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...