Gazan Clairvoyance

I'm going to dust off my crystal ball and make a prediction for the immediate future of Gaza: Obama will bring peace to Palestine. Now, don't take this as an endorsement of the man or his policies. Rather, it's likely such a strategem was developed well in advance of the first Palestinian child to be showered with white phosphorus.

I believe Israel cut a deal with the US some time ago, a deal to the effect of: "sure, sacrifice as many Palestinians as your Jewish wargod / Zionist supremacism demands, but get your licks in while Bush is still in office. The world detests the Texan, so his rep can't fall any lower. Once Obama takes office though, you'll be required to let him "solve" whatever crisis you create. And hey, we'll get the door for you on your way out, seeing as it's Saturday and all."

See, this way the Israelis get what they want; lots of dead Arabs, and the US gets what it wants; at least partly restored international relations. The foreign policy capital Obama will earn from "bringing" peace to the region will then be spent on securing allies for the next big push... Most likely Iran.

The Gaza massacre (13 to 1100 casualties is no "war") has been cynically timed to the end of year media lull as well as the presidential changeover, that much is obvious. I believe "peacebringer" Obama is the immediate surprise in store however. Sing his praises, ye faithful.

Assuming the war doesn't immediately escalate and spread through the region, give this claim a month or three.

A Shot of Mandela Porn

Finances are getting tight, so I've been chasing freelance writing gigs. Here's a sample piece I fired off to The Exile, to no apparent avail. My angle was the revival of their Mandela Porn segment but... I could blame their lack of response on leftist bias though, let's be honest, I fucked up by not following their format. Still, I shall persevere, leaving no brick wall unbutted in my quest to make a career of sardonic comment.

-

After apartheid was run out of town on the points of a pitchfork, good excuses to form a rampaging mob have been scarce. Sure, there’ve been recurring black-outs, stratospheric crime rates and abysmal living standards to piss and moan about, but all these problems lack a human face. To get properly riled-up and riotous takes a suitably villainous caricature, and the bald, bespectacled Potato Head of Afrikaner authority is long gone. Luckily though, there’s a convenient new source for the hated other - all the hopeful immigrants pouring into the country through its unpatrolled borders.

Mid-2008, South Africa was convulsed by “xenophobic violence,” the Rainbow Nation way to say “localised genocide.” Shanty-town residents ganged up to bash and burn the foreigners they accused of stealing their jobs. A handy excuse for carnage but, with unemployment around 42%, they probably didn’t even have jobs in the first place... Whatever, the locals flipped out en-masse, and at least 62 xenos died clicking their heels together and wishing they were back in Kansas.

As even the notoriously aloof Mbeki government eventually noticed the pervasive odour of roasting Zimbabwean, the army were sent in to pacify the chaotic “informal settlements.” Seems the police just couldn’t hack it, figuring that to stand up to a crowd you need to be a crowd - not an untrained, demoralised rag-tag. So, in scenes reminiscent of the final days of apartheid, the world was treated to soldiers firing teargas and rubber bullets into the teeming township throng. Of course, they were mostly black soldiers this time around, so that was okay.

Nasty violence quelled and investor confidence neatly castrated, sprawling “internal refugee shelters” mushroomed around the country. As the country went into its bitterest winter in recent memory, these camps accommodated the traumatised immigrants, the bulk of whom took to cowering in dark corners, whimpering and shivering like raped dogs. The country sniffed the clean air, heaved a collective sigh of relief, and went back to pretending it was Africa’s democratic miracle of peace and unity.

Of course, until everyone finally keels over from the sewage ‘n’ cholera concoction the government’s brewing in the national water supply, the madness of crowds will keep disrupting the Rainbow fantasy like news of a butt-plug clearance sale going through a Pride Rally. The latest, grim proof of this is a particularly horrifying incident that took place January 8th in Durban.

Stop me if you’ve heard this one - a Zimbabwean, a Tanzanian and a Mozambican are eking out their lives in a high-rise refugee shelter. Late one night, they spot an enraged, machete-wielding mob heading their way, excitedly blowing vuvizelas (trumpets) and screeching “shaya amakwerekwere” (“hit the foreigners”). Some of their friends and family hide under beds, even in toilets, but the Zimbabwean, Tanzanian and Mozambican find themselves trapped on the apartment’s top floor.

As the 50-odd bloodthirsty locals pound up the stairs, the three migrants decide that, rather than be hacked limb from limb, they’ll jump out the sixth story window. The Zimbabwean and the Tanzanian die instantly from the bone-splintering fall but, get this, the Mozambican survives. He’s in critical care right now, having apparently found his happy thought on the way down - and the smart money’s on “no more life in South Africa!”

The real punch-line? The “Venture Africa” complex, that Cape Canaveral of the immigrant community, was just two doors down from the local cop shop. Several witnesses have come forward, puzzled as to how the Broad Street S.A. Police Services missed the horns, chanting, breaking glass and screams, to say nothing of the footfalls across the roof. Somehow, the cops even failed to notice the armed mob streaming past their windows. Streaming past not once, mark you, but twice, as the killers marched home in triumph, suffused with the warm, communal spirit of mob violence. Of course, before declaring the pigs inept cowards and calling for the baby-killers, you’ve gotta consider that maybe there was a really good soccer match on TV.

Crying Fowl

The Godfather

JOE: ...Go to the mattresses.

KATHLEEN: What?

JOE: It's from The Godfather. It means you have to go to war.

KATHLEEN: The Godfather? What is it with men and The Godfather?

JOE: The Godfather is the I Ching. The Godfather is the sum of all wisdom. The Godfather is the answer to any question. What should I pack for my summer vacation? “Leave the gun, take the cannoli.” What day of the week is it? “Maunday, Tuesday, Thursday, Wednesday.”

And the answer to your question is “Go to the mattresses.”

You're at war. “It's not personal, it's business. It's not personal, it's business.” Recite that to yourself every time you feel you're losing your nerve. I know you worry about being brave, this is your chance. Fight. Fight to the death.

- You've Got Mail (1998)

Anyone who hasn’t seen the Godfather series needs to do so immediately. Best trilogy ever, just like Lord of the Rings. And just like Lord of the Rings, the book’s even better. The best in their respective genres, if not the definition thereof. Such was Godfather’s power that it not only redefined Mafia fiction, but the very Mafia itself. Life imitating art, the Mafia strove to emulate their most loyal, honourable aspects as portrayed in The Godfather. While I don’t suggest we of the New Right in turn mimic the Mafia, there is much to be learned from the(ir) story.

Similar to Tolkien’s tale as interpreted by Jackson, there are slight discrepancies between Puzo’s novel and Coppola’s film. Michael Corleone’s line above; “It’s not personal, it’s business,” is in direct contrast to the secret of the Family’s success as revealed in the novel: “It’s all personal.” A minor rewrite to some, perhaps even to Puzo whose screenplay it was, but a profound difference as it reflects the divided nature of mind.

Thought and feeling, as closely linked yet vastly separate as written dialogue and spoken words. This duality, so integral to man, paradoxically divides him from himself. It’s in this abyss between conscious thought and subconscious feeling, rationality and irrationality, that all the devils of man reside. And it’s into this Hell we venture. Soon we shall confront the Morningstar, whose angelic appearance and honeyed words of equality and liberty, so mask his dark truth. Not lightly do I invoke such metaphorical allusions but if, as my intuition tells me, that philosophy which opposes the logic, empiricism and morality of the New Right is borne of occult mysticism, I do so aptly. If some scholar of philosophy and occultism were to prove this linkage, it may do our opponent’s considerable political damage. But enough of the arch devils behind the Beast’s empire, back to the one founded upon Darwinism and Christianity.

The Godfather’s crux, around which so much reason and unreason swirl, is sudden, high-level change which threatens a dominant criminal empire. Some “black kettles” have, entertainingly if rather superficially, likened this violent shift in the balance of power to September 11th, and the resultant developments to American foreign policy thereafter. This reading of Puzo’s I Ching, or I Wop if you want to be a prick about it, is based on the following hexagram:

The great Don Corleone, like Pope Jean Paul II, is shot down in his own territory by the brutal Turk. Like the Pope, the Godfather survives the assassination attempt. But while Jean Paul II, either a good man or a great fool (assuming some inequality), forgave Mehmet Ali Ağca, the Don never has such an opportunity. Before Don Corleone emerges from coma, his son, Michael, murders the Turk and his co-conspirator, a corrupt police “capo.” In convincing his brothers of the rightness of his course, Michael assures them “It’s just business.” Though Michael loves his father dearly and is filled with righteous hatred for his would-be assassin, this assurance is not quite a lie, but a half-truth. In a rare confluence of thought and feeling all too familiar to our movement, eliminating the Turk is the strategically-correct course though it follows the pull of a loyal heart.

Realistically, it can never be “just business” when the lives of family are threatened. As race is best defined as “extended family,” this heartfelt truth is a damning indictment of modernity. Race-replacement, for the most part economically-motivated, threatens the very existence of our descendants. This, in addition to the direct threat it presents our generation’s standard of living, social cohesion, employment prospects and so on. Can we dispassionately dismiss this reality? Can we afford to? No! We must reveal our assailant, form a battle-line and declare war.
The entity responsible for this assault on our family - our Turk, if you will - is primarily of American provenance though, like the diminishing majority of Americans, of distant European extraction. It is the worldview which sees humans chiefly in economic terms, as self-interested commercial agents without racial or cultural affiliation. Until recently, capitalism was held in check by that morality which stems from adaptive behaviour - family values, if not the values of the Family... However, as the proverbial They - in this instance coyly(?) defined as transnational elites - grew more rapacious, such basic values (to say nothing of lofty Constitutional ideals) impeded their ascent to ever greater heights of power. Something had to give, and sadly it was our side in the resultant culture war.

Greatest of our weapons were the tight bonds between family, friends and kind. Capitalism may be the most cunning economic system yet devised, but it remains the monetary equivalent of natural selection, morally neutral. It can never replace love for one’s own as our highest value, a morality worthy of the human heart. We of good conscience must not, cannot, coldly weigh our fellows against coin. To us, such treason remains the gravest of offences, an affront to the trust and loyalty with which we underwrite our social contract. The innermost circle of Hell, named Judecca, is reserved for those who violate this sacred bond. Something beyond material temptation was required to undermine our society. And so rises, finally, the Deceiver.

Loosed upon us by the prideful lords of this world, comes our nemesis, Social Constructionism. A hallucinogenic lightshow, a quasi-mystical dogma, a delusion deadlier than any Mohammedan assassin. It is emotion wholly substituted for thought, the codification of understanding reality only as we want to see it. Interpretable only in terms of itself (the pretentious Latin term for which currently escapes me), this fundamentally irrational doctrine seeks to reframe all opposition to its shadowy agenda as arbitrary cultural preference. The most humane or intrinsically human of resistance is recast as a trivial relic and, more often than not, a shameful, backwards evil. As a rather poor but close to hand example, a recent National Geographic special featured a Boas-spawned anthropologist who smugly dismissed war in humans and chimps as “a cultural artefact.” If life processes as fundamental as the competition for resources, leading to in-group cooperation and out-group aggression, can be explained away as a mere memetic bagatelle by Social Constructionism, what hope is there for the genuine memes of Western high culture?

Very little, judging by the aesthetic devolution presented by a stroll through any gallery by way of Renaissance to Conceptual Art. I present as Exhibit A the crowning glory of the YBAs, conceptualists so sophisticated that they’re against concepts. Beyond such as messy bedspreads and bisected animals, the greatest tragedy is that many youngsters enter the world of leftier-than-thou academe as talented artists. Once capable of gracing us with sublime Beauty, they emerge indoctrinated sophists dedicated to the destruction of such parochial notions.

Insidiously, as an ageing woman losing her looks, Social Constructionism has become the public face of society. A raddled ortho-doxy, defining human nature (as “non-existent”), at least for all those unwilling to court controversy and disaster, her shrill condemnations. Her mind a solipsistic refutation of objective reality, diminished by its own flawed rationale as just another arbitrary cultural preference, this Scarlet Harlot clouds the wisdom and warps the loyalty of Homo sapiens europeaus. Subverted, he becomes Homo economicus, a tame beast of burden to free-riding elites.

The means by which these trans - indeed, post - nationalist exploiters expand their influence are complex, but as undeniable as the ever-widening gulf between rich and poor. Even in 1st world nations, this process continues apace despite the political centre having increasingly shifted towards the egalitarianism of the left. Technology has advanced such that this effect, at least as manifested in the civilized world, cannot be blamed on scarcity of resources alone. Rather, the blame rests on such parasites as callously orchestrate wars or plunge the world into financial turmoil.

These bloated, globalist ticks, who even now use our desperation and disarray to consolidate their position, would suck the very lifeblood from our veins. Their infestation spreads by first altering the cultural environment of the collective human body. Gramscian in method, they sour the body’s pH balance with pollutants of varying causticity, from Orwellian neo-liberalism to internationalist neo-marxism. Concomitant with the dispersal of these noxious poisons is the release of a sedative, capitalist hyper-consumption, from the tick’s hindquarters. A secular opiate to lull the adipose middle-class even as they’re slowly consumed.

The system thus destabilised, its constituent parts succumb to opportunistic infection. Perhaps the feminist womb, perhaps the minority skin, any organ suitably debilitated by resentment - whether instilled or justified - is all it takes for a single rogue cell to trigger carcinogenesis. The metastasising cancer leaves a body wracked with discord, as rapidly-multiplying, tumorous (pressure) groupings expand throughout any remaining healthy tissue. Finally, all adaptive social structures which form the body’s immune defences are compromised, resistance collapses and the rot sets in. The parasites gorge unchecked on the spoils, society rendered to a noxious pablum before collapsing inwards upon itself. The parasitic-saprophytic cycle begins anew as the creatures creep to their next host.

From one rather torturous metaphor to another, it should now be clear why slaves have been “freed” from inadequacy to become taxpaying workers, why women have been “freed” from reproduction to become taxpaying drones, and why deviants have been “freed” from pariahdom to become taxpaying queens. I cannot resist reiteration of pre-eminent sociobiologist and expert myrmecologist (my word for the day), Edward O. Wilson’s critique of communism, “Wonderful theory. Wrong species.”

Though we don’t have communism steamrolling along class lines in the West, we have it’s bastard hybrid, social / liberal democracy, steamrolling along racial and cultural lines instead. The bourgeois are being steadily displaced by Leviathan’s invisible hand, only the neo-bourgeois need be actively dismantled - and as any straight white male (and increasingly, female) can attest, this is happening at a rapid pace.

Now, having traversed the scenic route through whimsical woods of metaphor, our common enemy has been described. The question of what must be done presents itself. To cast a backwards glance, what religious icon to ward off this devil? What appropriate immune response? What bug spray?

Well, rejoining the original path, I have several suggestions, drawn from The Godfather. Puzo sketches sufficient Sicilian history for us to draw certain parallels with our current predicament, and he relates how survival-minded Sicilians adapted the Mafia in possibly instructive way. I want to emphasise that I’m using parts in isolation to make a point, not endorsing the Mafia. Well, beyond gifting The Godfather my coveted “Worth a Squirt” award anyway.

Some background: the Mafia was the secret organisation which arose “publically” in the 19th century, possibly long before. It was a backlash against centuries of injustice and tyranny, a harrowing history of hegemony. In Puzo’s words, “Sicily was a land that had been more cruelly raped than any other in history.” (As an aside, The Godfather was written in 1969, well before the emergence of a Bantu-ruled South Africa.) Puzo goes on to mention Corleone, Sicily’s “small poverty-stricken town [which] had the highest murder rate of any place in the world.” (And again...)

Further horrors are recounted in the form of Inquisitorial torture of nobleman and commoner alike and, a recurring theme, oppression via distant governments. One regime in particular so brutalised the Sicilians with their blunt instruments that, among the islanders, “policeman” became the most vile of insults. Even Mussolini, that socialist militarist so erroneously conflated with the right-wing, gets a mention as the most recent to cast his considerable shadow over the pastoral beauty of Sicily.

Besides toughness, Sicily’s “record” of brutal injustice by outsiders clearly selected for cunning and tribalism. Long-suffering Sicilians learned to protect themselves by never openly displaying defiance, as this always brought crushing reprisal. And they learned to protect each other by covertly extracting themselves from the society imposed upon them, and covertly joining themselves together to form a clandestine alliance. “They learned that society was their enemy and so when they sought redress for their wrongs they went to the rebel underground, the Mafia.” And here I pause to glance significantly at your mental screen. “And the Mafia cemented its power by originating the law of silence, the omertà.”


Ah, yes. Omertà: “The categorical prohibition of cooperation with state authorities or reliance on its services, even when one has been victim of a crime,” according to the Akashic records.

So what am I proposing? Well, as the modern state takes from our race though our race gives to the modern state, I reject its legitimacy. Beyond supporting foreigners who’d never return the favour, our governments commit the unforgivable treason of breeding us out of existence. Barring almost unimaginable change, our seduced “leaders” are irrevocably set on the course of domesticating, deracinating and demographically diminishing Homo sapiens europeaus. This last, as far as I’m concerned, is reason enough to break out the rope and rifle, axe and pike. Violent revolution


is not what I’m proposing however. We are still Sicily to their Papal Empire and, as their soft totalitarianism grows ever harder, we’re forced to conceal our mounting defiance for fear of crushing reprisal. Instead, we must set to creating a state within a state or, if you prefer, a self-interested, “illegitimate” Cosa Nostra within a larger, oppositionary Kosher Nostra whose power is so vast it has long since “gone legit.” And I use “kosher” mostly in the sense of an irrational orthodoxy... To the point, what lawful authority can the predatory Leviathan lay claim?

For what is taxation at the point of a shiv (or worse) in the showers but a protection racket? What is the stock market but a numbers game? What are police but enforcers? What are soldiers but button men? What is bureaucracy but cronyism? What is electioneering but bribery and the putting of the squeeze? What is the auction of political power to corporations but a system of graft and kickbacks? What is political correctness but an intimidatory code of silence?

To hell with them.

Though the disorganised and fragmentary herd of cats I rather hopefully refer to as “we,” are making great efforts at working within this broken system to change it, our efforts require coordination and powerful backing, perhaps even a little muscle. Whether inadvertently or otherwise, scientists of the harder disciplines such as genetics, neuro/evolutionary-science/psychology, etc. are making great strides in winning the minds of our people. Philosophers and metapoliticans, particularly of the European New Right, are similarly influencing a broad spectrum of intellectuals. In less rarefied climes, the quotidian realities of misrule, suppression and race-replacement are contributing to the growth of nationalist parties, who strive for the hearts of our people. Even the internet, for as long as it remains free, is serving a vast selection of hyper-caffeinated wake-the-fuck-up to those growing restless under the thrall of the soporific mainstream media.

And that’s all very well, but more than the intra-systemic is called for. I don’t suggest we work outside any legal boundaries, that can be left in the prison-yard, where demonised skinheads ink each other with crude and hateful sigils as they collude against the sanctified gangstas whose supremacist hatred seemingly dictates fashion and music trends. Rather I suggest we clandestine business networks, both local and international webs of influence with the financial clout to, for example:

- Ensure favourable coverage of existing and emerging scientific findings which corroborate our case. Whether these findings are by pa(rt)isans or not, good men of science deserve better than to languish in obscurity for daring to challenge the zeitgeist. This is comparable to how the Corleone family plucks the brilliant young surgeon, Dr. Segal, from the dead-end posting to which the medical establishment consigned him for performing abortions. Segal is raised to a position of prominence as the head of a medical team, from where he can apply his intelligence and expertise.

- Exert influence to get members and member’s children into any job, university or office which they merit. Just like the Don got his godson, the celebrated Johnny Fontane, into the lead role of a hit movie. Johnny, perfect for the role, had been spitefully denied the opportunity for petty political reasons. All it took was a horse to d8 to change the mind of Moe Greene, the arrogant, perverted studio head.

- Contribute to the political campaigns of those sympathetic to the perfectly moral desire for genetic continuity on behalf of their people. This is akin to how the Godfather, as an act of patronage to Enzo the baker, taps his tame politico to ensure an illegal immigrant from Sicily can stay on in the country. Presumably the laxness of the strings that ground an alien could be tightened, yanked them back in the opposite direction.

- Buy or influence those authorities not sympathetic to the perfectly moral desire for genetic continuity on behalf of their people. Rather like in the movie: Senator Pat Geary demands an exorbitant (for the time) $¼M to facilitate the Las Vegas ambitions of the Family. Referring to Italians as “oily-haired“ and “dirty,“ he soon changes his tune when the Don's Consigliere smooths over a rather embarrassing dead hooker situation for him.

- F(o)und educational institutions not held back by demoralising agitprop or the less studious races. Like in the movie when... Though The Godfather is the sum of all wisdom, I am clearly not the sum of all wisdom on The Godfather and so can't locate the relevant example. But it's there...

- Bring to international prominence the plight of persecuted white minorities, for example the genocide of whites, particularly farmers, in South Africa. Just like rival Families forming protective alliances and dividing profits for the greater good.

- Collaborate to provide legal assistance to those wronged by anti-white policies and practices. In much the same way the Consigliere, proficient in criminal law, deals with all such matters arising.

- Provide extra-legal assistance to those who accept our version of the omertà. Rather like Bonasera the undertaker refuses to cooperate with his fellow Sicilians, choosing instead to “believe in America.” When his beautiful young daughter's jaw is broken and virginity nearly stolen by two yobs, Bonasera seeks justice from the courts. In vain, as the thugs are well-connected. Disillusioned, Bonasera and goes cap in hand to The Godfather, who gives him justice in the form of two made-to-order beatings and a lesson in loyalty to ethny. Though I've yet to read it, a Swedish political scientist kindly provides us greater detail on this “Causal Mechanism between Trust in Authorities and Trust in Others.”

- And of course, cooperate to maximise our profits from whichever legal enterprise(s) we make our core business. Gambling's legal in Las Vegas, right? Plenty of ways to dip a beak... I'm thinking clone or designer babies carried to term in the wombs of illegal immigrants, but that's just me. And while that might not be legal in Las Vegas, it could become so in a place that's willing to pay good money to boost it's indigenous population...

So there you have it, a conspiratorial network of business interests, branching out into all other spheres in furtherance of our aims. “Just business,” united by the “all-personal” goal of the 14 words. Whatever their derivation, a “Don Black” being far less useful to us than a true Godfather personality, only a genocidal madman could object to the following mission statement: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”

In conclusion, an extract to inspire, revealing the character that allowed the rise of the Don (Corleone in Italian meaning “Lionheart”) to greatness:

“He had long ago learned that society imposes insults that must be borne, comforted by the knowledge that in this world there comes a time when the most humble of men, if he keeps his eyes open, can take his revenge on the most powerful. It was this knowledge that prevented the Don from losing the humility all his friends admired in him. ”

Downfall

I should probably say something topical about the US election but screw it, this is way more fun:

Domine, Quo Vadis?

“There is no obligation upon any man to passive obedience, when his life, his liberty and his property are threatened by footpad, assassin or statesman.”

- Ragnar Redbeard.

Ragnar Redbeard was the nom de guerre of a mysterious Social Darwinist who, some 110 years ago, authored “Might is Right.” Described in its day as “a vitriolic, racist hymn to the doctrine of force," and "... surely one of the most incendiary works ever to be published anywhere," Ragnar’s screed retains its power to induce menstrual and rectal haemorrhaging in all but the hardiest of men. In our hyper-individualistic, post-modern day, the words of this self-styled Viking reaver are about as welcome as the jaws of Fenris. I’d suggest the religious avoid Ragnar’s words as they would anything endorsed by Anton Szandor LaVey - much less plagiarised for his Satanic Bible.

Ming the Merciless and Anton LaVey...)
Ragnar’s philosophy is brutally pragmatic. The world belongs to the powerful, who draft laws to keep the herd servile and craft lies to enslave their weak minds. Through strength, a man might rise from the herd to dominance, his ambition rewarded with wealth, women and power. Life is struggle and those who reject this principle will themselves be rejected by life.

As his berserker rage wanes, Ragnar makes way for Darwin’s charge: "Inferior organisms succumb and perish or are enslaved. Superior organisms survive, propagate and possess." Undeniably, this is the way of nature. Only the naïve or deluded will deny it to be the way of the world. The only question is whether it should be.

I’d say the answer, inevitably bound in slave-morality when negative, makes little difference. Whether a Christian king, Marxist dictator or egalitarian president rules, the laws of nature remain unchanged. The only worthwhile measure of governance is the degree to which it adheres to reality. Even the most noble, or apparently noble, deviation therefrom leads only to greater suffering. The oft-cruel ways of Mother Nature, that occasional cackling crone, must be acknowledged just as her fairer aspects are admired.

But we have forgotten such lore. Modern technology has partially repealed the “red in tooth and claw” tyranny of the natural world, particularly in Western societies where even slaves possess slave-machines. Advancing beyond machinery, genetic science might soon provide us all manner of crudely-illustrated marvels:

Q: What do you get if you cross an octopus with a gentleman of Negroid extraction?
A: Dunno, but it sure picks cotton like a motherfucker!

However, all such present and future technologies, and by extension the “liberated” societies thereby enabled, are predicated on a single thing: cheap oil. One 42 gallon barrel of crude oil contains the equivalent of 25000 man-hours of hard, physical labour. Really. When the oil runs out, as all finite resources do, we’ll have to start putting the man back into man-hour. It remains to be seen exactly when the oil dries up, and whether we can develop a replacement energy source.

Anyone who believes existing energy “alternatives” can prevent the energy crisis, likely also believes alternative medicine can cure epidemical AIDS. Thus the tenets on which modern urban, industrial civilization is based, infinite progress and limitless growth, are revealed as mere assumptions, not reality. This is heartening to those of us who value our EGI; our ancestors, contemporaries and descendents, above pleasure-seeking.

The easy life is a product, often literally, of an unsustainable system based on consumption. Ultimately, self-indulgence is the morality of this order, hyper-individualism the philosophy. No longer needing slaves to live as sybaritic lordlings, the elites spread the lie of equality and invite dysgenics. No longer needing to band together to survive a hostile world, the elites outlaw our ties of blood and invite race-replacement. The inferior “survive, propagate and possess” in defiance of Darwinian law, as the elites conspire to breed an ever more docile, domesticated herd.

Already showing warning-signs of instability, if not outright collapse, this disintegrating, Leviathanesque superstructure can’t endure indefinitely. Whether through dysgenics, immigration or both, an increasingly idiotic and immoral population are its rotting shorings. To say nothing of the changing environment and depleting resources which are its foundations; a system built by intelligent, altruistic whites cannot be maintained in their abscence. The hideous hag will have the last laugh on all of us. In the words of Ayn Rand, “One can evade reality, but one cannot evade the consequences of evading reality.”

I expect these consequences to be tumultuous, likely a resurgence of tyrannical, autocratic rule. According to Oswald Spengler’s Decline of the West, capital replaces faith, and Caesar follows capital. Interestingly, South Africa has seen an extremely accelerated version of this model: from the multi-cult of Mandela, to the capitalism of Mbeki to... Well, I’ll reserve my Ave to the coming Imperator, who hardly deserves to be spoken of in the same paragraph, or indeed article, as Julius Caesar.

Violent totalitarian regimes, when led by a charismatic, strategic genius, have much to recommend them. They inevitably unify the populace, usually by emphasising racial solidarity. Racial struggle always supersedes class struggle, according to Spengler. Next, the nation is enriched through cannibalisation of foreign elements. Yay for power, loot and expansion! Boo for inherently unstable, hyper-masculine, aggressively-thrusting Rapocracies though. The weakness of such tyrannies is that they tend to die when the tyrant does, and depend largely on his character. Brilliant leaders who can achieve lasting victory are rare, almost invariable is the power-mad tinpot,

overreaching himself to brings ruin and humiliation upon his people. From such ashes, the nation eventually arises anew on the wings of faith: the only strength to which the poor and powerless can lay claim, and no less a strength for that.

Returning to the greater Western context before I trigger a mass exodus of whites from South Africa;

democracy’s fatal flaw is it’s susceptibility to corruption. This inevitably brings down the prosperity its earlier purity creates, the ensuing poverty and power vacuum giving rise to authoritarian rule. If Western economies crash, we’ll likely see a resurgence of Fascism, or even Nazism... Which, like a particularly tacky prostitute who fails to swallow her chewing gum before fellatio, would only half-suck. While such systems provide in abundance for love of people, they’re poison to love of freedom. A notional Axis victory might be heaven for German, Italian and Japanese EGI but it’d be hell for free speech, free association, free market values, scientific freedom... And, yes, the freedom to (occasionally) indulge in illicit sex, harmful drugs or decadent rock ‘n’ roll - preferably all three at once with some donkey-on-midget porn thrown in for good measure. In other words, a victorious Axis would usher in an era as imbalanced as the one resulting from the Allied and, more specifically, Soviet victory.

Now, why have I raised such matters of Social Darwinism and Fascism? Well, because they relate to the quote so kindly provided by our esteemed, shield-biting


Mr. Redbeard. And why did I choose such an inflammatory emcee to introduce me? Well, because his particular words:

“There is no obligation upon any man to passive obedience, when his life, his liberty and his property are threatened by footpad, assassin or statesman.”

are not only sound common sense but the unassailable moral high-ground, Satanist associations be damned. Why then, when I repeat them to the more pallid of my white brethren, perhaps accompanied by a call to resistance against such threatening menaces, am I denounced as an evil Fascist or devilish Social Darwinist? Because fuck them, perhaps? Quite likely, but let’s examine the causes more thoughtfully.

The Social Darwinist charge is easiest to answer, with a simple admission: I am a Social Darwinist. Not exclusively in the manner prescribed by old Red Rag though. After all, his views were based, among other things, on a version of Darwinian theory since greatly improved by such luminaries as Watson-Crick, Hamilton, the Wilsons, Dawkins and Salter, to name but several. R.R.’s teachings extend to the singular, competitive alpha male and little further. For example, cooperation is just as crucial as competition to survival. Admittedly it doesn’t make for the same high drama as war for survival, waged by all on all. The point is - “Biopolitics” being taken - my “Politics of Science,” complete with a more evolved species of ethics than dog-eat-dog, represents a practical, workable framework for human society. How can humanity organise without knowledge of humanity?

Of course, there’s no shortage of idealistic, unrealistic frameworks out there. I consider all such, from Feminist penis-envy to Marxist success-envy, to be contemptible denials of reality. Their proponents get butt-hurt by their inferiority in some regard, then ascribe the associated aspect of the universe to some great evil, be it Chauvinism or Capitalism. And just so no one thinks I’m cheating, I’ll include ze Juden as another “great evil.” But don’t take my word for it. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If anyone can mention a consistently successful matriarchal or Marxist society, I’ll accept them as solid ideologies. The converse applies. Feel free to reject Social Darwinism if largely homogenous societies which organise themselves meritocratically, in accordance with human nature, are shown to be consistent failures.

I stress homogeneity as it is vital to social cooperation, as liberal scholar Scott Putnam was dismayed to discover, officially. I can’t resist adding that Putnam was a political science professor at Harvard, whose “diversity dean” has just flounced off in an indignant huff over lack of diversity. Apparently academic racism and chauvinism, in the form of entrance exams and the like, were restricting the influx of ethnic exotica.

And I stress a “may the best man win” ethos of economic competition, with perennial losers provided social welfare in the form of exile, as the only way to regain the strength and virtue of my people. Ahem. Our people... So, any takers? One Communist utopia or one “Realist” dystopia and I’ll pack it all in.

At this point, some clever dick will likely shoot up his hand for Nazi Germany. Nice try. The Nazis didn’t come close to organising themselves meritocratically - or else why were Jews, who have the positive stereotype of being smart businessmen, excluded from commerce? Why did Hitler make refugees of top-notch Jewish scientists, not least of whom Einstein, who denounced relativism and offered relativity? Put your hand down, Rabbi Lapin, I’m speaking rhetorically.

As for Nazi compliance to race-realism and that bone I just won’t drop, Salterian EGI, well... Hard to know where to begin. Aryan Superman’s nemesis was the black athlete, Jesse Owens, who egged his face at the Berlin Olympics. Aryan Superman’s Kryptonite the IQ test, which Hitler banned as clearly biased toward the sinister Jewish intellect in some diabolically subtle way.

The truth is that Aryanman wasn’t a serendipitous scientific superhero like Spiderman or Hulk but rather a mythical superhero, like Thor or Conan. Aryanman’s implausible origin story concerns Jungian racial archetypes, occultism, the lost lands of Hyperborea and Ultima Thule, folklore and so on, ad nauseum. He was a social construct just as transparent as post-modernity’s Egalitarian Social Justice League. If Aryan pride were grounded in science, its claim wouldn’t be absolute superiority but rather a healthy balance of intellect and athleticism, aggression and caution. Unparalleled martial prowess and a history of cultural achievement represent similarly factual claims.

Sadly, Nazi Germany understood Darwinian evolution little better than many today. They based their claim to racial superiority on anything but scientific fact, then applied scientific theory, crudely, to their society as an excuse for genocide. In so doing, they set evolutionary thought further back than any amount of blatantly manipulative, anti-science propaganda. The indiscriminate backlash to all things Hitler served as a kind of Heimlich (Himmler?) manoeuvre to the egalitarianism which so beguiles us with its charms today, even as we choke on the masticated remnants of Stalinism.

And don’t even get me started - too late! - on the effects of violent hostility between Teutons, Slavs, Anglo-Saxons to Caucasian EGI... What a tragic fucking loss for Europe. And I’m not sure how close native Germans and German Jews are genetically, but I’m betting on “quite.” As Hitler’s positive reforms drastically increased Germany’s carrying capacity, the Holocaust was definitely overkill. And yes, that was flippant but what of it? I’m disrespectful on matters of race, religion, politics, sex and death. The Holocaust gets no special treatment from me, at least until the Jewish lobby start clicking my Amazon book links.

Finally, does anyone believe the Nazis were in favour of a free-market economy? I’ll give the clueless a nudge: “Nazi” is an abbreviation of National Socialist. Socialist, whether it suffixes nationalism or prefixes democracy, defines the kind of bloated, meddling government which constipates trade.

All this ranting about Nazism and I still haven’t addressed the Fascist charge. Well, this is perhaps left to Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. (2) This book is a godsend for anyone even remotely conservative and weary of being labelled a Fascist or Nazi as a result. His discussion of the book, available in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 parts on Youtube, is well-worth watching - if only for his dismissal of common liberal arguments as “bone-snapping stupidity.”

Modern liberals, by and large a green, sticky bunch aloof to mere fact, have no clue that Fascism is a form of revolutionary Socialism (indeed, Hitler wanted to call his party the Social Revolutionary Party) which ends in Totalitarianism. Frequently, modern liberals have no clue that their own ideology is increasingly influenced by and tending towards Socialism, not to mention “totalitarian” oppression of free speech and free market principles in the furtherance of its broken ideals.

Let’s take a few notable points from the book, and elsewhere:

- The archetypal Fascist, Benito Mussolini, was a card-carrying Socialist from at least the age of 18. As an amusing aside, Mussolini had this to say in 1933: “Race! It is a feeling, not a reality: ninety-five percent, at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today.”

- Mussolini remained a member of the Socialist Party until 1914, when pro-war sympathies led him to left-wing militarism. Along with other revolutionary syndicalists and former Marxists, Mussolini founded the synthesis of these ideals in 1919 as Fascism. Fascist policy was a mixture of radical left, moderate left, democratic, and liberal measures.

- Stalin famously said: “Fascism and social democracy are not opposites, but twins.” Of course, that was before the end of the war... During which, Stalin and Hitler were allies, at least until syphilitic madness perhaps took hold of Hitler's mind. Sorry about the syphilis thing, Neo-Nazis! And before I offend any modern liberals, by “social democracy” Stalin meant “reformed socialism,” which... Well, which is modern social democracy, so be offended equally to the goose-steppers, I guess.

- Long before allying with him, Hitler was inspired by Mussolini. Fascism dovetailed nicely with Hitler’s Aryanism, giving us National Socialism. It’s even said Hitler stole the Nazi salute from Mussolini, who in turn lifted it from the Romans.

- Hitler’s rival, Gregor Strasser, spelled out the Nazi position quite plainly: “We National Socialists are socialists, genuine national, German socialists.” Gregor gave his name to the Strasserism, the leftist, mass-action, arbeiter-based strain of German National Socialism. Which was Socialism... Socialist fucking Socialism, capiche?

A limited rundown of some of the things Nazis believed in:

- abortion
- euthanasia
- gun control
- free health care
- guaranteed jobs
- banning smoking
- alternative medicine
- organic farming
- vegetarianism (Hitler)
- animal rights activism (Himmler)
- pagan spirituality
- purging the church from public policy
- generous pensions for the elderly
- confiscation of inherited wealth
- spending vast sums on public education
- strict racial quota systems in universities
- campus speech codes
- government authority infiltrating every orifice of daily life
- the undesirability of free markets

Now, the above is not to claim that modern liberals are Nazis. We can’t rightly call them Fascists either, even though they’re closer to Mussolini ideologically than are modern conservatives. And they’re certainly not Socialists - in contrast to Socialism, Liberalism upholds private ownership. The divergence from Conservatism is that Classical Liberalism believed government should intervene to relieve market externalities, as described by The Tragedy of the Commons.

The classic example is a lighthouse, from which many benefit, but for which few have to pay. According to Classical Liberalism, the government would need to take over operation of the lighthouse in order to ensure an important service continues to be provided. Not unreasonable, at least when you put it like that. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal (over-)extended this idea of liberalism however, and Jonah Goldberg has much to say on the Fascist tendencies of Roosevelt, as well as the past and present institution of smiley, friendly American Fascism.

But never mind Jonah, here’s what Ronald Reagan had to say: “Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal.” Indeed, and later, “Anyone who wants to look at the writings of the Brain Trust of the New Deal will find that President Roosevelt's advisers admired the Fascist system... They thought that private ownership with government management and control à la the Italian system [of Mussolini] was the way to go, and that has been evident in all their writings.”

The New Deal types believed that governmental power could alleviate not only economic but social problems. To understand how this widely-criticised ideological jump to Fascism was made, consider that poverty could be misconstrued as a failure of the market by those who don’t understand economics. And so arose the Beast; what we now see as Modern Liberalism, characterised by: State intervention in industry, price controls, wage controls, welfare and social security, affirmative action and so on, perpetually... The Modern Liberal State soon grows into Leviathan, creating more problems as it does so - which then become reasons for further growth.

Still, bloated and oppressive government is no reason to call even Modern Liberals Fascists or Nazis. All political systems share certain aspects and handpicking the commonalities to conflate your opposition with history’s despised non-victors is, quite simply, a cheap tactic. Next time someone throws such a thought-blocking slur at you, humiliate them for their historical ignorance and underhanded tactics accordingly.

We’ll get to ignorance and thought blocks in a minute, but first some pictures. Besides Mussolini and the Romans, here’s another possible source of Hitler’s “White Power” salute:


The American Pledge of Allegiance, circa the early 1900s. Kein Witz, Mein Herr.


And of course there’s the American eagle, I trust everyone who’s read their Asterix knows the origin of that particular bird.



And hey, brother, can you spare a dime (or a Senate Seal)? Yeah, that’s the Fasces on there, the Roman symbol for which Mussolini named his party... Confused, disturbed, shaken?

Fret not. “Blak” paranoid schizophrenic, Suzar, is here to explain everything, with some comforting, ignorant thought-blocking. Marvel at her divers alarums and wise pronouncements on everything up to and including “What Cosmic Principle causes hair (antennae) to be Nappy?” Feel your antennae stand on end as Suzar's trenchant philosophy defines slave morality. "Slave" in the Nietzschean sense, that is.

Of course, Stalin dealt in similarly deluded, or at least underhanded, tactics when he conflated Capitalism with Fascism, which has led to all manner of modern confusion. As we’ve seen, Marxism and Fascism are far from diametrically opposed. They’re bedfellows, if miscegenating ones. Following the Axis defeat, anyone with an even slightly Socialist bent set to putting the maximum spin on this ideological relationship. Further, even the left-wing / right-wing dichotomy in conventional political understanding is a false one, borne of Marxist propaganda and prophesying (faith, remember?). Though far from ideal, a better representation might be:

with Hitler and Stalin firmly in place at the lower left. And in case you failed Propaganda 101, this diagram was drawn up by a Libertarian; David Nolan. He founded the American Libertarian Party, whose key tenets I enthusiastically approve... Perhaps with the exception of abortion and sexual freedom as it applies to non-reproduction. These tenets I approve only grudgingly as, in my opinion, the ideal representation of a political system has a third, ahem, axis for EGI. A system that promotes freedom, wealth and folk, that’s my winning ticket.

Which brings me to Norman Lowell and Imperium Europa, after this quick word from our sponsor:

“There is no obligation upon any man to passive obedience, when his life, his liberty and his property are threatened by footpad, assassin or statesman.”

So, does my directing that statement particularly to white South Africans constitute racism, Fascism or Social Darwinism in the Nazi sense? Of course not. With the quick assertion that EGI is “genetic property,” it constitutes: libertarian race-realism. With that assertion made, we’re good to go:

Imperium Europa is the charismatic Norman Lowell’s vision of an alliance of White nations. As expressed in the aims of his local, "Dominion side" party, Viva Malta, individual countries govern their own economies and societies in accordance with libertarian principles. This has clear advantages over centralised governance, as in a dictatorial Brussels handing down procrustean, one-size-fits-all policies. We might extend the idea to America’s states and the federal government in Washington. The continental, "Imperium side," defender of allied white interests, protects the EGI, spirituality, high culture, high politics and territory of all.

I consider this a pretty damn good idea, though I disagree with much else Lowell has to say. His thinking is largely informed by philosophers such as Julius Evola and Friedrich Nietzsche, and he slips from race-realism into racial supremacy on occasion. Now Evola and Nietzsche, master-moralists both, are great as far as they go:

“The Americans' 'open-mindedness', which is
sometimes cited in their favour, is the other side
of their interior formlessness. The same goes for
their 'individualism'. Individualism and personality
are not the same: the one belongs to the formless
world of quantity, the other to the world of quality
and hierarchy. The Americans are the living refutation
of the Cartesian axiom,

"I think, therefore I am":

Americans do not think, yet they are. The American 'mind', puerile and primitive, lacks characteristic form and is
therefore open to every kind of standardisation.”

“We "conserve" nothing; neither do we want to return to any past periods; we are not by any means "liberal"; we do not work for "progress"; we do not need to plug up our ears against the sirens who in the market place sing of the future: their song about "equal rights," "a free society," "no more masters and no servants" has no allure for us. We are delighted with all who love, as we do, danger, war, and adventures, who refuse to compromise, to be captured, reconciled, and castrated; we count ourselves among conquerors; we think about the necessity for new orders… Is it not clear that with all this we are bound to feel ill at ease in an age that likes to claim the distinction of being the most humane, the mildest, and the most righteous age that the sun has ever seen? We are too open-minded, too malicious, also too well informed, too well travelled…”

but I don’t buy into all Lowell’s talk of pagan spirituality and aristocracy. Or anti-Zionism for that matter. Scientific scepticism, meritocracy and bringing the Jews onboard are where it’s at, baby. No disrespect to Lowell though, as a martial artist and expressionist painter, he’s a man of strength and conviction. He thinks big and doesn’t back down, even from his President, and I salute that. I don’t raise him just for an “Ave!”* or high five though, but rather because the idea of Imperium he proposes has the potential of uniting freedom, prosperity and people-loving Whites around the world. And also because of his ideas on food.

Lowell believes food production to be the key weapon at the Imperium’s disposal. Far from threatening sanctions or deploying troops in fractious Third World nations, Lowell suggests that Whites should simply withhold their surplus food from the Mugabes of the world. As an “old-hand in Africa,” Lowell rather cheekily suggests while outlining the geography of the Imperium, from around 4:50, that taking control of Southern Africa, from the Zambesi downwards, would be “easy.” He also slips in the K-word so, for those of you who haven't been BEE-you-double-tee-fucked yet, don’t watch it at work.

According to Lowell, it’s simply a matter of controlling agriculture: handing out free food (and bottles of gin) to encourage Bantu emigration northwards. Of course, that’s all terribly racist and naughty and I would never publically condone such a thing. Lowell might suggest however, that those Boers who can’t leave the country take careful note of his strategy. If they’ve no other recourse, they might consider, ahem, banding together in solidarity and threatening a farmer’s strike. Starvation is quite the bargaining chip - no more puns, Lowell promises - when it comes to convincing people... Particularly in times of economic instability and rising food prices. And government transition. Of course, such active disobedience could only occur if Whites in general, and Boers in particular, harbour some objection to their ethnic and cultural genocide.

“There is no obligation upon any man to passive obedience, when his life, his liberty and his property are threatened by footpad, assassin or statesman.”

You know, if they feel morally obliged to defy the footpads, assassins and statesmen in defence of their life, liberty and property. Not to mention their family's life, liberty and property. Of course, defending their own interests would be quite a moral leap for some Whites. But never mind such types right now...

Lowell continues: if a worst-case scenario unfolds in South Africa with regard to farm murders, land expropriation and (Black National) Socialism, perhaps the Boers will remember they’re far from powerless slaves. Their position as the food producers makes them, in fact, a masterful power-elite. And should a threatened strike not produce a desired result, reinstating the Commando perhaps, then a few accidental chemical spills might. He who can destroy a thing, can control a thing.

* Believe it or not, my blog’s name and art direction were conceived before my introduction to Imperium Europa. Morphic resonance and racial archetypes, man.

Self, Kin, Group and Race, Part 2

"There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush."

- Scriptoris Munificantus.

If there’s one thing that pisses on my battery, it’s this spineless, flop-wristed notion that no objective truth exists, only opinion. Snivelry! I consider such postmodern relativism to be sheer intellectual cowardice, and a symptom of the egalitarian pathology. Not only are we to accept all men as equal, but also their relative levels of understanding? Sewerage!

Liberal individualism propounds that every human conciousness is a precious snowflake, and to impose thereupon a meta-conciousness, say God, morality or Fatherland, is oppressive. Thus, we have no acceptable criteria by which to judge humanity, apart from their acceptance of... What is itself is a meta-narrative. A brutally oppressive one at that as, in the name of human freedom, it stamps on the face of human nature. There is to be no tolerance for European solidarity, no right granted them to live as their ancestors. Where in this tyrannical hypocrisy is all its vaunted freedom, the individual liberation it claims? Its freedom is slavery, for freedom without love for others is but self-indulgent degeneracy... But we’ll get to love, and others, later. For now, the tirade continues.

Just as moral relativism seeks to corrupt justice by replacing good and evil with cause and effect, thereby divorcing action from responsibility, so cultural relativism seeks to dilute national pride. We are to believe all cultures equivalent, that rational Western thinkers, from Thales of Miletus on, were no more enlightened than African witchdoctors and “fractal mathematicians.”

That one approach should be based on logical reasoning and the other superstition and mimicry is irrelevant; we’re to accept all viewpoints as comparatively valid. That one such “viewpoint” can put men on the moon whereas the other can’t explain gravity is - what? Perhaps a quirk of fate that such ideas landed where they did when culture first fell from the sky... Here’s a reality check for blind adherents of cultural relativism and egalitarians alike: we can judge a culture by its effects and a people by the culture they create.

Of course, such logic is unlikely to sway those whose thinking eschews the modelling of reality for the protection of vested interest. To that end, they wage war on truth, be it scientific, historic or journalistic. Such truths become merest opinion, to be dismissed as easily. If natural law is infinitely malleable and events endlessly interpretive, if no fixed reality exists, then nothing can be empirically proven or refuted. Even the most blatantly false and destructive ideologies are safe in such an environment, for as long as they retain popular support.

Barring great upheaval, we can expect the persistence of such support into the foreseeable future. Setting aside the declared allegiances of the body politic, the sensory organs of media are teeming with ideological infestation, to say nothing of the malignancy riddling the learning centres. Hence the farcical situation whereby politically-motivated laymen sit in judgement on the great minds of our age. These shapers of idiot opinion are given a veneer of authority by their sheer ubiquity. Feel-good appeals to equality and progress, those perennial buzzwords of Communism, are repeated unceasingly to condition the productive to their cannibalisation by the useless.

The cycle is perpetuated as each new generation is indoctrinated into the civic religion of soft, sanitised thought. A liberal arts degree might propel a career in media or education with the requisite degree of topspin, but it provides little in the way of real-world knowledge. How ironic when such types accuse the informed truth-seekers of ignorant bias. And how desperate the accusations when emotional outrage must serve as substantiation!

Adherents of “dangerous” truths too apparent or well-established to be refuted by shallow sophistry and philosophical razzle-dazzle, soon find themselves subject to vicious ad hominem attacks. Their words are labelled with the relevant ‘ism, be it racism, sexism or, my personal favourite, scientism. Espousing a provable position is apparently the latest discrimination, and those who put forward such positions are demonised as claiming meaning can only be derived from science. As science claims no such thing, the term itself is laughably self-defeating.

Ultimately, Western rational thought, with its implicit assertion of the superiority of right over wrong and the desirability of advancement, is offensive to the politically correct incorrect. Quickly, a moratorium on critical thought lest feelings, those all-important guiding principles, be hurt...

Sensing the weakness of their position, knowing they cannot defend the egalitarian fiction in a fair public debate, our opponents devote themselves to cultural hegemony. Gramsci’s long march through the institutions has brought us here, to the precipice of racial extinction. It is our duty to dig in our heels, shout the demographic cliff and push back with all our power against the driving force.

If that means institutions, society itself, must be smashed to prevent our soft genocide, then so be it. We who have no future left to lose might laugh as we open the very gates of Hell.



Having temporarily soothed my savage breast of its rage at the insidious campaign against reality and logic, let me turn to a more specific source of irritation: over 50% of Americans dispute the theory of evolution. Whatever their motivation for doing so, be it religious, political or simple mortification over their mammalian mortality, the figure suggests no amount of logical argument or real-world evidence can displace the irrationality of a large majority of our population. This presents a bleak prospect to those of us who would purge egalitarianism from the collective mindset. Or does it? To reframe religion within the scientific context, it has existed since the dawn of man and so might hold significant survival value. We can take heart in the fact that egalitarianism is an extremely recent experiment in social organisation, a shallow concept of only dubious survival value both as a meme and for those who entertain it.

Let’s tour the evolutionary psychology of religion, before taking the scenic route back to political thought via way of human evolution.

Upon closer examination, the psychological core of religious belief is revealed to be deeply rooted in human neurology. While I mentioned its survival value, I doubt the existence of genes for religion per se. Far more likely, faith in the supernatural arises from the interplay of the following adaptive cognitive processes:

1) Agent detection, which evolved primarily for self-preservation. If you’ve ever been menaced by a half-glimpsed shadow or green mamba that turned out to be a hosepipe, you’ll have an intuitive grasp of this faculty. It was selected for because our more paranoid ancestors had a higher survival rate than the laidback ones. Those who reacted to every snapping twig as if broken by a tiger tended to lead longer lives. This faculty led to imaginative power and symbolic understanding.

2) Theory of mind, which is the recognition that others possess a mind alike to one’s own, with comparable motivations and knowledge. Without this feature, we would be incapable of social interaction on all but the most basic level. Of course, recognition of external mentation opens the door to dualism. If we can gauge minds as a separate entities, the frequent conclusion is that minds are separate entities. Hence the belief they survive death in some disembodied, essential form. That contemplating non-existence presents an insoluble paradox to our minds certainly has a finger in this same pie.

Theory of mind develops in late infancy, prior to which we are unaware of the separation between our and other minds. As tiddlers, we swim in a sea of boundless information, and if that harkens back to omniscient deities or collective conciousness we are of one mind.

3) Causal attribution, to which we are particularly prone. Our curiosity demands an explanation for events. This is a “design feature” in the human model simply because learning promotes survival. Events without apparent cause represent a great source of anxiety to the human brain. This uncertainty serves as a negative motivator for the invention of notional best-fits, or what we today call myths and superstitions. Thus, a javelin-throwing god soothed the ancient’s fear of lightning-bolts.

Today we have practical understanding of such natural processes, so deities are usually only invoked to explain the “why” questions. Of course, those whose deities are bound by doctrine to “how” questions, do tend to come into conflict with proponents of practicality. Inevitably, they will use the unanswerable nature of the “why” question to attack the established “how” or, acceptably, to defend their faith.

My personal philosophy is that the existential “why” necessitates detachment from the very process of life from which flows the answer. That is to say: who fucking cares, the show must go on... But I’ll save such profound insights for my acolytes.

4) Pattern-recognition, towards which our brain is primarily geared. Correlating the above modular functions to each other and the cultural environment leads many to religious belief... And of course, I’ve only rimmed the rabbit-hole by stating triggers above conscious awareness. Mental complexity is a multi-dimensional fractal labyrinth.

For the religious: the above is not an arrogant dismissal of religion as a by-product of intellectual evolution. Certainly (he says magnanimously, if rather patronisingly), God could have designed the human mind in precisely such a fashion so as to comprehend His superlative Godliness. I trust we are in agreement that any such design took place through evolutionary processes however? If not, it’s best we part company for what follows is intensely “evolutionist.” I would say, however, that I value religion insofar as it is adaptive to racial survival. Conservative religious morality is excellent for this purpose and, as the Jews will attest, religious faith is excellent for in-group cohesion. It is only the substance of religion I reject, not the form. Specific to Christianity, I repudiate its universalist and masochistic elements.

Time to play God by meddling with the engine of creation. Isn’t braving such mysteries incredibly satisfying? Intellectual pride has ever been our emotional reward for solving problems of survival. In evolutionary terms, promoting survival is the only purpose of emotion. Don’t despair though, ladies, there’s room for romance in such an outlook. After all, romance results in reproductive behaviour and genetic replication - but enough meandering off-topic.

I pray at least half of you are familiar with Darwinian natural selection. This is the simple process by which random changes are purposefully selected, either for or against. Slight variations occur which affect the lives of organisms and, provided these changes are heritable, a difference with positive effect becomes the norm. As an illustration, a caveman population varies in intelligence. Dumb ones are inept farmers so they frequently starve, whereas smart ones do better at securing food resources. The really smart ones realise they can withhold the fruit of their labours from the feckless idiocracy and so gain dominion over them, but here I stray from science into politics. To resume, the intelligent have better odds of surviving, of having more children like themselves. Thus, over time the entire population gradually becomes infused with the trait of higher intelligence unless of course they exist in a disgusting, degraded, dysgenic dystopia. But again, let me constrain myself to the immediate point: evolution. This blind, mechanistic process, iterated over countless aeons, is largely responsible for the profuse biodiversity we see around us, if your imagination can but stretch to encompass it.

Evolution is an absolutely huge idea, delineating the process by which Life achieves its high purpose of transmitting itself through time. Darwin’s genius was to reveal how, in a very real sense, Life passes as genetic baton from generation to generation in an eternal process of change and rebirth. Life, so fragile yet so tenacious, charts a course so sublime in its subtle harmony that it deserves no lower description than sacred. Though inspiring, it is perhaps more helpful to precise understanding to consider how natural selection applies to us as individuals. It is only through the self that we connect to the greater whole that is Life, and more importantly, it is through the self that Life connects to us. To look within is to note this systematic organisation of adaptations, which sifts organic matter so finely that it can produce such a wonder as a sentient being.

In ourselves, we note the survival instincts, the passion, the identity, all that gives rise to self-awareness and self-respect. I see no shame in proclaiming this love of self. I actively secure my own survival that I may spread my ideas, my passion and yes, my unique genetic identity, through Life. Further, I delight to find this spirit in those I call brothers, for it brings strength and integrity. It is truly the only healthy, natural attitude an individual can take. Those without love for themselves are those who wish no part of Life, but wretched, pitiful suicides. To truly live as men is to be Promethean in the fight for all that we love, to defy all obstacles and by force of will, project ourselves into the world. Finally, through command of the evolutionary programming that defines us as men, we give ourselves the gift of honour.

There is far more to Life however than the self and the challenge of its victorious expression, that we might be rewarded by natural selection. There are finer, nobler even, processes happening within evolution that have direct consequence for racial survival:

That right there is Hamilton’s Rule. And to my right, is W. D. Hamilton (1936 08 01 - 2000 03 07) himself. Looking like a better choice for Indy’s dad than Sean Connery, Hamilton was not just a jungle explorer, AIDS researcher and iconoclast. He also revolutionised the way we think about Life today, winning ten international awards, by my count, for his contributions to biology. In the words of Richard Dawkins, who conducted Hamilton’s eulogy, “a good candidate for the title of most distinguished Darwinian since Darwin.” We have Hamilton to thank for our best explanation of why sexual reproduction evolved, the less than erotically titillating answer being: parasites.

Not only that, Hamilton’s theory of gene selection revolutionised our understanding of evolution by neatly solving Darwin’s difficulty of animal altruism. Concisely stated as: “what matters in evolution is not the survival of an individual but the survival of its genes,” this solution led to terms like “the selfish gene,” brought to public attention in the eponymous book.

Though widely accepted as a cornerstone of evolution, Hamilton’s theory remains less than obvious to many. Let’s shed some light on it through an exploration of his rule for the evolution of social behaviours. These are actions viewed from the perspective of their fitness cost, measured in terms of reproductive success, which they entail for their actor(s) and recipient(s). Such behaviours can be mutually beneficial if actor and recipient benefit, or selfish if actor benefits and recipient suffers a loss. It’s apparent how mutualistic or selfish behaviour advantages one or both parties, and hence why such behaviour evolved. However, the rule also explains the following, formerly perplexing behaviours: the altruistic, in which the fitness of the actor is reduced to the recipient’s benefit, and the spiteful, in which actor and the recipient both suffer a loss.

Formally, Hamilton’s rule states altruistic behaviour is adaptive if:

where

C = the reproductive cost to the individual of performing the act.R = the genetic relatedness of actor and recipient, often defined as the probability that a gene picked randomly from each at the same locus is identical by descent.
R = the genetic relatedness of actor and recipient, often defined as the probability that a gene picked randomly from each at the same locus is identical by descent.
B = the additional reproductive benefit gained by the recipient of the altruistic act.

The average percentage of shared DNA, R, is calculated in the following manner:

1/2 for siblings and offspring, 1/4 for grandchildren and nephews or nieces, 1/8 for cousins. Not pictured are the values: 1/32 for second cousins, 1/128 for third cousins, and so on. The benefits of kin-altruism, that is sacrificing for family, should be abudantly clear. A gene mediating for the lowering of “personal” fitness to raise that of relatives can become widespread as such relatives are likely to carry the gene themselves.

Geneticist J.B.S. Haldane, among many such amusing quips, famously remarked that he’d lay down his life for two brothers or eight cousins. He neglected to mention that two children or four nephews represent an even better “exchange rate” for the genes, at least in scenarios where infant / child mortality is low. As an interesting aside, and one with obvious parallels to current society, Haldane was a card-carrying Communist - at least until the advent of Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union in which geneticists and other scientists got it in the neck from the ideologues. For more about Lysenkoism, see the post on my blog in which I indulge my raging hate boner for Marixsm to its fullest extent.

Right. Before Communism triggered such tumescence, I was considering a Wikipedia article on egalitarianism, and its ignorant mention of a primitive band of hunters who share meat without obvious benefit. I intended discussion of Hamilton’s rule as it applied to this group of hippy, happy hunters, as a means to explain the likely still-opaque C(ost) and B(enfit) ratio.

It would be fascinating to know exactly which tribe of “modern hunter-gatherers” the Triki Wiki passage references, though I project their numbers will likely range below one hundred. This is because the net benefits of altruism returned by Hamilton’s rule drop off precipitously when applied beyond close relatives.

Now, as mentioned, I’d planned to do a little mathematic song and dance at this point, encouraged by the relative ease by which J.B.S. Haldane, who so distracted me by flashing his Party Card, could calculate the suitability of self-sacrifice. It turns out that determining the cost / benefit ratio conveyed to reproductive fitness by meat-gifting is a little more complex. Self-sacrifice returns a simple maximum value for C(ost), where loss of food does not. Still, given several evenings of caffeine-fuelled skullbreaking, an estimate value is achievable.

More tricky is calculating the average R of a tribe of 100 individuals. This can nonetheless be accomplished over the course of several hours, albeit with much head-scratching. Despair creeps in when the fact emerges that a significant degree of in-group breeding will have occurred within such a tiny popultation. Such “inbreeding” completely skews the R figure, placing it beyond the reckoning of decidely amateurish mathematics. As the B(enefit) values likewise continue to shimmer tauntingly out of reach like a desert mirage, the complexites becomes overwheliming. Pens, paper and toys are thrown a great distance, many oaths and imprecations are bellowed and a passage from The Selfish Gene is plagiarised, sans formal apology to the ingenious Mr. Dawkins:

"I am an animal [and here Mrs. Dawkins smiles knowingly] who has found a clump of eight mushrooms. After taking account of their nutritional value, and subtracting something for the slight risk that they might be poisonous, I estimate that they are worth +6 units each (the units are arbitrary pay-offs...). The mushrooms are so big I could eat only three of them. Should I inform anybody else about my find, by giving a 'food call'? Who is within earshot? Brother B (his relatedness to me is 1/2), cousin C (relatedness to me = 1/8), and D (no particular relation: his relatedness to me is some small number which can be treated as zero for practical purposes). The net benefit score to me if I keep quiet about my find will be +6 for each of the three mushrooms I eat, that is +18 in all. My net benefit score if I give the food call needs a bit of figuring. The eight mushrooms will be shared equally between the four of us. The pay-off to me from the two that I eat myself will be the full +6 units each, that is +12 in all. But I shall also get some pay-off when my brother and cousin eat their two mushrooms each, because of our shared genes. The actual score comes to (1 x 12) + (1/2 x 12) +(1/8 X 12) + (0 x 12) = +19 1/2. The corresponding net benefit for the selfish behaviour was +18: it is a close-run thing, but the verdict is clear. I should give the food call; altruism on my part would in this case pay my selfish genes.”

Dawkins goes on (brilliantly, up until his own acquisition of a hate-boner for religion, and corresponding fall from pure science to earthly demagogy) that animals do not actually cogitate their various behavioural options in accord with Hamilton’s rule. Instead, their genes have evolved in such a way that they act as if they had made such calculations. Dawkins does not further explore this mechanism but, to my relatively pedestrian thinking, that type of processing occurs within the complex neural circuitry which we call emotion.

Love, for instance, is arguably the strongest of emotions, and I fully expect it’s what motivates animal pair-bonding, rearing and protective behaviour. For us to assume animals act only on “instinct” is to ignore the obvious fact that we do too - or can you remember the last time you consciously decided to fall in love? When you calculated that you should nurture your children, protect your brother or care for your parents? By the end of this article, I hope you will rediscover love for your race...

Feelings simply well up unbidden from within, every conceivable emotion fulfilling an evolutionary purpose, as selfish, little molecules compell you to big, selfless actions conducive to their replication. As an all-too familiar example of this, consider how the autopilot light blinks on when a pleasing bosom-to-waist-hip ratio, suggestive of fecundity, crosses one’s path. The reaction ideally leads to offspring, towards whom our protective, nurturing behaviour is just as pre-programmed. That those who ignore such powerful instincts towards the young, to the extent of neglecting or even harming them, are considered by society to be the very worst kinds of scoundrels and deviants serves to underline how core these feelings of kin altruism are to most humans.

And that’s all very well but, as we’ve established (or at least as I’ve told you, go do the bloody calculations yourself if you don’t believe me), kin altruism generally only goes so far as nepotism towards nephews when it comes to costly behaviour. How then does it apply to my racist, fascist, ultra-rightwing, Nazi, Satanic, una-bombing, puppy-killing agenda that causes me to agitate for a meritocratic society in which freedom of speech, association and the press are mandated, ethnicity is protected and immigration is restricted to the useful? Well. This is where multi-level selection comes in.

Multi-level selection comes to us largely courtesy of David Sloan Wilson, who seems intent on courting controversy by thumbing his nose at the more popular science nerds. I won’t be saying too much about this theory, recently resurrected from the grave of “group selection.” Its previous incarnation was derided during the 60’s and the recurrent form remains a matter of heated debate. Which is great really, as science flourishes and evolves when ideas compete.

Briefly, Wilson’s theory, insofar as I understand it, explains the evolution of altruistic behaviour by examining the effect of natural selection on not only an individual genetic but also a group level. We would expect, given the diminishing returns of Hamilton’s rule in orbits further from nuclear family, that altruism to greater tribe would be maladaptive. All altruism comes at the cost of immediate fitness measured in terms of reproductive potential after all.

Looking at evolution as a multi-level process, with higher-level selection often taking precedence over lower-level selection, makes things profoundly messy for certain Neo-Darwinists. The gene-centred view of evolution has been common currency since the 70’s. Is viewing evolution from Wilson’s multiple angles a retrograde, “devolutionary” theory, a throwback to Darwin’s earliest notions? After all, how could such a process reliably serve those tyrannical replicators, our selfish genes? Given that traits opposed to genetic interests fade from existence, isn’t it logical to ascribe the further reaches of altruism to such as reciprocal altruism?

Wilson’s response is along the following lines. Say we have two competing tribes, violently contesting the same territory and resources. Selection, under the pre-mentioned guidelines, would continue to play out within each group - but selection would also take place between them. If the collective fitness of one group was raised by altruistic behaviour, it would come to outperform the more selfish one, the one in which individual and kin selection held greater sway. Genes which promote such altruism, so the theory goes, would increase their frequency.

As an example, which I hope does not stray too far from his argument, we might think of a group which forms its strong, healthy men into a military machine. Diverting such men from breeding, rearing and business appears to be contrary to the group’s immediate interests. Not only that, but there is grave potential cost to those husbands, fathers, sons and brothers. All are placed in danger, tasked to dutifully perform the highest level of altruistic service, if need be sacrificing their lives for strangers.

However, the benefits to the group’s collective fitness are frequently high enough make it a risk worth taking. Any group that defeats its enemies and comes to claim their territory and control their resources has benefitted tremendously in the long term, even if in the short-term it suffers reduced fitness. The genes for cooperative aggression will experience a geometric increase in replicative fitness, as competing genes for selfish pacifism are removed from the symphonic struggle for survival we call life.

Frequently in the modern world, we see such group selection struggles played out not between nations but between competing groups within the same nation. Conquest need not take place only through war; demographic trends decide the issue with as much finality as total nuclear obliteration. In this our 21st century, former imperial superpowers face their imminent demise not from the armed warriors of lesser nations, but from their helpless, squalling babies.

This grim national perspective brings me finally to Dr. Frank Salter’s Ethnic Genetic Interests. The famous biologist Edward O. Wilson (no relation to David Sloan), a Humanist Laureate of the International Academy of Humanism and the originator of the entire field of sociobiology, hailed Salter’s work as a “fresh and deep contribution to the sociobiology of humans.”

E. O. Wilson is particularly significant in this context as his work Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, opened the door to the application of evolutionary theory to the behaviour of creatures diverse as ants and apes. A scholarly tour de force, it was only the final chapter, inspecting humanity in the same light, which drew heavy fire. Genetic determinism is apparently perfectly acceptable for all other species, though some delightful, rainbow-farting elf prevents its application to humanity. More specifically, political prejudice deems it anathema in relation to cultural anthropology, psychology, economics, political science, sociology, literature, history, religion, music, art history and so on, ad nauseum.

Let me return from what was E.O. Wilson’s blurb and became my own burbling. Frank Salter’s book

expounds the grand concept, ripe for Western reification, of the scientific legitimacy of promoting and preserving our biological race. Far too long, such issues have pivoted on subjective values. As a Westerner, I’m naturally inclined to the assertion that Western culture and people deserve to maintain their own territory and identity. Many disagree however, citing my vested interest as inherently discriminatory towards other races (who, strikingly, are encouraged in the brazen pursuit of their interests). To lay this thorny issue to rest, Dr. Salter’s Ethnic Genetic Interests (EGI) offers objective vindication for the natural desire of a people to cleave together, and so ensure their genetic continuation.

Salter shows that, in just the same way adaptive behaviour by an individual or altruism between kin boosts fitness, so it is raised by such behaviour towards one’s race. This is because the racial gene pool is a repository for the distinctive genes of all its members. While direct family represents a concentrated cache of such genes, racial family represent a diluted, but enormous, reserve. Given the size of racial groups, even shrinking ones such as ours, protecting them can convey an even greater benefit than protecting one’s own children. Put another way, successfully raising children benefits the group as its genetic nature is perpetuated through pureblood offspring. When the ethnic group successfully defends its interests, your children also succeed as the genetic material they share with the group is assured a better chance of survival. Not only cultural, but genetic success is predicated on your group’s success. The disappearance of your group, however, would represent a far greater loss to your EGI than even the loss of your entire family. Even if your children survive to miscegenate, your unique genes will be watered out of existence.

Of course, all the above only applies in the presence of competing ethnic groups. If we were a single race with an equal proportion of shared DNA, nothing short of the complete destruction of life on earth could permanently compromise our EGI. As it however, our EGI becomes increasingly important to the degree of variation between ours and other ethnic groups. This difference can be as great as the degree of kinship between grandparent and grandchild. The following table from an Italian study illustrates this degree of difference, not in terms of kinship (R) but of genetic variance (FST):

About what we’d expect, with the possible exception of the largest degrees of difference existing between Australian aborigines and African tribes like the Bantu and Mbuti pygmies. Though unfamiliar with such prehistoric events, I assume the reason is in aborigines and negroes having the earliest common ancestor.

Genetic kinship is not only measured positively, as between relations or groups who share more genetic material than is typical of a population, but also negatively. If groups share less genetic material than is typical, their kinship is measured negatively. This kinship figure can be derived mathematically from the variation table shown above. I’m not about to put all those numbers into Excel and average them, but correcting for my laziness factor (Z), one might arrive at an average around 1000. Taking that as our base-level, we can see that anything below it, eg. the variance figure of 21 separating the English and Danes, represents a very high degree of positive kinship, about as high as between grandparent and grandchild. The 4287 between Mbutis and Aborigines represents a massive proportion of negative kinship however. So much so that all Mbutis are almost identical clones in comparison with all Aborigines. If a member from each group “hooked up,” as the trendier evolutionary biologists say, they would be less related to their own child than to a random member of their race!

Indeed, Salter puts the impact of immigration into units of lost “child-equivalents” as a way of calculating its harmful effect on native EGI. As each nation on earth has a carrying capacity, or maximum amount of people it can support, there inevitably comes a tipping point at which every immigrant means one less baby the native populace can support. Anyone who's paid a visit to Japan or England would likely agree that such nations have reached their carrying capacity. In fact, my view is that a nation which must import food has exceeded it.

Salter explains it thus: if 10 000 Danish immigrants replaced 10 000 English natives, the English gene pool, or collective EGI, would suffer a small loss, equivalent to removing 167 children from England. This loss is relatively minor as a result of the genetic similarity between the two ethnic groups or “ethnies,” as Salter insists on calling them.

The loss in "children" is far greater if the English are replaced by more distant ethnies. If, instead of Danes, the infernal-powers-that-be invite 10 000 Bantus to replace 10 000 Englishmen, it would be the genetic equivalent of the loss of 10,854 children. Dr. Salter explains, “Some ethnies are so different genetically that they amount to negative stores of those distinctive genes.”

Dr. Salter concludes:

“[A]n act of charity or heroism by an Englishman that prevented 10,000 Danes from replacing 10,000 English would be adaptive even if the act cost the altruist his or her life and with it all prospects of raising a family (at least a family of less than 167 children), since this would save the equivalent of 167 of the altruist’s children. Preventing replacement by 10,000 Bantu would warrant a much larger sacrifice because the genetic benefit is about 65 times larger; random Englishmen are almost as related as parent and child compared to the relationship between Englishmen and Bantu.

The genetic distance between English and Bantus is so great that, on the face of it, competition between them would make within-group altruism among random English (or among random Bantu) almost as adaptive as parent-child altruism… Thus it would appear to be more adaptive for an Englishman to risk life or property resisting the immigration of two Bantu immigrants to England than his taking the same risk to rescue one of his own children from drowning…”

Self, Kin, Group and Race, Part 1

"Where there is uncertainty, I shall bring light.
Where there is doubt, I shall sow faith.
Where there is shame, I shall point atonement.
Where there is rage, I shall show its course.
My word in the soul shall be as my bolter in the field."

- Litany of Devotion.

I know. It's taken ages and I trust that, in the meantime, you "enjoyed" the vid, which I shall now remove. I do so because it was created by an American political party whose policies are unknown to me, and potentially at cross-purposes to my own.

That I take it down shouldn't be taken as a disavowal of the facts stated in the vid; farmers are being slaughtered wholesale in the most vicious fashion imaginable, with the tacit approval of government. The gutless media, both local and international, continue to ignore the magnitude of this evil as well as its future implications. I spit on those who turn their eyes from this carnage, and call for vengeance. Blood for blood.

-

This is about the genetic basis of human behaviour, particularly as it applies to racial success and survival.

Again, it's taken ages. Progress will likely continue in that vein as I'm having to delve very deeply into night-impenetrable territory, with what is admittedly not the keenest of instruments. Evolutionary biology is, like, hard.

In the course of researching this article, I came across the Wikipedia entry for egalitarianism. Ignorant and inconsistent, it makes a fitting springboard for a dive into the murky waters of liberal theory. Hold your nose!

The entry starts with the derivation of the term, from the French word égalité so favoured during the head-chopping days of bloody Revolution. Next, the doctrine’s assertion that all people should be treated equally by law and society. A noble sentiment. I agree wholeheartedly that justice should be blind; a king or a serf who murder in cold blood deserve the same strokes of the headsman’s axe.

Equivalent treatment by society is a more complex issue however. People differ and, like most higher animals, order themselves into hierarchies as a result. Short of genetically engineering or selectively breeding this tendency out of humanity, the best we can do is ensure individuals rise or fall purely on merit. Denigrating the strong and lauding the weak creates an inverted social pyramid or, more accurately, an arrow denoting a so-ordered society’s direction. As for providing a safety net to ensure nobody falls too low, I believe this to be the domain of voluntary charity. At the very least, a line must be drawn between uplifting and instilling dependency.

Reading on, the Declaration of Independence is unfurled the exact length of its “all men are created equal” clause, as some sort of moral justification for egalitarianism. This vexed line, penned by a slave-owner, has since been bent, folded and mutilated to fit every set of principles from Capitalism to Marxism. In regards the last, sic: if one man achieves wealth, it‘s an injustice to all who don’t. Clearly, this absolute equality was not the Declaration’s intended meaning, which could be more accurately expressed as, “an end to this Divine Right of Kings nonsense, you snaggly-toothed, English poltroons!”

And how precisely does an excerpted catch-all, from a document a quarter millennium old no less, apply to issues of race in our DNA era? Well... Let’s examine the complete statement:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Now, there are a couple of obvious problems with this. I don’t think it sensible for whites to further divide themselves along (ir)religious lines however, so I’ll deal with each point from its relevant perspective:

1) For atheists, such as myself, the statement is rendered irrelevant by the absence of a Creator. While I can’t disprove a supernatural First Cause, the Fossil Record and much other evidence suggests man was not created at all, but rather evolved through entirely natural processes. It is wildly unlikely this process could have led to biological equality for populations separated by vast distances and hundreds of thousands of years, and indeed any objective examination will reveal that it hasn’t. In the withering words of Richard Lynn;

“The IQ differences between the races explain the differences in achievement in making the Neolithic transition from hunter-gathering to settled agriculture, the building of early civilizations, and the development of mature civilizations during the last two thousand years. The position of environmentalists that over the course of some 100,000 years peoples separated by geographical barriers in different parts of the world evolved into ten different races with pronounced genetic differences in morphology, blood groups, and the incidence of genetic diseases, and yet have identical genotypes for intelligence, is so improbable that those who advance it must either be totally ignorant of the basic principles of evolutionary biology or else have a political agenda to deny the importance of race. Or both.”

2) For theists, the “equally” obvious problem is that the God of the Old Testament can’t be said to have created all men as equals if He then favoured a “chosen people,” to the exclusion of others. In Exodus, the Lord Jehovah speaks of the Israelites as "my treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine, but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation" (Exodus 19: 5-6).

As an example; God’s relative treatment of the Jews and Egyptians. The former he blessed with a prophet and multitudinous miracles, to the order of parting the seas and dispensing manna from heaven. The latter He plagued onerously each time their Pharaoh refused to release his treasured Jews. Yet in ten places throughout Exodus, God “hardened Pharaoh’s heart” to elicit just such refusals. The Almighty can of course do as He pleases, though such actions hardly stand as glowing testament to even-handed omnipotence.

Nor does this favouritism change with the advent of the New Testament, in which Christ commands His disciples to "go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 10:5-6). He is not above referring to Gentiles as “dogs” either, dogs who may be so lucky as to eat the crumbs which fall from their Jewish masters’ table (Matthew 15:26-27).

No doubt “progressive” Christians, with their endless denial of the more awkward Biblical passages regarding women, slaves, homosexuals, genocide, etc. will defend these and other, similarly taboo, passages on race. In response, I need only raise the Tower of Babel story, in which God’s own antipathy to multicult shenanigans is laid bare. Let no man join together what God hath put asunder. Too glib? Try Romans 9:21. “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”

Appearances to the contrary, I’m not even going to bother mentioning that it was only with Lincoln that the Declaration was applied to slaves, or that his solution was of the ship-‘em-all-back variety. Right. So. We can dismiss any Biblical or constitutional basis for egalitarianism. How about a biological basis? After all, the Wiki article goes on to say of egalitarianism in (modern) hunter-gatherer groups:

There have been many instances of egalitarianism found in modern hunter-gatherer groups, in several parts of the world. Even when it is within an individual's favour, or has no obvious benefit, many returning hunters will share meat with the rest of the group.

The truth of egalitarianism is apparently so self-evident as to require nothing in the way of citation of references. Irrespective of such dog-chewed homework, is the matter of tribal hunters sharing meat with their group. Some of you may remember how, in my previous article, I went on (and on) about meat as wealth in primitive societies. And lo, this fact of huntsman generosity appears, as if to mockingly disprove all I had to say about brains, bucks and bolshevism. Lawks! I am surely undone - even when it “has no obvious benefit,” hunters will share... Well, there you have it. Genetically homogenous, stone-age bands do perfectly well with egalitarianism, why shouldn’t it work in genetically diverse, information-age nations with citizenry numbering hundreds of millions, if not billions?

Why indeed. As the answer to that stupid question would likely fill a book, I will instead address the issue of “no obvious benefit.” That whoever wrote this piece (of shit) sees no “obvious benefit” to aiding tribal survival speaks volumes of the state of postmodern, Western society. Many individuals are so detached from others, no less their very human nature, that appeals to decency or honour are met with sneering derision. That’s as may be. I’ll leave the emotional stone-wringing to others and instead focus on the facts of the matter:

Communism sucks.

That wasn't the original point, of course. Some heavy-handed work with the editing shears has been necessary. We now cut disjointedly, in true Lynchian fashion, to a rant about Lysenkoism. Enjoy!

That less-wholesome Dracula, Trofim Lysenko, perhaps caught in the act
of denouncing geneticists as “wreckers” or “people haters.”
Joseph Stalin, history’s greatest butcher second only to Mao, looks on.

Lysenko was a keen proponent of the fallacious biology of Lamarckism, long since overturned by Darwin and multitudes since. The Frenchman Lamarck’s theory, published during the Revolution, deserves little attention beyond explaining it as “becoming a body-builder will lead to muscular offspring.” This flawed version of evolution, a precursor to the environmentalism of Gould, Rose and Diamond (the amalgamation of which three, coincidentally Jewish surnames, results in a decidely pinkish hue), found great favour in the Socialist Republics. It was a message of hope when Stalin needed miracle crops to offset the “teething problems” of land-collectivisation. To wit: mass starvation.

Lysenko’s fervent pseudoscience fit the Soviet Weltanschauung to its procrustean tee, suggesting that legislating against human nature would produce a generation of utopianists, just as surely as growing wheat in the right conditions would produce rye or barley, and vice versa. Let me now call a roll of some of the more eminent geneticists stripped of their lives and liberty for conducting what was stigmatised as “bourgeois” or “fascist” science: Nikolai Vavilov, Georgii Karpechenko, Georgii Nadson, Isaak Agol, Solomon Levit, Grigorii Levitskii...

All men of science damned for their politically incorrect, dissident “views” by that fat, obstreperous thug, Stalin, and all at the lunatic Lysenko’s behest. Ultimately, Lysenko succeeded in having all genetic science banned until the 60’s, establishing a taboo around the subject which one violated at the risk of one’s career, reputation, “freedom” and life. Nor were other scientists, with the exception of the physicists necessary for nuclear weaponry, exempt from this anti-scientific, ideological crackdown. Cyberneticists, for example, were likewise castigated and persecuted, “machines can’t think,” being the cry. Apparently under Socialism the role of non-thinking automaton is strictly reserved for humans.

As a result of such enlightened policies, applying Engels to agronomy for instance, Soviet agriculture suffered 30 years of blight. Not to be outdone, the Democratic nations inflicted 50 years (and counting!) of epic failure upon themselves. Adopting Lysenkoist doctrine in regards human capacity in jaunty defiance of all empirical science and Darwinian principle, we wait optimistically for rye and barley to produce wheat flour...

The Tabula Rasa Heresy, Part 2

"Heresy is like a tree, its roots lie in the darkness whilst its leaves wave in the sun and to those who suspect nought, it has an attractive and pleasing appearance. Truly, you can prune away its branches, or even cut the tree to the ground, but it will grow up again ever the stronger and ever more comely. Yet all awhile the root grows thick and black, gnawing at the bitter soil, drawing its nourishment from the darkness, and growing even greater and more deeply entrenched. Such is the nature of heresy, and this is why it is so hard to destroy, for it must be eradicated leaf, branch, trunk and root. It must be exorcised utterly or it will return all the stronger, time and time again, until it is too great to destroy. Then we are doomed."

- Inquisitor Lord Galan Noirgrim, Master of the Ordo Malleus, prelude to the Abominatus.

The nature of this vile heresy has been revealed, as the surgeon's blade reveals a festering tumour. It is that mutant strain of Marxist cant which seeks to obliterate human diversity, disintegrate social loyalty and render all mankind to a uniform consistency.

We reject and denounce it utterly! We name it Anathema, and call for it's execreation and extermination!

It is now every citizen's duty to denounce and destroy this Warp-spawned blasphemy. Scourge and purge! Heresy, in all its dark and twisted, forms must be uprooted, hacked apart and burnt on the pyre! Let the smoke of its annihilation be the very air you breathe!

These are the words of the God Emperor of Mankind. Hear and obey.

-

In other news, my essays now appear on South Africa Sucks. I will initially post them here for editing, as well as feedback from the Imperial Inner Circle and criticism by frothing hereticasters. Book links and more videos will be forthcoming, and I trust the redesign is to everyone's liking.

-

In researching material for my next essay, I have uncovered certain facts which relate to a statement I made earlier on genetic variance within and between populations. The following clarification is courtesy of the Frequently Asked Questions about Biological Races among Humans page of the Majority Rights Wiki:

The majority of variation among humans is found within populations and only a minority between populations.

This is generally true. For instance, roughly 85% of the genetic diversity among humans is found within populations and 15% between populations. However, this does not in any manner imply that races do not exist / cannot be discerned since most of the information that distinguishes populations lies in a correlation structure rather than mere variation of individual factors.35)

Some differences between populations can be larger or smaller. For instance, Relethford reported that about 88% of the variation in skin color is found between populations and 12% within.36) This is an example of how human populations can be substantially different on some counts even though they are less different on most other counts.

Some estimates of the proportion for diversity between populations have improved with time. For instance, Relethford and Harpending's analysis of W.W. Howells' craniometric data, published in 1994,37) revealed that 11-14% of the variation was between populations, but a 2002 analysis of Howells' dataset by Relethford listed this figure at about 19%,38) and a 2004 report by Roseman and Weaver,39) employing a more sophisticated analysis of Howells' dataset, reported that this figure was 22% for size variation, 24% for the first principal component of shape variation and 33% for the second principle component of shape variation; the principle components analysis excluded the dacryon subtense, supraorbital projection and glabella projection because they tended to dominate the first few principal components.

Two randomly selected individuals from different populations can be closer to each other than either individual is to a random co-ethnic.

For one or a few markers, in trials where an individual is compared to a randomly selected co-ethnic or a randomly selected individual from another population, in a minority of cases, the individual will be closer to the person selected from a different ethnic group, but the proportion of such cases will decrease with the use of more markers. However, if the entire genetic information is considered, then an individual will be closer to a random co-ethnic than a random individual from another ethnicity.

-

I would add that differences in physical appearance, intelligence and behaviour are the ones that have real bearing in our world. They can't be wished away. We need to confront their existence and work towards their realistic accomodation. My next article will explore that subject in depth.

I leave you with another inquisitorial Warhammer quote:

So great has been the calamitousness of these times, and such the inveterate malice of the heretic, that there has been nothing so clear in our statement of faith, nothing so surely settled, which they, at the instigation of the enemy of the human race, have not defiled by some sort of error. For which cause the holy Inquisition hath made it Its special care to condemn and anathematize the principal errors of the heretics of our time, and to deliver and teach the true and Imperial doctrine; even as It has condemned, and anathematized, and decreed.

- Declaration of Inquisitorial mandate, Inquisitorial representative, Senate Imperialis.

Brains, Bucks and Bolshevism

“Marcus: Every year you're worse. Every year, less reliable. More booze, more bullshit, more butt-fucking.
Willie: Sure, the 3 B's.”

- Dialogue between a black midget and a white degenerate in the comedy film, Bad Santa.


This is about economic success, what creates it and how societies can self-organise to attain more of it.

Now, I’m going to go against my male instincts here, and take brains as the primary point of consideration. For any examination of human society, intelligence is a great start. After all, smarts are what make us people, not simply beasts. Without intellect we wouldn’t even have modern society, much less the wealth it brings. Of course, we might still have Communism...

Early “humans” evolved disproportionately large heads, packed with mystery meat, for one reason only: survival. Any species which took a slow, weak and vulnerable form such as ours, without the compensating intelligence, would be long extinct. As it happened, humans bodies increasingly traded speed, strength and protection for ever more complex minds. The power of intelligence is such that, even without sharp fangs and an extra set of legs, humans rule the world.

Undeniably, early man could not have learned to control fire or make tools without his exceptional brainpower. Likewise, the cooperation and weaponry necessary for hunting were a product of rising intelligence, and also a source thereof. Better hunters lived longer, and were sexually selected for by cave-babes eager for their meat.

Critically, the rich nutrition afforded us by hunting animals for flesh allowed for ever bigger and energy-hungry brains. Meat’s richness also freed time for thinking; an hour spent catching prey yielding more nutrition than many hours spent plant-gathering. That’s only true if prey is caught though, making risk and reward ever close to the male heart. Successful hunters enjoyed leisure, indulging arts and crafts hobbies like cave-painting and tool-making, or disporting themselves at hunting practice.

Such things allowed us to craft better tools and weapons, more effectively cooperate and communicate, as well as form larger tribes.

These developments made us even better hunters, genetic and environmental interaction forming a feedback loop. One fed largely by meat, as it lifted us from dull, subsisting herbivores to bright, successful omnivores.

For this reason, I see meat as the first form of wealth. The fruit and veg early man survived on is comparable to the portion of modern man’s salary going to monthly expenses. Anything above that is meat; wealth allowing him to thrive while enriching his family and tribe. This link between food and money is a primal one, apparent in expressions like “bringing home the bacon.” And “bucks.”

So, given that intelligence was so critical to developing the combination of ideas, technology and organisation we call culture, is it not reasonable to expect a link even today between intelligence and culture? All agree early man couldn’t have mastered fire, tools and language without rising significantly above other primates in intelligence. Could modern man have mastered atomic energy, synthetic materials and complex literature without so rising above early man? And if early intelligence was so important in hunting for meat, is it not equally important today in acquiring wealth? For the answers, we turn our attention to Africa.

Today the most widely-held theory on human evolution is that we first migrated from East Africa about 90,000 to 100,000 years ago. New environments exerted new pressures on natural and sexual selection. For example, the influence of colder climes cannot be overstated. Icy winters selected for those who could skilfully craft clothing and shelter. Similarly, scarcity of edible plants would have made effective hunting vital. Storage and rationing of food, a mentally taxing exercise, was necessary. Even childbirth would have to be more strategic, demanding fewer mouths to feed. That would have placed more emphasis on nurturing, to ensure those precious few children survive and learn these survival skills. Less babies would also have increased breeding competition, demanding a higher understanding of others. And so on...

Remember, the above factors and the greater intelligence they favoured are only the effect of a single environmental variable, cold. We might talk endlessly of the other challenges rewarding higher brainpower, settled versus migratory lifestyles for instance. As it is, we can see the environmental pressures, that first led to humans developing intelligence, only increased out of Africa. Necessity is the mother of invention and the resultant early “sciences” were: physics related to climate and tools, biology related to plants and animals and psychology related to cooperation and competition. The greater cultural complexity necessitated by such advancements would also have spurred “the arts,” that is linguistic and symbolic development.

All the above, and more, formed a growth spiral, the end result of which was the evolution of higher intelligence and other adaptations in non-Africans. Survival in the African environment did not demand intelligence to the same degree, and it’s possible Africans culture did not much select for it either. We find adaptations to cold, such as intelligence, to particular degree in the people today known as East Asians, who faced more and harsher climes. I defy anyone to disprove these assertions.

Of course, degrees of average intelligence aren’t the only differentiation found in modern populations. There is plenty of other evidence of adaptation by groups to their geographic environment. We’ll maintain our focus on intelligence, as the factor most relevant to cultural development and success however. After all, complex culture of the type that leads to a consistent surplus of resources can’t exist without high intelligence, no matter what other physiological or behavioural traits might be present. If cultural success was independent of intelligence, we’d see dogs playing poker for real. Though it’s tempting to gauge intelligence on culture alone, as we might surmise chimps to be very smart beasties due to their social complexity and limited tool-use, we need more accurate measures for both culture and cleverness.

I subscribe to the informed consensus that IQ testing is a perfectly valid way to measure intelligence, indeed the best way yet devised. Forget the orthodox view, and related gushing over pseudo-scientific drivel like EQ; a poll of 600 experts on modern psychology, across such fields as child development, educational psychology, behavioural genetics and psychometrics, found:

- 99.3% agreed IQ measures the ability to think abstractly,
- 97.7% agreed IQ measures problem-solving,
- 96% agreed IQ measured the ability to learn,
- 100% agreement was reached that IQ measured one or more of these capacities.

In fact, with the exception of certain politically-motivated social scientists virtually synonymous with Marxism and non-empirical studies, those who criticize IQ testing are almost always laypeople lacking any training in the psychological or scientific disciplines.

Further, IQ is designed to be culturally neutral. It is in no way biased towards European Caucasians, as evidenced by the fact that several unrelated groups outperform them on the test. In fact, the Nazis banned IQ tests specifically because Jews outperformed native Germans. Hitler wanted Germans to be equal above all others, you see. As an aside, Stalin, a far worse tyrant in terms of death-toll, also banned IQ as he wanted everyone to be equal under Stalin.

Even better evidence of IQ being a valid measure is, in my opinion, its high degree of co-relation, or correlation, to life outcomes. Correlation is measured between no relation, at 0, and perfect relation, at 1. So, next time a sneaky journo tries to convince you that adult achievement has nothing to do with IQ, as the two “only” correlate at 0.8, you’ll know he really means an astounding 80%. Here follow some more such interesting figures.

By conservative figures for American whites, though IQ’s equally accurate for other groups; scholastic achievement, length of study and job performance all correlate with IQ to at least a rate of 50%. Even more tellingly, below average IQ predicts incarceration with 70% accuracy. It is likewise a reliable indicator of poverty, illegitimacy and even health rates and life expectancy.

We might say then, without fear of contradiction, that intelligence is the single most important factor to social success or failure, if not life in general, and IQ the best known way of measuring intelligence. That other ways of measuring intelligence, eg. mental reaction time studies, correlate very highly with IQ further validifies that it accurately measures the neurological functioning we call intelligence.

Now, just as we have an overwhelming need to measure individuals for predictive and selection purposes, so we need to be able to measure entire societies. As examples, a business which assumed everyone to be equal and so filled positions at random would go bust, as surely as if it expanded to a new country without adapting to local conditions.

So, we’ve dealt with IQ as the best measure of “human capital.” Some of the most popular ways of measuring national capital are GDP, or the total wealth a nation produces and HDI, which measures life expectancy, educational attainment, literacy and GDP. There are many other ways but these are probably the most familiar. Now, many of you will know where I’m going with this...

That’s right, the almost ~0.7 correlation between IQ and GDP, as described in IQ and the Wealth of Nations. As that link states, ‘in the social sciences, correlations of 0.2 are said to be "low," 0.4 are "moderate," and 0.6 are "high." So 0.73 is most impressive.’ Such a close relation is only to be expected. Given that IQ predicts individual success so highly, it’s both logical and intuitive it‘ll predict group success nearly as highly.

While there was some criticism of the initial book, most of this has been addressed in the follow-up, IQ and Global Inequality. Despite it’s earth-shattering conclusions, comparable perhaps to economist Adam Smith’s seminal work on free market econonmics, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), the follow-up wasn’t carried by a major publisher. If you ever you needed evidence of political suppression of valuable science... The only remaining criticisms to be found on Wikipedia, which I wouldn’t go quite so far as calling a liberal propaganda site, consist of:

1) citing possible inaccuracies that may have crept in with estimations made for countries in which IQ data does not exist, like Suriname. Anyone even heard of Suriname until now?
2) speculative mentions of the as-yet mysterious Flynn Effect, whereby global IQ slowly rises. This is possibly a result of better nutrition, or increased hormone levels in food leading to earlier maturity. My pet theory is “morphic resonance,” which allegedly makes solving crossword puzzles easier the day after they’re published. A crackpot notion, fully deserving of the Comic Sans font in which it’s described in the link? Not necessarily. There’s much anecdotal evidence for morphic resonance, tales of telepathic pets and the like. I for one would like to see some rigorous experimentation done.
3) the mention of some obscure study from 1973 in which children’s intelligence was compared. This proves little as IQ only correlates with academic success at 0.4 in children, though this rises to 0.8 with maturity, as genes play an increasingly telling role. We expect similar intelligence in babies, not in adults.
4) a study whereby elites in one country were compared to Muggles in another; apples to oranges as it were.
5) other nonsensical studies which don’t deserve attention. I’m sure some deluded souls will nonetheless wield them as enthusiastic toothpicks against the statistical juggernaught that is IQ and Global Inequality however.

Certainly, none of the mentioned criticisms even attempt to deny the incredibly high correlation between IQ and GDP. They quite simply can’t. So, such quibbling objections really only serve to muddy the waters slightly, as I might refute the theory of gravitation by saying we don’t quite understand how bees fly.

Now, that’s obviously a bit silly. You can’t discount a ton of evidence with dubious bits and bobs. So, I say to the egalitarians: I might be an atheist but if I saw God step down from Heaven, rip up the Himalayas and start juggling mountaintops, I’d change my ideas in a hurry!

While the evidence for IQ might not be quite that dramatic, it’s at least comparable to the entire Drakensberg range hovering a few feet off the ground. If you ever feel inclined to take your head out your the clouds, you too can witness this exciting marvel.

But enough baiting, let’s represent some of the data graphically:



Plotting the IQ of a population forms a symmetrical curve around the mean, the so-called bell curve.

Most people fall in the middle, degrees of digression tapering to the extremes which signify retardation or brilliance. As this chart is centred on an average of 100, it could represent a standard white population in Europe, America, Australasia, South Africa or anywhere else.

One interesting finding is that bell curves can be flat or peaky depending on the variation in a population. The Asian curve is higher with greater “gravity” around the mean. The Caucasian curve is lower, indicating more fuckwits and boffins (scientific jargon for low and high-functioning individuals).



Racial differences in IQ, from an American government study. Again, racial averages are in the middle at the imaginary 50% mark. Moving horizontally from the Asian average, we can see how few African Americans meet or exceed the average IQ of Asian Americans.

Interestingly, the average 85 IQ of African Americans, with their roughly 20% white DNA, falls halfway between that of whites and Sub-Saharan Africans, with their average 70 IQ. This average of 85 is very similar to that of the South African coloured population, again emphasising the strong genetic basis of intelligence.



A fascinating look at IQ as it relates to careers. The left end might be considered the IQ threshold to the various occupations. I’ll bet anything you like that the right end represents the most successful doctors, managers, plumbers and so on.

The implication is that average American blacks fail to meet the minimum IQ threshold from around “Draftsmen and surveyors” down, to the increasingly skilled professions. Average Sub-Saharan Africans are, according to this, not suited even for janitorial duties in the US.

Inflammatory? Certainly. Untrue? Well if so, prove me wrong.



A click-demanding table which I expect will stick in more than a few craws, showing the correlation of skin tone to IQ and GDP. I strongly suggest reading more about this fascinating study on this brilliant site, which has sadly amusing things to say about “the race-blind, equality-crazed, witch-hunting left” and “hundreds of millions of pounds... thrown at the problem of “failing inner city schools” to absolutely no avail... because nobody who matters can face the truth about African intelligence.”

To summarise the study’s findings: the correlation between skin tone and population IQ is a staggering - 0.92! While no one’s suggesting light skin causes high IQ (sorry, Michael Jackson), there’s a third factor which selects for both: cold. Hence average national temperatures, a result of distance from the equator, are also measured. This equatorial distance is a widely-accepted correlate to GDP, it’s only now that someone’s added the explanatory linkage: IQ. More specifically, how intelligence evolves to different levels due to climate.



An IQ map? Nope, a satellite image of Terra by night. They don’t call it the Dark Continent for nothing... It’d be even darker, only Eskom happened to be online when this was taken.



Now we’re getting to it. IQ and GDP by major land mass. A very tight fit, as the child actress said to the bishop. Why, if it wasn’t marked, you’d be hard pressed to say whether this is a map of intelligence or GDP the correlation is so high! The only major exceptions are China and Russia. They have IQs well above the global average of ~90, yet their GDP ranking is low. Not Africa abysmal, but low. Hmm. Any guesses as to what went wrong in these nations?

Well, war is one thing that cripples an economy, as per Cicero’s aphorism that 'Endless money forms the sinews of war.' Neither of these nations has had a major war in recent memory however... We might suspect all other nations of having abundant natural resources, like farmland, gold or oil, but if anything Russia has more than its share of these and China knows it... By which I mean, China’s resources are on par with most places and they certainly have no need of aggressive expansion into new territory.

There's a good case for Islam's tendency to withhold education and opportunity from women serving to hamstring an economy, but neither Russia or China are Muslim.

The only remaining explanation is in the way their societies were is organised. To account for the importance of political systems, and particularly whether they allow for a free or impose a planned economy, IQ and Global Inequality measures national success with the Quality of Human Conditions index. This looks at standards like Gross National Income, adult literacy, gross tertiary enrolment, life expectancy and, critically, the level of democratization. We can take that neologism as meaning “the societal conditions necessary for the pursuit of free-market capitalism, by which all else is mandated pauperism.“ Here’s what QHC looks like, the scale being 0 to 100:




And here’s national IQ:




My dear egalitarians, that painful sensation you’re experiencing behind your eyes is what’s known as “non-consensual cranial intercourse with the phallus of objective reality.” To come to the point, IQ and QHC correlate at 0.846 for 98 larger countries in which IQ has been accurately measured. Including smaller countries and those in which IQ must be estimated, for a total of 271 countries, the correlation remains a very high 0.791.

Again, we see China sticking out like a sore thumb. So, what’s rotten in the Middle Kingdom? In a word, Communism. In a portmanteau, Commu-fucking-nism. In terms of QHC (“and IQ,” a mean-spirited person might observe), you really are better dead than red.

Leaving aside its 100 million people “served,” which figure does not include 30 million of its subjects killed in wars and insurrections, let’s examine why Communism has such a crippling effect on national success. Now, I’ll admit to being a neophyte when it comes to understanding economics. Luckily, even a tyro can see what’s wrong with the following dialogue between two scarecrows in a field:

Marx: Monopolies that gouge the lower classes are bad!
Von Mises: Agreed. We must encourage trade as per the free market principles first laid out by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations. And also in my books, which are rather excellent.
Marx: No! Let’s rather make one giant monopoly and call it the State! For this brilliant plan to work however, we must first hammer the square peg of humanity into the circular hole of equality!
Von Mises: Hah! Good one, Scarecrow Marx! But seriously, what do you suggest?
Marx: Bring me the sickle of equality to pare the peg! Bring me the hammer of revolution to pound it home!
Von Mises: Steady on, old chap, you’re scaring the kulaks as well as the crows!

Now, you might be wondering who the real von Mises was. Like the other Ludwig von, Mises was a bit of a high-functioning individual, or boffin. What Marx was, I leave as an exercise to the reader, with clues to follow. Von Mises, the eminently sensible economist from the Austrian School, now reaches out all the way from distant 1940 to deliver the following smack upside the modern head:

“The usual terminology of political language is stupid. What is 'left' and what is 'right'? Why should Hitler be 'right' and Stalin, his temporary friend, be 'left'? Who is 'reactionary' and who is 'progressive'? Reaction against an unwise policy is not to be condemned. And progress towards chaos is not to be commended. Nothing should find acceptance just because it is new, radical, and fashionable. 'Orthodoxy' is not an evil if the doctrine on which the 'orthodox' stand is sound. Who is anti-labor, those who want to lower labor to the Russian level, or those who want for labor the capitalistic standard of the United States? Who is 'nationalist,' those who want to bring their nation under the heel of the Nazis, or those who want to preserve its independence?”

With the Economic Calculation Problem, von Mises famously demolished Marxist economics in the 1920’s. Here are some of his points, as best I understand them:

1) How do we compare goods and labour? Exactly how many hours spent lap-dancing translate to a sack of potatoes? What better way than a market-determined value exists to enable such a trade? If Socialism seeks to remove money and take us back to the barter system of the Agrarian Age, how will it solve this problem?

2) How do we allow for the competition which cuts prices while raising quality? If the State determines the value of goods and labour by consulting producers and labourers, it will inevitably err to the detriment of consumers, that is to say, all.

3) Socialism does not allow for ambition or entrepreneurship. If everything above what a farmer needs to feed himself is taken by the State without payment, what incentive does he have to produce above his own need?

4) Without pricing, how can society form plans? If we do away with supply and demand in favour of need and handout, pricing disappears and formulating macro-economic policy becomes impossible. For example, if the market doesn't tell us people prefer potatoes to vodka, how do we know which to produce more of?

5) Without pricing for capital goods, essentially, it is impossible to know what their rational / most efficient use is. Is it more profitable to use oil for cooking french fries or for adding glisten to my girlfriend’s snapshots? Not that I’d ever sell her pics online or anything.

Friedrich Hayek, another luminary from the Austrian School, who won a Nobel Prize in Economics and other awards, reinforced these arguments years later. Despite these and other excellent points, which stand to this day, some nations still persisted with the insane social engineering that is Marxism, to their inevitable detriment. How many innocents starved as a result of collectivisation of land? For a time, the world’s vegetable-averse children would hear a familiar refrain: “eat up, there are millions starving in China!” Of course, now it’s Ethiopia again, since we did such a great job of feeding them the last time that they doubled their population and now require twice as much food aid. Or AIDS. But I digress.

After the Soviet Union finally keeled over, wheezed its last and began disintegrating, even the reddest of pinkos were forced to admit that society needs some form of market, albeit one nicely planned and controlled by them. Though the surreal damnation of Marxist economics has been largely abandoned as unworkable, even by China, Marxist politics persists. The most disturbing fact is it persists in the West, as per the plans of Globalisation Global Communism. Those who thought we emerged from the dirty, nasty Cold War unscathed are hopelessly naive. Our vermillion foe slashed and gashed us mightily, and while some of those wounds have healed, others have become infected.

Like a dying bee, Communism left its sting in our universities, unions and minority rights organisations. Its poison spreads through our culture, bloating and corrupting, that old-time Communist religion now termed equalitarianism. Communal... Equal... Similar heresies in effect, and a Baudelaire's corpse by any other name would smell as rank. Thus we see achieved most of the 45 declared goals of a 60’s Communist plot for the subversion of freedom’s greatest guardian, the once proud nation of America. Most tragic of all, this insidious undermining has largely taken place from within.

Still, I don’t want to delve too deeply into political aspects and horribly mixed metaphors for now... After all, I honestly don’t give a damn how many retarded, black, Satanic cripple-faggots they’re putting on TV these days as role-models, I can always switch the damn thing off. What I do object to is having to pay for the RBSCPFs to be given TVs, or that they’re given a job that should instead go to a smart, capable and able-bodied family-man. That’s genetic, cultural and economic suicide. I’ll try, again, to focus on the last form of self-defeat...

Can we even begin to estimate the economic strain Western civilization is enduring, and increasingly succumbing to, by playing host in this parasitical relationship? I'd love to see a study of what BEE and AA has cost the country. And what return do we see for our boundless charity to the weak, stupid and, in Darwinian terms, unfit members of society? The warm-fuzzy of pious self-congratulation isn’t worth the price. We’re losing our status and position as world-beaters and can’t afford to handicap ourselves this way any longer.

Think about it. How many more victim classes will the lesbian feminists and pro-black equalitarians promote to the lofty rank of Honoured Parasite? It’s sickening... And if this is how things work today, well hang it all... I intend to start my own pressure group, for the poor, oppressed left-handed minority!

Stats show we southpaws die earlier and suffer more mental illness. This can only be a direct result of all the anti-sinistral discrimination in society. All their abuse must end, the sub-rosa vilification and hate-speech flung our way in language like sinister and (ahem) left-wing. Not to mention the brute oppression of scissors and door-handles designed exclusively for the dextrous! We’ve had enough of it! Down with the evil, iron, red right hand of intolerance!

We’re people too and we demand equality - door handles on both sides of every major door in every private, public and commercial buildings, and that’s just for starters! We have a right to compensation for all the years of bigotry we’ve suffered, all the damage to our self-esteem. Death to the sinistrists! They’ve benefited at our expense for far too long and we demand restitution, preferential hiring practices, free ice cream and so on and so forth, ad nauseum... No joke, I really could start such a movement in today’s world and enjoy a nice free lunch of non-stop handouts... You know, if I was a giant, quivering pussy who didn’t have the balls to make it on my own in life!

Ahem. Let me return from what is fast becoming a rant to the point I’ve been driving for over the last glacial age: South Africa. Seriously, this all relates. Specifically to: South Africa and how black brains and bullshit bolshevism are driving our bucks extinct.

Our average national IQ is 72, a figure bolstered by a significant non-black population. South Africa's GDP fell from 1,548,100 in 1995 to 922,148 in 2000 and took till 2005 to recover to a level of 1,523,254. So much for our phenomenal "growth," in reality it was all recovery.

From the international data, both current and historical, we can clearly see that a level around the mid-80’s is necessary to establish or maintain a modern, economically-thriving society. It is the number 72, not 46664, which will determine South Africa’s destiny and this is a matter of cold, hard numbers. I encourage all who’d accuse me of racism to do the fucking math, chuckleheads.

To make matters worse, our government is trending increasingly towards socialism, if not Socialism. As the nation which prides itself (falsely) on inventing Marxism, egalitarianism and most likely intergalactic spacetravel with its concept of Ubuntu (pronounced “you boon too,” for the benefit of international readers) we can expect this trend to continue. Just look at the headlines. Barring a miraculous change, this country is doomed to Third World destitution, and I hereby stake my reputation on that statement.

The only hope I see for South Africa is to reinstate and / or import smart people. I don’t care who they are. Chinese, Jews, African Americans, Latvians, Sri-Lankans, Borats, anyone capable of the skilled and specialised labour sadly beyond the average black South African.

Next, these trainable types must be placed in key positions, perhaps starting with law enforcement so we can drive down sky-high crime rates and so attract more valuable human capital.

Of course, we’ll need a new justice system too, of the chopping off hands, cocks and heads variety.

Finally, we’ll need to address our “Bantu education.” All the national will and wealth we can muster will need to be pumped into schooling, in the hopes of raising our peoples’ collective intelligence a precious few notches. To this end, better nutrition and adequate breastfeeding encourage mental development. Massive initiatives along these lines are necessary. If these steps, which I deem to be the barest minimum, are not taken - game over.

...

I don’t want to end on a depressing note, so here is an old Cuban joke about Communism. A man dies and goes to hell, perhaps because he was a racist who called stupid people stupid. Or perhaps he didn’t die but simply found himself in a dark wilderness as a departure point to a guided tour, by an epic poet, of the realms beyond. Whatever the case, the Devil greets him and says, “Welcome! You must now decide if you want to go to Capitalist Hell or Socialist Hell.”

The Cuban is not so sure so he asks, “well, señor Diablo, is there much difference?”

The Devil gets very excited. “Oh yes!” he tells him. “Capitalist Hell has the fires and the bees and the hoyvin-glayvin and the eternal damnation, but is not really so bad. We take breaks for lunch and naps! And on Sundays, you are even allowed to be with a woman!”

The man considers this. “And Socialist Hell?” he asks.

“Oh,” the Devil replies, “in Socialist Hell it’s always the same! You are hung by a rope over a board with a thousand sharp, rusty nails, and this rotates back and forth on a drum and constantly shreds your skin to the bone, forever and ever.” The Devil pauses to run his goatee through his fingers. “So,” He asks, “which do you choose?”

“I choose Socialist Hell!” says our Cuban friend. And the Devil, he is muy surprised.

“But why,” He asks. “You will be made to endure constant torture!”

“Not so much, señor Diablo. I know this Socialist Hell! The first day you will have the board and the nails but no rope. The second day you may have the rope, but no nails, and the third day...”

The DNA Era

The New York Times is the United State's largest metropolitan newspaper, as well the recipient of the most Pullitzers. That it's also a bastion of liberalism may be a fact unknown to non-Americans. Former public editor of the Times, Daniel Okrent, famously laid out the paper’s position in his article “Is the New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?” with his first four words, “Of course it is.” Though he went on to ascribe the bias only to trivial social issues like gay rights, there can be little doubt it likewise influences their coverage of all the news that’s fit to print - or at least that fits their agenda. Thus, it’s rather stunning that they even ran the following piece: "In DNA Era, New Worries About Prejudice."

The article begins; "When scientists first decoded the human genome in 2000, they were quick to portray it as proof of humankind’s remarkable similarity. The DNA of any two people, they emphasized, is at least 99 percent identical." What the article fails to mention is that James Watson was the original head of the Human Genome Project. You know, the famous geneticist, co-discover of DNA, who recently went on record saying black people are less intelligent than white people? Another fact breezily omitted was that human and chimp DNA is 98.77 percent identical. In light of our genetically close, simian "kin," what seems a niggling 1% gap looms rather large in its implications for phenotypical disparity.

Of course, that didn't stop Bill Clinton latching onto the HGP's statement and trumpeting it to the nation, if not the world, as evidence of some sort of genetic Hands Across America, if not the world. Clinton, since retired to mansions in the most lily white areas of New York and Washington respectively, has gone on to bemoan the fact of America's increasing polarisation, saying, “Underneath this apparent accommodation to our diversity, we are in fact hunkering down in communities of like-mindedness, and it affects our ability to manage difference.” In other words, while people (like Clinton) pay it ah... lip service, their natural tribalism nonetheless resists the New Communism: establishment of a raceless rather than classless society.

But enough of hypocritical politicians and their ideological delusions! The Times article continues that, “new research is exploring the remaining [<1%] fraction to explain differences between people of different continental origins.

Scientists, for instance, have recently identified small changes in DNA that account for the pale skin of Europeans, the tendency of Asians to sweat less and West Africans’ resistance to certain diseases.

At the same time, genetic information is slipping out of the laboratory and into everyday life, carrying with it the inescapable message that people of different races have different DNA. Ancestry tests tell customers what percentage of their genes are from Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas. The heart-disease drug BiDil is marketed exclusively to African-Americans, who seem genetically predisposed to respond to it. Jews are offered prenatal tests for genetic disorders rarely found in other ethnic groups. Such developments are providing some of the first tangible benefits of the genetic revolution."

Indeed they are, though DNA forensics, the rather redundant-sounding genetic genealogy and DNA Paternity Testing deserve a mention too for the Brave New World they potentially foreshadow. Now, why it's so astounding that the Times mentions the above facts: by doing so they crack the lid on the Pandora's Box that is genetically-determined intelligence. If the genetic coding for our skin, sweat-glands and immune systems has already been decrypted, how long until the genes related to our intelligence are discovered? Well, as the article goes on to say, some already have been. Such discoveries will inevitably knock the whole notion of intelligence being chiefly determined by environment into a cocked hat, if not the gutter from whence it first sprang.

Of course, we've had good solid science for intelligence being largely genetic for ages: in the form of twin studies, in which (genetically) identical twins reared apart, in entirely different environments, display intelligence ~83% identical. Comparisons of identical twins raised in the same household give us a factor of ~98%, and another method for determining the heritability of intelligence is to compare this figure of 98% to the correlation between non-identical twins raised in the same household. This gives us a correlation of 56%. The difference then, between identical and non-identical twins, who share only half their DNA, is 44%. Doubling this to account for the genetic difference tells us IQ is ~84% genetic, almost exactly the same figure as provided by twin studies. A third method was to examine the IQ correlation between unrelated children adopted into the same families. This gives us a figure of ~22%, or in other words tells us that IQ is roughly 20% nurture, which ties in fairly closely with findings of it being around 80% nature. Despite their convincing agreement, the above methods are imperfect science. Thus, gene studies which increasingly demonstrate, beyond the faintest shadow of doubt, the exact contribution of genes to IQ will be the final nail in the coffin of egalitarianism - the doctrine that we are all identical twins!

The Times is well aware of this threat to their agenda, going on to say: “some social critics fear [such studies] may also be giving long-discredited racial prejudices a new potency. The notion [read: truth] that race is more than skin deep, they fear, could undermine principles of equal treatment and opportunity that have relied on the presumption that we are all fundamentally equal.”

That's right, liberals now face the sublimely ludicrous question of whether reality itself can be racially prejudiced. It's a good thing most of them are atheists or their faith would take a serious knock as they confront the evidence of God's own racism. As it is, liberals generally "believe" in evolution, the very same scientific theory they've been using for years to dismiss the predominantly-Christian right wing as dogmatic reactionaries. Well, as the old saying goes, payback's a bitch.

Back to The Times and its nervous social critics: “We are living through an era of the ascendance of biology, and we have to be very careful,” said Henry Louis Gates Jr., director of the W. E. B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research at Harvard University. “We will all be walking a fine line between using biology and allowing it to be abused.”

The irony here is that Mr. Gates, director of the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research at Harvard University, would likely prefer geneticists stop conducting research into Africans and African Americans. For instance, the facts that average Africans, with their rather meagre 70 points, have IQs 15 points lower than average African Americans, who coincidentally have at least 17-18% white DNA as a result of miscegenation, are presumably not things Mr. Gates would rush to publicise. His recent discovery that he himself, the most prominent scholar of blackness in America, is half white may be another such thing.

Indeed, he fears such information, particularly of the genetic kind now emerging, may be "abused." By this, we can presume he means, "lead to the abolition of affirmative action, forced racial quotas and all the other social programs dedicated to promoting the interests of an incapable minority above those of a competent majority." And who knows what terrifyingly meritocratic, though ultimately far more economically beneficial, programme might replace the current, broken system?

I'll wager the dismantling of pro-black social engineering is nothing "the other" Mr. Gates wants to think about. Of course, that's only to be expected from the director of an institute named for the man who invented white guilt; the only reason such engineering is possible in the first place. W.E.B. Du Bois, likewise a gentleman of evenly mixed race, pioneered the notion in "The Philadelphia Negro" that it was only white discrimination holding back his chosen people's natural genius. Nonetheless, he did admit that blacks committed 22% of 19th Century America's crime despite being only 4% of the population (the figure today stands at >50% of violent crime for 13% of the population) and that “sexual looseness” brought “adultery and prostitution in its train.” Today, it also brings in its train AIDS, of which American blacks account for half the infected.

Du Bois urged black reformation, saying that “the first and greatest step... [is] the correction of the immorality, crime and laziness among the Negroes themselves,” adding that “unless we conquer our vices they will conquer us.” He nonetheless later maintained that racial barriers to good jobs were what kept blacks poor and caused all their other problems. He insisted that if such prejudices were abolished, as indeed they were in the 60's, blacks would no longer have an excuse for their predicament. Yet black poverty, crime, illegitimacy and "all their other problems," (to which we might add the modern blights of drug abuse and gang violence) have only increased since the Civil Rights era. This is despite racial bias not only being outlawed in regards blacks, but applied at the expense of whites. Clearly, Du Bois could have benefitted from either the common sense or the modern science which reveals to us the real root cause of black failure: blacks themselves.

Du Bois would likely reject such an unpalatable notion by citing his famous "talented tenth." Those were the cream of the black crop, whom he believed would forever refute the idea of black inferiority and lead the charge against discrimination. Today this subset, which could more accurately be referred to as the talented sixteenth (the percentage of the African American population with IQs higher than the average white IQ), are those most likely to be held in high esteem in professional sectors, while being discriminated against as Oreos or Uncle Toms in others.

But let us depart from W.E.B. Du Bois and his Institute, at which we have tarried overlong. At least we have again underlined the liberal tendencies of the Times, which sought the opinion of an unashamedly pro-black organisation notorious for harbouring Marxist historian, lecturer and former activist, Noel Ignatiev. Co-founder and editor of the publication Race Traitor, Ignatiev stated that "abolishing the white race is desirable," though for some reason he has yet to be charged with genocidal hate-speech. Taken in such light, it can be hoped the liberal mind will more happily accept the “dangerous” facts the Times reluctantly presents.

To wit: "Certain superficial traits like skin pigmentation have long been presumed to be genetic. But the ability to pinpoint their DNA source makes the link between genes and race more palpable. And on mainstream blogs, in college classrooms and among the growing community of ancestry test-takers, it is prompting the question of whether more profound differences may also be attributed to DNA. Non-scientists are already beginning to stitch together highly speculative conclusions about the historically charged subject of race and intelligence from the new biological data. Last month, a blogger in Manhattan described a recently published study that linked several snippets of DNA to high I.Q. An online genetic database used by medical researchers, he told readers, showed that two of the snippets were found more often in Europeans and Asians than in Africans.

No matter that the link between I.Q. and those particular bits of DNA was unconfirmed, or that other high I.Q. snippets are more common in Africans, or that hundreds or thousands of others may also affect intelligence, or that their combined influence might be dwarfed by environmental factors. Just the existence of such genetic differences between races, proclaimed the author of the Half Sigma blog, a 40-year-old software developer, means “the egalitarian theory,” that all races are equal, “is proven false.”

One might, at this point, justifiably ask what hard, scientific evidence exists to prove the egalitarian theory true. As an ideology based largely on the discredited junk economic science that is Marxism, the facts are clearly not on its side. And to those delightful individuals who defend it with the tiresome refrain that, "race is just a social construct," one is tempted to reply, not without heat, "race is a biological reality, genes matter, people differ and it’s egali-bloody-tarianism which is the social construct!" And no longer even a useful one at that. As anthropologist Peter Frost recently remarked:

"I used to consider myself an anti-racist. I even once sat on the board of directors of an anti-racist organization. Today, I have trouble recognizing myself in what this belief-system has become.

Why did I identify with anti-racism? I saw it as a means to defend non-European peoples who had become politically and demographically marginalized, often to the brink of extinction. This was, and still is, the case with Canada’s First Nations, but it’s also the case with many other peoples, including some that are oppressed by governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. As an anthropologist in particular, I saw anti-racism as a moral duty.

I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. But I do believe that ideologies can be exploited to serve new ends. In this case, anti-racism has gradually become an instrument of political disenfranchisement and demographic replacement – in a word, the very thing it used to combat.

This gradual change has turned what was once an ideology of the Left into an ideology of the Right. Anti-racism now serves the interests of a corporate globalist elite for whom the free flow of labor dovetails with their belief in the free flow of capital and trade. For these people, it doesn’t matter that their ideology will destroy long-existing cultures and populations. They don’t even feel guilty about what they’re doing. Anti-racism gives them a clean conscience."

While we might object to Frost’s ascribing anti-white racism exclusively to the right wing when in reality it infects mainstream politics in general, we must give him credit for seeing the greater light. This metastasized, now-malignant concept of equality (in which some animals are more equal than others) must be rejected before it consumes the body of Western civilization by replacing its natural cells with hostile ones. Even egalitarianism's former, relatively innocuous strain had little substance as a moral value, particularly when contrasted against the code of honour and intrinsic sense of tribal loyalty necessary to human survival since prehistory. But I digress, and rather dramatically at that.

Back to the bad, new Times: "Though few of the bits of human genetic code that vary between individuals have yet to be tied to physical or behavioural traits, scientists have found that roughly 10 percent of them are more common in certain continental groups and can be used to distinguish people of different races. They say that studying the differences, which arose during the tens of thousands of years that human populations evolved on separate continents after their ancestors dispersed from humanity’s birthplace in East Africa, is crucial to mapping the genetic basis for disease.

But many geneticists, wary of fuelling discrimination and worried that speaking openly about race could endanger support for their research, are loath to discuss the social implications of their findings. Still, some acknowledge that as their data and methods are extended to nonmedical traits, the field is at what one leading researcher recently called “a very delicate time, and a dangerous time.”

Those geneticists are right to be wary. Any number of brilliant, learned men have lost their jobs for speaking out in a society where truth has been twisted into heresy. Just ask the heroic J. Philippe Rushton how his groundbreaking research was received in Canada. You'll soon find a lamentable, if not criminal situation exists in Western society. Scientists are afraid to seek, disseminate or even discuss the truth, and our art and culture are increasingly stifled in the name of sanctimonious “sensitivity” for other races and religions. Any decent human who values free, enlightened civilization cannot help but feel their blood boil at this. Of course, there are those even in the scientific world whose blood seemingly runs thinner than water:

“There are clear differences between people of different continental ancestries,” said Marcus W. Feldman, a professor of biological sciences at Stanford University. “It’s not there yet for things like I.Q., but I can see it coming. And it has the potential to spark a new era of racism if we do not start explaining it better.”

Dr. Feldman said any finding on intelligence was likely to be exceedingly hard to pin down. But given that some may emerge, he said he wanted to create “ready response teams” of geneticists to put such socially fraught discoveries in perspective."

One wonders what form such teams might take. Visions of scientists rappelling from black helicopters might amuse for the moment, but as it will take increasingly totalitarian and suppressive governments to enforce the New Communism, just as it did the old, any humour fades rather quickly.

Feldman goes on in the Times: “The authority that DNA has earned through its use in freeing falsely convicted inmates, preventing disease and reconstructing family ties leads people to wrongly elevate genetics over other explanations for differences between groups.”

As has been established, we are right to elevate genetics over other explanations as nature counts far more than nurture in most cases. Genes might not be everything, but they're a bloody, big chunk of it. If we hope to cure our social ills, as well as our AIDS, cancer and other diseases, we must embrace genetic science. Who knows, by finding the courage to do so, we may even achieve immortality.

“I’ve spent the last 10 years of my life researching how much genetic variability there is between populations,” said Dr. David Altshuler, director of the Program in Medical and Population Genetics at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Mass. “But living in America, it is so clear that the economic and social and educational differences have so much more influence than genes. People just somehow fixate on genetics, even if the influence is very small.”

There is a peculiar logic to statements like this. It stems from the completely unscientific assumption that humans are all biologically equal. From there, any lack of economic, social or educational success can only be a result of racism. After all, if everyone is possessed of equal capacity in terms of intelligence and desirable traits of personality and behaviour, what else could the explanation be? Leaving aside the sticky fact that Asian and Jewish people would hardly do as well as they clearly do if society were so dreadfully prejudiced, this egalitarian hogwash only serves to inspire anger in society’s "underachievers" and guilt in its "overachievers." In reality, both are just achieving to the best of their abilities.

New York Times: “But on the Half Sigma blog and elsewhere, the conversation is already flashing forward to what might happen if genetically encoded racial differences in socially desirable — or undesirable — traits are identified.”

And in the New York Times, reporting has plumbed new depths by covering hand-picked blog responses:

“If I were to believe the ‘facts’ in this post, what should I do?” one reader responded on Half Sigma. “Should I advocate discrimination against blacks because they are less smart? Should I not hire them to my company because odds are I could find a smarter white person? Stop trying to prove that one group of people are genetically inferior to your group. Just stop.”

There you have it, the liberal bleat of fear. “Stop. Just stop.” Stop uncovering the truth with science. Stop educating people! Let’s all just go back to our cosy lie, the one that’s doing such a great job of uplifting the Third World, relieving racial tensions and bringing lasting equity around the world.

“Renata McGriff, 52, a health care consultant who had been encouraging black clients to volunteer genetic information to scientists, said she and other African-Americans have lately been discussing “opting out of genetic research until it’s clear we’re not going to use science to validate prejudices.”

And might I suggest that if “prejudices” are validated as truth, they can no longer be considered prejudices but reality? The paradox of multiculturalism is here laid rather bare: we are meant to celebrate (non-white) diversity while pretending we’re all equal. Once diversity is revealed to extend to more than just colourful ethnic garb and a charming accent however, diversity somehow becomes prejudice. The term for this is cognitive dissonance, something which goes a long way towards explaining why people are so incredibly touchy and defensive when it comes to any honest examination of racial difference.

NYT: “I don’t want the children in my family to be born thinking they are less than someone else based on their DNA,” added Ms. McGriff, of Manhattan. "

And indeed, no one should use this information to denounce one race as of less value than another. Of course, that we all value our own race the highest is instinctual and taken as a given by all non-whites. As long as we're all playing by this same rule however, everyone knows where they stand and a great deal of bull-crackers can go untrodden and unspoken. Simply put, we must acknowledge that the races are different, and accommodate for that fact by allowing for people who are similar to band together, as is their inclination. To put it even more simply: ethnonationalism.

NYT: “Such discussions are among thousands that followed the geneticist James D. Watson’s assertion last month that Africans are innately less intelligent than other races. Dr. Watson, a Nobel Prize winner, subsequently apologized [and quite what level of pressure causes a man in his twilight years to recant we can only imagine] and quit his post at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island.

But the incident has added to uneasiness about whether society is prepared to handle the consequences of science that may eventually reveal appreciable differences between races in the genes that influence socially important traits.

New genetic information, some liberal critics say, could become the latest rallying point for a conservative political camp that objects to social policies like affirmative action, as happened with “The Bell Curve,” the controversial 1994 book that examined the relationship between race and I.Q."

Quite so. And here we are, ready to take the fight to your liberal camp. Gird up whatever such loins as you still possess for battle, ye liberal, metrosexual men. Or will you leave the fighting, as you do your thinking, to the womenfolk?

NYT: "Yet even some self-described liberals argue that accepting that there may be genetic differences between races is important in preparing to address them politically.
“Let’s say the genetic data says we’ll have to spend two times as much for every black child to close the achievement gap,” said Jason Malloy, 28, an artist in Madison, Wis., who wrote a defense of Dr. Watson for the widely read science blog Gene Expression. Society, he said, would need to consider how individuals “can be given educational and occupational opportunities that work best for their unique talents and limitations.”

Sadly, even spending twice as much on education for blacks as whites, will not allow them to achieve equally. We have to face the hard fact that not everyone is naturally equipped to be a “rocket surgeon” or a “brain scientist.”

NYT: "Others hope that the genetic data may overturn preconceived notions of racial superiority by, for example, showing that Africans are innately more intelligent than other groups. But either way, the increased outpouring of conversation on the normally taboo subject of race and genetics has prompted some to suggest that innate differences should be accepted but, at some level, ignored. "

And if you’ll forgive the sarcasm, such a finding would certainly corroborate with the overwhelmingly advanced state of African society, both historically and internationally. It would also go a long way towards explaining their many and varied contributions to science.

NYT: “Regardless of any such genetic variation, it is our moral duty to treat all as equal before God and before the law,” Perry Clark, 44, wrote on a New York Times blog.”

And here I wholeheartedly agree, though being an unrepentant atheist I would leave out the “God” part.

NYT: “It is not necessary, argued Dr. Clark, a retired neonatologist in Leawood, Kan., who is white, to maintain the pretense that inborn racial differences do not exist.”

“When was the last time a nonblack sprinter won the Olympic 100 meters?” he asked.“To say that such differences aren’t real,” Dr. Clark later said in an interview, “is to stick your head in the sand and go blah blah blah blah blah until the band marches by.”

Bravo, Dr. Clark, bravo! A curious pattern emerges if discussing these matters with intelligent people like doctors, who are trained to look at people logically: most of them think as Dr. Clark. Strange they only openly discuss such things after retirement though, isn’t it?

NYT: “Race, many sociologists and anthropologists have argued for decades, is a social invention historically used to justify prejudice and persecution. But when Samuel M. Richards gave his students at Pennsylvania State University genetic ancestry tests to establish the imprecision of socially constructed racial categories, he found the exercise reinforced them instead.

One white-skinned student, told she was 9 percent West African, went to a Kwanzaa celebration, for instance, but would not dream of going to an Asian cultural event because her DNA did not match, Dr. Richards said. Preconceived notions of race seemed all the more authentic when quantified by DNA.

“Before, it was, ‘I’m white because I have white skin and grew up in white culture,’ ” Dr. Richards said. “Now it’s, ‘I really know I’m white, so white is this big neon sign hanging over my head.’ It’s like, oh, no, come on. That wasn’t the point.”

The point is: “race matters and we should all be free to be who we are,” and perhaps, as an ancillary point, “fuck any form of Communism which claims otherwise right in its 100 million people-killing ass.” Those who feel I’ve been making the point that irrational hatred of blacks (or whoever) is justified by science, misunderstand completely.

While I will admit to being cautious of black strangers given their disproportionately high statistical probability to commit crime, as indeed will Jesse Jackson, and while I will also admit to preferring my own kind to any other groups, as indeed will civil rights activists (albeit subconsciously), I feel no particular need to apologise for these things. They're perfectly acceptable attitudes for other races to hold so they must be normal, healthy and, quite simply, human. Further, I can be realistic about other races and proud of my own without having to resent, hate or war on anyone else. And so long as they’re not receiving undue privilege, discriminating against me or taking my ancestral land, I won’t need to do any of those things. Will I?

Pointless Waste of Time

Anonymous Coward makes the following observations on my blog and, more particularly, my personality:

"My favorite part is how your blog is read and commented on only by people who are a) amazed at how mind bogglingly stupid you are or b) are unapologeticly racist [read: niggerish] white supremacists.

Where did it all do wrong, Rooland?

I'm serious; what happened to turn you into such a terrible human being? Were you mugged by a black dude as a kid or something? Because, seriously, most people with the reading comprehension of a fourth grader are patently aware that the drivel you spout isn't just racist [read: niggerish] it's also painfully, woefully stupid. Like young earth creationism levels of mind-bogglingly retarded.

What the hell happened to you, man?"

Interesting.

I'd planned to transcribe the second part of my video today but alas, mortal limitations have intervened. Apologies for leaving things on a cliffhanger, dear readers, particularly when we'd just gotten down to the very core of the tabula rasa heresy: the idea that people can be inculcated out of their human nature - or even that there's no such thing!

While my mind reels under an antibiotic scouring, it's best for me to address something less intellectually demanding, like the above comment. Unless I miss my guess, the anonymous coward in question is a traveller from Cracked.com, formerly David Wong's Pointless Waste of Time. It's within the realms of possibility, particularly given the familiar "violating my sacred taboo makes you stupid and evil" line of attack, that the message comes from the very desk of David Wong himself. In which case, my check for the article arrived today in good order despite the local post, thanks very much.

So, Cracked is a comedy site I rather recommend, their articles being of a generally high standard. Going by my own experience however, articles which exceed this standard are cut back down to size in editing - but let's leave aside the tired theme of a writer bemoaning his literary circumcision. The reason Anonymous Coward, who for ease of use I'll christen AC after one of my favourite appliances, is here to delight us with his presence is, likely, a rather heated debate I initiated on the Cracked forums.

A formerly content member of said forum, I'd detected a faint, underlying whiff of hypocrisy when I'd objected to an article, written by a person of the black persuasion, entitled something like "X Things Ruined by White People." I raised the point that an examination of "X Things Ruined by Black People," particularly if penned by a white or yellow, would be deemed offensive, if not hateful. For those of you who can't see the M. Night twist coming, my complaint was ignored. Deleted, in fact.

Intent on discovering whether this clear display of a racial double-standard was an isolated case, I created the "Racial Equality" debate thread. That soon brought the worms out the woodpile and the scent of hypocrisy grew to an overwhelming, eye-watering stench. Some of my all-time favourite quotes from the thread include:

"The only differences between ethnicities are the ones people see."
&
"It's interesting that you should mention Hitler, because the Holocaust is the end result of the last time people entertained eugenics (honestly, that's what you are bringing up here) as a reasonable topic of "rational discussion".

- Oregano Angercock, a clearly delusional or perhaps just willfully ignorant individual, who played the Hitler card in his very first response. Apparently the subtle distinction between a rational discourse on race and the genocide of millions escapes him. In his favour though, one could argue that by "differences we see," he meant to include things like intelligence, behaviour and anatomy.

"Sociologist [sic] don't use race as a factor in studies, or they haven't for a long time."

- Cat, unknowingly revealing the reason sociologists are unable to present workable solutions to any number of social ills. Education, poverty, crime and "failure to thrive," anyone? To the best of my knowledge, the uncoupling of the social sciences from evolutionary biology was an act of sabotage by Franz Boas. From there; the dogma that evolution does not apply to humanity as we're all created equal, by the diversity gods of the racially-representative pantheon of Mount Olymponce no doubt.

"Since "race" is an illusion, and since you've already admitted that the differences between individuals are far greater than the differences between these imaginary "races", your proposal would be a very bad idea."

- Kicsi Viz, who obviously hasn't heard of forensic or ancestral DNA testing, which can very accurately determine an individual's race. He or she also demonstrates the classic misunderstanding of degrees of genetic difference: the average genetic difference between men and women of the same race will always be smaller than average genetic difference between men and women of different races.

"You should also check out Guns, Germs, and Steel. Nutshell: it's not a coincidence that human civilization developed quickest on the huge horizontal eurasian mass, and lagged far behind on the vertical african and american continents.

If you go east-west, the climate stays about the same, and practices are transferable. If you go north-south, you're passing through strata where your established ways of doing things will get you quickly killed..."

- Tlogmer who, like Jared Diamond, author of Guns, Germs and Steel, hasn't heard of the Himalayas or Gobi Desert. It's for good, geographic reason that Chinese inventions like printing were invented separately in Europe, centuries later. Likewise, Jared and Tlogmer seem unaware of the horizontal measure of Africa, particularly North Africa, in comparison to South America. Strange then the accomplishments of the Amerindians, no?

"The American Anthropological Association (1997, p. 1) stated that “data also show that any two individuals within a particular population are as different genetically as any two people selected from any two populations in the world” (subsequently amended to “about as different”). Similarly, educational material distributed by the Human Genome Project (2001, p. 812) states that “two random individuals from any one group are almost as different [genetically] as any two random individuals from the entire world.”

So yeah, genetic differences are greater within groups than between them."

- Cat again. My response: "No, Cat. What you quoted states the exact opposite. [There's a strong disingenuous element in stats like this, taking gender differences as within-group.] Interesting the AAA actually bothered to amend their false assertion though. And how different is "about" or "almost," what percentage precisely? The mere 2 percent difference separating humans and chimps is about almost no difference at all, right?"

The bit she quoted stands as a wonderful example of mealy-mouthed obfuscation by a scientific body under political coercion however. This is the degree to which our intellectuals must twist their words into knots to avoid triggering the "racist" alarm. I suppose we should be thankful that the American Anthropological Association at least possessed the gumption and intellectual honesty not to lie outright.

"Exactly. Now that desegregation is a reality, and science has shown the basis of those racists beliefs to be unfounded, whomever is left in the "racist" camp must be mentally ill, by process of elimination. The same way you would question the sanity of someone who still maintains that the Earth is flat."

- Oregano Angercock again. That guy's a real pistol. Stalinist Russia much?

"First article on that site:

"Principles of the Pro-White Movement."

Pro-white.

Yes, that's not Neo-Nazi at all. Nope. Completely, utterly different."

- David Wong, who will be shocked to learn of all the neo-Nazi pro-Black, neo-Nazi pro-Hispanic and neo-Nazi pro-Asian organisations within America, to name but a few.

And so on and so forth. Should you wish to extract maximum amusement from the thread, I invite you to note how my accusers, unable to refute common sense and scientific evidence, increasingly resort to ad hominem arguments. I had a good chuckle at their pop-psy attempts to diagnose the pathology I display by continuing to disagree with their opinions. Further, their criticism of my "entrenched views" ultimately becomes a wonderfully unconcious self-parody.

I was eventually overwhelmed by the sheer volume of opposition (outnumbered perhaps, but never outwitted!) and the thread got locked by Wong, who took the opportunity to deliver his final word on why I am Lucifer incarnate. Since then, I've reconsidered my admittedly daft idea of a black warrior caste. According to the the U.S. military, intelligence is necessary even for "donkey work" and as such they apparently turn away many volunteers who don't meet a certain IQ standard.

Oregano's idiocy has already been over-represented, so I'll skip his particularly self-righteous brand of scathing abuse in the examples of private messages which follow:

"Hey Ro0land, now that that HB thread's been locked there's a message I have to pass on.

Nelson Mandela called. He said he fucked your mother."

- Evil Sloth, demonstrating his or her rapier wit.

"haha you're a fat nigger and you suck nigger dick"

- Honest Abe, doing the same.

Anyway, enough of all that puerile nonsense. Let's get down to AC's actual message about everyone, ie. all three or four people, who's responded to my blog being: "a) amazed at how mind bogglingly stupid [I am] or b) unapologeticly racist white supremacists."

Apparently he forget c) way high. Ah well, the irony to a) is, of course, that no one has thus far accused me of being stupid. My detractors have only wished me an early death and made the rather amusing assertion that the ANC is doing more for South Africa than any white government could. Why, I bet the Romans could whip this place into shape, toot sweet! As for b) I don't see why any group, black, yellow or white, should apologise for promoting their own interests, so long as they do so through legal means. Of course, according to the wets, Caucasians ought to be apologetic, full stop. How dare we bring civilization to the world? What an evil cancer we are!

AC goes on to suggest that I must be psychologically damaged in some way as I hold a sense of loyalty to my own people. Dear me, that doesn't say much for all the strident members of minority rights groups, now does it? He further speculates that I must be a reformed conservative, ie. a post-mugging liberal. Well, AC, the last black who tried to mug me got shown the sharp edge, and not of my tongue, so you're off-base there.

What I'd like to draw particular attention to is that AC accuses me of promulgating falsehoods to the magnitude of Creationism, yet is incapable of refuting my claims with any rational counter-argument. Not a single point... One almost invariably encounters this phenomenon when arguing for common sense and scientific truth in regards race. Unable to defend the ludicrous denialism that is egalitarian doctrine, its adherents go on the offensive like hysterical old women, screeching shrill accusations and doing their damndest to induce guilt and doubt. In effect, they work themselves into a towering huff and denounce one as a bad, crazy person for saying mean things.

Now, we can't blame ol' AC overmuch for being the cowardly, snivelling, neurosis-projecting pussy he is. Most "men's" minds will bend to prevailing social concensus as being the safe opinion, the one which brings the easiest rewards while avoiding risk and punishment. Rather sad really. Ah well, as he seemed to so enjoy what James Watson had to say, here are some more fun quotes from scientific smartypantsmen for him to chew on. With any luck he'll explode with apoplectic rage and never be heard from again:

"The variability or diversity of the mental faculties in men of the same race, not to mention the greater differences between the men of distinct races, is so notorious that not a word need here be said."
&
"[Man] has diverged into distinct races, or as they may be more fitly called, sub-species. Some of these, such as the Negro and the European, are so distinct that, if specimens had been brought to a naturalist without any further information, they would undoubtedly have been considered as good and true species."

- Charles Darwin

"Man is a mammal and subject to the same biological laws as other animals. All animals, including Man, have inheritable behavioural traits. The concept of complete environmental plasticity of human intelligence is a nonsensical wishful-thinking illusion."

- William Shockley, winner of a Nobel Prize for Physics and inventor of the transistor

"The relationship of the g factor to a number of biological variables and its relationship to the size of the white-black differences on various cognitive tests (i.e., Spearman's hypothesis) suggests that the average white-black difference in g has a biological component. Human races are viewed not as discrete, or Platonic, categories, but rather as breeding populations that, as a result of natural selection, have come to differ statistically in the relative frequencies of many polymorphic genes. The genetic distances between various populations form a continuous variable that can be measured in terms of differences in gene frequencies. Racial populations differ in many genetic characteristics, some of which, such as brain size, have behavioral and psychometric correlates, particularly g."

- Arthur Jensen, Professor Emeritus of educational psychology at the University of California, Berkeley

I could go on and on with such quotes but I think the time has arrived to watch a DVD. Take care out there in Loonyland, people. Remember: don't take any guff from these fools!

Dante's Fledgling Attempt at Mass Media Manipulation

Ze Germans

Well, it's certainly taken a while. Six whole posts into an examination of race before Nazism surfaced, a new internet record I believe. I was braced for an onslaught of "go back to your cuckoo clocks, Rudolph Hitler!" commentary but instead, well, this kinda blindsided me:

"ZOMFG!!!! awesome banner thingy Dante!! Love your blog!!! keep it up!!! X X X--NaziGirl17"

Hmm. On the one hand I got kissies, from an actual girl. And you can tell from the exclamation marks that she's hot. Leaving aside the 17 thing for the moment though, the part that makes me squirm is, you guessed it, that she mentioned Wûlf's design work before my blog.

Not really, no. It's the Nazi thing. While I'm all about the conquest of the infinite reaches of the galaxy, the purging of heretics and the obliteration of xeno filth, I draw a line at goosestepping and 88'ing all over the show.

See, NG17, it's healthy to take pride in your people. It's normal to prefer them to other folks who look, speak and act different. That most people feel this way is pretty much why we have different countries. Everyone deserves a place to do their own thing, with their own kind.

Now, the Nazis came to power because other nations had taken German pride, land and self-determination. I can't blame the Germans for wanting those things back, or fighting for them. What I object to is that they went on to take those things away from other people. But then many nations have done the same, not least of whom the Allied nations.

The real deviltry came in when the Nazis realised they couldn't win the war they'd started. Out of spite, they murdered millions of helpless civilians. That was an act of despicable cowardice. It's one thing to go to war and fight for your country, it's another thing entirely to butcher innocent men, women and children. I suggest you reconsider whether you want to be associated with something so dishonourable, Girl17.

Thanks to Wûlf for the new banner!

"Let martial note in triumph float
And liberty extend its mighty hand
A flag appears 'mid thunderous cheers,
The banner of the Western land."

- John Philip Sousa

Kill Whitey and South Africa Sucks

The Emperor's pronouncements were recently quoted on the hugely popular (over 1.5 M visitors) blog, South Africa Sucks. He was writing in response to an article reposted on the Kill Whitey blog (no link, because fuck him).

Now, South Africa Sucks in an unapologetically racist blog which, when pedantic corrections for punctuation are made, "chronicles the slide of a once-magnificent, thriving First World country into that of a crime-ravaged, Stalinist, turd-world hellhole!" Its several white contributors raise mostly news-related points which do indeed highlight South Africa's sad decline.

Unfortunately, racial bias and epithets slip in from time to time which, in the Emperor's panoramic view, are reason enough for the unreasonable to dismiss all of the blog's perfectly valid points. Of course, as the unreasonable are wont to dismiss anything that condradicts their worldview, His objection is largely a matter of aesthetic preference.

The charmingly-named Kill Whitey blog, insofar as a cursory examination reveals, presents mostly the optimistic side of the South African coin, that side being the milled edge. The country's genuine problems are dismissed or denied while any positive news receives centre-stage, if not outright fellatio. In the Imperial Opinion, to which any opposition is vilest heresy, neither the pessimistic nor realistic faces of South Africa are shown.

Though the race of the blog's author remains unclear, it can be surmised given the hateful title and the pro-black spin placed on everything. So be it. While He finds such things personally distasteful, the Emperor stands firmly for the author's right to be as rabidly in favour of his own people as he likes. If the author is indeed black, it would be unnatural and perverse for him to take any stance besides one favouring his own race.

Now, that is exactly the same thing the South Africa Sucks people are doing, taking a stand for their own race. That is a courageous act, particularly given the state of fear and capitulation in which most whites, South African or otherwise, eke out their days. Further, what the SAS folks are doing is entirely natural, if not terribly genteel. They're simply being "nice to insiders and nasty to outsiders," in the terminology of evolutionary genetics. This is what human beings do everywhere, by instinct and with good genetic reason. The only general exception to this rule (as it applies to race) is to be found in Western liberal circles, in which the dark and destructive heresy of competitive altruism has taken hold.

This is largely the point His Imperial Majesty made in an attempt to bring some enlightenment to the benighted ignorance of the original Mail & Guardian article, entitled "‘Two nations’: Who is stalling progress towards reconciliation?" Though He is likely to be called a double-racist for holding such views, not to mention His association with South Africa Sucks, here follows the God-Emperor's position on the matter, edited for Imperial perfectionism:

You fail to understand an extremely important point, sir. Humans are tribal by nature. Social engineering cannot alter this fact. Short of genetic engineering, you cannot erase this inherent bias any more than you can erase the tendency for humans to organise themselves according to a social pecking order, or the tendency of human males to compete with one another and dominate females.

Just as with our status-conciousness, our pair-bonding instincts and our selectional sexual drives, tribal loyalties serve to keep the races, and by extension the species, strong and healthy. Thus, what you denounce as racism can be clearly seen from an objective, scientific standpoint to be nothing but an adaption for favouring in-group over out-group decisions. I remind you that such adaptations only become widespread if they fulfill this category: they promote genetic survival. Understand; it is for this reason that people are not naturally egalitarian. They are tribal. "My team yay, your team boo." Now, how does the old prayer go?

"Serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And Wisdom to know the difference."

A great many wise and rational men realise that accepting our inherent tribalism is the best way to go. Indeed, there are strong arguments for it being not only natural but fair, moral and in the interests of peace. The worst conflicts around the world are inevitably racial conflicts, I draw your attention to almost all wars throughout history and those raging today.

Fighting our normal human inclinations is futile, the best we can hope to do is channel them constructively. Perhaps the Olympic Games suggest how we might channel such racial (ie. national, under a sensible world order) competition to good and productive ends.

As far as I can see, and I believe history and science is on my side here, human nature is largely unchangable by unrealistic ideologies. Communism offers us a rather elegant proof of this. And really, the tribal urges made taboo for white people today, like the sexual urges made taboo for white people in the Victorian era, are not such a great "evil" once their purpose is recognised and accepted.

Think of them this way: I love my children more than other people's children. Not because my children are better or other people's worse, but simply because they are MINE. Likewise I love my family more than strangers and, equally sensibly, I love my race more than other races. That is the instinctual, emotional side of it.

The more rational side is a matter of genetics. I will engage in an in-depth debate on genetics only if I must (and indeed it seems I must at some future point) but just trust me that it is commonly accepted within the field that organisms will co-operate in direct proportion to the amount of genetic material they share. Parents won't risk their lives for strangers but will gladly sacrifice themselves for their children. Even though the shared DNA between parent and child is only 50%, the child nonetheless represents the parent's chance at genetic survival and... Naturally, this extends to favouring one's own race, albeit marginally unless in such an instance as an inter-racial war.

For these reasons and more, a truly integrated society remains a pipe-dream and diversity a weakness to any nation. I would recommend the entirety of the American Renaissance site, as well as The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, as excellent works on the subjects covered, assuming you wish to learn more on why racial divides will remain persistent and, indeed, crucial. Whites need to realise that promoting their own interests is fair and just, and that if they neglect to do so they will only bring about their own extinction.

The Tabula Rasa Heresy, Part I

In a recent comment, The Immortal God-Emperor of Mankind was called a filthy racist for pointing out the reality of racial differences. Now, as we all know, "racist" is the new "nigger." It implies one is a rabid, hate-filled Nazi, packing Jews into the oven whilst biting the heads off white doves and wiping one's arse with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Quite the multitaskers, these racists!

So, while He will admit to a fondness for roast dove, The Emperor has people to perform his cremations for him and He simply does not take dumps - instead making a regular, auric deposit into the vault at Fort Knox. Seriously though, the accusation of racism is completely unfounded. Know why? If a racist is someone who points out biological disparities between the races, then Charles "Monkeyshines" Darwin was the biggest fucking racist of them all!

Cast your mind back to the full title of Darwin's seminal work on evolutionary theory: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwin's point, arguably the best one ever made in human history, is that mutations which are both advantgeous and heritable will increase in frequency through subsequent generations of a species until (gasp!) it becomes differentiated into a new race and, with liberal application of the fast-forward button, ultimately a new species. It follows then that, had modern transport never been invented, the continentally-isolated races of mankind would ultimately have evolved into new species. His Imperial Majesty takes the view that Caucasians would have become winged, pterodactyl-type beings, Asians tentacled sea-creatures and Negroids tusked quadrupeds with spine-ed tails.

As things stand however, human evolution only got so far as to produce differently-shaded races. Or did it? While the conventional wisdom is that varying levels of sunlight led to selection for lesser amounts of melatonin, that is only the most readily-apparent discrepancy. The fact is, such dissimilarities are legion. Don't believe me? Well, let's focus on the physiological ones affecting athleticism, by comparing average Negroid bodies to average Caucasian bodies:


Skeletal: blacks have shorter torsos, broader shoulders, smaller ribcages, narrower hips and longer limbs. Their bones are denser and heavier. The athletic benefits of greater reach and stride length (and hence lengthier acceleration paths) from longer limbs are obvious. Narrower hips are beneficial to locomotion by directing more energy to forward than rotational movement.

Musculature: blacks are more heavily-muscled and their muscles more elastic. Muscular distribution is dissimilar, being concentrated around the glutes and thighs, which advantages locomotion. They also have a higher percentage of fast-twitch muscle fibers and a higher level of glycotic and phosphogenic enzyme activity levels, which allows for a greater "explosive power" from their muscles. There are few sports outside of endurance sports in which that is not greatly advantageous.

Body Fat: blacks have a lower percentage of this, particularly on their limbs. This may well account for their "non-swimmer" stereotype.

Viscera: blacks have less in the way of it, in accordance with the previously mentioned shorter torsos, smaller ribcages and narrower pelvises.

Tendons: blacks have longer tendons and shorter muscle bellies comparative to whites. Longer tendons result in more potential energy in the muscles.

Nervous System: blacks have faster reflexes, due to faster transmission rates along nervous pathways.

Hormone Levels: blacks have more testoserone, which again means more explosive energy and contributes, among other things, to them being more muscular and lean.


These are only the physical differences directly related to athletic ability and go a long way towards explaining black dominance of many sports, particularly running. The few sports at which blacks do not excel are those chiefly requiring upper body strength or flexibility at which whites and yellows excel, respectively.

There are a host of other facts I could cite on skull size (black brains are 80 cubic centimetres smaller than white brains), reproductive systems (blacks are twice as likely to have twins as whites, and four times as likely as yellows), infant development (black babies are born a week earlier and develop quicker), life expectancy (blacks die younger than other races) and so on. Almost all physical differences between blacks and whites are even more pronounced between blacks and yellows, whites falling in-between the other two races in just about all categories of measure.

Right. That's that then, yes? The Emperor suggests to anyone who disagrees with His assertion, that the races exhibit distinctly different physiques and physiologies, to:

a) observe the Olympic Games and note closely which races tend to be over-represented among the various disclipines, particularly in victory. Hmm... Now what is the simplest reason for that, and what would Occam say about it?
b) search through the various, peer-reviewed scientific studies on the matter to be found across the length and breadth of the interweb. Rest assured, I'll be posting links in due course.
c) inquire the professional opinion of a surgeon, mortician, serial killer or even a general physician on the matter.
d) sit on an orange-juicer and rotate.

Now, hopefully the evidence of our own eyes has been corroborated to the extent that we can all agree on there being biological differences between the races. Is there any reason then to expect that the same processes of evolution which created these bodily differences have not led to there being mental differences as well? Why, yes! There is plenty of reason!

One need only consider Gould's Daemon, which is a magical, pixyish, little beast which perches atop the spinal column of every human being. Its job (I say "it," as its nature suggests it to be effeminate, if not feminine) is to stop any form of evolution from occuring above the neck. It performs this task with great aplomb, thumbing its nose and waggling its bum at such as silly, old psychometricians and their bell curves. Gould's Daemon achieves its anti-evolutionary, intellectual miracle simply by waving its wand and intoning the mystical, mesmeric chant of "tabula rasa, tabula rasa, tabula rasa..." But more on this fascinating little creature next time!

Pavlov's Watchdogs by Keith Vaz

“It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments."

- Keith Vaz, Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee.


The scientist in question, James Watson, is the former director of the Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory on Long Island, "a world leader in cancer and genetic research." Yes, you read correctly, "world leader." How appalling that in this modern age such a term could even be considered for usage. The L-word shall henceforth be stricken from the dictionary lest it inflict irreperable harm on some poor man's unfortunate person's psyche. Why, I shouldn't be surprised if such brute insensitivity has just given people cancer, and how's that for irony?

To continue, "James Watson" won the Nobel Prize (but only for science, not Peace) for his part in discovering the structure of DNA. Note: part. Francis Crick, a tuned-in cat who reminds me of a certain someone who's done a great deal for civil rights, doubtless did most of the heavy-thinking. We imagine Watson, true to his name, served mostly to hail hansom cabs and respond with the occassional "astonishing!" to the deductions of the real, turned-on genius. Nonetheless, Watson today feels qualified to pass comment on matters he but little understands. Fortunately for the world at large, there are those who stand ever-vigilant to battle outmoded, unacceptable ideas in whichever dim, ignorant minds they may be lurking.

One such idea is this genome thingamabob. While it apparently resembles a pair of relaxed curls ineluctably twisted together into endlessly-repeating, mutually-reciprocating expressions of diversity which form a single, internalised chain to define all human possibility, the dreadful implications of genetic "theory" are far less beautiful. As Beauty is Truth, feel free to draw your own conclusions as to the scientific rigour involved in the development of this "theory..." In fairness though, genetic "theory" does go a long way towards proving Comrade Darwin's monkeyshines - and hence disproving the paternalistic, authoritarian, hypocritical dogma that is Organised Religion. For your own good however, I am here to order you to discard anything such "theory" may say on the subject of human "differences." As we all know, human beings are biologically equal in all respects; hence equal rights.

You are to further disregard all ungood statements made by Watson. In particular, ignore, deny and shield your mind from the dreadful things citizen Watson has to say about "black" people. Surely as a so-called geneticist he must know there is no such thing as race to begin with? Race is nothing but an outmoded social construct and any perceived "blackness" is an illusion brought on by insufficient moral fibre. Clearly, this Watson is a Nazi and, for the ultimate good of our race, I shall be ordering him off to Sensitivity Camp forthwith. Not that we have a race, of course. Figure of speech.

In conclusion [and breaking from character], "shut the fuck up, Keith Vag. When we want to hear a politician criticizing the scientific merit of a revolutionary, Nobel Prize-winning geneticist's statements, we'll go the fuck back to Communist Russia."

And in further conclusion, a mangled quote from Team America because I am extremely sleepy and such small things amuse me when in this state: “some people are Cricks. And pussies don't like Cricks. Because Cricks fuck pussies.”

A Short Intermission Before We Truly Get Underway

Here follows a missive directed to the formidable Griff du Lion. We can only hope and pray that he replies in time, if at all:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for an informative and often amusing website. I must confess that most of the serious math not only goes over my head but over my feathered tophat too. Nonetheless, the graphs you present and your more elementary points are a source of great interest and often play Dulcinea to my quixotic quest to Change Peoples' Minds.

If I might impose upon you, I would like to request a small favour. Here follows the backstory: I, and many other white South Africans, are in a rather precarious position. Though many have left and are leaving, due mainly to a lack of confidence in government and the shockingly high crime rate, some stubborn buggers have entrenched themselves in the hope that "things will get better." Though I have secured my Canadian passport and intend to migrate forthwith, my father is one of these stubborn souls. I would dearly love to see him live out his retirement in the relative safety of the Great White North, but he is a hard man to convince with mere news clippings and rhetoric. He is, however, an eminently rational man, being a former Materials Scientist. He now spends much of his time poring over stock charts, share projections and... Chinese candlesticks and the like, so I can safely say that, unlike myself, he is no stranger to your peculiar Greek dialect of Numeracy.

Now, I've hit on a fairly simplistic idea that goes as follows: as there is a minimum entry-level IQ to many professions, and as we are aware of both average racial IQs as well as population density, it should be possible to determine whether there are enough smart people to maintain this country at a remotely civilized standard. Or not, as the case may well be... That is to say, if we can make some rough guess at how many people of the various skilled professions are necessary to maintain a country at a First or even Second World level, we should be able to tell that the South African population is incapable of doing so. Perhaps it might even be calculated at what point, if current trends continue, the country is likely to fall apart completely due to its already crippling skills shortage. Of course, the findings of such an investigation may contradict my (admittedly pessimistic) assumptions entirely, in which case I shall have to reconsider my move.

I'm aware that you have conducted examinations along similar lines to those I propose, and forgive me if just such figures appear in certain works I've yet to read such as "IQ and the Wealth of Nations." Regardless, I am asking for your help in this. If you let me know what data to assemble and so forth, I will gladly do that and more. Assuming this study will reveal a similar finding to any cursory glance at local headlines, I really just need to know how to best process and present the data such that it will convince a mathematically-minded man. With your permission, I may well go on to present such data publically, where it might contribute to saving the lives of other such men and their families. I know that sounds rather melodramatic but with one of the highest murder rates in the world (if not the highest) I wouldn't say it's far-fetched either.

Any advice or assistance will be greatly appreciated,

Warm regards,

X.

The Tabula Rasa Heresy, Introduction

"Look around you! We must tear down the rusty and ancient cage that we have built for ourselves and replace it with a shining tower that can once more touch the stars. Without evolution, we are shorn of our greatest strength."

- Inquisitor Laschia, expressing the Recongregator faction's goal, at the Oulan Symposium.


In case the Latin title, Warhammer quote and motivational poster didn't give it away, I'm a nerd. I spend too much time online, get excited about superhero movies and own more books than I've had girlfriends. Yet despite the whole "to admit defeat is to blaspheme against the Emperor" undercurrent, I haven't quite reached the terminal stages of nerdiness; tabletop wargaming being just a bridge too far. Hell, I don't even wear glasses! And believe it or not: I lift the odd weight and punch the odd face - by which I of course mean engage in a challenging dialectic. Still, I will admit to playing (and boast of kicking ass in) Dawn of War, the PC version of tabletop wargaming. As you've probably realised, I'm a real PC-kinda guy.

So, any ladies still here? Any gents who shave, for that matter? Quite honestly, I expect that first paragraph to have frightened off all but the hardcore grognards. Ah well, maybe such an audience is best able to understand my frustration. See, all this cheesy war and honour stuff, Space Marines and the Imperium of Man and whatnot, there's a bit more to it than an infantile delight in toy soldiers. Fact is, I find it inspiring. Sure, I know that sounds lame, like after I'm done here I'm gonna be snapping off salutes to a poster of Admiral Ackbar or practising my lightsaber kata. You know what's even lamer though? That our society's warrior culture exists only in science fucking fiction.

Now if reading blogs is still the done thing, a lot of trendy types will be sneering at this point. I'm sure they'll dismiss respect for anything even remotely martial as bullshit macho posturing. Well hey, feel free, trendies! Door's to your left, in case you can't see it for your fringe... Not that I've shaved my own hair to a crewcut or anything. I don't even own a gun, or dogtags, even a knife. Well, I did own several knives but have a terrible habit of losing them. Point is, I just feel sometimes, particularly times like these when I've got a tumbler in my hand, that it's a damn shame I didn't get a crack at army service. Not that I'd have been first in line to take a bullet for old F.W. or anything but... I think a lot of guys from my generation wonder how we'd have done in a warzone. Sure, we kind of live in one anyway the way this fucking place is going, but I mean a real, full-on, blue-team-vs.-red-team shooting war.

Would we keep our heads down and our powder dry? Maybe even rack up a kill or two? It's like a man's psychological balls don't drop until he can honestly answer that question. And deep down, in that nebulous region where our heart's cockles are said to be, I suspect we all harbour the idea that, given just the right circumstances, we could be the biggest, baddest motherfuckers this world's ever known.

So how about it, men of my generation? Not to mention those lucky, young bastards out there who aren't staring down the barrel of a loaded three oh... Does any of this sound familiar? You nodding your heads or at least giving a rueful grin yet? How about when I mention that fantasy you have of walking into a bar and smacking seven shades of shit out of any punk who looks at you wrong? 'Course, I left out the bit where you sling the hottest babe in the joint over your shoulder and take her back to your fuck-dungeon but I know you're feeling me.

Fact, every man worth the name thinks like this on some level. We've all got a killer instinct, it's just covered up with years worth of etiquette manuals. Sometimes, when the stress - or even just the hormone levels climb into the red, we'll shelve the books on good behaviour and go looking for a fight. Maybe we'll hit that bar we picture in our daydreams. And after a few beers, we'll spot a jerk with just the kind of face we take exception to, roll up our sleeves, and swap a few good-natured punches before our friends drag us away with exhortations to chill. And that's all very well, all very natural.

But it's not glorious, is it? Kinda like the beers and the girl we might sling over our shoulders (at least metaphorically, unless we're really beefy sons of bitches), all we get out of it is a fleeting buzz and maybe a story or two. Nothing lasting comes of it, nothing's achieved, you get me? A ritualised little punchup, even one that turns ugly and fills the night with yells, blood and broken glass, well... That's about as far from the honour and glory of real conquest as a one night stand with a cheap slut is from true love.

Now I can't help you find true love, that's your own affair and I hope you and the sheep are very happy. What I can do though, is I can point you towards a war that needs winning, if you've got the stones for it.