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!