Black Lives Matter: A Study in Fanaticism

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, Barack Obama, BBC, Black Lives Matter, black lives matter movement, black matters, blm, Civilisation, Coffee, Defend the modern world, Facebook, Glenn Beck, Multiculturalism, Obama, politics, race, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, race issues, racism, trayvon, Trayvon Martin

Black lives matter. It’s not a sentence easily disagreed with. Indeed, when it first went viral (after a spate of controversial police shootings) I found it rather articulate. The only improvement perhaps would have been the addition of ‘too’ at the end. But that didn’t really matter. The message was still simple and direct: Black lives are not inherently less valuable than white or Hispanic lives, and so the police shouldn’t feel more entitled to fire at black criminals than criminals of any other background. Fair enough.

The best part of a year on from its inception, however, and Black Lives Matter has become something far less reasonable. Despite any noble beginnings, BLM is now a barely-organised cult of anger, of random society-bashing and raging self-pity. Its proponents are motivated more by hatred of white people than by sympathy for vulnerable blacks. Some on the political right have gone so far as to designate it ‘racist’ and a ‘hate group’; the mirror image of the KKK. I am not compelled to disagree with them.

Whether on college campuses, at political rallies, or in the street, BLM activists have been causing a riotous disruption to American intellectual life, and for no reason greater than the exercise and development of an industry of phoney grievance and community self-denial.

In the words of Wall Street Journal columnist Jason L Riley “(BLM) is not about the fate of blacks per se but about scapegoating the police in particular, and white America in general, for antisocial ghetto behavior. It’s about holding whites to a higher standard than the young black men in these neighborhoods hold each other to. Ultimately, it’s a political movement, the inevitable extension of a racial and ethnic spoils system that helps Democrats get elected. The Black Lives Matter narrative may be demonstrably false, but it’s also politically expedient…It’s the black poor—the primary victims of violent crimes and thus the people most in need of effective policing—who must live with the effects of these falsehoods.”

Mr Riley’s comment about black victims of violent (black) crime deserves extended analysis. It is still acceptable in liberal academia to blame the failings of African Americans on the existence of ‘institutionalised’ or ‘structural’ racism. A more honest and pro-black narrative would highlight the pitifully high rates of black-on-black crime in the neighbourhoods in which the acts of police ‘brutality’ are alleged to have occurred. Could it be that the police are merely trying hard to save black lives? Could it be that police excess in these neighbourhoods is the unfortunate overspill of a desire to protect black people?

No. It couldn’t be that. Well, not according to BLM anyway. Crackers, they reason, are just being crackers. White people love the sight of a puddle of black blood expanding on a pavement. It’s what got them to enrol in the first place.

Falsehoods cannot persist indefinitely. Sooner or later even the most doctrinaire bien pensant will end up reading forbidden arguments, or hearing unapproved statistics. Given enough time, and enough rope, the BLM cult will burst like a bubble.

And American Blacks will be all the better off for it.

D, LDN

Advertisement

Why are Mass-Shooters Usually White?

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, American Whites, Barack Obama, BBC, Britain First, Christianity and Islam, Christopher Caldwell, Civilisation, decline of White america, Defend the modern world, Facebook, Family Guy, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, social media, Twitter, White decline, White people decline of, White People in America, White Working Class, White Working class decline, Whites, Whites in America

As the world sought to digest the frightening news from San Bernardino last Wednesday, a consensus swiftly arose on social media arguing that the shooters were most likely of ‘Caucasian’ descent. They were wrong, it turns out, very wrong, but their presumption is nonetheless easy to explain.

From Columbine High to West Nickel Mines, Jokela High to Northern Illinois University, Sandy Hook to Lindhurst High, a frightening and probably disproportionate number of gun massacres are committed by young White men.

Why are they doing this? It’s a question that Leftists and Islam-panderers love to ask after shooting events like that at Planned Parenthood. They think (but are mistaken in thinking) that this will absolve Islam of its violent reputation, or that it will ‘put things into context’ with something like the same effect. “Perhaps Islamists are just the Middle East’s jerks, and school-shooters are America’s jerks? Perhaps we both have the same jerk-minority” etc… This is bullcrap, of course. Even if we entertained such logic, what would it make of the hundreds of millions of Muslims who are merely sympathetic to the Jerks – ‘Jerk-sympathisers’? ‘Ideological Jerks’? What would it make of the Islamic God who recommends such jerkish actions in the first place?

But apart from liberal mischief, the question is nonetheless valid and must be answered. Why are mass-shooters usually White? Could it be that White people are more violent generally than non-Whites?

No, it couldn’t possibly be that. African and Hispanic Americans commit crimes at a far (far) greater rate than American Whites do, and yet there have been very few Hispanic or Black mass-shootings in recent US history.

Are Whites in thrall to an extremist ideology of some kind – like Nazism or White supremacism etc..? No, not really. While membership of far-right organisations in America continues to grow (having been given new life after the election of Barack Obama), the proportion of Whites interested in head-shaving, dressing up in hooded pyjamas or saluting with an outstretched arm is tiny overall, and wouldn’t even make for a single percentage point.

What can it be then? The answer I believe involves the great unspoken, unexamined crisis of the modern world – namely, the dire condition of the White working class.

White decline as a phenomenon is not limited to America, and nor is (or will be) the fallout from it. Rather, it affects every European-majority nation on the planet. In England, America, Canada, Germany and elsewhere, White working class communities are falling into social disrepair and economic oblivion. With the death of Western manufacturing (due to China’s monopoly on exports), the growth of prescription drug abuse, and the academic impacts of mass immigration (especially from Asian nations), White working class men are finding it impossible to compete, to find a place for themselves in modern society.

If that weren’t bad enough, working class Whites find themselves the butt of popular culture. In Hollywood, satirical cartoons and internet memes alike, White working class men are portrayed as idiotic, aggressive, overdosed on religion and habitually racist towards all other social groups.

None of that could possibly excuse the kind of random cruelty under examination, but the context is nonetheless screaming out to be understood. A young white male – say, 16 years old – today, has a future of nothing but decline to look forward to. He is aware of the lofty position his race enjoyed until very recently. And the fall – as well as the corresponding rise of ethnic competitors – hurts. Blacks are stronger, faster and cooler. Asians are smarter. Hispanics are more numerous. etc… And all such minority groups are openly celebrated in the media, with only Whites left to construct pride out of nothing.

While there is a still a White power class, fat with wealth and armed with influence, the White ‘community’ itself has torn in two, with the White elite flying away into a cosmopolitan world of champagne and racial ambiguity. University-educated Whites care more about Tibetans than Texans; Palestinians more than Minnesotans. Poor Whites have literally no-one to protect them apart from gun-manufacturers, other disenfranchised Whites and the tattiest extreme of the Republican party.

The social condition of working class Whites is beginning to have shocking results quite apart from rates of crime. A report published last month (which stunned the medical community) revealed that mortality rates among poor whites are not diminishing (as in all other cases) but rapidly increasing. Addressing these findings The Atlantic magazine noted: “All-cause mortality among middle-aged Americans with a high-school degree or less increased by 134 deaths per 100,000 people between 1999 and 2013, but there was little change in mortality for people with some college (education). The death rate for the college-educated fell slightly.” Elsewhere the same article added the “reasons for the increased death rate are not the usual things that kill Americans, like diabetes and heart disease. Rather, it’s suicide, alcohol and drug poisonings, and alcohol-related liver disease.”

The ‘drug poisonings’ referred to in that quotation are part of a much larger epidemic of Heroin, Benzodiazepine and Oxycodone abuse in White American communities. The New York Times reported that “prior to the 1980s, whites and non-whites were equally represented among first-time heroin users. But that’s changed as heroin use has expanded across other parts of the country… Now, nearly 90 percent of the people who tried heroin for the first time in the past decade were white.”

Here in England, White working class decline is most noticeable in the field of education. Numerous reports (the most recent study was published earlier this year) have revealed a massive and still growing disparity in academic achievement between poor Whites and those from foreign backgrounds. Martin Beckford wrote in the Telegraph that “only 48 per cent of the poorest white boys met (government) targets in English and maths at primary school last year, compared with 82 per cent of Chinese pupils…This makes it less likely they will go on to university or well-paid jobs, and has consequences for their own children. The National Audit Office has claimed that white working-class boys are “‘significantly under-represented in higher education'”.

In October this year, the same newspaper reported that “White boys from poor backgrounds have the lowest attainment levels at GCSE (compared to) any other social or ethnic group… Just 28.3 per cent of white boys who were eligible for free school meals (Note: a significant signifier of poverty in the UK) achieved five GCSEs at grade A to C.”

Reacting to a different report with the same findings, Claire Crawford, an academic at Warwick University was quoted in the Guardian as saying: “We were particularly surprised to find that ethnic minority groups which have relatively low school attainment, such as those of black Caribbean, Pakistani or Bangladeshi ethnic origin, are, on average, more likely to continue into higher education than white British pupils.”

White decline of this kind is a precondition for White nihilism, the rejection of society and all its boundaries and values. If you allow a community to be poked at, robbed of hope and then left entirely to its own devices, the consequences can be shocking. I am not excusing violence. But in a world in which we rush to examine the societal causes of all wrong-doing by minorities, we should sometimes do the same for the majority as well.

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.

London Vs the United Kingdom.

Tags

Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Islamisation of London, London Independence, London is not Britain, London is not England, London vs England, Multiculturalism

The time has come to treat London (the uber-rich city-state landlocked by rural England) as a separate country to the UK. For at least a decade, the alleged national capital has enjoyed a reality wholly distinct from every other part of the country and consequently can no longer be considered part of it.

The ethnic English are a minority in London, having been overtaken by the African, Asian, Russian, Polish and South-European communities, many of which are now established beyond the second generation. As a result, London’s culture is markedly different to that of England and its citizens are becoming increasingly aware of this.

The capital thrives on the artificial and the shallow-rooted. England looks back to the glories of the past and seeks to maintain a connection with land and ancestry. England is generally conservative and inward looking. London is multicultural to the extreme and its political class kindles an internationalist politics to match.

All of the things ‘England’ is internationally praised for belong in fact to London. When people from England do well in society they tend to emigrate to the Smoke as soon as they can, often looking back scornfully at the country they leave behind them. London sucks the talent out of England, leaving a swelling, increasingly dominant working class, disconnected from an elite playground they feel no relation to.

While England ostensibly has many ‘cities’ of its own, only London matches the global conception of a metropolis. The large towns of the English north like Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle could only rival London if they were connected into a single city by a large underground rail network.

England is being deprived of a centre, of a capital and of a government. London’s government cannot speak the English language let alone understand the English heart. To the English, Londonians seem (and are) from another country. They are too slick and multiracial, too postmodern and accentless. Whenever they visit the barbarian territories of Stoke or Derby, they do so with the manner of charity campaigners visiting Africa to raise funds for a clean water supply. The barbarian natives of England who approach them and pitifully request that they ‘do something’ for their local ‘community’ are patiently patronised, just as an African would be in a Comic Relief short.

While it might seem as natural as rain, this internal divide has a lot to answer for. I know of no other country in which the mere mentioning of the capital city incites such deep-seated contempt.

There is even a movement, as yet marginal and undeveloped, to make London independent. If successful, this would destroy the United Kingdom as we know it and yet As things stand, the population of England would probably support this.

They are sick of the way things are. They are sick of seeing Londonian politicians visiting the Sub-Saharan classrooms of Greater London to launch pledges to an overwhelmingly White country. They are sick of a metropolitan ruling class dictating the pace to a predominantly rural nation.

The chemicals are gathered for an anti-elite explosion; a descent into the French-Revolution politics of envy and self-destruction. This isn’t something we can afford and something needs to be done about it.

D, LDN.

A Post-White World is Nothing to Desire.

Tags

America demographics, anti-Semitism, Black people, Christianity, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Defend the modern world, Demographics of America future, Middle East racism, Persians and Arabs, Post-White, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, United States, White race decline

The demographic outlook for ethnic Europeans is dire. That much is generally accepted by most academics and politicians today (even if they do not have the courage to mention it).

This process, when it matures, will split the world into two camps; those are approve of White decline, and those who do not. I would guess (though this is not certain) that people in the former camp will be those currently on the Left, and that the latter category will be staffed by those currently on the Right. Of course, many will defect either side of this divide as the process accelerates, and most of the defections will surely be Whites going Right.

In one way, I’m perfectly neutral about racial demographics. The relative increase in Latinos, Blacks and East-Asians is not something that keeps me awake at night. All of these groups are capable of civilisation, and nobody has presented to me a valid argument that they threaten my life or my aspirations.

In another way, though, I wonder if White decline might unleash the forces of chaos.

White supremacy (though it reverberates in the ear as a bad thing) has many happy consequences. Most of all, it provides what I would call a ‘global referee’ to keep intra-minority bigotries in check.

It’s fair to speculate that if the White race disappeared in a puff of smoke, the global measure of racism would increase, not decrease. Without a universal standard of civilisation, and without the liberal White attitude to ethnic difference, many festering rivalries would explode into life.

A lot of minority folk pretend to eschew racism purely because they want to conform to White standards. But if these standards disappeared, terrible emotions would surely burst out of their restraints.

Chinese would turn on Japanese and vice versa. Mexicans would turn on African-Americans and vice versa. Kurds would turn on Turks and vice versa. Persians would turn on Arabs and vice versa. Japanese would turn on Koreans and vice versa. Dark-skinned Indians would turn on light-skinned Indians and vice versa. Mixed race people would turn on Blacks and vice versa. You get the point…

We would do well to remember that White civilisation was not just the author of slavery, the Holocaust and segregation, but also the first (and as yet only) civilisation to embrace the attitudes of liberalism.

No other culture the world over declares race to be insignificant. The Chinese President doesn’t attend equality seminars with Black Africans. Japanese TV hosts do not lose their jobs for saying the wrong ethnic signifier. These are quirks exclusive to the West and to the White peoples.

Food for thought.

D, LDN

Taylor Swift and Racial Politics.

Tags

American Liberty, Christianity, Defend the modern world, miley cyrus, politics, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Shake it off Taylor Swift, Taylor Swift Jared Taylor, Taylor Swift Muslim

A case can be made that the American country singer Taylor Swift is the most beautiful woman in the world. A superstar and multi-millionairess at 24, the artist’s aesthetic is one of shining health, sexual sincerity and perfect symmetry. And with such perfection comes political power.

The genre which Swift until recently called her own – that of Country Music – is a cultural region exactly coterminous with middle and working class White America. It was the denizens of this region who sponsored Swift’s rise from local performer to global icon, and it is undoubtedly these same people who have over the past month (since the publication of Swift’s video for ‘Shake it Off’) complained of ‘betrayal’.

Swift, you see, has departed the straight-backed Caucasian domain of country for the relaxed, multi-racial world of millennial pop. The ‘Shake it off’ video features Swift holding a boombox stereo, wearing a baseball cap and making lyrical allusions to ‘haters’, ‘playas’ and ‘sick beats’. Nothing in the video is pornographic or offensive. Swift retains her class and restraint throughout, even as she is surrounded by twerking Africans (Some have even noted this contrast as evidence of a racist agenda behind Swift’s reinvention).

And yet still the comments flood onto YouTube and elsewhere, accusing the singer of having abandoned something; of having done ‘a Miley Cyrus’. I found one comment especially revealing:

“Why Taylor why! You were the last one to not give in. Theirs (sic) no one left now.”

While, as my tone would suggest, I’m not at all convinced that (unlike Cyrus) Swift has vulgarised herself – the song and video are both tasteful and enjoyable – I do perceive a familiar anxiety underpinning this kind of outrage.

Today’s youth is tomorrow’s elite. Not the day after tomorrow, but tomorrow. Swift’s generation (and mine) will one day be charged with deciding the direction of our civilisation. What you see in youth is a prophecy of the future.

The Africanisations of Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber therefore have ethno-political implications. As does the (albeit less dramatic) cosmopolitanisation of the formerly White-as-snow Taylor Swift. Whiteness is everywhere declining, transforming from an advantage into a detriment.

When the comments talk of ‘giving in’, they are communicating a transparently racial anxiety; the uplift of blackness and the corresponding decline of Whiteness.

To remind you why this is happening, I will now use a quote from my own work I have recycled before:

“The centre of White gravity is now conspicuously old in America, and getting older. By this same trend, White culture has become ever more morally stiff and disconnected from younger generations. If you are young and White in America, you are, whilst not yet in an ethnic minority, most certainly in a cultural one.”

The short post from which this text is taken (Miley Cyrus and White Cultural Decline) is one the posts I am most proud of having written. It has a prophetic quality to it.

How complete its accuracy turns out remains to be decided.

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.

Oprah Winfrey is a Talentless Scumbag.

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, Barack Obama, Defend the modern world, Martha Stewart, Multiculturalism, Oprah Winfrey, Police, race, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Television, United States, USA, Vulgarity

Shortly after the LA Clippers race ‘scandal’ hit the headlines; the television uber-personality Oprah Winfrey was quick to nominate herself as a qualified commentator.

“We’re not going back to the plantations.” She remarked to a waiting pack of reporters in her poorly ventilated, pre-op baritone voice, “Those days are over.”

Her comments were then duly reported across the world as if a whole new layer of meaning had been laid upon the story.

The comments under the article on the Daily Mail were dominated by the enquiry – Why?

Oprah Winfrey must be unique as a modern phenomenon. She is a billionaire, with uncountable books, television hours and celebrity connections to her name, and yet her renown and source of affection is limited entirely to her country of birth. No Englishman, Frenchman or (despite her laughable ‘tour’ down under) Australian has any regard for her whatsoever. Her success is an enigma; an American peculiarity – and the usual attempts at explaining it only seem to render it more foreign.

What distinguishes Winfrey from any other woman with the ability to read an autocue, expose straightened teeth and regurgitate ghost-written pleasantries?

In truth, Oprah is the longest-standing beneficiary of the racket of Affirmative Action. She has no disernable talent or charisma. Her personality is as multi-faceted as a plank of wood, and her physical appearance couldn’t be less photogenic. But none of this matters. She is clad in a suit of ebony privilege and arrived on the scene just as that privilege was beginning to grow in value. Now as it spikes, she is showered with more money that she knows what to do with.

This might be OK if Winfrey was merely vapid, but she isn’t. She is culturally damaging. The billionairess has built a well-earned reputation for being mentally shallow and ticklishly responsive to any passing trend, even to the point of self-contradiction. Through her talk show, she has endorsed just about every new philosophical or ‘spiritual’ fad under the sun, supplying each with the same rehearsed enthusiasm.

One could (as many do) dignify this tip-toed poise as open-mindedness. Didn’t Nietzsche remark that one’s thoughts should remain light and changeable and only tiredness lets them degenerate into convictions? Well yes, but he also had something to say about blindly following the herd.

Winfrey wastes no time in applying this malleable sense of loyalty to the field of politics. In her time, she has been friendly to both Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals. Only one aspect has remained constant, and that is her dedication to the theme of Black victimhood and the perennial nature of White guilt. Her jingoistic involvement in ethno-politics (like that mentioned above) is truly nauseating, as is her scumbag hypocrisy in amassing obscene wealth and preaching social justice.

Thankfully there are still some commentators with the balls to take issue with the Winfrey cult in public:

…But they are far from numerous.

The truth be told, I prefer America to my own country. I would gladly fight for America in a military conflict. But Winfrey gives me genuine cause for concern. Political correctness has sanded away the sharp edges of Europe. Affirmative Action has within it the same corrosive potential.

D, LDN.