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.

Advertisement

White Genocide?

Tags

Affirmative action, African American, America 911, American Liberty, Anders Behring Breivik, Anti-Racist is a Code word for Anti-White, Barack Obama, Christianity, Civilisation, Defend the modern world, miley cyrus, Pat Condell, Paul Weston, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, United States, White Genocide

It was in Birmingham on the 20th of April, 1968, that the political history of Modern England was quietly – but irrevocably – altered.

In a soft, seductive, Shakespearean tone, Conservative parliamentarian Enoch Powell delivered the talk on immigration since immortalised as ‘Rivers of Blood’.

In this address, Powell warned that Britain’s new immigration policy, should it continue indefinitely to the same extent, would disinherit the indigenous population of their rights, and in doing so set the scene for widespread civil conflict on English streets.

Shortly after the meeting was adjourned, the talk was reported by the media. The reaction was an uproar that shook British society to its very foundations.

Marches were held across the country, both for and against. The working-classes of the inner cities came out overwhelmingly in support of the MP, and claimed attention to the loss of industrial work for natives caused by immigration. The opponents of Powell’s sentiment meanwhile described his concerns as outrightly ‘fascist’, a word which, at that time, still had some emotional force behind it.

This is an excerpt from the speech itself:

“In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants… There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population… Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population …  As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood…. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect.”

The prescience of this speech is at once clear and obvious. Indeed, such an austere articulation of the fashionable ‘White Genocide’ thesis has never since been produced.

The phrase ‘White Genocide’ is one I personally dislike. It is deliberately hyperbolic, not to mention insensitive to the memory of genuine historical events. Nevertheless, it has quickly become the banner for a broad coalition of internet Nationalists, both rational and irrational, hateful and merely concerned.

And even if the phrase is innapropriate, the process intimated by it is real enough to deserve analysis.

As it happens, Powell was exactly correct in his ‘five to seven million’ range of estimate. The 2001 census in Britain showed that 6 million non-Whites then resided in the country; a figure which rises logically to seven million if we add the projected number of illegal, unregistered immigrants (1,000,000+).

The 2011 census showed that the figure of non-white Brits had risen to eight million, a figure kept down by the White immgiration from Eastern-Europe, in particular from Poland. But with Poles removed, the percentage of White English (Anglo-Saxons) in England in 2011 was just over 80% or 4 in 5. By 2020, over one quarter of English citizens will be non-English. By 2030, that figure will be over one third.

The White English are already a minority in cities like London and Leicester, and will soon be in Birmingham, Bradford, Nottingham and Manchester too.

The White population furthermore is getting considerably older. About a third of White English people are over or nearing retirement age. This will soon leave the numbers of physically capable White English citizens at a point of parity with non-Whites.

This last point, as offensive it might strike the heart, matters a great deal. As Paul Weston of LibertyGB has pointed out, people of the older generation ‘don’t matter’ as much in the demographic balance of power, because if a situation of ethnic conflict erupted over the political sovereignty of English territory, older English citizens would be largely out of the game, thus leaving the fighting to a severely diminished pool of White youths, many of whom are indoctrinated Leftists with a generational identity stronger than a National one.

Given the factors described, I would estimate the date at which White English people lose practical domination over their homeland at 2020. At this point, the fighting capacity of White English and non-White English will be roughly comparable. Perhaps it will even be slightly to the non-white advantage given the mixed loyalties of young whites themselves.

So, all is lost for Whites then? Not quite. As I mentioned above, the figures are nuanced with details which should considerably qualify any interpretation. Perhaps the biggest (and most obvious) swing factor in all this is that not all non-White communities possess either the cohesion or the desire to pose a practical threat.

The Polish people, for example, cannot seriously be called a threat to English sovereignty. Nor can, I would argue, the largely apolitical Black population, most of whom are integrated into the cultural bloodstream by sport and music. Nor are the Hindus or the Sikhs an aggressive or even integrationist element, given their strong ties of family and identity with India.

Still, even if not in England, White Genocide might seem a more reasonable hypothesis elsewhere.

The United States is due to have a White minority by 2042. White babies already account for a minority of newborns, and a shrinking portion of school and university intake. How minorities react to this transition is unguessable. While racial harmony has long been considered an American ideal, it hasn’t always panned out that way in reality. The Los Angeles riot legacy, Hispanic/Black gang animosities, lingering Protestant anti-Semitism, Detroitification of big cities, Trayvon Martin, Mexico border wars, drugs violence, and many other factors provide ample tinder for a wayward spark to ignite.

In his book ‘White Girl Bleed a Lot’, Colin Flaherty documents the alarming rise in Black-on-White mob activity in parts of urban America. The most notorious example of this trend is the reported ‘Knock-out’ game (often described in racial terms as ‘Polar-Bear Hunting’) in which gangs of Blacks seek out vulnerable Whites and Asians and attempt to knock them unconscious with a single blow the head.

In South Africa and Zimbabwe too, there have regular mob atrocities committed against White officials and civilians alike. The same trend is observable in parts of France, Sweden and Belgium (these cases particularly targeting women).

By way of conclusion, the hypothesis of ‘White Genocide’ should, I think, be rebranded simply as ‘Anti-European racism’. The first term is a ghost, the second a reality. As the Twenty-first century progresses, and as demographics alter, expect anti-European sentiment to become as widespread as any other kind of racism before it.

The White peoples of the world – aging, diminishing and riddled with Feminism – are going to have to learn to organize for their common defence; perhaps not against anything so great as ‘genocide’, but certainly against pogroms, the scale of which are yet to be determined.

D, LDN.