Jul 27, 2015

Antiwhiteism Is Illegal

via MotPol

I am a Germanic Swede, a white northerner. That’s my ethnicity. Do you have a problem with that? Are you going to deny me my right to my ethnicity? Beause if you do, you’re breaking several international agreements. For instance, we have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948. It says that every person has the right to a nationality (Article 15).

”To have a nationality” means: the right to belong to a people. The word nation is from Latin natio, I was born. What you’re ethnically born as counts as your nationality. And this, for its part, is not about the right to belong to a state, which isn’t a right but an obligation (like paying taxes). This may need to be mentioned because lawyers today wrongly interpret nationality as the phenomenon of belonging to a state.

My nationality as a northern German is Swedish. Deny me my Swedish nationality and you’re violating the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights, signed by every nation on the planet.

Further, if anyone denigrates white people on ethnical grounds, then it’s a case of racism, violating the UN Racism Convention ICERD of 1965. ICERD is an acronym of ”International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination”. In it racism is said to mean any form of exclusion or restriction made on the basis of race, color and descent, intended to discriminate and oppress. Sweden and all major nations has signed ICERD.

Further, if anyone believes that mass immigration to Sweden is the policy that should be given priority, then one can challenge it under the UN Genocide Convention of 1948. It’s called CPPCG (”Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”) . It says, among other things, that measures preventing births of a certain people are considered to be genocide. Then, I think, that the anti-white propaganda the regime and the media has spread since 1945 can, according to the same convention, be seen as ”causing serious mental harm” to an ethnic group, Article 2b. It might be seen as a preparation for genocide and is in that case illegal. And anyone who doesn’t protest against genocide is an accomplice, exerting ”complicity”, Article 3e. Those who signed the Convention (among them Sweden and all major nations in the world) believe that ”genocide is a crime under international law which they hereby undertake to prevent and to punish.”

So if you’re anti-white, take warning: if your Facebook friend writes ”I hate white men” and you click like, then you can be considered for ”complicity in genocide”.


Finally: as for me being white I’m no white supremacist. I’m a co-nationalist, stressing peaceful co-existence between people, acknowledging every people’s right to exist in its place of origin. One of the links below tells of the concept of co-nationalism (in Swedish).

The Power of White 'Racism'

via American Renaissance

American race relations are complicated, but they are surrealistic when it comes to blacks blaming their tribulations on whites. On the one hand, countless blacks (including President Obama) insist that white racism remains ubiquitous and is central to racial inequality. Meanwhile, many whites point out that since the 1960s, trillions have been spent directly to help blacks, and that black have benefitted from anti-discrimination laws, voting rights legislation, affirmative action, and many other measures.

If America is so racist–according to President Obama it is in our DNA–what explains all these efforts, as well as the fact that we have twice elected an African American as president? Accusations of white racism seem to be growing stronger as actual incidents of white anti-black behavior, such as the Charleston shootings, become man-bites-dog rarities.

No objective analysis will uncover secret KKK-type machinations or much out-and-out racial animosity. It is true that many whites avoid blacks and may occasionally make unflattering comments about them, but it is hard to argue that such behavior actually causes racial inequality.

Let me suggest that all of this seems a bit crazy because it is crazy: It reflects a mental disorder. The disorder is called “magical thinking,” and it is well established in the mental health literature. According to one definition, it is:
The erroneous belief, similar to a normal stage of childhood development . . . that thoughts assume a magical power capable of influencing events without a physical action actually occurring; a conviction that thinking equates with doing, accompanied by an unrealistic understanding of cause and effect.
Magical thinking has long been observed by anthropologists, particularly in primitive societies and, no doubt, nearly everyone has at one time or another believed that his fate could somehow be influenced by what others think, even if these thoughts were never voiced or acted upon. The prevalence of magical thinking is a matter of degree.

Let me stress the speculative nature of this assertion, but I would suggest that magical thinking is behind the oft-heard claims by blacks that their sufferings can flow merely from how whites think about them. Blacks are not necessarily claiming that white people behave badly toward them (though that might occasionally occur); rather, it is white thinking that causes harm.

The pernicious impact of white racism resembles powerful but invisible cosmic rays from which there is no defense. This is why a black child, in an all-black, black-run, and well-funded school, using an Afro-centric curriculum will still perform poorly. The poisonous thoughts of even distant whites caused them to fail.

In his eulogy for the black Charleston pastor Clementa Pinckney, President Obama called attention to this powerful yet imperceptible force: “Maybe we now realize the way racial bias can infect us even when we don’t realize it, so that we’re guarding against not just racial slurs, but we’re also guarding against the subtle impulse to call Johnny back for a job interview but not Jamal.” This line received fervent applause as if everybody knew that Jamal was just as qualified as Johnny.

Equally important, the evil impact of these poisonous thoughts is independent of whether they are true. A white who believes that blacks are disproportionately crime prone is just as damaging to blacks as one who believes–should there actually be such people–that African Americans are sub-human. All negative views, accurate or not, harm blacks, and even the mildest criticism of blacks can lead to public shaming and loss of employment.

Thus, a black may live 100 miles from the nearest certified act of “racism,” but “racism” still exerts its influence via past events: slavery, lynching, disenfranchisement, Jim Crow, separate and unequal schools, etc. It is irrelevant that most of these injustices are long gone, and that many blacks alive today have only the faintest recollection of them. One hundred fifty years after the end of slavery it still debilitates blacks.

It is an endless loop: blacks behave poorly, whites therefore hold negative views of blacks, and this in turn cause blacks to behave badly.

At the same time, belief in magical thinking absolves blacks of actual anti-white crimes since, according to this backwards logic, whites are the cause of their own victimization. Put another way, if whites stopped being racists, blacks would then not be driven to do things that whites think are pathological. The loop starts with black behavior–not white malevolence–but until the country accepts the reality of racial differences in temperament and behavior, white malevolence will always be blamed.

This is why the pattern cannot be broken. Even if every white were purified of racial hostility, merely knowing about such things as black criminality and welfare dependency is “racist,” and this knowledge sets in motion the mechanism of magical thinking that makes blacks fail. The only effective cure, then, would be to keep whites in ignorance–the media seem to believe this is their appointed role–or to deny obvious reality.

This bodes ill for race relations. When magical thinking is deeply rooted, it is hard to eradicate. You cannot tell millions of blacks that their instinctive thinking is irrational, personally harmful, and scientifically absurd. To do so would be considered aggressive racism. Indeed, the very suggestion that blacks–but not whites–alter their thinking constitutes white racism in the first degree.

This is why, just as medical researchers dig further into the causes of killer diseases, academics must probe ever deeper into the pathology of white racism. Compared to an earlier era when discrimination was plain to see, detecting today’s racism requires more sophisticated tools, such as fMRI, and new concepts, such as white privilege. Demonizing whites in novel ways is a growth industry.

Moreover, magical thinking absolves blacks. Why should Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton look in the mirror or ask blacks to take responsibility for themselves when they can demand that the only way to avoid the next Ferguson or Charleston, let alone black-on-black murders, is for whites to purge themselves of their racism–and that a good start would be to hire black facilitators for racial exorcisms. At the same time we must cleanse society of Confederate flags and hateful movies such as Gone with the Wind that might trigger white racism. Whites are like alcoholics. Even the slightest exposure to temptation provokes pathological cravings.

Magical thinking may therefore be what explains why cries of “racism” only grow louder as whites do more for blacks. It is what explains why progress has come to a standstill even after every item on the black civil rights agenda has come to pass.

Kids with Stones vs. Nukes and Drones: Genocide in the Holy Land

via TradYouth

Peoples willing to fight for their faith, family and folk embody an unbroken spirit. The Palestinian people are an inspiring example of a people who refuses to be broken, no matter what the circumstances. Throughout decades of open oppression, the Palestinian people continue to fight for the rights of their people to have self-determination.

The Zionist State has illegally occupied the land of the Palestinian people since 1947, dramatically increased the size of Israel through land seizures during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war and ever increasing internationally condemned Israeli settlements. The majority of the Palestinian people stand as aliens in the home their extended family has lived in for centuries. Palestinians are crushed under the boot-heel of an oppressive Israeli regime that has a “shoot first, deny United Nations resolutions later” policy towards torturing, mass arresting and killing Palestinian civilians.

The Palestinian people will never stop fighting for a Homeland
The Palestinian people will never
stop fighting for a Homeland
No matter how many Palestinians are killed or tortured by Israeli forces, the dream of an independent and sovereign Palestine lives on and continues to grow among the people. The blood of thousands of nationalist martyrs and the innocent is the fertile soil for a Palestinian nationalist movement that will continue marching forward against all enemies and oppressors until the people of Palestine are finally free.

One way that the Palestinian people fight against the Israeli occupation is through throwing rocks and stones at Israeli forces when they are on missions or patrolling Palestinian areas. Young children to old folks stand united in showing the Israeli imperialists that they are not welcome in Palestine, with stones being their voice.

This resistance might seem small, but psychologically it empowers the Palestinians and lets the Zionists know that they are not welcome and their occupation is hated by the majority of the Palestinian folk. This is why the Israelis decided that to move to crush the Palestinian nationalist movement and their desire to freedom.

They must silence any and all opposition to their occupation, no matter how weak or small.

The Israeli Knesset has passed a new law that is calling for twenty years in prison for Palestinians who throw stones at Israeli occupying forces. Punishments for throwing stones range from five years for throwing rocks at police patrol cars to the maximum sentence of twenty years, not for injuring one of the “Chosen” but for simply attempting to “cause harm.” The punishment for throwing rocks seems insane when one considers that the charges are not based around property damage or any harm coming to Israeli military, police or civilians, simply the intent by an occupied people to take a small stand against an immoral seizure of their land and persecution of their culture and people.

The likelihood of actually hurting heavily armed Israeli police or paramilitary illegal settlers by throwing rocks is minimal, but in the Jewish mind, justice stops when a Gentile might cause a single hair to be put out of place on a Jewish head.

Over the course of decades of occupation, less than two dozen Israelis have alleged to have been killed by Palestinian stone throwing, on the flip-side in 2014 alone “Israel’s activities in the Gaza Strip, West Bank and East Jerusalem resulted in the deaths of 2,314 Palestinians and 17,125 injuries.” 

The conflict in Gaza is so severely lopsided between Palestinians and Israelis in regards to injuries, deaths, property destruction, and infrastructure damage that it would be laughable if the situation were not so tragic when Zionist controlled Fox News pundits come on American media and cry about the “poor Israelis” while thousands of grieving Palestinian parents have to bury their children after their schools, homes and streets are bombed without care or concern for civilian lives.
Human Rights Watch has said that “Israel’s repeated firing of white phosphorus shells over densely populated areas of Gaza during its recent military campaign was indiscriminate and is evidence of war crimes.” White Phosphorus is banned by international law, but that doesn’t stop America from supplying it to the Israeli regime for repeated use against purely civilian targets.

The occupation of Palestine is so repressive that the only power plant functioning in Gaza can barely provide any power to the hospitals, schools, police stations, businesses, and homes of the Palestinians. These are not conveniences or luxuries that the Palestinians are being denied. Electricity is needed to run operating rooms for surgeries, refrigerate food, and pump clean water for the populace. Israel is not just trying to inconvenience the Palestinians, they are trying to wipe them off the face of the Earth with a methodical genocidal plan.

The Middle East Monitor reported that,
“Gaza is blockaded and controlled by both the Israeli occupation and Egypt. Both impose severe restrictions on the movement of people and all kinds of goods, including fuel for the electricity plant. Gaza needs 400 megawatts of electricity per day but is currently producing only around 212. The electricity plant in Gaza produces 60 megawatts a day, which is supplemented by the 120 megawatts the energy authority buys from Israel and the 32 megawatts it buys from Egypt.”
This blockade on purely humanitarian products directly impacts the everyday lives of Palestinian civilians but Israel continues its blockade of Gaza even though it has been repeatedly condemned by the international community.

A United Nations inquiry into the 2014 Gaza war has accused Israeli and Palestinian factions of multiple potential violations of international law including suspected war crimes. A 63 page report that was sent to the International Criminal Court by Palestinians and experts from multiple nations noted that  “Neither facts nor law support Israel’s self-defense claim regarding its 2014 assault on Gaza.”

The head of a UN committee said “The extent of the devastation and human suffering in Gaza was unprecedented and will impact generations to come,” and that is just one of the many attacks levied against the Palestinians. The United States of course has stepped up to say that Israel will never face an international criminal court, no matter how many laws they break or innocent people the Israelis kill.

The United States and Israel against the world.
The United States and Israel against the world
The United States voted against a measure calling for “ensuring accountability and justice for all violations of international law in” the Occupied Palestinian Territories” during the 29th regular session of the Human Rights Council this year. International criminal law can be used for enemies of America, but if the Jews are ever called to answer for their barbarism in Palestine the issue is instantly shut down by the United States.
American politicians know who butters their bread so they clap along to the Israeli propaganda and lies while an entire people is slowly but methodically eliminated from the planet. One must only look at the United States voting record in the United Nations in regards to Israel to see that truly America’s system is a Zionist Occupied Government.

Americans also cannot ignore that the weapons used against Palestinians are bought in many cases by the American taxpayer. Since the start of the Zionist regime, billions of dollars have been given to Israel in direct aid, military equipment, weapons and preferential contracts, all of this in the face of the fact that Israel has one of the largest active spy networks in America for stealing industrial, technology and military secrets.

Newsweek reported in 2014 that,
“No other country close to the United States continues to cross the line on espionage like the Israelis do,’ said a former congressional staffer who attended another classified briefing in late 2013, one of several in recent months given by officials from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the State Department, the FBI and the National Counterintelligence Directorate.“
A separate Newsweek story noted that,
“Despite strident denials this week by Israeli officials, Israel has been caught carrying out aggressive espionage operations against American targets for decades, according to U.S. intelligence officials and congressional sources. And they still do it. They just don’t get arrested very often.”
The nation of Israel treats every non-Jewish nation, no matter how well controlled through either direct pressure or financial bribery, as an enemy.
Both Republicans and Democrats are controlled by Zionist money
Both Republicans and Democrats
are controlled by Zionist money

American taxpayers are deceived on how much of their money goes directly to Israel to be used in their genocidal mission. A 2014 report by the Congressional Research Service noted just a few of the programs American taxpayers foot the bill for in Israel. These programs include:
“$3.1 billion in FY2015 funding, the Obama Administration also requested $96.8 million for joint US-Israeli programs and $175.9 million for Iron Dome. 
The U.S. has also assisted with the development of Israel’s David’s Sling long-range missile defense system, and since 1990, has contributed $2.365 billion to the Arrow Anti-Missile System, just under half of the program’s total cost. 
U.S. support isn’t limited to monetary gestures either. In 2008, the U.S. began the deployment of the X-Band Radar system on Israeli soil; an operation that remains U.S. owned and is staffed by U.S. troops.
The U.S. Defense Department also stores military supplies on Israeli bases. The value of the U.S. materiel stored in Israel increased to $800 million in 2010, with Congressional approval for up to $1.2 billion.
The United States and Israel announced in 2010 that Israel will use $2.75 billion in FMF grants to purchase 19 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.“
Coal miners, waitresses, school teachers, truck drivers, and every American who is struggling to get by is going to work every day to give money through taxes to a regime that actively spies on us,  indiscriminately kills American servicemen (USS Liberty), and is committing genocide, financed by our sweat and hard-earned dollars.

Israel doesn’t even need our money and resources, given that the Palestinian people have no aircraft, tanks, or advanced weapons. The opposition to the Israeli occupation is mostly found in throwing stones at heavily armored tanks. This draconian Israeli law calling for twenty year prison sentences for stone throwers did not come out of nowhere, it was supported by Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition government and passed overwhelmingly.

The Jewish people are not content with just bombing hospitals or shepherding civilians into areas that are then subsequently bombed by Israeli artillery, but the slow grind of illness and poor nutrition is a long term plan to break the Palestinian resistance to occupation.

A US diplomatic cable revealed by WikiLeaks found Israeli diplomats outlining a plan to “keep Gaza’s economy on the brink of collapse” through stopping many types of building materials, luxury goods, food and medicine from reaching Palestinian civilians.

Director General of Pharmacy, Ashraf Abu Mahady, said the Palestinian hospital systemis now totally lacking 118 kinds of medicines (25%) and 334 kind of medical disposals (37%).”  According to the report there is a “complete lack of 32% of primary care drugs, in addition to 54% of the immunological drugs and 30% of oncology drugs, ” This shortage is due almost exclusively to the Israeli blockade and is causing the death of both young and old Palestinians who otherwise would not have died of preventable illnesses and injuries.

The war to destroy the Palestinian people is one that now has been raging for decades, with Israel continually trying to break the Palestinian resistance to fight for their Homeland and for their families. Any sign of resistance is quickly attacked, from Israel shutting down Palestinian nonprofit organizations in Jerusalem that advocate for social justice to silencing television stations that celebrate Palestinian culture and identity. Palestinians are left with no option but to take to the streets in acts of civil disobedience, which includes stone throwing.

cropped-palblogheader

As Israel continues to push the boundaries of international law it is more than likely the Jewish people will accelerate their ethnic and cultural genocide of the Palestinians. If history teaches us anything about this conflict it is that no amount of arrests, killings or blockades will stop Palestinians from fighting back. The stones will keep flying against occupation forces as long as the illegal occupation continues because the fight for nationalism, identity, and freedom of religion will never be stopped.

To the Palestinian freedom fighters, I salute you in your struggle and one day I hope to help you confront the Zionist aggressors, standing side-by-side with you, holding a stone in my hand. Same enemy, same barricades. Long live Palestine.

Never Interrupt Your Enemy When He Is Making a Mistake

via Alternative Right

The Labour Party is not interested in Tony Blair – its disgraced ex-leader, who is widely regarded as a de facto war criminal running around free despite his part in the NeoCon Wars of the early 21st century – but Tony Blair is intensely interested in the Labour Party. In fact, the lying "humanitarian" war-monger and failed Middle-Eastern peace envoy (his last job) just won't shut the fuck up (even when he's not being paid enormous fees).

Here he is in just one of several Labour-loathing dailies, delivering a broadside to his old party as it struggles to find a new leader from a very limited pool of talent to fill the rather small gap left by the departure of Ed Miliband:
Labour faces 20 years out of power if it moves further towards the "leftist platform" of the 1980s, Tony Blair warned as he mounted a bitter attack on the hard-left leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn. 
Mr Blair said that those who claimed that their heart was with Mr Corbyn should "get a transplant" as he dismissed the lifelong socialist as the "Tory preference" for the leadership contest.
Despite the widespread disgust and derision that his name now evokes, Blair seems to be under the illusion that he is somehow a respected elder statesman of British politics, whose views on the Labour leadership contest carry weight with the rank and file. Ludicrously, he still thinks there is some mileage left in presenting himself as a "man of principle" uninterested in mere political power:
In his most significant intervention since the General Election, Mr Blair said that he would not choose to adopt an "old-fashioned" left-wing approach even if it could guarantee victory. 
He also launched a scathing critique of Ed Miliband's leadership, describing Labour's election approach as old-fashioned enough to be from the Star Trek era and adding that it was "out of the playbook of the 1980s". 
He highlighted the scale of the challenge facing Labour by comparing the party's defeat at the General Election to the early 1980s, when the late Baroness Thatcher won and the party lost four elections in a row. 
He said that Labour must not "move back" and needs to resist the "easy and enormously tempting urge" to become a "party of protest" rather than a credible opposition. 
He said: “If we do, then the public won’t vote for us, not because our thoughts are too pure, but because they’re too out of touch with the world they live in,” he said.
While there is a certain comic value in observing Blair popping up, not so much like a ghost at a feast, but more like a zombie at a watered-down gruel tasting contest, he also represents the central paradox of the Labour Party: it is a party that can only ever get elected if it is hijacked by the kind of glib, soulless sociopath that Blair exemplified. The same thing to a lesser degree can be said about the Conservative Party, and, indeed, about most big political parties, but it is especially and painfully true of the Labour Party.
This is what Labour victory looks like.
Even when Britain was an industrial economy – something that definitely ended in the 1980s –  the Labour Party always had to stretch to gain power and make severe comprises with its inherent nature.
 The only real, natural Labour government was the 1945 Attlee government, and that was due to the distorting effects on British society of six years of total war.
 After that, English small-C conservatism started reasserting itself, meaning that the Labour Party had to continually tack to the center much more severely than even the Conservative Party did. 

While the Tories had their reluctant right wing in the 1922 Committee, it was never on the same scale as that of the Labour Party. The real reason for this was that back in the early decades of the 20th century, the Labour Party had had to existentially define itself as socialist in order to displace the Liberal Party among trade unionists and other important elements of the working class. But this same identification with socialism also meant that it went into any race against the Conservative Party with a severe handicap. 

This became increasingly apparent throughout the 1950s and 1970s (the 1960s may have been something of an exception although the same trends are there under the surface), and reached toxic levels from 1979 onwards, when, as Blair points out, the Conservative Party won four elections in a row with an extremely unappealing leader. The fact was that the Tory Party was a better fit with the essence of Middle England. 

In short, the more the Labour Party is itself and the more sincere it is as a party, the more doomed it becomes. This explains the whole career of Blair.
New Labour, as the party was dubbed during Blair's ascendancy, was not an example of "modernization" (a term often used and essentially meaningless), but simply a case the party being distorted from its socialist essence, while temporarily hiding this distortion from most of the members.

Tony Blair's hijacking of the party, with his sleazy economic centrism and globalist subservience to the USA and the EU, was superficially successful. Blair won three elections in row. Labour even had the chance to socially engineer the country's population in a more leftist direction through mass immigration. But this success could only be achieved at the cost of downplaying, sidetracking, and outright denial the party's socialist soul.

Sandwich-board man elected
leader of Labour Party?
Ed Miliband was an attempt to find a new compromise between the disparate goals of centrist power-seeking and resonating with the party's Leftist essence.
Given the state of the Labour Party post-Blair, Miliband represented perhaps the most pragmatic approach possible. But this effort was derailed both by Miliband's unfortunate appearance, which increasingly grated with the public as they were exposed to him during the election campaign, and also by the political dynamic created by last year's Scottish independence referendum, the rise of the SNP in Scotland, and a reaction against this among English voters.

The Labour Party can never stomach another Blair, so someone like Miliband (only better looking) is perhaps the best they can hope for. Among the current field of candidates that would perhaps be someone like Andy Burnham, although he is also signally deficient in charisma. (The two female candidates are shrill and irritating, and won't wear well with the public.)
 Unfortunately for the party, it has chosen its post-election-defeat moment to resonate with itself more than usual, with the result that the runaway favourite to become next Labour leader is now Jeremy Corbyn, an out-an-out Left-winger Communist, effectively Britain's answer to Alexis Tsipras but old enough to be Tsipras's father. While a bit of political soul-searching may be therapeutic for the Labour Party membership, and Corbyn is a nice grandfatherly figure, his election will definitely speed up the party's descent into the dustbin of history. 

Since the 18th century, the UK has operated as a two-party system. Labour's unwillingness to play its part – largely a response to the moral vacuousness of Blair – should be signalling to parties like UKIP that a major vacancy may be opening up in English politics.

The Inhumanity of Utopian Europe

via Cambria Will Not Yield

Instead of the religion and the law by which they were in a great politick communion with the Christian world, they have constructed their Republick on three bases, all fundamentally opposite to those on which the communities of Europe are built. Its foundation is laid in Regicide; in Jacobinism; and in Atheisim; and it has jointed to those principles, a body of systematick manners which secures their operation.Edmund Burke

*****

When Russell Kirk published his book The Conservative Mind, Thomas Molnar commented that Kirk had proved there were conservative-minded American thinkers but had failed to show they had any major impact on the American experiment in government. A point well taken. At every critical juncture in the early days of the American republic, it was the secular utopians, men like Franklin, Madison, Jefferson, and Marshall, who won the day and put their radical imprint on the American government. The ideals of liberty, fraternity, and equality were lurking in the foundational documents of the U. S. Constitution. And there was great bloodshed; when the radical nature of the American government was challenged in the 1860s, the savage god of the utopians unleashed his terrible swift sword on the offending white, Christian Europeans of the South. The war cry then, as it is now, was liberty, equality, and fraternity!

It’s significant that Lafayette, a supporter of the American Revolution, also became part of France’s regicide government. There are many differences in style between the two revolutions, the American and the French, but the spirit animating both is the same: it is the spirit of the archangel Satan.

The presence of an anti-Christian, anti-white nation such as the United States on the world stage would not be as great a danger to white people as it now is if the other European nations were not smaller caricatures of the United States. Every European nation is following in the United States’ footsteps, at slightly slower rates, because they have more traditional European baggage to throw away before they completely succumb to liberalism and its attendant negro-worship.

It is always encouraging when a European nation objects to any part of the American liberal agenda. For instance, I don’t think Russia is a sound nation – they did not, as Solzhenitsyn had hoped, reject the materialism of western democracy when Russia abandoned communism. And they have some negro athletes (one is too many) on their sport teams, but they did issue a counter-attack against America’s deification of sodomy. It was quite heartening to see Russia celebrating the traditional family over and against America’s satanic family ideal.

I wish more European nations would resist American influence, but unfortunately the hatred of the white race and the Christian religion is a virulent virus throughout the European world. It will take more than the removal of the United States to kill the virus; it will take a resurgence of the European spirit, which is undemocratic, militantly Christian, and unapologetically racist.

It grates on conservatives’ nerves (something akin to fingernails scraping a blackboard) when you suggest that America was not founded on sound conservative principles, but isn’t it quite obvious that our negro-worshipping, sodomite present is linked to our anti-European past? What was good in America had nothing to do with the democratic idea men, but it had everything to do with the European Americans who brought the faith and ethos of the white man to America. What binds together the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and all the European revolutions that have followed in their wake is a commitment to an utopian, democratic future that has no place for a God with a heart of flesh and for the people who championed that God. What Butterfield admired in the English, prior to the 20th century, was that they went into the future holding onto the strings of their past. Once England followed the American and French example and cut those strings connecting Britons to their past, the sacred soil of Christian Britain became fertile ground for the growth of Islam and negro-worship. Without a past, we are not a people, we are just abstractions of the liberals’ utopian minds, to be eliminated whenever it becomes politically expedient to do so. And the expedient moment has come: The white man must be eliminated, to make way for a new people purged of the sins of the past and ready to live and strive in the new non-Christian, non-white utopia of the future.

One of the great movies of all time is The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm. The movie tells the story of Wilhelm Grimm’s (the ‘impractical’ brother) efforts to preserve the folk tales of his people that we now call Grimms’ fairy tales. At one point in the film, Wilhelm becomes sick and appears to be dying. He has collected the tales in his head, but he has not yet put them on paper. All the people from Fairyland – Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Little Red Riding Hood, Hansel and Gretel, Cinderella, the Frog Prince, and so on – come before Wilhelm in a dream sequence and beg him not to die so that they will not die. On Wilhelm Grimm rests the fate of fairytale Europe.

Wilhelm does not die and the fairytale people live to nourish and enrich the lives of all true Europeans. But their fate, the fairytale people of Europe, once again hangs in the balance. Such folk tales, many that go all the way back to the time of our Lord and perhaps were told by Him when He trod on England’s green and pleasant land, came from the lifeblood of the European people. If Europeans no longer believe they are a people with a great spiritual heritage, they will not preserve their past; they will be Undines, resembling human beings on the outside, but inwardly lacking an animating spirit. Our Lord told us that unless we become as little children we will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. The fairytale comprehension of life, represented by those tales collected by Wilhelm Grimm, is all in all. Only the Europeans saw that it was not tragic that “we are such stuff as dreams are made on.” A dream that is grounded in the visionary heart of the European people is a dream that brings us face to face with our Lord on the road to Emmaus. “Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us by the way, and while He opened to us the Scriptures?” Of course the apostles’ hearts burned within them, and did not our hearts burn within us when we lived in fairytale Europe rather than in multicultural Europe?

The churches have played their part, a diabolical part, in killing the European people. “Of what use is a past when you have the anointed ones to tell you about God?” Of what use indeed? I think an antique European would answer the godded men with this question: “Of what use is the historical Jesus?” If you reject the flesh-and-blood people who loved Christ enough to build their civilization with Him as the incarnate center, then where is our incarnate Lord to be found? In the midst of multi-cultural Babylon? Or is He to be found in the future? If that is the case, then how do we differ from the Jews, who reject the historical Jesus but look to the future for the coming of their God. In Ian Maclaren’s great masterpiece Beside the Bonnie Brier Bush, in the chapter called “His Mother’s Sermon,” a young minister returns to his hometown to preach his first sermon. He is filled with Biblical history and the latest university-taught theology, but right before he ascends the pulpit, he remembers the words of his mother on her death bed:
“I canna see ye noo, John, but I know yir there, and I’ve just one other wish. If God calls ye to the ministry, ye’ill no refuse, an’ the first day ye preach in yir ain kirk, speak a gude word for Jesus Christ, an’ John, I’ll hear ye that day, though ye’ll no see me, and I’ll be satisfied.”
As the bred-in-the-bone Europeans die out, the Europeans with hearts of flesh, there is no one left to “speak a gude word for Jesus Christ.” Our fairy king of Europe has faded away and been replaced by the negro, because His people have faded away.

I don’t know if Christ actually set foot on England’s green and pleasant land when He was on this earth in the flesh. I like to think He did, but it is not of vital importance. The important thing is that He visited Europe in the flesh through His people. When we are in contact with His Europe we are just as close to Him as the apostles were on the road to Emmaus. I shall never forget the feeling of awe that came over me some forty years ago when I set foot in Britain. The land of Shakespeare, Scott, and Dickens, an important part of His Europe! How can we allow such a fairytale land to become the haven of Muslims and colored heathens? Anthony Jacob, after listing the white man’s considerable material accomplishments, proceeds to the real significance of the white man’s accomplishment: It is white people who built the only civilization that was dedicated to something more than material things; their civilization was consecrated to Him who was and is the personal God above the material dust of this world. I can’t read any classic work of European literature or view an old movie that depicts Europeans from long ago without feeling sadness and anger. Sadness because of that which is lost, anger against those who destroyed Christian Europe and against those Europeans who refuse to fight for its restoration. Our love of our people in and through the historical Christ built Christian Europe. A renewal of that love, for them and for Him, will restore Christian Europe.

I’m at the age when a lot of my friends and relatives are getting sick and dying. Last year, for instance, I watched my father die very slowly and inhumanely in the hands of an inhumane medical staff. And in the past four months I witnessed the slow painful death of a friend, who also suffered a needlessly painful death at the hands of an inhumane medical staff. My run-ins with modern “medicine” are not isolated incidents. There is an overwhelming testimony building, from liberals, grazers, and conservatives, that there is something monstrous going on in the medical profession. How could it be otherwise? The churches jettisoned the European Christ for a theory of God, and the liberals abandoned Him for the negro gods. The issue isn’t whether there were or were not American conservative thinkers; both Kirk and Molnar were wrong when they placed thought, divorced from the lifeblood of the European people, at the center of existence. To hell with that kind of abstract existence. Everything in modern Liberaldom now consists of statistics. My father was past ninety; what difference did it make if he starved to death; at best he had one or two more years. My neighbor had two terminal diseases; what difference did it make if she was left in bed without any attempts to move her limbs except when her husband or friends came in to do it? What difference does anything make since we all are doomed to suffer and die? It used to make a difference to Christian Europeans. They did not make their humanity the slave of inhuman statistics. You prolong life, even if it is aged life, because He wants it that way. We all die, certainly, but doesn’t it behoove Christian Europeans to place a Christ-like presence before the sick and dying so that they pass into eternity with Christ’s name on their lips? The brave new world is upon us. When He is absent, because the Europeans have gone whoring after other gods, then all is “cheerless, dark, and deadly.” The Murdstones are two of the most consummate villains in all of literature, and they commit all their villainies in the name of religion despite the fact that there is nothing Christian in their religion: “’And do you know I must say, sir,’ he continued, mildly laying his head on one side, ‘that I DON’T find authority for Mr. and Miss Murdstone in the New Testament?’” Indeed, that is the point. What is the liberals’ and the church men’s authority for this ‘utopia’ they have thrust upon us? It is certainly NOT His authority. And what other authority is there for a European?

Dostoyevsky’s underground man said that, “A man lives his whole life to prove he is not a piano key.” Yes, but let us deepen the underground man’s defiant declaration: “A man lives his whole life so that he can say, ‘Into thy hands I commend my spirit, O Lord.” That is what being a European is all about.

BBC, BAME, & Blonking!

via Western Spring

It was Greg Dyke, at that time Director general of the BBC, who stated in January 2001 that the BBC was “hideously White”. This statement came in an interview broadcast on BBC Radio Scotland that month, in which he compared the BBC to the Metropolitan Police, who had been branded ‘institutionally racist’ by the 1998 Macpherson Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the murder of Black teenager, Stephen Lawrence.
 
Dyke didn’t say that the BBC was racist, but he acknowledged that, like the Metropolitan Police, the BBC had a problem with race relations, stating that the organisation’s management structure was more that 98% White[sic], and he said the BBC was unable to retain staff from ethnic minorities and questioned if they were made to feel welcome.

He stated: “I think the BBC is hideously white. “The figures we have at the moment suggest that quite a lot of people from different ethnic backgrounds that we do attract to the BBC leave. “Maybe they don’t feel at home, maybe they don’t feel welcome.”

The director-general said a failure of the corporation’s equal opportunities policies was most noticeable at the highest levels, but that the corporation was committed to beating racism. 

“Our biggest problem is at management level. I had a management Christmas lunch and as I looked around I thought, ‘We’ve got a real problem here’,” he said.

“There were 80-odd people there and only one person who wasn’t White.”

He added that by 2003, 10% of the BBC’s UK workforce and 4% of management would be from ethnic minority backgrounds.

Greg Dyke

Obviously, Greg Dyke’s perception of the BBC was rather different from that of the British public who have noticed that for several decades the growing prominence of non-White presenters and the growing disproportionate influence within the BBC of people from minority groups, be they religious, racial, or sexual minorities, and it was with an amazing display of ‘brass neck’ that one time comedian, Lenny Henry spoke out last year repeating the complaint that people from Black and ethnic minority backgrounds are under represented on the BBC.

Lenny Henry, who is Black and features regularly on television programmes and in TV commercials on commercial television, mentioned Black actors such as David Harewood, and Idris Elba, who he claimed have not received the opportunities they deserve. Yet a quick glance at Wikipedia shows that David Harwood has featured in no less that 51 different television plays, series and films since 1990, many of these in several episodes, in addition to sixteen films made for the cinema over that period. Furthermore Idris Elba has featured in 32 different TV programmes since 1994, some of these as the main or a prominent character in long running series, such as: ‘Dangerfield’ in which he appeared in 12 episodes; ‘The Wire’ in which he appeared in 37 episodes; and ‘Luther’, in which he played the starring role in which he appeared in 16 episodes. In addition, Elba has appeared in thirty-three films for cinema, in two of which he was laughably caste as the Norse god Heimdall, a role if ever there was one that should have been played by a White actor!

Lenny Henry also fails to remember: Trevor McDonald, who is of Caribbean ethnic origin; Matthew Amroliwala, who is of Asian ethnic origin; George Alagiah, who is of Ceylonese origin; Moira Stuart, who is of Caribbean ethnic origin; Liza Aziz who is on part Bengali ethnic origin; Mishal Husain, who is of Pakistani ethnic origin, and many more who have been prominent news and current affairs presenters over many years on the BBC. Furthermore, he fails to recognise that many of the people he regards as ‘White’ are in fact of Jewish ethnic origin and who therefore have a minority outlook as far as programming is concerned. He doesn’t recognise that Robert Peston, who is currently Economics Editor for BBC News, and who was replaced in his previous role as Business Editor for BBC News, by Kamal Ahmed (of Iraqi ethnic origin), is Jewish. Nor does he recognise that Nick Robinson, Political Editor for the BBC has Jewish ancestry.

Henry also doesn’t seem to recognise that a whole host of other BBC presenters, journalists, actors and entertainers are of Jewish origin — too many to mention — and that the current Creative Director of the BBC, Alan Yentob and the current Director of BBC Television, Danny Cohen are both Jewish. Jews may not be ‘Black’, but they do constitute a minority ethnic group, often with sensibilities that lie more with immigrants and non-Whites than with the indigenous British. So far from Black and minority ethnic groups being under represented within the BBC, they are if anything massively overrepresented, featuring on our TV screens massively out of proportion to their numbers within our society.

Ore Oduba

This fact was brought home to me this morning as I watched BBC breakfast news, which featured a sports report by Black sports presenter Ore Oduba, who is of Nigerian ancestry, who gave us a rundown on recent sports news, barely mentioning a single White athlete. I think he mention a White athlete in passing, once, possibly twice, but no more than that. All of the people featured by Oduba were non-White.

Oduba featured England cricketer, Moeen Ali and work Ali has been doing within the predominantly Asian community within which he lives, and Moeen Ali was prompted to talk about how his Muslim faith plays such a prominent part in his life.

Oduba then interviewed an Asian cricket coach about the part played by Asian athletes in British cricket; he also spoke gushingly about Usain Bolt, Jessica Ennis-Hill and Mo Farah, all of which are non-White or of mixed race, and in his coverage of motor racing focused his attention on Lewis Hamilton, the Formula One driver, who is of mixed race. One would think form watching this programme that all of Britains prominent athletes are non-Whites and while one may argue that in the sport of track and field athletics, non-Whites are disproportionately successful, that is not so of cricket and certainly not so of motor racing.

Lewis Hamilton is the reigning Formula One world champion and is leading the championship this year, and he has received much BBC coverage celebration his achievements, but he is a lone figure as the only non-White to achieve prominence in motor racing. If we contrast the prominence with which Lewis Hamilton features on television with Danny Kent, the twenty-two year old motorcycle racer who is currently leading the Moto3 world championship, having won five of the nine grand prix held so far this year, and only once finishing outside the top three. Danny Kent is the most successful British motorcycle racer since Barry Sheen, yet we find that he has never been mentioned on the BBC sports news — a strange and glaring anomaly!

‘Eddie the Eagle’ Edwards, the ‘heroic failure’ of the 1984 Winter Olympics ski jumping has been mentioned for frequently on British television this year than Danny Kent!

Danny Kent

Possibly Danny Kent has not been mentioned because he is not particularly photogenic, or because he does not interview well and featuring him would not make good TV? However this is not so, he is a handsome young man who is serious, dedicated and articulate and shines out as a role model for young people.

The silence is more likely due to the fact that like many other sports, MotoGP is an implicitly White sport and that motorcycling in general is an implicitly White pastime, in which non-Whites rarely if ever feature. And so, just as with music, disproportionate prominence is given on television and within the mass media generally, to the genre of music that is of ‘Black origin’, and in which Black artists disproportionately excel, rather than the many other genres of music that are implicitly White, in which Whites excel and non-Whites hardly feature at all.

Far from the BBC failing to give prominence to Blacks and people of minority ethnic origin, the opposite is the case, as in keeping with the dictates of the Equalities Act 2010 and just like every other public institution, the BBC have a duty to promote multiracialism and multiculturalism and therefore give disproportionate coverage to ethnic minorities.

It has long been recognised that the media practice a policy of ‘blonking’, that is, ‘gettING Blacks ON Camera’, in order make the public accustomed to seeing Black faces everywhere, but in recent years matters have gone far beyond that crude beginning. Last year in response to Lenny Henry, Lord Hall, the Director-General of the BBC, promised that 15 per cent of the on-air BBC staff will be Black, Asian or minority ethnic (BAME) by 2017, a target that was clearly exceeded many years ago, together with 10 per cent of their managers. Furthermore, in order to help achieve these goals, Lord Hall announced a new group of advisors including Lenny Henry, para-Olympian athlete Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, and broadcaster Baroness Floella Benjamin, who like Lenny Henry is Black.

Among further measures to be introduced is a new “leadership development programme” for six BAME members of staff, to give them additional training and experience “right at the very top of the BBC”. The corporation will also establish a £2.1million “Diversity Creative Talent Fund”, which will be “reprioritised from other budgets” to help change the portrayal of ethnic minorities in its programmes.

A further six “commissioners of the future” will be trained specifically to work in comedy, drama, factual, daytime and children’s programming, while 20 BAME graduate trainee interns will be taken on by the BBC. Also, an “Independent Diversity Action Group”, chaired by Lord Hall, will also be set up help to oversee the changes, and will include Lenny Henry, Nihal, the Asian Network presenter, Tanya Motie, the BBC executive, Daniel Oudkerk QC, writer George Mpanga, and footballer Jason Roberts, all but one of whom are non-White.

It would seem that our TV viewing is going to feature an increasingly high proportion of Black and other non-White presenters in future, almost certainly in order to accustom we White British into regarding our looming minority status as something natural and inevitable. Never before have we needed a credible alternative White media, never before have we needed the fulfilment of the Six Prerequisites!

We Should All Be Outraged at the Jewish Sanhedrin's Prosecution of Pope Francis

via DavidDuke.com

Gilad Atzmon brought an interesting news item to our attention last week in his article “Pope Francis, Alison Weir and the Sanhedrin.” The Sanhedrin, an authoritative council of rabbis, has revealed that they will try Pope Francis in absentia for his anti-Semitic crimes of having the Vatican recognize a Palestinian state and objecting to the claim that Jews have a god-given right to Israel. This is the same religious body that, according to the Talmud, tried Jesus Christ and sentenced him to death.

When three decades ago Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against Salman Rushdie for his book “the Satanic Verses,” the Zio press was full of outrage and remained full of outrage for years. Don’t expect to hear much about this Jewish trial of the man Catholics revere as God’s representative on earth.

The fact is that the Zio press goes beyond double standards and hypocrisy. Islam is always portrayed as violent and irrational. The Catholic Church is portrayed as pedophilia central. Yet Judaism is unblemished.

Forget the fact that rabbis have their own massive pedophilia problem. Indeed, the Talmud actually sanctions it. Forget that the Jewish State of Israel has been engaged in an incredibly violent program of genocide against Palestinians that is very much sanctioned by the Jewish religious establishment. Forget also that the Jewish calendar is full of holidays celebrating genocides against Israel’s ancient enemies.

Judaism is given a free pass because Jews have infiltrated and now dominate so many important institutions in Western countries. Our political institutions, our banks, our media, our press, and even our churches are to a large extent under Jewish domination.

Christian Zionists will pray for Israel and even shell out a few shekels to subsidize Jews-only settlements in what little remains of land where Palestinians still dwell. Mainstream protestant clergy will engage in “interfaith dialog” with rabbis, as if there is some common ground between Christian universal values and Jewish tribal particularism. Even the Vatican will continue to kowtow to Israel and the Jewish lobby.

One may well ask how much the Zio press pursuit of some spurious connection between Pope Benedict and homosexual pedophilia in the priesthood had to do with his resignation, unprecedented in seven centuries. One might also wonder whether Pope Francis, whose Zio-friendly progressive tendencies have been touted in the Zio media, has his own days numbered.

Catholics around the world, and indeed all Christians, should be outraged that Jewish religious authorities would “try” Francis for simply acting in accordance with international laws and norms of morality. And we all should wake up to the reality that we live in a society where the goyin within the political, religious, and media elite will sit on their hands and let such an outrage occur.

Why Race Is Not a 'Social Construct'

via Counter-Currents

Leonardo da Vinci, Study of a skull
Race realism is one of the intellectual foundations of White Nationalism. Race realism is the thesis that racial differences are objective facts of nature, which pre-exist human consciousness, human society, and even the human race itself—since there were different species and subspecies before mankind emerged. Nature must be understood in contrast to conventions—like human languages and laws—which do not exist independent of human consciousness and society.

As objective facts of nature, racial differences cannot be safely ignored. Nor can natural racial differences be transformed simply by altering legal or linguistic conventions. Conventions can only alter racial realities by guiding human action to change nature itself. For instance, if we institute eugenic or dysgenic incentives, this will change the genes of future generations.

The opposite of race realism is the idea of the “social construction of race,” which holds that racial differences are not objective facts but rather shared social conventions, which may vary from time to time and from place to place, like languages and table manners.

The social construction of race is one of the intellectual foundations of racial egalitarianism, for if race is socially constructed, then so is racial inequality. This offers the possibility that racial inequality can be replaced with equality simply by altering social conventions, like laws and language.

The Basis of Race Realism

Negro from a painting attributed to Annibale Carracci, ca. 1580s
Negro from a painting attributed
to Annibale Carracci, ca. 1580s
The basis of race realism is sense experience. Different races appear different from one another. Different subraces appear different from one another. Racially mixed children appear different from pure specimens. Even races that appear superficially similar—like Australian aborigines and African blacks—appear to be different on closer inspection. Careful observers do not confuse the two. Racial differences are not just a matter of “skin color,” but of morphology and behavior as well, all of which can be observed empirically.[1]

Note that I do not claim that racial realism is based in science. People were aware of racial differences long before the emergence of science. Science comes along only later, to explain observable racial differences. Scientific theories are, moreover, verified or falsified based on their ability to explain observed racial differences. Observable racial differences are, therefore, the Alpha and the Omega of racial science. Thus the foundation of race realism is sense experience, not scientific theorizing.

This is important to understand, because it implies that problems with theories of race do not in any way alter the perceptible differences between races.

It is also important to understand that race realism is the default, common-sense position of all mankind. We observe differences between races, subraces, and hybrids—human and otherwise—before we learn words to communicate and classify them, and before we create theories to explain them.

I vividly remember my first experience of a non-white: a waiter in the dining car of a train. I was 4 or 5 years old. I was especially taken by the contrast in color between the back and the front of the man’s hands. When he went away, I asked my mother what I had seen, and she told me that he was not just a white man turned brown, but a different kind of man called a “Negro.” But I already saw the differences before I was told the name and explanation. Indeed, I asked for an explanation because I saw the differences. My mother and I certainly did not construct the differences that were apparent to all.

Given that race realism is the default, common-sense position, proponents of social constructivism need to offer arguments for their claim. In this essay, I criticize four arguments for the social construction of race, which I characterize as follows: (1) the argument from the social construction of knowledge in general; (2) the argument from changing racial classifications; (3) the argument from continua; and (4) the argument from the silence of science. This is not an exhaustive list, nor is this a “scholarly” survey and critique.[2] I chose these arguments simply because they are commonly used in middle-brow online debates. I conclude by treating the thesis of the social construction of race as a social construct itself, exposing the political agenda and power relations behind social constructivism.

1. The Social Construction of Knowledge in General

Wild Men and Wild Pigs, illustration from, Le Livre et le vraye hystoire du bon roy Alixandre, France 1420
Wild Men and Wild Pigs, illustration from,
Le Livre et le vraye hystoire du bon
roy Alixandre, France 1420
One argument for the social construction of race is a simple deduction from the general thesis that “All knowledge is socially constructed.” This is a philosophical thesis about the relationship between mind and reality, which holds that there is no single correct account of any aspect of reality, but rather a plurality of equally valid accounts which are relative to the contingent circumstances of different communities. For instance, there is the scientific account of the origin of the species, and there is the Biblical account, both of which are products of different communities, and there is no neutral standpoint or criterion that allows us to claim that one approach is better or truer than another.
I believe that this sort of relativism is philosophically incoherent in itself.[3] But it also fails as a justification of the social construction of race because, in a sense, it proves too much. For if everything is a social construct, the concept loses all utility. Social construction only makes sense if there is a contrast term, namely objective natural facts.

But if everything is a social construct, then we have to ask: is the social construct race more like the social construct money or the social construct gravity? Because it is in society’s power to change money, but it is not in our power to change gravity. A philosopher who defends the idea that gravity is a social construct still leaves the lecture hall by the door rather than the window because he knows that one ignores some social constructs at one’s own risk.

The social constructivist clearly wants race to be like money rather than gravity, but if everything is a social construct, he needs to offer an additional argument to prove that racial inequalities can be abolished by social fiat.

2. Changing Racial Classifications

One of the most common arguments for the social construction of race is along the following lines: (1) If racial differences are real, then racial classification schemes will not vary from time to time and place to place. (2) Racial classification schemes vary from time to time and place to place. For instance, the same mixed race individual might be considered black or white in different places and at different times.[4]

Therefore, racial differences are not real. And, since racial differences are either real or social constructs, they must be social constructs.

This argument has two main problems.

The first premise is simply false because it elides the distinction between reality and opinion. Racial differences can be perfectly real, but people’s opinions about racial differences can vary widely. Since human beings are fallible, there can be many opinions about one and the same fact. But that does not make the facts any less objective. It just proves that people frequently fail to be as objective as the facts.

The oft-cited example of varying standards of blackness proves nothing about racial realities. First, the very idea of categorizing mixed-race individuals as black or white is problematic, simply because they are mixed. Given that they are neither black nor white, it is not surprising that people make different decisions if they have to classify them as one or the other. Thus it may be arbitrary social convention to say that Barack Obama is a black man. But it is an objective fact of nature that he had a white mother and a black father and is therefore half white and half black.

3. Cutting the Continuum

Another common argument for the social construction of race, and of knowledge in general, depends on the distinction between differences of degree and differences of kind, and runs as follows. (1) If racial differences are real differences of kind, then there should not be a continuum of intermediate types. (2) There are continuua of intermediate types between races. Therefore, there is only one human race, and distinctions between races are not found in nature but constructed by human beings. We carve up the continuum. Nature does not come separated into different kinds.[5]

There are two major problems with this argument.

The first premise strikes me as highly dubious: just because there are continua in nature does not mean that there are no real distinctions between parts of a given continuum. In terms of color, red may shade off into orange, and different cultures might have different words for colors and make finer or grosser distinctions between them. But does this mean that there are no real, observable differences between, say, red and blue?

Evolutionary theory posits the common origin and evolutionary continuity of all life on earth. Does that continuity mean, therefore, that there are no real differences between mammals and birds, or birds and reptiles, or nematodes and human beings? Is the difference between dinosaurs and humans merely a “social construct”? Did dinosaurs not exist before human beings were around to “socially construct” them?

If race is a social construct, is the human race as a whole a “social construct” too? What then is society? What is society made up of before the social construction of the human race? Is society also a social construct, which would seem to get us into an infinite regress (society is a social construct of a social construct of a social construct . . .)? Or is society not a social construct? Is it just a fact of nature? Is it just here? Then why can’t other things be facts of nature, like human beings and dinosaurs?

The second premise is also problematic. Anthropologists claim that all human races descend from common ancestors. But at different points in time, the five distinct human races—Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Congoid, Capoid, and Australoid—branched off and differentiated themselves from both their common ancestors and one another. After developing in isolation for enough time to attain distinctive traits, these races then came into contact with one another and gave rise to mixed populations.[6] But the existence of racially mixed individuals no more overthrows the real distinction between races than the existence of green paint refutes the existence of blue and yellow paint.[7]

4. The Silence of Science

Another common claim of the social constructivists is to claim that science does not give adequate support to the idea of real racial distinctions, thus social constructivism is true. The argument runs as follows. (1) If there are real racial differences, then science will explain them. (2) Science has not explained racial differences. Therefore, there are no real racial differences. Since racial differences are either real or socially constructed, race is a social construct.

This argument has four grave problems.

First, race realism is based on observed racial differences, not on scientific theories of race. Human beings perceived racial differences long before the emergence of science, and we perceive them still, even those of us who are entirely innocent of racial science (as most social constructivists happen to be). Thus the first premise is simply false: the reality of race does not depend on the success or failure of scientific theories of race. Theories may rise and fall, but observable differences remain.

As for the second premise: scientists would beg to differ.[8] We can determine the race of an individual from the morpoholgical or genetic analysis of a single bone or strand of hair.

Of course, the social constructivists are not exactly clear about what constitutes the failure of science to explain race, but they generally insinuate that science has either (1) failed to come up with a single differentiating trait possessed by all members of a race and not possessed by other races,[9] or (2) that no such theory has attained universal acceptance.

But the demand for a single essential differentiating trait for each race is arbitrary. Nature does not have to conform to our demands. And the fact that a theory does not attain universal acceptance has nothing to do with its truth, given the variability and fallibility of human opinions. Frankly, I believe that most social constructivists are intellectually dishonest. Thus no theory of objective racial differences will ever gain universal assent, no matter how well founded it may be.

Another problem with this argument is that it overlooks the fact that science is a process that unfolds over time. Thus even if the second premise were true, the conclusion does not follow, simply because science might not have come up with the correct account just yet. But wait.

A final problem with this argument is its assumption that in the absence of a scientific explanation of race, the only alternative is social constructivism. In fact, the default position is race realism based on empirical observation, which does not depend upon scientific explanation at all.

Social Constructivism as Social Construct

Social constructivists typically do not limit their thesis to race. Many claim that all knowledge is a social construct, or even that reality itself is a social construct. Thus it is fair to ask: is social constructivism itself a social construct? If social constructivism is a social construct, this has three important implications:
  1. Like all social constructs, social constructivism is the product of a unique set of historically contingent circumstances.
  2. Since every society is divided into the rulers and the ruled, every social construct will be marked by the agenda of those who hold power.
  3. If social constructivism is a social construct, not a natural fact, its acceptance or rejection is not based on reason and nature but on social incentives: moral and political commitment for the true believers — brainwashing, greed, and fear for the rest.
Social constructivism has a long philosophical pedigree, but today it functions as the metaphysical postulate of egalitarian social engineering projects to equalize the races by revolutionizing European defined and dominated societies. Of course, this revolution cannot produce racial equality, but it can create a new racial hierarchy in which Europeans are subordinate. Social constructivism thus serves the interests of a new emerging social elite, an alliance of rootless plutocrats, non-whites, sexual minorities, and other outsiders, in which the organized Jewish community is the senior and guiding partner. Thus social constructivism is an element of what Kevin MacDonald calls the “culture of critique”: the critique and overthrow of European civilization by Jewish-inspired and dominated intellectual movements like Marxism, psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt School, feminism, deconstructionism, and most forms of postmodernism.[10]

These movements are characterized by pseudo-science, obscurantism, and crass ethno-political advocacy. They acquired their influence not through reason and science but through the subversion of the educational, cultural, and political institutions of European societies. They perpetuate their influence though the indoctrination of the impressionable and the suppression of dissent.

Thus social constructivism cannot be defeated merely by criticizing its astonishingly poor arguments, which in large part are merely tools of self-conscious and cynical deception. If you lop off one argument, the hydra just sprouts another.
Instead, social constructivism must be defeated on its own terms: by altering the social conditions that give rise to it; by changing who rules this society; by disempowering and silencing its advocates just as they disempower and silence their critics. In short, social constructivism must be socially deconstructed and replaced by a new cultural and political hegemony that is aligned with reason, reality, and white interests. And we can do that in good conscience, because social constructivism is a false and pernicious ideology, nothing more.

Race realism is the default position of common sense. It is, moreover, supported by the best biological science. There is no good case for the social construction of race. It would be truer to say that society is a racial construct, meaning that society is the creation of human beings, who exist as part of nature and whose biological traits shape and constrain society and culture. But once society is established, social conventions shape the underlying race by instituting eugenic and dysgenic breeding incentives or simply by legislating the extermination of entire groups. Nature comes before culture, but once culture exists, it turns back on and modifies nature.[11] Only in this specific sense can one say that race is a (partial) social “construct,” although it would be better to drop the misleading language of construction altogether.

Notes

1. An excellent basic textbook on race distinguished in terms of observable, morphological features which remains valid to this day is Carleton S. Coon, The Living Races of Man (New York: Random House, 1965). The book is particularly valuable for its many photographs illustrating typical racial, subracial, and hybrid types.
2. For a more comprehensive survey of the case for race realism and against social constructivism, see Richard McCulloch, “Race: Reality and Denial,” The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 2, no. 4 (Winter 2002–2003): 5–26, http://toqonline.com/archives/v2n4/TOQv2n4McCulloch.pdf
3. See Paul Boghossian, Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism (Oxford: Clarendon, 2007).
4. Ta-Nehisi Coates, “What We Mean When We Say ‘Race Is a Social Construct,’” The Atlantic, May 15, 2013, http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/what-we-mean-when-we-say-race-is-a-social-construct/275872/
5. An underlying assumption of this argument is that to truly know objective reality, the mind must be passive and reality must simply inscribe itself upon it. Thus if the mind is in any way active in the process of gaining knowledge, we no longer know objective reality but only human constructs. Ayn Rand offers a reductio ad absurdum of this argument, although she mistakenly applies it to Kant: “[Kant’s] argument, in essence, ran as follows: man is limited to a consciousness of a specific nature, which perceives by specific means and no others, therefore, his consciousness is not valid; man is blind, because he has eyes—deaf, because he has ears—deluded, because he has a mind—and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them” (Ayn Rand, “For the New Intellectual,” in For the New Intellectual: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (New York: Random House, 1961), p. 33.
6. For an accessible account of racial evolution that remains valid today, see Carleton S. Coon, The Origin of Races (New York: Knopf, 1962). See also Coon’s The Living Races of Man.
7. John R. Baker makes this point in his Race (New York: Oxford University Press, 1974), p. 100.
8. For a simple and compelling summary of the science of race, see J. Philippe Rushton, Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, 2nd special abridged edition (Port Huron, Michigan: Charles Darwin Research Institute, 2000).
9. See Joseph L. Graves, Jr., “The Biological Case against Race,” American Outlook, Spring 2002, p. 31.
10. Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1998).
11. For a recent and compelling account of genetic and cultural co-evolution, see Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending, The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution (New York: Basic Books, 2009).