influence of certain varieties of feminism. This down-to-earth-ness is a large part of the reason the alt-right, unlike the Dark Enlightenment, has become a force to be reckoned with.

I have no idea whether this site would or should be considered part of the alt-right blogosphere. I only know that it has never been so described – and certainly not by me. I am, in my estimation, far too moderate, too much of a bleeding heart, to integrate smoothly into that crowd.

Though I recognise that races exist, I have never been a racist or a racial nationalist. Though I accept that certain varieties of feminism have inflicted great damage upon Western civilisation, I am not opposed to the idea of sexual equality, nor dismissive of the disadvantages women still face around the world on account of their being female. Though I recognise that he has joined the right side of the Syrian civil war and made constructive and wise comments about the bombing of Libya, I do not support or make excuses for the authoritarian, anti-democratic administration of Vladimir Putin. And so on…  The alt-right is simply too alt for me.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is beloved by many on the alt-right

Is the movement as dangerous as Hillary Clinton is making out? The answer depends almost entirely on who is asking the question. If you’re a white, Christian, heterosexual male resident in the Western World, then the risk this movement presents to you is minimal. If, however, you are Jewish, homosexual, black, south Asian or atheist, I would be very cautious about taking the movement to heart.

There are decidedly ugly currents within the alt-right that are not adequately represented by its spokespeople. Milo Yiannopoulos, a Jewish-Greek homosexual, may well be regarded as the crown prince of the movement at present, but it does not follow that the general masses huddled under its banner agree with his lifestyle or look kindly upon his ethnicity. On the contrary, more often than not, the alt-right foot-soldier is loudly hostile to both Jews and homosexuality. If you require evidence of that, just spend an hour or two browsing the /pol/ board on 4chan yourself.

Anti-Semitism in particular runs through the alt-right like colours run through a stick of seaside rock. It is both below and behind it, providing a vital support to the worldview espoused by its adherents. The West is being taken over by foreign elements, they agree, because a hostile elite is conspiring against the natives. One need not refer to the hostile elite explicitly. Innuendo will do. Innuendo did the job in the thirties, too (sorry, Godwin).

A variant of the anti-Semitic ‘happy merchant’ meme

I do admit that the alt-right is correct on some very important issues. On Islam, for example, the movement is reliably clear-headed and refreshingly consistent. On the virtues of a Trump administration, too, the movement is providing a much-needed counter-force to the almost universally anti-Trump mainstream media. The problem is the movement doesn’t seem to possess any kind of intellectual brake. It swerves habitually all over the place, sometimes finding itself on a main road and sometimes blindly ploughing through a field. This youthful unpredictability might make hopping on-board an attractive prospect for political thrill-seekers, but not for anyone else.

I suppose, if we must manufacture labels for ourselves, I am more of an alt-liberal than an alt-rightist. And I am not alone in that. There must be millions of people like me, scattered around the political spectrum, living unhappily in temporary ideological accommodation. It is high time we had a real home to go to.

D, LDN

Advertisement

Dysgenics: A Beginner’s Guide.

Tags

Benefits Street, BNP, Breeding, Channel 4, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Dysgenics, Dysgenics definition, Dysgenics in Europe, dysgenics theory, Eugenics, Germans, Guide to Dysgenics, Idiocracy, IQ, Is Intelligence inherited?, Mike Judge, Miscegenation, Richard Lynn, Russell Brand, White people, Whites, Work

Do you ever lament that old songs seem to have more meaning than those produced today? Do you ever regard the success of books like the Da Vinci Code and the Hunger Games with sadness, comparing their lack of depth and nuance against the qualities of Brave New World, Sons and Lovers, and other bestsellers of yesteryear? Have you ever complained that the media in general is ‘dumbing down’ and that politics is becoming a reality TV competition?

What you may be describing are the effects of a phenomenon called ‘Dysgenics’, the process by which the human population (and thereby the culture) of a given area grows less intelligent with every new generation (needless to add, it is the opposite of Eugenics, a proposed system of discriminatory breeding intended to raise the general level of intelligence).

Out of all the burning scientific and sociological issues of our day, this is probably the most controversial, the one that people are really not supposed to talk about. This is because everyone is affected by dysgenics. It is not a process limited to a certain people, culture or nation. No-one can afford to laugh at it, shrug it off or deny it.

*I must emphasise before continuing that this is not an issue of ‘class’. Just because someone hasn’t gone to university doesn’t mean they are stupid. As a corollary, just because someone has been to university (even Oxford or Cambridge) doesn’t necessarily imply a superlative level of intelligence. In the latter case, people may just be privileged or have had superior or over-dedicated schooling.

When we talk about a new class of stupid people, we are talking about those who are incapable of philosophy and conviction, who shun the political and the cerebral in favour of the popular and facile, who cannot read and write, who are senselessly criminal and randomly aggressive, who have no sexual restraint and who fail to properly raise children.

These people, found in all classes and proliferating furiously up and down the United Kingdom, are something quite novel in British history. Of course, there has always been an idiot class, feckless and wild, unable to become part of the working majority, but they have never been so numerous or culturally influential as they are today.

The underclass is now a sub-culture, a sub-nation, with quirks of dress, language and even cuisine.

As to how the dysgenic process works, opinion is divided. Some blame the welfare state and its habit of paying people more welfare when they have large families, thereby encouraging the most incapable to have more children in order to live off said benefits. Frankly, I don’t think this is common enough to account for what is happening. I think it more likely that the dysgenic process has accelerated due to a longstanding imbalance of fertility and intelligence. In short, the smart people (those with jobs, political opinions and bookshelves) have smaller families than those who chew their toenails. Over time, that imbalance can completely transform the character of a nation, even one with such an illustrious history as ours.

While this is tolerable enough for now, one has to think about the future and how the nation will cope as the ratio leans ever more toward the negative.

Something particularly threatened by this process, I believe, is human liberty. After all, what becomes of a society when people no longer understand politics enough to  partake in it? What kind of government will assemble itself in that situation, and what extra powers will it take on?

The voter turn-out for national elections is frighteningly low in the West, frequently clocking in at less than 50%, and sinking as low as 20% in local contests.

You can be sure that the elite secretly approves of this. The progeny of Eton don’t care if the rest of the country begins to moan and dribble. On the contrary, popular degeneration only serves to elevate them to an even greater standing.

Indeed, this is partly why the class system exists at all. It was and is designed to segregate people according to ability, never having them intermix or interbreed with one another.

In reality, the growth of illiteracy and criminality affects all classes equally. You will have met people so afflicted on many occasions, I’m sure, no matter where you live or what company you aspire to keep.

The last time I wrote about dysgenics on this blog, I was accused of being fascistic. I suppose that’s inevitable. Hitler has forever tarnished the discussion of genetics with the stamp of extremism. Be that as it may, this is an important conversation that must be held sooner or later.

D, LDN.

Hitler Was an Atheist.

Tags

anti-Semitism, Christianity, Christianity and Islam, Communism, Defend the modern world, Germany, Hitler atheist, Hitler Christian, Hitler Islam, Hitler's table talk, Multiculturalism, Nazis, Nazis Islam, richard dawkins, Sam Harris, Stalin, Stalin Christianity

By far the most obnoxious trait in the movement described (somewhat grandly) as the ‘New Atheism’ is the denial of well-established historical facts. In a flagrantly dishonest campaign, the propagandists of unbelief have sought to depict a cartoon version of history; one in which religion was the source of all malady and science the soft-spoken voice of moderation and progress.

This is anti-history, plain and simple. It is as abusive to the truth as anything attempted by the religious or political.

The Russian communists were, despite what the New Atheists say, a viciously anti-religious gang of crooks who took immense delight in arresting and killing those still committed to immaterial beliefs. Such actions are thus directly attributable to their atheism. There is no other way of justifying (if that is even possible) the burning of Russian churches.

Likewise, Adolf Hitler, despite what the New Atheists say, was a very committed – distinctly German – unbeliever, who saw Semitic faiths as foreign and harmful to the natural instincts of the Aryan folk.

Being a canny politician in a still religious nation, Hitler inevitably made friendly gestures to the Church in public (and these are the statements shamelessly cited by the New Atheists, who are surely aware of their context). But in private, Hitler was – as we all are in private – more honest in describing the vibrations of his heart.

“Christianity” he said in the presence of Martin Bormann “is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.”

In another conversation, the meth-head Fuhrer let loose the following rant: “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance.”

This is not even worth arguing about, of course. It is so obvious to the reasonable that debate can only have a recreational value. It is nevertheless infuriating to hear New Atheist claims made without repudiation on a regular basis. Hitler was not a Christian. He was a pure-blooded atheist, and his actions were only allowed for by a non-Christian system of ethics.

D, LDN.

How Real is Race?

Tags

Amren, Anti-Racist is a Code word for Anti-White, Franz Boas, Freud, Hispanics, Is race real, Jared Taylor, Liberal conservatism, Middle-ground, Race realism, Social construct, VDare

Regarded as toxic, unnecessary and destined to cause more harm by its investigation than benefit, no scientific subject is more reliably controversial than race.

I am not a racist and have no racial agenda to advance. Nevertheless, I find the denial of racial difference extremely injurious to human understanding. It is surely worthwhile to learn about and understand our collective past and also the deviations we took as a species to arrive at our current variety.

Such a grand treasure of facts should not be abandoned to the politicised black-market of the underworld. We are more than capable of discussing these things in a civilised manner, and so let’s do that here.

How real is race? A simple question with a complicated answer.

The Left-wing line on racial difference hasn’t changed in more than 50 years. Liberals maintain that what we call ‘race’ is merely a ‘social construct’ – that is, an invented system no more meaningful than class, language or nationality. By this reckoning, the notion of a black race is no more legitimate or scientific than a blue-eyed, brown-eyed or left-handed race. (Note that ‘Race’ to these folk, is almost synonymous with colour and has no deeper implications).

Over time, the Left-wing view has become dominant in Western society. No politician could be elected having questioned the dogma of ‘we’re all the same underneath’. The mainstream ‘right’ is thereby just as wedded to the concept as the Left.

To find the contrary view, we must go to the far or extreme right. There, people hold the view (in agreement with the majority of scientists) that race is not only real, more than skin-deep and scientifically viable, but also immensely important as a tool of explanation. They argue that a country like Uganda is less developed than Japan for primarily biological reasons. They reject the notion of innate, inborn human equality as little more than wishful thinking. And they view multiracial societies like those of the US and UK as wrong-headed utopian experiments that can only end by robbing the White peoples of their hard-won evolutionary advantages.

My view? Well, in the cartoonish way I’ve described the matter, I lean strongly toward the latter interpretation. I do believe race is real and that biology can explain things like behaviour and intelligence – perhaps not completely, but reliably enough to provide a guiding rule.

Nevertheless, the Left-wing argument is not wholly wrong and deserves more consideration than ethno-nationalists seem willing to grant it. There plainly are ‘races’ with a socially constructed basis. The surreal American conception of ‘black’ (one drop of African blood makes you fully African) is a social construct, for example. A black man in America might be a White man in Brazil and vice versa. The Arab and Hispanic ‘races’ are also social constructs (both Arabs and Hispanics are heterogeneous categories defined only by language).  Japanese and Koreans are so genetically similar that the hostility between them has a mostly social basis. The treatment of Jews and Arabs as ‘White’ Caucasians on the American census is a social decision. The demented division of White Europeans into Alpines, Nordics and Mediterraneans by Madison Grant similarly represents a product of human bias more than scientific reality.

Thus, the race as social construct idea is not as wholly wrong as we might regard it at face value.

Of course, the reason we might feel inclined to disregard it likely arises from the way the theory is used by our opponents. To take the commonsensical points I have conceded and use them to argue that nothing biological separates a Black African from a Swede is simply crazy. A great deal of evolutionary difference separates them and has supplied them both with very different characteristics.

There is much to be fascinated with in racial science. The athletic superiority of black people, the apparent inclination of East Asians to obedience and feelings of shame, the religiosity of the Semites, the efficiency of the Nordics, the romanticism of the Latin peoples etc… All of these phenomena can (potentially) be explained scientifically. I for one would think it a shame if we shied away from doing so.

D, LDN.

James Watson: A Modern Alan Turing.

Tags

Amren, Auction, Bell Curve, Bell Curve controversy, Civilisation, Controversy, Correct, IQ, James Watson, James Watson Racist, Jared Taylor, John Derbyshire, Nobel Prize, politics, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Race and intelligence, racism, VDare, Watson

James Watson, the genius who – with Francis Crick – discovered the structure of DNA, has fallen on hard times. Ostracised for his comments on race and intelligence many years ago, the distinguished scientist has now felt the need to auction his Nobel Prize medal to the highest bidder.

Some have greeted this pitiful news with heartless derision:

“This sounds awful” –  wrote Adam Rutherford in the Guardian –  “…an 86-year-old hero ostracised for his views, shooed from public life by the people who walk in his scientific shadow…. But it’s not awful. Watson has said that he is “not a racist in a conventional way”. But he told the Sunday Times in 2007 that while people may like to think that all races are born with equal intelligence, those “who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. Call me old-fashioned, but that sounds like bog-standard, run-of-the-mill racism to me.”

No sympathy there then. Rutherford’s twisted viewpoint is repeated across the spectrum of the uninformed mainstream. It is only outside of this spectrum that the matter is seen for what it is – an unambiguous tragedy and a disgrace to science.

A man who has done more than anyone alive to aid humanity’s understanding of itself; a man whose invention and wit upgraded the field of science, exposed the hidden potential of medicine and stirred the imagination of a million minds is reduced to near-penury simply for holding an unfashionable opinion.

Watson reminds me of nobody more than the British code-cracker Alan Turing who, after breaking the enigma code of the Nazis and thus enabling the defeat of fascism, was cast out to the margins of society by his ungrateful country for being homosexual. (Turing later committed suicide by biting into an apple injected with cyanide).

The Left adores Turing and so he is wildly (and rightly) venerated. Watson annoyed the Left and so he is ostracised. That says a lot about which political wing is currently dominant over academia, doesn’t it?

And is Watson actually wrong? Surely that is the most central and vital thing to consider. Here is the statement that got him into this mess:

“I am inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours —whereas all the testing says not really… people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.”

This (admittedly clumsy) statement is far from ‘hateful’. It is grounded in fact by a crushing weight of experiment and analysis. Here is an excerpt from the book-length study of the subject ‘The Bell Curve’:

“Ethnic differences in measured cognitive ability have been found since intelligent tests were invented. The battle over the meaning of these differences is largely responsible for today’s controversy over intelligence testing itself…There are differences between races, and they are the rule, not the exception… External evidence of bias (in IQ tests) has been sought in hundreds of studies…Overwhelmingly, the evidence is that the major standardized tests used to help make school and job decisions do not underpredict black performance, nor does the expert community find any other general or systematic difference in the predictive accuracy of tests for blacks and whites.”

Those who would call James Watson ‘ignorant’ are themselves ignorant, and those ‘scientists’ who back these catcalls should not be considered scientists at all.

D, LDN.

Race, Honesty and Nicholas Wade.

Tags

A Troublesome Inheritance, Civilisation, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Genes and Talent, Is Intelligence inherited?, Multiculturalism, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Race and intelligence, Racism in Science, Scientific Racism, Steven Pinker

Nicholas Wade’s book ‘A Troublesome Inheritance’ was always predicted to elicit hysteria. Some even knew the script of outrage word for word. In the pages of VDare and Amren, veteran columnists like John Derbyshire and Jared Taylor awaited the crackling torches and swooshing pitchforks with a bored indifference.

As it happened, the hysteria arrived like a cuckoo from a Swiss clock. From the moment the book was published, Wade has been thrown violently onto the back foot. Political insinuations have been shaded into the background of the author’s profile. Phrases like ‘scientific racism, ‘pseudo-science’ and ‘shady funding’ have been bandied about without as much as a footnote to support them. And most importantly (and shamefully) of all, the science contained in the book has been torn apart, misquoted and miscategorised without any of it being convincingly refuted.

Although predictable, this is unbefitting of established academia. From what I have read of the book, the author’s tone seems altogether gentlemanly, his reputation rather mainstream, and his arguments often very watered down.

The point of Wade’s work is best summarised by his oft-quoted statement that human evolution has been ‘recent, copious and regional’. By this he means simply that man did not stop evolving when he left Africa, that his subsequent evolution has been considerable, and that it has happened in groups isolated from one another genetically. “Recent, copious, and regional.”

Wade won’t be winning any Nobel prizes for this insight, and rightfully so, since this was already the understanding of the vast majority of evolutionists. He may however, given his background at the one of the world’s most respected newspapers, popularise the theory.

And what would that do?

What would happen if tomorrow, everyone in the world went out and bought a copy of Wade’s book, read it and agreed with it? What, in a word, would happen if the science of race was re-accepted by the popular mind?

In the estimation of political Left, there would be hell to pay. American transport would have to re-arrange itself so that populations could be divided on buses and trains. Schools would also need to be resegegrated, Africa recolonised, miscegenation re-outlawed etc…

But are they right? I’m not sure.

Liberal democracy is too well established in every Western country for explicitly racist legislation to make a reappearance. There is no way that Atlanta, Georgia or Birmingham, Alabama could conceivably return to the dictats of Jim Crow and very few balanced people would suggest this. Demographics are everywhere different from former times. The world is different. The charge in the bomb has gone dead. span>

And since – as we are routinely and correctly informed – the ideas of racism are not legitimate anyway, we can surely dispense with the abuse directed at communicators of politically neutral scientific fact. Those who cannot be reached by this elementary logic can wait for the Rwandan Einstein or the Icelandic Usain Bolt for the next thousand years if it pleases them. It doesn’t matter. The thing about truth is that it stays true whether people believe in it or not.

D, LDN.

Ethno-Nationalism is a Mistake.

Tags

American Liberty, Barack Obama, BBC, BNP, Christopher Caldwell, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Multiculturalism, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, United States

As the election results in France, Hungary and Greece last week demonstrated, White Nationalism is a growing movement across the continent of Europe. The reasons for this are no great mystery. Everywhere on earth, in every available measure, White Power is declining.

The future leader of the world is expected to be China. The second in command meanwhile is predicted to be India (perhaps), and the third, a non-White majority United States. Europe by this time will be a fragmented, half-Islamised economic mess and Russia will have a fraction of its current population. Only Australia seems to offer the White race any hope for a dignified and homogenous future – and even this is based on wishful thinking (Australia is already 20% non-White).

To prevent any further decline in racial influence therefore, Ethno-Nationalism appears self-evidently fit for purpose. If Whites can band together and provide a common front against shared problems, perhaps some kind of stable future can still be manufactured.

I am an individualist. Ethno-nationalism is a collectivist concept, and so I reject it. Nevertheless, I don’t hate or seek to dehumanise those who find solace this way. It is totally understandable for a society undergoing decline to grasp at radical straws, and to endorse things which might not otherwise be in concert with its moral nature.

To argue against Ethno-Nationalism (and argue I shall), I find a simple exposure of its extent to be usually sufficient. Many White Nationalists are unaware that they are moderates in an extreme movement. That is, they do not appreciate the destructive nature of what they endorse.

Perhaps the most useful and coherent statement of ethno-nationalism to date is ‘The Passing of the Great Race’ by 20th century Eugenicist Madison Grant. This brief work was recently mentioned approvingly by Anders Breivik, and still enjoys a lofty position on the bookshelf of Nationalist elites. Adolf Hitler notably called it his ‘bible’.

Unlike White Nationalists of the contemporary mainstream, Grant did not accept the traditional division of races into four categories (Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid and Amerindian) as sufficient for his purposes. The White European race itself, he claimed, was not one race but many, and his polemical energy was dedicated solely to the preservation of only one – the ‘highest type’ – the Nordic race. Below the Nordic, he described two other European sub-groups (found in all nations, and identifiable only by physical characteristics) called the ‘Alpine’ and ‘Mediterranean’.

The Mediterranean race is largely found in countries along that coastline, including those on the southern bank. The Mediterranean race therefore includes not only Portuguese, Spaniards and Greeks, but Syrians, Berbers and Cypriots. According to Grant, they are noted for their romantic, artistic and sentimental qualities.

The Nordic race meanwhile is scattered around the northern countries of Europe, and its members are especially easy to identify. Nordic people are long-skulled, sharp-nosed, with blue or green eyes. They are tall, strong, unromantic and suited to analytical and organisational activity.

Alpines meanwhile, perhaps the majority in European nations, are the residuum of ancient peoples, noted for their darker skin, roundness of skull, and (in Grant’s words) peasant character. Alpines, he writes, form a majority in Wales, large parts of England, and most of France.

Even though this is hateful nonsense with no basis in science, I know what Grant is getting at here, and so let’s look at some examples of these ‘races’. The first is an example of the Nordic type, for which I have chosen the late model Reeva Steenkamp.

For the Alpine, here is the Welsh television presenter Alex Jones.

And for the Mediterranean, here is an unnamed Greek woman from a tourist website.

These are all European people, yet their diversity is obvious. The liberal form of White Nationalism plays down these differences. The harder, more traditional Nazi type does not. Who is to say that these two different ideologies will play nice with each other indefinitely?

As in Western Europe, there has been a worrying renaissance of Nazi ideology in Russia and parts of the former Soviet Union. This is perhaps even better suited to the demonstration of my point.

Apart from Jews, Hitler, Himmler and Rosenberg hated the Slavic peoples more than any other. Hitler in particular believed their submission to Bolshevism (in his mind, dominated by Jews) was the natural consequence of a Slavic predisposition to obedience, itself the product of a long period of natural selection designed to produce the best ‘peasant type’. Whilst most Neo-Nazis have collectively agreed to forget this tenet of Nazi thought, many have not. In Germany, the far-right street movement Die Unsterblichen (the immortals) has repeatedly made anti-Slavic comments. The same organisation has also bemoaned the modern Greeks, describing them as a formerly great people degraded over the centuries by miscegenation with Negros.

Even in Britain, one sees the same madly divisive force at work. The British National Party’s old manifesto (now taken down from its website) called for the separation of British citizens into ‘folk-communities’, each defined by a biological peculiarity like ‘Anglo-Nordic’, ‘Scots-Irish’, and ‘Celtic-Germanic’.

The problem here is integral. Biological nationalism, whether or not it intends to unite, inevitably leads to disintegration. One cannot be half-dedicated to it. If one endorses a scientific idea at all, then one must go the full distance. That process will lead necessarily to the re-fragmentation of Europe, and would be a disaster at this point in history when unity is very much needed to defend from foreign invasions.

European fraternity is put at risk by Ethno-Nationalism. Inflexible Biological Nationalism, blind to political reality, leads ultimately to the dark ages. Perhaps not a new Islamic dark age, but a dark age nevertheless. We must oppose both regressions. Defend the modern world.

D, LDN.

Political Correctness, Godfrey Bloom and the African Tragedy.

Tags

Africa, African people, China, Christianity and Islam, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Godfrey Bloom, List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Africa, Member of the European Parliament, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Race and Genetics, Race and intelligence, Romania, Saharan Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa

I was motivated to write this post after reading about the treatment of Godfrey Bloom, the UKIP MEP who has been severely reprimanded for protesting the transfer of British aid to a catch-all territory he called ‘Bongo-Bongo land’.

While the term Bloom used is obviously retrograde, silly and a throwback to the worst days of colonial racism, he was entirely correct to criticize the foreign aid budget which (alongside MP salaries) surely ranks among the great scandals of our day.

How can we justify, Bloom asked, giving any money to the foreign poor, when the poor here are becoming reliant on food-banks?

He could have gone much further, I’m sure, if political correctness hadn’t forbade it. Perhaps I can go further for him. Aid to Africa – though it has been a noble pursuit in the past – is today largely a swindle.

While the problems of Africa are real and tragic, they are usually self-created and self-maintained. Malnutrition for example, is the fruit of overpopulation. Aids is the fruit of irresponsibility. Tribal conflict is the fruit of culturelessness. 

To be absolutely frank, if we really cared about the welfare of Africans, we could solve their problems in a single decade by enforcing two commonsensical policies.

1. A child limit per woman.

Even though the same policy in China has led to horrid individual tragedies, Africa sees many, many more as a result of overbreeding. We must be clear that African parents who bring six or seven children into starving countries are not just uneducated, but frankly evil. They are behaving in a disgusting and reprehensible way and should be made an example of.

2. Economic policy, agriculture and city planning must be delegated to non-Africans.

Africans are not as bright as Europeans (the average IQ of a Sub-Saharan African is 70; the average for a European is 100), but they are still very much human-beings and deserve their share of human dignity. That dignity depends on their liberation from a state of darkness they evidently cannot escape.

African countries, even those considered to be merely ‘desert plains’, can be made into semi-modern countries with the right leadership. The Arabs and Berbers of North Africa manage to guarantee themselves a bassline standard of living (often in countries with little fertile land), but Sub-Saharan Africans clearly aren’t able to achieve the same. 

The only alternative to the status quo therefore is for Non-Africans to administer the economic and agricultural policies of Black-majority countries.

There you go.

Job done.

None of this will ever be undertaken of course, because to do so would wreck the Egalitarian order of the West. I just thought it might be nice to imagine a world in which we put peoples lives above theories.

Perhaps angry liberals could start thinking a little less about Mr Bloom, and a little more about that.

D, LDN.