Is Ethno-Masochism Real?

Tags

4chan, America, America 911, American Liberty, Amren, analysis, BBC, Britain First, canal plus, cartoon, channel, Channel 4, Civilisation, Defend the modern world, ethnomasochism, face, Facebook, Internet, jesse jackson, jesse south park, Multiculturalism, race, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, racism, retro, stan, Twitter, United States

Ethno-masochism seems to be the word of the moment on the political right. On sites like Vdare, Amren, 4chan and various independent blogs, the charge is being deployed against virtually everyone in the political mainstream (or at least as far as they relate to questions of Islam and immigration).

Etymologically it requires little explanation. Simply put, ethno-masochism describes the masochism of one race in its dealings with another race. In America, the relationship in question is almost always that between White Europeans and Black Africans, whereas in Europe, it more often concerns that between Whites and the jumble of Islamic boat people who have graced our shores in recent decades.

The unifying component is the White race; specifically, the idea that White people are uniquely and unnaturally submissive to other racial groups.

While the slur is often deployed as a pure insult, unaccompanied by any proof or detail, some have attempted to provide the label with a scientific context. Jared Taylor, for example, the gentlemanly leader of American Renaissance – both the largest and most respected White nationalist organisation in the United States – has alleged that White Europeans are possessed by what he calls a ‘pathological altruism’ – an evolutionary disposition that compels the sufferer to root for the underdog, seek out justice and fairness wherever it may be said to be lacking.

According to Taylor, and many of his fellows at Amren, this disposition originally developed because it was useful to traditional European societies – but now, with those societies increasingly multi-culturalised, the compulsion represents a classic case of evolutionary misfiring. What developed as a means of ensuring European prosperity, now directs itself blindly at non-Europeans.

How accurate is this? I’m not sure. But I must say that – in frank contrast with the prevailing sociological orthodoxies – I have always found minority groups to be more racist, tribal and anti-egalitarian than White people. Despite all the talk of ‘White devils’ and White bigotry/privilege’, no other racial group has progressed so far in the direction of post-racialism than White Europeans.

Put a Kurd in the same room as a Turk; put a Persian in the same room as an Arab; put a Dominican in the same room as a Haitian; put a Kenyan in the same room as a Somalian; put a Japanese in the same room as a Korean, and you will witness the most ugly, primitive, frothing hatred that can be imagined. If you put an average White in a room with any of the aforementioned races, little will occur beyond awkwardness.

Rather than being masochistic, Whites are simply more advanced than other races on the issue of racial difference. After the second world war, having grown tired of biological conflict, White countries chose to disarm themselves of racial notions, fully expecting other races to do the same. But they didn’t. They still haven’t. Thus the perceived disparity.

Theories of racial ‘masochism’ (or sadism) are unnecessary, I believe. White people should simply insist that their universalism be replicated in kind. By this simple demand, the racial grievance industry would be made ideologically and intellectually bankrupt.

D, LDN

Advertisement

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.