The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPeter Frost Archive
Antiracism: Sometimes the Consensus Is Phony
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A synthesis has been forming in the field of human biodiversity. It may be summarized as follows:

1. Human evolution did not end in the Pleistocene or even slow down. In fact, it speeded up with the advent of agriculture 10,000 years ago, when the pace of genetic change rose over a hundred-fold. Humans were no longer adapting to relatively static natural environments but rather to faster-changing cultural environments of their own making. Our ancestors thus directed their own evolution. They created new ways of life, which in turn influenced who would survive and who wouldn’t.

2. When life or death depends on your ability to follow a certain way of life, you are necessarily being selected for certain heritable characteristics. Some of these are dietary—an ability to digest milk or certain foods. Others, however, are mental and behavioral, things like aptitudes, personality type, and behavioral predispositions. This is because a way of life involves thinking and behaving in specific ways. Keep in mind, too, that most mental and behavioral traits have moderate to high heritability.

3. This gene-culture co-evolution began when humans had already spread over the whole world, from the equator to the arctic. So it followed trajectories that differed from one geographic population to another. Even when these populations had to adapt to similar ways of life, they may have done so differently, thus opening up (or closing off) different possibilities for further gene-culture co-evolution. Therefore, on theoretical grounds alone, human populations should differ in the genetic adaptations they have acquired. The differences should generally be small and statistical, being noticeable only when one compares large numbers of individuals. Nonetheless, even small differences, when added up over many individuals and many generations, can greatly influence the way a society grows and develops.

4. Humans have thus altered their environment via culture, and this man-made environment has altered humans via natural selection. This is probably the farthest we can go in formulating a unified theory of human biodiversity. For Gregory Clark, the key factor was the rise of settled, pacified societies, where people could get ahead through work and trade, rather than through violence and plunder. For Henry Harpending and Greg Cochran, it was the advent of agriculture and, later, civilization. For J. Philippe Rushton and Ed Miller, it was the entry of humans into cold northern environments, which increased selection for more parental investment, slower life history, and higher cognitive performance. Each of these authors has identified part of the big picture, but the picture itself is too big to reduce to a single factor.

5. Antiracist scholars have argued against the significance of human biodiversity, but their arguments typically reflect a lack of evolutionary thinking. Yes, human populations are open to gene flow and are thus not sharply defined (if they were, they would be species). It doesn’t follow, however, that the only legitimate objects of study are sharply defined ones. Few things in this world would pass that test.

Yes, genes vary much more within human populations than between them, but these two kinds of genetic variation are not comparable. A population boundary typically coincides with a geographic or ecological barrier, such as a change from one vegetation zone to another or, in humans, a change from one way of life to another. It thus separates not only different populations but also differing pressures of natural selection. This is why genetic variation within a population differs qualitatively from genetic variation between populations. The first kind cannot be ironed out by similar selection pressures and thus tends to involve genes of little or no selective value. The second kind occurs across population boundaries, which tend to separate different ecosystems, different vegetation zones, different ways of life … and different selection pressures. So the genes matter a lot more.

This isn’t just theory. We see the same genetic overlap between many sibling species that are nonetheless distinct anatomically and behaviorally. Because such species have arisen over a relatively short span of time, like human populations, they have been made different primarily by natural selection, so the genetic differences between them are more likely to have adaptive, functional consequences … as opposed to “junk variability” that slowly accumulates over time.

Why is the above so controversial?

The above synthesis should not be controversial. Yet it is. In fact, it scarcely resembles acceptable thinking within academia and even less so within society at large. There are two main reasons.

The war on racism

In the debate over nature versus nurture, the weight of opinion shifted toward the latter during the 20th century. This shift began during the mid-1910s and was initially a reaction against the extreme claims being made for genetic determinism. In reading the literature of the time, one is struck by the restraint of early proponents of environmental determinism, especially when they argue against race differences in mental makeup. An example appears in The Clash of Colour (1925), whose author condemned America’s Jim Crow laws and the hypocrisy of proclaiming the rights of Europeans to self-determination while ignoring those of Africans and Asians. Nonetheless, like the young Franz Boas, he was reluctant to deny the existence of mental differences:

I would submit the principle that, although differences of racial mental qualities are relatively small, so small as to be indistinguishable with certainty in individuals, they are yet of great importance for the life of nations, because they exert throughout many generations a constant bias upon the development of their culture and their institutions.(Mathews, 1925, p. 151)

That was enlightened thinking in the 1920s. The early 1930s brought a radical turn with Hitler’s arrival to power and a growing sense of urgency that led many Jewish and non-Jewish scholars to declare war on “racism.” The word itself was initially a synonym for Nazism, and even today Nazi Germany still holds a central place in antiracist discourse.

Why didn’t the war on racism end when the Second World War ended? For one thing, many people, feared a third global conflict in which anti-Semitism would play a dominant role. For another, antiracism took on a life of its own during the Cold War, when the two superpowers were vying for influence over the emerging countries of Asia and Africa.

Globalism

The end of the Cold War might have brought an end to the war on racism, or at least a winding down, had it not replaced socialism with an even more radical project: globalism. This is the hallmark of “late capitalism,” a stage of historical development when the elites no longer feel restrained by national identity and are thus freer to enrich themselves at their host society’s expense, mainly by outsourcing jobs to low-wage countries and by insourcing low-wage labor for jobs that cannot be relocated, such as those in construction and services. That’s globalism in a nutshell.

This two-way movement redistributes wealth from owners of labor to owners of capital. Businesses get not only a cheaper workforce but also weaker labor and environmental standards. To stay competitive, workers in high-wage countries have to accept lower pay and a return to working conditions of another age. The top 10% are thus pulling farther and farther ahead of everyone else throughout the developed world. They’re getting richer … not by making a better product but by making the same product with cheaper and less troublesome inputs of labor. This is not a win-win situation, and the potential for revolutionary unrest is high.

To stave off unrest, economic systems require legitimacy, and legitimacy is made possible by ideology: a vision of a better future; how we can get there from here; and why we’re not getting there despite the best efforts. Economic systems don’t create ideology, but they do create conditions that favor some ideologies over others. With the collapse of the old left in the late 1980s, and the rise of market globalization, antiracism found a new purpose … as a source of legitimacy for the globalist project.

I saw this up close in an antiracist organization during the mid to late 1980s. Truth be told, we mostly did things like marching in the May Day parade, agitating for a higher minimum wage, denouncing the U.S. intervention in Panama, organizing talks about Salvador Allende and what went wrong in Chile … you get the drift. Antiracism was subservient to the political left. This was not a natural state of affairs, since the antiracist movement—like the Left in general—is a coalition of ethnic/religious factions that prefer to pursue their own narrow interests. This weakness was known to the political right, many of whom tried to exploit it by supporting Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan and elsewhere and black nationalists in Africa, Haiti, and the U.S. Yes, politics makes strange bedfellows.

With the onset of the 1990s, no one seemed to believe in socialism anymore and we wanted to tap into corporate sources of funding. So we reoriented. Leftist rhetoric was out and slick marketing in. Our educational materials looked glossier but now featured crude “Archie Bunker” caricatures of working people, and the language seemed increasingly anti-white. I remember feeling upset, even angry. So I left.

Looking back, I realize things had to happen that way. With the disintegration of the old socialist left, antiracists were freer to follow their natural inclinations, first by replacing class politics with identity politics, and second by making common cause with the political right, especially for the project of creating a globalized economy. Antiracism became a means to a new end.

This is the context that now frames the war on racism. For people in a position to influence public policy, antiracism is not only a moral imperative but also an economic one. It makes the difference between a sluggish return on investment of only 2 to 3% (which is typical in a mature economy) and a much higher one.

What to do?

Normally, I would advise caution. People need time to change their minds, especially on a topic as emotional as this one. When tempers flare, it’s usually better to let the matter drop and return later. That’s not cowardice; it’s just a recognition of human limitations. Also, the other side may prove to be right. So, in a normal world, debate should run its course, and the policy implications discussed only when almost everyone has been convinced one way or the other.

Unfortunately, our world is far from normal. A lot of money is being spent to push a phony political consensus against any controls on immigration. This isn’t being done in the dark by a few conspirators. It’s being done in the full light of day by all kinds of people: agribusiness, Tyson Foods, Mark Zuckerberg, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and small-time operations ranging from landscapers to fast-food joints. They all want cheaper labor because they’re competing against others who likewise want cheaper labor. It’s that simple … and stupid.

This phony consensus is also being pushed at a time when the demographic cauldron of the Third World is boiling over. This is particularly so in sub-Saharan Africa, where the decline in fertility has stalled and actually reversed in some countries. The resulting population overflow is now following the path of least resistance—northward, especially with the chaos due to the NATO-led invasion of Libya. In the current context, immigration controls should be strengthened, and yet there is lobbying to make them even weaker. The idiocy is beyond belief.

For these reasons, we cannot wait until even the most hardboiled skeptics are convinced. We must act now to bring anti-globalist parties to power: the UKIP in Britain, the Front national in France, the Partij voor de Vrijheid in the Netherlands, the Alternative für Deutschland in Germany, and the Sverigedemokraterna in Sweden. How, you may ask? It’s not too complicated. Just go into the voting booth and vote. You don’t even have to talk about your dirty deed afterwards.

It looks like such parties will emerge in Canada and the United States only when people have seen what can be done in Europe. Until then, the tail must wag the dog. We in North America can nonetheless prepare the way by learning to speak up and stand up, and by recognizing that the “Right” is just as problematic as the “Left.”

References

Clark, G. (2007). A Farewell to Alms. A Brief Economic History of the World, Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford.

Clark, G. (2009a). The indicted and the wealthy: surnames, reproductive success, genetic selection and social class in pre-industrial England,
http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/Farewell%20to%20Alms/Clark%20-Surnames.pdf

Clark, G. (2009b). The domestication of Man: The social implications of Darwin, ArtefaCTos, 2(1), 64-80.
http://campus.usal.es/~revistas_trabajo/index.php/artefactos/article/viewFile/5427/5465

Clark, G. (2010). Regression to mediocrity? Surnames and social mobility in England, 1200-2009
http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Ruling%20Class%20-%20EJS%20version.pdf

Cochran, G. and H. Harpending. (2010). The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, New York: Basic Books.

Frost, P. (2011a). Human nature or human natures? Futures, 43, 740-748.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/251725125_Human_nature_or_human_natures/file/504635223eaf8196f0.pdf

Frost, P. (2011b). Rethinking intelligence and human geographic variation, Evo and Proud, February 11
/pfrost/rethinking-intelligence-and-human/

Harpending, H., and G. Cochran. (2002). In our genes, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A., 99, 10-12.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC117504/

Hawks, J., E.T. Wang, G.M. Cochran, H.C. Harpending, and R.K. Moyzis. (2007). Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A., 104, 20753-20758.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/5761823_Recent_acceleration_of_human_adaptive_evolution/file/9c9605240c4bb57b55.pdf

Mathews, B. (1925). The Clash of Colour. A Study in the Problem of Race, London: Edinburgh House Press.

Miller, E. (1994). Paternal provisioning versus mate seeking in human populations, Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 227-255.
http://www.prometheism.net/paternal/

Rushton, J. P. (2000). Race, Evolution, and Behavior, 3rd ed., Charles Darwin Research Institute.
http://lazypawn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf

(Republished from Evo and Proud by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 146 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Numinous says:

    To a non-white person, the 20th century “anti-racism” was first and last a struggle for dignity, a struggle to gain the right not to be judged as deficient in mental abilities, character, and agency, purely on the basis of physical appearance. It was (emphatically) not meant to be a pet project for idle left-wing activists, as you seem to describe it.

    While writing articles like these, it would serve you well to consider the perspectives and situations of non-white people too, and not just those of white people in rich countries. After all, your theories and discussions claim to describe all of humanity.

  2. Sean says:

    Ireland has many unemployed and is letting in more immigrants now than ever before. So is Denmark, which some bad jokers will tell you has shown a modern Western economy run on democratic lines can stop the inexorable increase in Third World immigration.

    The people who are being hurt by immigration, don’t actually run the countries in which they are the majority. It is higher social class people who run things, and that social class is where the behavioural predispositions necessary for running things and creating wealth are heavily concentrated.

    Peter, the final straw for you was that poster from the anti racist organisation that you talked about a while ago. There is a concealed loathing for the lower orders (” Not long before I left, we received a poster for distribution. It showed a white man yelling ‘You’re stealing my job’ at a dark-skinned person. What struck me was the way the two were portrayed. The white man had a bald head, a hideous face, and a huge beer belly. He was also dressed in overalls, presumably to show he was a manual laborer. In contrast, the dark-skinned man was neatly dressed and normal in appearance”).

    And as a belief that race is unimportant is the sine qua non that defines the identity of upper class whites, they feel virtuous about benefiting from the destruction of (their) people. The classes that the rulers are drawn from are very, very good at running things; it comes naturally to them. I mean, from a few things you’ve said over the years, I would think your parentage is not really working class even though your early environment was. In that anti racist organisation you were in, I bet there were a high proportion of upper middle class people at the top.

    Ukip has two MPs, they would need 200; same for the FN. That nations have a ‘life’ suggests that nations can die.

    • Replies: @jack shindo
  3. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The end of the Cold War might have brought an end to the war on racism, or at least a winding down, had it not replaced socialism with an even more radical project: globalism. This is the hallmark of “late capitalism,” a stage of historical development when the elites no longer feel restrained by national identity and are thus freer to enrich themselves at their host society’s expense, mainly by outsourcing jobs to low-wage countries and by insourcing low-wage labor for jobs that cannot be relocated, such as those in construction and services. That’s globalism in a nutshell.

    I don’t know if globalism is merely a feature of “late capitalism”. It was there at the outset of the modern era in the 16th century. Significant population movements and greater economic integration began at the outset.

    The difference is that until the middle of the 20th century, Western middle and lower classes benefitted from this globalism – from the population movements and economic integration. Cheap or free land was available in the colonies for poorer farmers, cheaper commodities were available, more profit opportunities were available for businessmen, administrative jobs were available in the colonies, etc. By the latter half of the 20th century, Western middle and lower classes were no longer benefiting from globalism and its primary beneficiaries were the wealthy and non-Western populations.

    • Replies: @Simon in London
  4. @Numinous

    He did talk about third world ethno-nationalists being supported by the ‘Right’ – the US govt through the CIA, presumably.
    It’s not surprising or complicated that there should be non-white ethno-nationalist movements, though, that is just people following their own perceived interests. The alliance of the New Left with Big Business is more complicated, less intuitive, and needs more explanation.

    • Replies: @Marc
  5. @Anonymous

    “I don’t know if globalism is merely a feature of “late capitalism”. It was there at the outset of the modern era in the 16th century. Significant population movements and greater economic integration began at the outset.”

    In the 16th century modern nation states were taking shape, and the elites were transferring their allegiances from older entities – Christendom at the top level, dynasties lower down – to the emerging nation-states. There was another period of global integration in the late 19th century, but no ‘Globalism’.
    Globalism is new because the elites are transferring loyalty away from the nation states to trans-national entities (EU, UN, NGOs), and often adopting an abstract religion of Human Rights which facilitates this. Those who don’t worship Human Rights tend to worship Capitalism, to much the same effect.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  6. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The problem with the anti-racism movement is that they assumes only White people are capable of being racists. They should just blatantly re-name themselves the anti-White movement and not beat around the bush about it. I prefer when my enemies are just straight up blunt about their cruel intentions.

    • Replies: @jack shindo
  7. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Simon in London

    Those modern nation-states weren’t taking shape as autarkies. They were emerging in the 16th century in part because the increasingly global and mercantile economic activity was enriching and empowering alternative classes at the expense of the old landed aristocracy and clerical class. One reason Germany was unified so late as a modern nation-state was that it was a latecomer to this global economic activity.

    The period of greater global integration in the late 19th century involved various national and ethnic groups pledging nominal loyalty or being subject to nation-states that had become effectively trans or multi-national entities.

    The contemporary trans-national entities (EU, UN, NGOs) are regarded by their proponents and detractors as Western elite projects.

    “Globalism” is often used as a pejorative to refer to contemporary undesirable population movements and economic integration. For most, population movements and economic integration are undesirable if they don’t benefit from them, and currently Western middle and lower classes do not benefit from them and are harmed by them.

  8. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Is the reference to Mark Zuckerberg used here as synechdoche for tech capitalism?

    Paul Graham and almost all tech leaders have the same views and capitalist-universalist incentives (decrease domestic wages, diminish dividing lines that cause wars, and grow the collective human consumer-base).

    Using a figure of speech to reduce those macrohistorical forces down to one figurehead diminishes our understanding.

  9. Numinous,

    As an anthropologist, my job is to give voice to those who are voiceless, either because they are socially marginal or because they have been deliberately silenced. This was the case with black slaves and colonial peoples, and it’s still the case with the native peoples of the Americas and Australia. Increasingly, it’s now the case with Europeans and European-descended peoples.

    I detect indignation when you say that antiracism “was (emphatically) not meant to be a pet project for idle left-wing activists.” Well, it — emphatically — was. Take the NAACP. Its leadership was WASP and then Jewish for the first half-century of its existence. Read the Wiki page:

    “In fact, at its founding, the NAACP had only one African American on its executive board, Du Bois himself. It did not elect a black president until 1975, although executive directors had been African-American.”

    The same was true for the earlier abolitionist movement. It was overwhelmingly WASP, with a few token blacks. It couldn’t have been otherwise.

    I don’t see things from a “white” perspective, let alone a “rich white” perspective. The dominant view among white people is that we should all be autonomy-maximizing individuals in a global marketplace. This view is as dominant on the right as it is on the left. And it’s very dominant among rich whites.

  10. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    This one paragraph provides more winning anti-antiwhite material than the News&Jews (Taylor, Macdonald) or Stats&Facts (Derb) approaches have come up with in a decade.

    Copy and paste this on a dozen random websites
    and watch the fireworks.

    Q: Why is “diversity” and “multiculturalism” demanded in All white populations & Only white populations?

    A: Diversity means Chasing Down the Last White Person.

    Anti-whites demand No-White-Anything-Anywhere. Racial/cultural elimination is the white “privilege”.

    Q: Why don’t Self-Proclaimed “anti-racists” attack the “racist” immigration and social policies of, say, Japan? Korea? Mexico?

    A: Anti-racist is a Codeword for Anti-White

    whitegenocideproject.com
    Twitter: #whitegenocide #antiwhite

  11. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost

    The dominant view among white people is that we should all be autonomy-maximizing individuals in a global marketplace. This view is as dominant on the right as it is on the left. And it’s very dominant among rich whites.

    I don’t think this is generally true among the wider population. Economic protectionism was historically popular and would probably be popular today as a political platform. Popular discontent and grumbling about outsourcing and losing manufacturing jobs to China certainly suggests this. The European economies until recently tended to be dirigiste, protectionist economies.

    Among rich or elite whites, how much of this view is predicated on the “commanding heights” of the post-industrial economy – finance, law, media, entertainment, business, etc. – still largely being dominated by them? Would this view be dominant among them if they were displaced economically and socially like middle and lower class whites increasingly are?

    Furthermore, as Ron Unz and others have shown, rich or elite whites tend not to be very representative of the wider population and have some unique demographic features. How much of this dominant view is due to the unique demographic structure of rich or elite whites?

  12. Luke Lea says:

    Points 1 thru 4 are really well expressed. A pleasure to read.

  13. Anonym says:

    whitegenocideproject.com

    Very nice, an idea whose time has come.

  14. bossel says:

    The anthropological part of the article was quite nice, but the political part is so simplistic that it almost hurts.

    An example for this would lumping these together:

    bring anti-globalist parties to power: the UKIP in Britain, the Front national in France, the Partij voor de Vrijheid in the Netherlands, the Alternative für Deutschland in Germany, and the Sverigedemokraterna in Sweden

    The French FN is essentially a neo-nazi party, although under Marine they have toned down a bit. Choosing between them or an Islamist party would be like the choice between Satan & Beelzebub.
    The German AfD on the other hand may be right wing, but it’s essentially an anti-€ party. Their main issue is the European currency, with a bit of populism (& some populist Islamophobia) thrown in. In the EP they are part of the same group as the British Conservative Party.
    The Dutch PVV doesn’t really fit in anywhere. They are partially right wing, partially liberal (not the common US definition of the word) & even have some extreme left positions.

    These 3 may have similar anti-Islam views, but anti-globalist? Lumping them together just doesn’t make much sense.
    Don’t know much about UKIP or SD.

    • Replies: @Jim
  15. I do not think that the interest of capitalists is a major reason for anti-racism or pro-immigration movements. I think most people value other things much more than money, especially in rich western countries. Much of what is called antiracism can be explained by racial differences itself.
    The biggest driver for antiracism is the different sexual attractivity of different races. Europeans are pro immigration from subsaharan Africa because european women find westafrican males the most attractive. And european men are pro immigration because they are used to do everything women want. The population explosion in subsaharan Africa means a bright future for white women. For them the partner market becomes better and better.
    Another major contribution to antiracist feelings is that humans value strength, aggression and violence. Those personal traits (e.g. stronger physics and more aggressive personality) go against the modern civic values of obedience, calmness and peace but those modern values are only superficial followed by most people, as the older values of being strong and aggressive still determine human behavior much more. As humans always respect the one who is strongest and most aggressive they of course also respect the race who is strongest and most aggressive.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Stan D Mute
  16. unit472 says:

    Peter Frost has covered a lot of ground in a short article and I broadly agree with all his points. I’d point out that ‘racism’ doesn’t much matter between equivalent groups. Chinese and Japanese immigrants in early 20th Century California may not have ‘liked’ white attitudes towards Orientals but it didn’t stop them from successfully organizing their own communities or leave a ‘legacy of disadvantage’ that had to be compensated for when barriers to their participation in the larger society came down. Jews had long been successful in Christian societies whatever the majority population thought of them. “Racism” as a political movement only matters when a truly inferior population has no other way to compete economically with a superior population. Thus South African ‘apartheid’ or American ‘segregation’ were ‘morally evil’ because the excluded population, left to themselves, could not exist at the same level as the population who did not want to socialize with them.

    BTW, in regards to ‘junk genes’. My limited understanding of these from what maybe now ‘ancient’ understanding of DNA, is that junk DNA is what allows for such wide variability in some species. Canines and humans for example. A St. Bernard and a Chihuahua are both the same species but vastly different in appearance. Same for humans.

  17. your articles and posts are the only ones I have seen that come close to the truth, at least as I see it.

    The fundamental truth here is that multiculturalism/political correctness/affirmative action, etc all work to increase corporate profits and the wealth of the upper class.

    Multiculturalism/political correctness/affirmative action etc work hand in hand with mass immigration to produce growth, increase GDP, depress wages, and increase corporate profits and upper class wealth.

    I think your general thesis here more or less agrees with what I have said above, although I have said it more directly and bluntly.

    Another comment above dissented from your general thesis (that multiculturalism+mass immigration is the Order of the Day because it makes corporations and plutocrats richer). That dissenter stated that people do not behave because of money. In a way, that is very true. People often behave as they do because they want to be seen as a Good Person. But that dissenter misses a very crucial linkage–cultural rules tell us what it means to be a Good Person. Those cultural rules were in large part put there by the forces of the upper class, of the corporations.

    The corporate entity, as a large aggregation of Capital, is a powerful force of nature in the human social ecosystem. It molds and shapes our culture, just as an ice age will mold and shape the animals living in the ecosystem.

    And what cultural rules were promoted to the top by the upper class and the corporations?

    Well, cultural rules that make the upper class and the corporations/plutocrats richer.

    Corporations do actions to gain more money. That is a legal prime directive of the corporate entity.

    Here is the causal chain that created multiculti/PC+mass-immigration:

    1) Big Money gives grants to writers/activists/professors. What sort of writers/activists/professors get grants? Well, writers/activists/professors that do things that promote the interests of corporate entities, in general.

    2) Said writers/activists/professors generate ideas. What ideas? In general, the ideas they were paid to generate. Corporate-centric ideas. Such as, well, whites are bad and evil, and nonwhites are rich and diverse and good, and if you are a white person then you must bend over backwards to prove you are not an Evil Racist.

    3) Said corporate-centric ideas then percolate into the culture via the educational curriculum, the entertainment industry, etc.

    4) Said corporate-centric ideas then form the foundation of our culture, the same culture that has rules telling us what it means to be a Good Person. Thus, when ordinary white people do and say and think things that are inherently anti-white, then, yes, they are not saying and doing these things because of monetary reasons. But the cultural rules that make them behave this way were put there by Big Money because those rules and the ideas behind them make Big Money Bigger.

    Multiculturalism and anti-white ideology combines with mass immigration from “developing nations” to produce growth, increased GDP, depressed wages, more consumers and ultimately higher corporate profits and increased upper class wealth.

    Multiculturalism and anti-white ideology raises the social status of nonwhites and foreigners and thus facilitates their entry into america and the West and into the workplace and the neighborhoods. More human livestock for the livestock ranch that is america.

    • Replies: @Stan D Mute
  18. In 2001, Greg Dyke, Director General of the BBC, made the following statement:

    ‘I think the BBC is hideously white. I think the BBC is a predominantly white organisation. 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.’
    He added that by 2003, 10 per cent of the BBC’s UK workforce and 4 per cent of management would be from ethnic minority backgrounds.

    “Hideously white” – well, since then there have been enormous changes. In its reporting the BBC now tries to maintain a massive African content – so much so that almost every program on World Service Radio MUST contain an African perspective: whether it is about arts, sciences, history, industry, economics, healthcare – you name it, sure as eggs, an African slant will get worked in. Also, a considerable number of African presenters has been hired – one of them in particular with an accent so strong that he is barely intelligible (though very fluent!).

    I hugely doubt that the ‘antiracist’ motivation here is humanitarian – although, assuredly, not all BBC producers are disgusted by their corporation’s stand – I think Peter Frost has probably put his finger pretty near the mark in this particularly insightful piece.

  19. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Who is it that demands massive non-white immigration into the US & Europe while preventing any non-Jew immigration into Israel?

  20. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @Erik Sieven

    Utter nonsense. Stop trolling this site.

  21. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @Peter Frost

    Quit apologizing, Mr. Frost.

    IMO you did consider “the perspective and situations of non-white people”. It’s just that it doesn’t serve Numinous’s obvious agenda

    Numinous said:
    “… it would serve you well to consider the perspectives and situations of non-white people too, and not just those of white people in rich countries …”

    Wrong.

    The racist “perspective” of your non-white people is that white people must be forced to pay their bills.

    The “situation” is that non-whites generally refuse to take responsibility for their non-productive, destructive behavior and actions.

  22. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The “replacing class politics with identity politics” strikes me as being an elite-capitalist-government creation. Those who might formerly have been considered exploiters can now be heralded as great benefactors of humanity just by wearing rainbow-colored paper hats even as they fill up their bank accounts and squeeze everyone else even harder. It’s a neat bait-and-switch. There’s nothing particularly Marxist about so-called “cultural-Marxism”; it would be more aptly called cultural-capitalism but that would be a hard sell since it goes against all that’s been shoveled into people’s brains all these many years.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
  23. Excellent piece, Peter!

    I don’t care much racism personally, as it was historically a useful tool for the elites to turn the common people against one another and exploit them. But I have also grown wary of anti-racism, because it is now used by those same elites to… turn the common people against one another and exploit them.

    Anti-racism is just reverse-racism. Beware the corporate left (the Democratic Party) and the corporate right (the Chamber of Commerce).

  24. jos'more says:

    The French FN is essentially a neo-nazi party, although under Marine they have toned down a bit. Choosing between them or an Islamist party would be like the choice between Satan & Beelzebub.
    The German AfD on the other hand may be right wing, but it’s essentially an anti-€ party. Their main issue is the European currency, with a bit of populism (& some populist Islamophobia) thrown in. In the EP they are part of the same group as the British Conservative Party.
    The Dutch PVV doesn’t really fit in anywhere. They are partially right wing, partially liberal (not the common US definition of the word) & even have some extreme left positions.

    “FN is essentially a neo-nazi party”

    What does this mean?

    Does it mean they are anti foreigners? As in they don’t want to be overrun by foreigners to the point that France is no longer French and Frenchmen just pay high tax rates to support unemployable violent stupid anti French Muslim Africans. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with that? Does it mean they are anti Jewish? As in they don’t want Jews running France. What is wrong with that? Europe got the Jews their promised desert back, let the Jews run that. We notice the Jews don’t like their tribe being ruled by anti Jewish Arabs. So why should Frenchmen want to be ruled by the Jewish tribe?

    “The German AfD on the other hand may be right wing, but it’s essentially an anti-€ party. Their main issue is the European currency, with a bit of populism (& some populist Islamophobia)”

    Like it is like totally irrational to fear Islam. Not. Islamophobia implies irrationality, yet there is not one Islamic country that Europeans admire and Germans sure as hell have no reason to think that the underperforming muslims in Germany are going to assimilate even as Muslims increase and ethnic Germans decrease. So, it is completely rational to want to slam the front door closed to anti German Muslims.

    “The Dutch PVV doesn’t really fit in anywhere. They are partially right wing, partially liberal (not the common US definition of the word) & even have some extreme left positions.”

    Exactly and specifically what are their “extreme left positions’? Does it mean that it greatly benefits Dutch workers over global capitalists? Because that could be like, y’know, good for Dutchmen. I ask because the actual merits of the policies should matter, rather than just labeling the position “extreme left” and dismissing it.

    Anyway, such vague analysis is hardly analysis at all, more like shaming Europeans into being overrun by hostile foreigners.

  25. jos'more says:

    As humans always respect the one who is strongest and most aggressive they of course also respect the race who is strongest and most aggressive.

    Uh, how “strong” would Africans be without the green revolution to feed them and western medicine to keep them alive?

    Consider where the world would be without the green revolution and birth control. There sure as hell would not be 1.5 billion Chinese, 1.5 billion Indians or 2 billion Africans. Probably less than 1 billion combined, but there would likely be twice as many Europeans.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  26. Jim says:
    @bossel

    What is the actual content of the description of FN as “neo-Nazi”? I don’t know much about them but when I come across labels like “Nazi” or “fascist” I tend to dismiss the use of them as just rhetoric.

    • Replies: @fnn
  27. Biff says:

    Bunk speculation.. Anyone can do it…

  28. Bill P says:

    Interesting that you had a change of heart in the 90s. So did I. Even though I think you have about 15 years on me, I noticed the same trend, and it was a real disappointment. My dad’s family were urban New Deal Democrats, so I actually cast my first vote for Bill Clinton (I turned 18 shortly before the election), and was enthusiastic about his presidency. Boy was I disillusioned quickly.

    Soon, I began to notice that I was the enemy. As a white kid from a working/middle class background, I was the enemy of the right, the left, and everyone with a public voice in between. I saw the same comics, movies and TV shows that all portrayed my people as the scum of the earth. You’d think that instead of building the greatest, most prosperous nation in history, making stunning advances in agriculture, medicine, aviation, science, industry, entertainment and countless other fields, we’d just starved and enslaved the world and set us all on the path to armageddon.

    I’m not sure folks older than I am can fully appreciate what it was like to go from a patriotic childhood in which we openly and without reservation celebrated our heritage and patriotism to an atmosphere in which all of that was suddenly stamped out within less than a decade. It was really demoralizing.

    Now, I have to tell my kids to hide their thoughts from their teachers, not to trust what authorities say, and to value themselves and their heritage despite what they are taught in school. I also have to tell them that a lot of people in the city won’t like them simply because of their ethnic background, and that they should not be surprised or shocked when they encounter racial hostility.

    Perhaps the only silver lining to all of this is that the anti-racist whites, who are the most terrible of all (I really can’t blame others for promoting their ethnic interests — it’s a human thing to do after all), are not having kids in appreciable numbers, so for the most part my kids will grow up among peers with like-minded families. The number of liberal urban whites without children by age 40 is unprecedented. Aside from the heirs of the truly wealthy elite, who can afford as many children as they want (usually two), they are practically sterile.

    • Replies: @rod1963
  29. Mark says:

    WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY—AND THE ENEMY IS US.

    Thanks for the article. I agree with it for the most part. Immigration is the cancer of the west.

    But the main problem is white liberalism. The white libs in Massachusetts, and Minnesota and Washington, etc. keep voting for Democrats and liberals such as Reid, Pelosi, Obama who want to bring more 3rd world aliens, as these more poor and stupid “refuse” and huddled masses will vote for Democrats. As they do not have enough Democrats here, they are importing more democrats. The Demogangsters do not care that all the crime and poverty that will increase. They are so greedy and evil, they will sell their own mother, so they have no qualms about selling their motherland.

    The white liberals are too mentally retarded to see how they are digging their own grave by voting for Dems and libs. They must stop voting for the left and vote for anti-immigration parties. In UK, UKIP is not really anti-immigration; BNP is a better choice.

    Hopefully, white people (and all citizens) will wake up and stop voting for left wing parties, like the Democratic party in USA, Labor in UK and instead vote for conservative parties that promise to ban immigration such as BNP, La Pen, etc. Another option is people must amend the constitution to allow binding superseding national referenda so they can ban immigration themselves. Eg. Ncid.us.

  30. Paul says:

    JEWISH THIRD WORLD WAR ON AMERICA/EUROPE/AUS/CANADA–3RD WORLD IMMIGRATION

    This is a great article. However, the biggest lobby behind the alien invasion is the Jewish lobby.

    The Judaists (commonly referred to as “Jews”) number one plan to destroy America has been to unleash the 3rd world invasion through immigration to destroy the white majority and turn America into a 3rd world country they can totally control. It is indisputable that Judaists promote 3rd world immigration heavily into White nations.

    See Culture of Critique, by Kevin McDonald, reviewed on:

    http://www.savethemales.ca/000164.html

    http://www.wake-up-america.net/

    http://www.davidduke.com/general/yes-virginia-the-jews-really-are-bad-on-immigration_21711.html#more-21711

    They pushed through legislation to open the flood-gates to massive immigration:

    http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=50

    And now, they want amnesty for millions of aliens and are conning the public by calling this alien invasion “immigration reform.” See:

    http://forward.com/articles/179296/jews-unite-behind-push-for-immigration-reform/?p=all

    A Jewish woman called Barbara Lerner Spectre wants 3rd world aliens to invade Sweden:

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2010/09/kevin-macdonald-jews-play-a-leading-role-in-promoting-multiculturalism-in-europe/

    But in Israel, they have banned 3rd world immigration of non-Jews, have built the world’s biggest border fence and are building the world’s largest prison to house illegal aliens:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/17/detention-centre-israel-migration

    If the Judaists really thought the alien invasion was good, why don’t they take all the aliens and the Mexicans to Israel? There, they build fences, but oppose fence construction here.

    So why are Judaists alienists and destructionists? Why do they want to destroy their own country?

    • Replies: @SFG
  31. @anonymous

    I think this is correct. There is no more ‘party of the working man’ because the working man is too white, too armed, too religious and too provincial. The split became apparent at the 1968 Democratic convention and the Hard Hat Riots a few years later. The American working class got thrown under the bus with globalism and open borders and the New Left (Anglo and Jewish intellectuals) became about identity politics.

  32. rod1963 says:
    @Bill P

    “Perhaps the only silver lining to all of this is that the anti-racist whites, who are the most terrible of all (I really can’t blame others for promoting their ethnic interests — it’s a human thing to do after all), are not having kids in appreciable numbers, so for the most part my kids will grow up among peers with like-minded families. The number of liberal urban whites without children by age 40 is unprecedented. Aside from the heirs of the truly wealthy elite, who can afford as many children as they want (usually two), they are practically sterile.”

    Very true and the white liberals are quite aware of this(it makes them boiling mad) and the fact what white Conservatives are out breeding them. Of course these anti-racist(and liberal) whites never ask among themselves why they are going extinct to begin with.

  33. “I don’t think this is generally true among the wider population.”

    Many people are no longer sure what they believe. This is partly because they have been conditioned not to voice certain thoughts, and after a while they learn not to think those thoughts. Another factor is that we live in an atomized society where most people have transient social relationships that are not amenable to open, frank discussion. So it is difficult to create a counterculture, let alone a counter-polity, that can oppose the dominant cultural and political system.

    “I do not think that the interest of capitalists is a major reason for anti-racism or pro-immigration movements. I think most people value other things much more than money”

    Economic systems don’t create ideas. People do. But economic systems tend to favor certain ideas over others. Often this favoritism is direct, i.e., funding and access to the media. Usually it’s more indirect: money is invested to promote certain ideas, and this new ideological environment carries on the job.

    “The French FN is essentially a neo-nazi party”

    The FN has many Jewish members, including the well known writer and essayist Eric Zemmour. There are very few neo-nazis nowadays, in the FN or anywhere else. That term — like the term “racist” — is now used to assault and intimidate people whose only crime is to be opposed to levels of immigration that amount to population replacement.

    “The Dutch PVV doesn’t really fit in anywhere. They are partially right wing, partially liberal (not the common US definition of the word) & even have some extreme left positions.”

    Anti-globalism is not a single ideology. It is a reaction to an ideology, so I don’t expect ideological uniformity. The PVV is in favor of gay marriage; the Front national is opposed. This is normal. Each country should work out its own solutions. This is the essence of anti-globalism

  34. Bill P says:

    The white liberals are too mentally retarded to see how they are digging their own grave by voting for Dems and libs. They must stop voting for the left and vote for anti-immigration parties. In UK, UKIP is not really anti-immigration; BNP is a better choice.

    -Mark

    If we say that white democrats vote against their interests because they are stupid, that’s essentially the same fallacy the democrats engage in when they claim that working class whites vote against their interests by voting republican.

    I live in Washington state, and the whites here are about evenly split between democrats and republicans. It changes by location, with Seattle voting overwhelmingly democrat while the rural eastern part is staunchly republican. Where I currently live is a bit of an anomaly in that both factions live side by side and are about equally represented.

    Whites in Seattle (where I grew up) vote democrat because they rely to a large extent on public sector jobs. The University of Washington is the city’s largest employer, and subsidized healthcare is very important as well. Without a great deal of state and federal money flowing into the city, the local economy would collapse overnight.

    When people think of cities, they often overlook the white middle class, which is comprised largely of professionals of varying levels. You have teachers, cops, government workers, doctors, nurses, etc. These people rely on tax revenue to afford to live in the increasingly expensive city. Republicans like to cut taxes and eliminate programs and services, so city residents rationally vote against them so as to protect their interests.

    Unfortunately, this becomes a sort of feedback loop as the cities elect competent politicians who funnel more money in, raise taxes, and create more reliance on public sector employment. Eventually, the costs of doing business become too high, industries and private sector workers move elsewhere and the residents become a self-selected group of highly partisan people.

    The only plausible way to break this cycle is to starve the cities of the wealth they need to keep the patronage system running. However, this is unlikely to happen until the tax base itself collapses, because democrats and republicans, for all their public rancor, can easily make common cause in mainly white states when it comes to maximizing income.

    California may be a different kettle of fish. We’ll see what happens there when whites are politically marginalized in Los Angeles (somehow they still cling to power despite dwindling numbers). I suspect political dysfunction will prevail, and LA will see a dramatic decline in stature.

    Also, one has to keep in mind that in the South, where whites vote overwhelmingly republican, the republican party has split into two factions. One represents the old populist strain of Southern politics (e.g. Jeff Sessions) and the other the chamber of commerce types. Ultimately, this is probably the fate of the Republican party nationally as it becomes the de facto white party.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  35. fnn says:
    @Jim

    Maybe what is meant is that the founding generation of the FN had a lot of people with connections to or sympathy for Vichy. Vichy, headed by France’s greatest living national hero, was the legal govt of France after the signing of the armistice in 1940. The US had its embassy at Vichy until very deep into the war. Vichy broke relations with Washington when Allied forces invaded French North Africa in 1942.

  36. SFG says:
    @Numinous

    You must be new here.

  37. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @Bill P

    I live in LA and belive me, whites are marginalized in the extreme.
    UCLA is a particlar cesspool of anti-white Marxist / Zionist racism.
    The city government is just sucking the public tit dry and constantly raising taxes and building trains to nowhere.

    It’s just too risky to even drive through some neighorhoods. Mexicans, forever imitating blacks, have become savage. Or were they always that way?

    Of course the movie stars and the limousine leftists all segregate themselves in secure areas far away from blacks & Mexicans. You won’t see George Clooney hanging in the ‘hood’.

  38. Sean says:

    Bill P is correct, by the standard the nomenclatura and entrepreneur whites take decisions on, they’re better off with immigration . You could say that they are deluded but not all classes care about the same things. But, I can’t see the rest of the country turning into the South. The whites in the South are different, and not just because they don’t earn their living off of other people’s taxes.
    —–
    “The French FN is essentially a neo-nazi party, although under Marine they have toned down a bit. Choosing between them or an Islamist party would be like the choice between Satan & Beelzebub”

    In the last round of the 2002 Presidential vote Le Pen was defeated, because ALL the other parties backed Chirac. If it came down to the FN, or a Muslim Party (in coalition with the rest of the white vote in the left – right parties) the likelihood is that an Islamist party could get into power as part of an anti-FN coalition. Bear in mind that Islamist parties (Algeria) have consistently shown themselves to be capable of achieving a level of support among Muslims greater than anyone dreamt. Moreover, no one really knows how many Muslims eligible to vote there are in France, because it doesn’t keep tabs on that kind of thing.

    Other western counties would be much the same as France. A party that wanted to halt replacement-level immigration would be drawing on the non-professional (ie working) class. But such a party would be anathema to those whites who have very loud voices and all the resources (including IQ). A party that was not drawing on immigrant support would call into being a very powerful alliance of the best and brightest whites against it.

    I don’t think those who talk about a de facto (or explicit) ‘white party’ realise that such a party would by definition be seen as apolitical and evil by those whites with their hands on the levers of power. It would be seen as a sign that democracy had failed and, were it to seem about to win an election, lead to the system being re-set; maybe by ruling the anti immigrant party unconstitutional (as the Vlaams Blok was) .

    • Replies: @SFG
  39. iffen says:

    “we should all be autonomy-maximizing individuals”

    You have not made a case for why this is not desirable.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  40. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @jos'more

    The “green revolution”, green on the outside, red on the inside.

    That’s what the entire bogus “global warming” scam is about. A huge money sucking mechanism for a parasitical class.

    2014: Year of Futility in the Fight Against Climate Change
    record cold

    http://news.heartland.org/editorial/2014/12/31/2014-year-futility-fight-against-climate-change

  41. Numinous says:
    @Peter Frost

    I detect indignation when you say that antiracism “was (emphatically) not meant to be a pet project for idle left-wing activists.” Well, it — emphatically — was. Take the NAACP.

    Well, yes, I was indignant, and I make no secret of it. And the point you make here just reinforces my earlier accusation. Are you saying that blacks in the US were perfectly content to live in a subservient (and racially discriminated against) condition until these white-dominated organizations stirred up trouble (as the good ole’ boys in the South would say). That non-white people had no agency? I accept your points about the NAACP and the abolitionist movements being white-dominated. With respect to the latter, as you say: “It couldn’t have been otherwise”. But for different reasons than you insinuate. There was no freedom for blacks in the slave states to organize. The society and government were constituted in a way to deny blacks those freedoms. Therefore, it fell on liberal whites to take up the task. And blacks protested through other means: slave revolts, Underground Railroad, etc.

    By the way, when I was talking about non-whites, I was taking a world-centric, rather than a US-centric, view. Anti-colonial struggles for freedom dominated my thoughts much more than say, the Civil Rights movement. Surely you do not think those movements were led and concluded by whites?

    I stand by my original comment. Your view on what you term “anti-racism” is very myopic. It is a fact that a hundred years ago, the vast majority of whites (in both white countries and white-dominated colonial countries) considered non-whites to be inferior in mental abilities and character, and thus less deserving of equal rights with whites. Those shibboleths have been thrown aside over the course of the past century, a phenomenon for which I, as a non-white, am immensely grateful. Now you may think the pendulum has swung to the other direction. I am a bit skeptical (though I am anti-affirmative action), but you do make a number of good points. Moving the pendulum back to center is a worthy cause, for which I wish you god luck. But please don’t distort or deny history while you carry out your agenda.

  42. Galtonian says:

    Regarding why upper middle class Whites are so fervently supportive of Multiculturalism and Antiracism (the EQUALITARIAN viewpoint), I think that Peter Frost overemphasizes the economic dimension and underemphasizes the religious dimension. I think that there is an immensely powerful religious dimension to the modern leftist EQUALITARIAN doctrine.

    Modern intelligent educated people are too smart and too rational to believe in conventional religious dogmas such as the supernatural God, Creationism, the virgin birth of Jesus, the risen Christ, the promise of eternal life in Heaven etc. Now that the modern intelligentsia has moved beyond conventional theistic religion, they need to replace it with a new secular religion. Christianity, particularly Protestantism, has always been rather left-wing in the sense that it has been anti-hierarchical. The new Western secular religion now professes pious belief in the absolute innate equality of all people and peoples. The inculcation of these sorts of beliefs about equality are also attractive to Jews because now Jews are no longer seen as being excluded from the religion of the majority Christian population. Consequently the new Atheists and the new secular-Christians/Jews profess to believe that everyone is innately equal and that Racism is the absolute greatest sin. The Dark Enlightenment refers to the modern mainstream Western EQUALITARIAN mindset as “the Cathedral”; this makes perfect sense because the pro-multicultural antiracist viewpoint is indeed the new religious doctrine of the West.

    In order to evade being labeled as EVIL RACIST SINNERS, many Race-Realists have tried to pretend that they are not actually RACISTS, but this not true because according to accepted dictionary definitions even if one merely believes that there are important innate differences between ethnoracial groups then one is a racist. The new secular religion of left-liberal EQUALITARIANISM believes that racism is WRONG, but they see this as “wrong” in the moralistic sense of “right and wrong” (i.e. racism is evil and sinful) but not really “wrong” in the scientific true/false sense of being untrue (most left-wing Whites actually realize that Blacks tend to be way dumber than Whites and that East Asians and Jews tend to be smarter–but they see it as a great sin to openly acknowledge these facts).

  43. Sean says:

    “It is a fact that a hundred years ago, the vast majority of whites (in both white countries and white-dominated colonial countries) considered non-whites to be inferior in mental abilities and character, and thus less deserving of equal rights with whites.”

    That is not true. Half of whites (the females) did not have those rights. Gandhi was a lawyer in London and had equal rights. Chinese were considered to be different in character, but never considered inferior; their immigration into white countries was strongly opposed nonetheless. You think the vast majority of whites 100 years ago thought as in your quote, though slavery had been outlawed generations before, it rather sounds like you think white majorities are by nature morally bankrupt, and it will be a better world when palefaces are minorities in their own countries.

  44. SFG says:
    @Paul

    You want the real answer? They actually believe all the multicultural scheisse. I know, I lived with ‘em in New York for 22 years. I’m only a half-breed and never raised that way, so the indoctrination never really ‘took’. They believe their own BS and outmarry at a 50% rate, usually gentile whites, Asians, and Indians of similar social status.

    On Israel, there’s actually a split.

    The neocons justify it to themselves as Israel being a beleaguered nation that has to protect itself (and I’ve actually seen movement away from support from immigration, for example by Kaus, Frum, and even Kristol (!), though big money guys like Adelson are still big supporters). That’s the way they excuse their hypocrisy. Guys like, say, Paul Gottfried who actually agree with you on most things are pretty rare, though they seem to be getting more common.

    The lefties actually extend their own views to Israel in many cases. There is no shortage of left-wing Jewish critics of Israel–Greenwald, etc. Heck, even Jon Stewart’s made fun of Congressional fellatio of Israel.

    I actually lack strong opinions on Israel–I wish they’d quit manipulating American politics, but I don’t think they’re fundamentally hostile to our interests the way Russia or China is (and must be, given the realities of great-power politics). They’ve been granted a huge advantage with a large number of relatives and sympathizers in a superpower, and any nation would be a fool not to take advantage of it. (Has our support for England, for example, really always made sense in a geopolitical framework? Did we have to jump into WW1?) Of course, we’d be fools not to fight back, and I’m glad some of their hold is slipping–I’ve never forgiven my distant relatives for the Iraq War, which got a lot of young American men killed and, given improvements in medical care, maimed for nothing. (My relatives whom I actually know are not in any country’s media and generally nice people.)

  45. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    @numinous
    “they considered non-Euros to be inferior in mental abilities and character, and thus less deserving of equal rights with Euros”

    Which raises the question, is there any evidence for differences in mental abilities and character, and hence (inevitably) rights and responsibilities between whites and non-whites?

    It is indisputable that SE Asians have slightly higher IQ than whites and also that Indian-Americans, south Asians, and blacks have considerably lower IQ than Euros (on average, YMMV). It is not proven, but it is highly likely that this difference is mostly due to genetics.

    More recently, there is substantive evidence that behavioural and character traits (such as integrity, guilt, empathy, anger, conscientiousness) also have a substantial hereditary component and vary substantially among people of different ethnic origins. It is indisputable that African and Asian cultures have higher levels of corruption, fraud, cheating and dishonesty than Euro-cultures.

    So where exactly were the people of long-ago in error? And do you honestly think the population difference in mental abilities and character are of no consequence? And if all the people in Sweden were to swap with Bangladesh, do you think new Swedish- Bangladeshis would be just as low in IQ and high in corruption as their predecessors? or would it be a new Minnesota?

  46. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    It is indisputable that SE Asians have slightly higher IQ than whites

    It is indisputable that some people can’t tell the difference between south and north, especially when it comes to the Far East.

  47. “I accept your points about the NAACP and the abolitionist movements being white-dominated. With respect to the latter, as you say: “It couldn’t have been otherwise”. But for different reasons than you insinuate.”

    I don’t insinuate. By the late 18th century, plantation slave-owners had become very powerful economically and politically. It took a massive effort to put an end to slavery, and such an effort would have been impossible without the support of white people in North America and Europe. Black people alone couldn’t have done it. They were too few numerically, and only a minority of them had the freedom to organize politically.

    Yes, there were black slave revolts. In most cases, those revolts were crushed. The one exception was Haiti, and the results were disastrous. The white minority was eliminated, and power fell to charismatic black nationalists who were more interested in reaping the benefits of power than in providing good government. A progressive movement has to have a realistic vision of what it wants and a sincere willingness to make it come true. Both elements were missing in the Haitian revolution.

    “Anti-colonial struggles for freedom dominated my thoughts much more than say, the Civil Rights movement. Surely you do not think those movements were led and concluded by whites?”

    Most of them would have failed without moral support from whites in Europe and North America. Another thing: many of those movements were driven by petty nationalism. When they came to power, they not only evicted the colonial administrators but also many other people who had the wrong skin color or religion. Or simply the wrong politics. The term “anti-colonial struggle for freedom” sounds nice, but the reality was not so nice.

    The aim of political struggle is not to kill the Bad Guys and replace them with Good Guys. It’s to create a society that will work better for all of its members.

    “It is a fact that a hundred years ago, the vast majority of whites (in both white countries and white-dominated colonial countries) considered non-whites to be inferior in mental abilities and character, and thus less deserving of equal rights with whites.”

    Not exactly. It was widely felt that non-Europeans, especially black Africans, differed statistically from Europeans in temperament, aptitude, and character, but there was disagreement over the cause of these differences. Were they innate or acquired? Many people adhered to a Lamarckian viewpoint, i.e., blacks were innately different but this innate difference would disappear with exposure to Christianity and civilization.

    • Replies: @Wyrd
    , @Anonymous
  48. Wyrd says:
    @Peter Frost

    It took a massive effort to put an end to slavery, and such an effort would have been impossible without the support of white people in North America and Europe.

    Since Numinous wishes to extend the discussion to the global level, it should be pointed out that slavery still has its foothold in non-white areas throughout the world. And to make it even more topical, it frequently takes root again when non-whites immigrate to white countries. But we can’t talk about those things like Rotherham because some non-whites might bellyache about centuries-old lack of dignity or some other horse hooey.

  49. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost

    Another thing: many of those movements were driven by petty nationalism. When they came to power, they not only evicted the colonial administrators but also many other people who had the wrong skin color or religion. Or simply the wrong politics. The term “anti-colonial struggle for freedom” sounds nice, but the reality was not so nice.

    The aim of political struggle is not to kill the Bad Guys and replace them with Good Guys. It’s to create a society that will work better for all of its members.

    It was often the case that those “other people” were brought in directly or indirectly by the colonial administrators. Most anti-immigrationists today as well don’t just want to evict so to speak current administrations or policies, but also the people that directly or indirectly were brought in by the administrations or policies.

    Anti-immigration nationalist politics generally involves defining “society”, “members”, “work better” in certain in-group/out-group terms.

  50. “Sometimes the Consensus Is Phony”

    Sometimes?

    An excellent rule of thumb is that anything you get from two newspapers, one TV news channel and a politician is a lie.

  51. SFG says:
    @Sean

    Interesting point. I’m not sure how they’d deal with the FN in France.

    I can only imagine what would happen if the NDP won in Germany. I can imagine a nuclear attack on Berlin, perhaps from the French or Brits…

  52. and thus less deserving of equal rights with whites.

    ‘Integrating’ with blacks – ie allowing blacks to devastate one white community after another – has to rank as one of the all time greatest mistakes in history.

    Presumably you’re not black. Wherever it is you’re from, would you want to see your own country overrun by blacks and subjected to the same depravities as white America?

  53. It is a fact that a hundred years ago, the vast majority of whites (in both white countries and white-dominated colonial countries) considered non-whites to be inferior in mental abilities and character, and thus less deserving of equal rights with whites.

    Listening to NPR, I heard that in Chevy Chase, Maryland, there is a movement to remove the name of the founder of that city, Sen, Francis G. Newlands, from a prominent fountain because he expressed some negative views of blacks in an article he wrote for a scholarly journal in 1909. He said, “blacks are a race of children, requiring guidance, industrial training, and the development of self-control…”

    However, he had much praise for the Chinese and even more for the Japanese, whom he considered very promising new citizens. So it was never about all non-whites being inferior.

    Newlands’ article here: https://books.google.com/books?id=nXwQAAAAYAAJ

  54. @iffen

    “we should all be autonomy-maximizing individuals”

    You have not made a case for why this is not desirable.

    He doesn’t need to since it’s not possible. You can try being an individual all you want, but life is a team sport, and others will form teams that will defeat your individualist strategy.

    • Replies: @iffen
  55. Evolution – the understanding that there are variations in the gene pools of animals due to the never ending process of adaptation.

    Racism – the understanding that there are variations in the gene pools of humans due to the never ending process of adaptation.

    The Right – doesn’t believe in evolution …except in humans.

    The Left – does believe in evolution …except in humans.

    What is left for the sane people?

  56. iffen says:
    @ben tillman

    “since it’s not possible”

    Not only possible but it is an integral contributing factor in the political and economic success of the West. When it’s time to choose up sides and fight, the same people who derive the greatest benefit from extreme individualism usually prove to be adept at choosing the correct side.

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @silviosilver
  57. RW says:

    Interesting article, but the intelligence of the American public is still locked in deep freeze, and the globalists don’t want to let it out. Heck, the results of the Clark Doll Experiment are still being touted in places like Wikipedia as showing that black children have higher self-esteem when they study with white children, instead of what the results actually did show, which was the opposite. If globalists are largely responsible for financing such lies, which they are, then why not argue for the importance of getting money out of politics? Campaign-finance reform. It seems essential for your cause. And it may be why nationalist parties are having more success in Europe than in the United States.

  58. Sean says:
    @iffen

    There has been some discussion about autonomy maximising. Apparently some people don’t understand the extent of organised labour prior to Western countries being opened to immigration. Strikes in Britain during WW2 “During the first few months of the war, there were over 900 strikes, [...]
    The number of strikes increased each year until 1944, almost half of them in support of wage demands and the remainder being defensive actions against deteriorations in workplace conditions. Coal and engineering were particularly affected.[...]
    The fact that so many strikes took place in the mining industry was due in the main to the fact that the designation of coal mining as essential war work entailed the direction of selected conscripts to work in the mines (‘Bevin boys’). This was very unpopular among regular miners.”

    • Replies: @iffen
  59. Svigor says:

    To a non-white person, the 20th century “anti-racism” was first and last a struggle for dignity, a struggle to gain the right not to be judged as deficient in mental abilities, character, and agency, purely on the basis of physical appearance. It was (emphatically) not meant to be a pet project for idle left-wing activists, as you seem to describe it..

    In reality, the “struggle for dignity” was a struggle for power. Which is why it didn’t stop when the “struggle for dignity” was won; victory in the “struggle for dignity,” in fact, was taken as a sign of weakness in their enemies, and thus a signal that it was time to pile on.

    If a country fights a “defensive war,” then goes on to occupy the enemy country for generations (while decrying the very idea of an end to the occupation as villainy), then obviously no one’s going to buy the “defensive war” thing. Everyone will realize the “defensive war” thing was just a pose, a way to characterize the war as “just” and mobilize its own population.

    Non-whites behave like sociopathic grifters who have found a target with a vulnerability to exploit – because they are sociopathic grifters, at least in this context.

    The problem with the anti-racism movement is that they assumes only White people are capable of being racists. They should just blatantly re-name themselves the anti-White movement and not beat around the bush about it. I prefer when my enemies are just straight up blunt about their cruel intentions.

    Real life isn’t like the movies. In the movies, things are made implausibly unambiguous. In real life, the villains pose as heroes. This is axiomatic.

    Movies make things unambiguous in large part because people below a certain IQ/whatever cutoff can’t handle ambiguity. Kind of suggests that a large share of the population (probably the majority, IMO) can’t suss out who the heroes and villains are in real life.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  60. Svigor says:

    Evolution – the understanding that there are variations in the gene pools of animals due to the never ending process of adaptation.

    Racism – the understanding that there are variations in the gene pools of humans due to the never ending process of adaptation.

    The Right – doesn’t believe in evolution …except in humans.

    The Left – does believe in evolution …except in humans.

    What is left for the sane people?

    The right has no stated position on evolution. Creationists are largely found on the right, which is not at all the same thing. People who believe in evolution and HBD have a home on the right.

    The left, meanwhile, is inherently anti-HBD. One cannot really be on the left and openly believe in HBD. At the very least, the leftists will disown you. And not just the politicians and intellectuals, either. All of them, from the top to the rank and file, will condemn you.

    I hope that clears things up for you.

    • Replies: @RW
  61. Svigor says:

    Cracker1, that’s some fine double-talk.

  62. iffen says:
    @Sean

    I am not really sure if you are disagreeing or not.

    The “right” to join a labor union is an example of the autonomy of the individual. In the US, the first labor union members were sometimes prosecuted as conspirators. We have labor laws that give an individual the right to join a labor union. These laws created a “right” which previously did not exist.

    The trend for hundreds of years has been in the direction of autonomy for the individual and away from group rights (and exclusions).

    • Replies: @Sean
  63. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Svigor

    If a country fights a “defensive war,” then goes on to occupy the enemy country for generations (while decrying the very idea of an end to the occupation as villainy), then obviously no one’s going to buy the “defensive war” thing. Everyone will realize the “defensive war” thing was just a pose, a way to characterize the war as “just” and mobilize its own population.

    Non-whites behave like sociopathic grifters who have found a target with a vulnerability to exploit – because they are sociopathic grifters, at least in this context.

    Clearly this sort of sociopathic hypocrisy also applies to those whites complaining about and defending against immigration into Europe while supporting white presence in the Americas and elsewhere.

    • Replies: @Hacienda
  64. @Erik Sieven

    european women find westafrican males the most attractive

    That is utter nonsense. I know many many european (american) women and know only one who finds african males attractive. The problem with them is their facial features and smell. They look completely alien and conform to absolutely no western standard of beauty. In fact, the comment I hear most often when women are unafraid of condemnation for politically incorrect speech is that the african male appears simian. Similarly, their smell is utterly foreign and most find it very unpleasant or even repulsive. There are of course african males with more european features and I’d expect those to be more attractive to average european women, but as a rule my observation is that african males are the least attractive to white women. The ideal seems to be tall, well muscled and proportionally built with broad shoulders, dark haired, and blue or green eyed with an olive or tan skin tone.

    • Replies: @jack shindo
  65. @leftist conservative

    There seems to me a big gap between your thesis and your support thereof. Why exactly does a corporation gain from explicitly anti-white policies? Does a corporation gain higher profits from african labor? From mexican/mestizo labor? I can see that in lower wages perhaps in a non-Union manual labor position, but much of the corporate anti-white positioning comes from accounting firms, law firms, and tech/engineering firms that seemingly have nothing to gain and much to lose by ingesting lower IQ labor. Consumer good manufacturers gain customers regardless of race/origin provided they have income to pay for those goods. Outside the manual labor employers, the big gainers are property developers who definitely agitate to push non-whites into white areas and thus force whites out to find safer neighborhoods and schools.

  66. Hacienda says:
    @Anonymous

    Non-whites behave like sociopathic grifters who have found a target with a vulnerability to exploit – because they are sociopathic grifters, at least in this context.

    —-

    6 billion nonwhites can’t be considered sociopathic grifters. We’re world, baby.

  67. Cracker,

    A libertarian society cannot exist in a vacuum. It requires a certain behavioral foundation. Otherwise, it will liquidate itself; it will revert to a kind of society where kinship and physical force are the main organizing principles.

    No human society has ever been fully libertarian, but Northwest Europeans have come the closest to that ideal. They have a long history of weaker kinship and, conversely, greater individualism that goes back to at least the 12th century and probably earlier. As a result, they have been able to create larger, freer, and more open societies, which in turn have made possible the market economy. Markets, in themselves, are nothing new. People have known them since prehistory, but the market mechanism could produce its benefits only within small points of space and time, i.e., marketplaces. It was only with the creation of freer, more open societies that markets could expand beyond the confines of the marketplace and eventually encompass most economic transactions.

    But freer, more open societies cannot exist in a vacuum. They require certain behavioral adaptions. For one thing, kin-based morality is no longer sufficient to enforce social rules, since the threat of kin retaliation is no longer sufficient. There has thus been a shift from kin-based morality to universal morality, and this shift has been accompanied by a greater willingness to identify and enforce the rules of universal morality. A related adaptation is a greater capacity for feelings of guilt and empathy. Finally, there is a greater willingness to exclude, punish, and even kill people who break social rules and are judged to be morally worthless.

    This is the foundation of a libertarian society, or rather the most libertarian society that humans have evolved. If you allow that foundation to disappear, libertarianism will disappear too.

    I don’t expect to change your mind. Much of the above may seem incomprehensible to you. But please let me correct you on one point — the one where you say: “The trend for hundreds of years has been in the direction of autonomy for the individual and away from group rights.”

    Yes, this is true. But that trend has been bound up with the demographic, military, and cultural expansion of Northwest European societies. Other societies have tried to follow that trend, partly because their elites are Western-educated but also because their citizens in general have felt admiration, and envy, for the accomplishments of the Western world.

    But now things are trending in the opposite direction. I saw this when I was a student in Russia. There, libertarianism meant that much of the population was free to engage in self-destructive behavior: alcoholism, sexual amorality, and a disastrously low fertility rate. Today, Russians are moving away from the libertarian model. They have no choice. It’s either that or collective suicide. The same trend is starting to happen elsewhere. Our model of extreme libertarianism, which doesn’t work very well for ourselves, is proving to be disastrous for most societies on this planet.

    • Replies: @Stan D Mute
    , @iffen
  68. @Peter Frost

    Our model of extreme libertarianism, which doesn’t work very well for ourselves, is proving to be disastrous for most societies on this planet.

    It seems to me that the libertarian ideals thrived when the Euro (and Euro derived) nations that followed them remained homogenous. Things faltered when massive immigration changed the demographic substantially. Obviously the two great wars interrupted the status quo, but post-war was a phenomenal boom and unparalleled rise in prosperity. Things only became unglued socially when immigration from non-Euro nations mushroomed. In America I think things were a bit different perhaps in no small part to her last great wave of immigration which loosened her up to the idea that large numbers could immigrate and assimilate. Combine that “my grandparents were immigrants” with the new racial egalitarism and the result is what we have today. Libertarianism is condemned for its stance on open borders, but neither Republicans nor Democrats oppose immigration. So all American political parties today favor immigration with only minor quibbling about legal vs illegal and no serious opposition to either.

    I think your article really hits the nail on its head along with a couple comments above expounding on some of your points. Sadly, while much of Europe might still be saved, I think America is doomed to become Brazil. Perhaps from her ruin the lesson may be learned that “society is a racial construct.”

    • Replies: @Anon
  69. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Stan D Mute

    “Sadly, while much of Europe might still be saved, I think America is doomed to become Brazil.”

    Chinese researchers will bring genetic engineering to the masses in a few decades. Nothing can be done to stop that.

    Latinos will end up with the genetics of upper-class Southern Europeans and Scandinavians. Latinos’ ancestors will have become genetically cuckolded in favor of European genes. James Watson: “People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great.”

    Europe, in contrast, will be overrun with Muslim fundamentalists who reject evolution and genetic technology, and thus will remain an underclass. The future of the Europe looks much worse than the future of the U.S.

  70. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I think time horizon orientation is a big differentiator between the anti-racists/global capitalists on the one side (seeking short term “justice”/profits) and the HBD/anti-globalization folks on the other (seeking long term preservation of the economic & societal building blocks upon which liberty & prosperity rest).

  71. Chug Thug says:

    “Chinese researchers will bring genetic engineering to the masses in a few decades. Nothing can be done to stop that.”

    Good point. Except it will only take another 5 or 10 years. This might make Peter’s goals moot.

    • Replies: @Anon
  72. AG says:

    “The top 10% are thus pulling farther and farther ahead of everyone else throughout the developed world. They’re getting richer … not by making a better product but by making the same product with cheaper and less troublesome inputs of labor. This is not a win-win situation, and the potential for revolutionary unrest is high.”

    But this is good for eugenics if those at bottom do not reproduce more than top 10% . Make sure those at bottom are controled with iron hands.

    • Replies: @AG
  73. AG says:
    @AG

    Wealth, IQ, mutational loads, life expectancy are well correlated. Very likely, top 10% are the one with higher IQ, lower mutational loads.

    In a pure darwin world, individual with bad alleles and combination should perish or have low reproductive success; the health and evolution of species depending on such process.

    However, human intellectual ability and empathy from top 10% actually harm such natural process by providing welfare to the bottom who are generally low IQ, low SES, more mutational loads.

    If you are animal farmers, you know the right decision about how to select next generation. Sympathy to the one with mutaional loads hurt long term interest.

    There is no need to genocide ones with mutational loads. Just creating social condition that they can not effectively reproduce (welfare system is only good enough to individual survival, not enough to raise family)

    • Replies: @iffen
  74. Sean says:
    @iffen

    Business does not want organised labor, which is indigenous, because organised labor would lead to social movements that would cut down on profits. And that is an important reason behind business support for immigration.

    Black men had those individual rights long before white women did. And affirmative action is group rights (with concomitant exclusions). The people who run AA and the rest of the system are only ostensibly excluding what is their own group; but it’s just a more symbolic level of group identification and defence they play.

    • Replies: @iffen
  75. iffen says:
    @Sean

    I am not so sure about your suggestion that organized labor leads to social movements.

    I agree that there is business support for unlimited immigration. I do not support unlimited immigration.

    I know a little about labor relations in the American South. Black men were almost always used as scabs. It was a natural. It is one of the main reasons that we did not develop a strong organized labor tradition. Going back to my point; the right to join a union is pretty much a Western Civilization concept.

    AA has lost its legitimacy. As you point out it is just a political touchstone. We need to focus. AA doesn’t have anything to do with the right to join a union.

  76. iffen says:
    @AG

    Rather cold observations here IC. I would just like to point out that no matter how far you shift the bell there will always be a left side.

    • Replies: @AG
  77. iffen says:
    @Peter Frost

    Peter,
    I think that you are wrong and I do understand most of what you write. My complaint is your NWE group. It is a virtual group. Frenchmen, Englishmen, Scotsmen, Germans and Danes; these are ethnic groups, these are peoples. NWE is not a people.
    I understand that peoples not of the Christian and Western tradition are immigrants to the Western countries and they are not assimilating. There has been immigration, fission and fusion of peoples forever. It is not yet time to cut and run.

  78. FROST SAYS:
    1. Human evolution did not end in the Pleistocene or
    even slow down. In fact, it speeded up with the advent of
    agriculture 10,000 years ago, when the pace of genetic change
    rose over a hundred-fold. Humans were no longer adapting to
    relatively static natural environments but rather to
    faster-changing cultural environments of their own
    making.

    Agreed that human cultural elaboration and certain physical
    changes (better diet and health for example) have accelerated
    overall. But natural environments were/are never static. In fact
    climate change, diseases, natural disasters etc, together with
    good old random genetic drift are well represented in the mix for
    human adaptation along with cultural factors. And to say people
    are no longer adapting to natural environments is not strictly
    so. Europeans adapted to paler skin within relatively recent
    times (some 6k to 12k years ago- Jablonski 2000) as one example.

    And in what sense is "evolution" "speeding
    up?" Are inherited traits for being passed on more rapidly
    than in the past? Are tall people for example passing on their
    genes more rapidly than in the past? In what meaningful sense is
    there a "speedup" in evolution, as opposed to simply a
    local population expansion that adds more bodies, which in turn
    means more chances of people with a certain trait as part of that
    expansion? Or a contraction that emphasizes a particular trait
    due to founder effect? Assorted HBD proponents are rather vague
    on the alleged "speed up" point.

    2. When life or death depends on your ability to follow
    a certain way of life, you are necessarily being selected for
    certain heritable characteristics.

    Fair enough but has natural selection and the transmission of
    acquired traits itself undergone a speedup? If so how? And in
    what sense is the speedup meaningful compared to other factors
    that also influence evolution such as genetic drift?

    Some of these are dietary—an ability to digest milk
    or certain foods. Others, however, are mental and behavioral,
    things like aptitudes, personality type, and behavioral
    predispositions.

    While HBD proponents make a number of assertions in these areas,
    actual supporting data re like "aptitudes, personality type,
    and behavioral predispositions" is somewhat spotty. For
    example what evolutionary factors lead to the behavioral
    disposition to mass murder Jews over numerous centuries for
    example? Critics point out that alleged evolutionary links to
    behavioral predispositions and traits are meaningless- given the
    wide time spans of human evolution, and varying environments, not
    to mention individual variation, and the close intertwining of
    both environmental and genetic factors, in which that evolution
    took or takes place. Is the alleged "humble"
    self-effacing Asian "predisposition" for example due to
    "evolution"? The Japanese in WW2, the Mongols in
    medieval times, the aggressive southern Asian tropicals of
    Vietnam that defeated the US venture in the Second Indochina War,
    and the Chinese in various eras cast doubt on simplistic claims
    of alleged "evolutionary predispositions."

    This is because a way of life involves thinking and
    behaving in specific ways.

    But a "way of life" is not necessarily a product of
    "evolution."

    3. This gene-culture co-evolution began when humans had
    already spread over the whole world, from the equator to the
    arctic.

    It is not only genes and culture reacting and interacting but the
    environment as well. All three factors are in a mix that makes up
    human evolution.

    So it followed trajectories that differed from one
    geographic population to another. Even when these populations had
    to adapt to similar ways of life, they may have done so
    differently, thus opening up (or closing off) different
    possibilities for further gene-culture co-evolution.

    Not quite. The adaptation of different populations does not
    "close off" anything. Some populations may show more
    abundant features of a particular element, but the fact is that
    human populations interact and share both genes, methods, tools
    and ideas, and have been doing so for millennia. Europeans for
    example got their alphabet and Christian religion from
    sub-tropical peoples of the Middle East. These in turn derived an
    alphabet from a location in Africa (Egypt) that pioneered some,
    if not the earliest forms of writing as credible scholars
    (Darnell 2003, Dreyer 1999) show. About 20% of that African
    location by the way lies in the tropical zone.

    4. Humans have thus altered their environment via
    culture, and this man-made environment has altered humans via
    natural selection.

    Fair enough, but the environment has also shaped humans, and
    their cultures, and has also passed these changes along in the
    form of natural selection.

    This is probably the farthest we can go in formulating a
    unified theory of human biodiversity.

    And the theory is a shaky one in numerous respects.

    For Gregory Clark, the key factor was the rise of
    settled, pacified societies, where people could get ahead through
    work and trade, rather than through violence and plunder. For
    Henry Harpending and Greg Cochran, it was the advent of
    agriculture and, later, civilization. For J. Philippe Rushton and
    Ed Miller, it was the entry of humans into cold northern
    environments, which increased selection for more parental
    investment, slower life history, and higher cognitive
    performance. Each of these authors has identified part of the big
    picture, but the picture itself is too big to reduce to a single
    factor.

    Unfortunately a tendency in the "HBD" field is to
    reduce things to simplistic single factors or a very narrow range
    of factors. Rushton’s theories by the way have been extensively
    debunked by numerous scholars. Denizens of cold weather regions
    for example are hardly role models when it comes to parenting.
    They kill infants for example at a much higher rate than denizens
    of tropical zones, such as Africans. (See Milner, L.S. (2000).
    Hardness of Heart / Hardness of Life: the stain of infanticide.)

    5. Antiracist scholars have argued against the
    significance of human biodiversity, but their arguments typically
    reflect a lack of evolutionary thinking.

    This is misleading. Actually most recognize human
    "biodiversity" as a matter of course. Few deny there is
    a difference between a pale northern Swede on the farm, and a
    dark, southern Zulu on the cattle range. That is not at issue. At
    issue is the claim that there are meaningful
    "evolutionary" or "genetic" explanations for
    numerous social phenomena or behaviors, as opposed to better
    explanations rooted in particular environments, which would
    include cultural changes, among particular peoples, at particular
    times. Monotheism for example sparked certain cultural changes
    that have little substantial relation to "evolution" in
    cold climates.

    Nor is such skepticism about the alleged power of evolution or
    genetic determinism the province of anti-racists or liberals. In
    his detailed works over 2 decades, widely read and respected
    conservative scholar Thomas Sowell (a friend of Charles Murray by
    the way) extensively questions simplistic "genetic"
    explanations for the many social phenomena over ethnic multiple
    groups, over multiple eras. He shows that alleged HBD
    "predispositions" claimed for multiple peoples do not
    stand up to hard data.

    Yes, human populations are open to gene flow and are
    thus not sharply defined (if they were, they would be species).
    It doesn’t follow, however, that the only legitimate objects
    of study are sharply defined ones. Few things in this world would
    pass that test.

    But numerous HBD proponents take precisely that approach- that
    different human populations for example represent different
    species, or sub-species of humanity. They insist on sharply
    bounded races, supposedly carrying "evolutionary
    predispositions." This is JP Rushton’s approach as well as
    the more pedestrian Steve Sailer, and others in between. They
    phrase the case differently for different audiences but the
    bottom line is unmistakable.

    A population boundary typically coincides with a
    geographic or ecological barrier, such as a change from one
    vegetation zone to another or, in humans, a change from one way
    of life to another.

    To some extent but sometimes not much at all. And cultural change
    does not necessarily demarcate sharply defined boundaries, but
    rather a continuum. Europeans, who count some of their ancestry
    from the Middle East, Asia and Africa, depending on the times
    examined, share plenty of significant cultural strands with these
    other regions, and indeed many of these strands are now even seen
    as "European"- such as the massively influential
    Christian religion, which is not European, but originated from a
    sub-tropical people in the Middle East, called Hebrews, aka Jews.
    HBD proponents like the idea of boundaries because populations
    can then be simplistically diced up and categorized into
    stereotyped "races" in whatever preferred hierarchies
    suits their ideology of the moment. But the real world is a lot
    more complex than this.

    It thus separates not only different populations but
    also differing pressures of natural selection. This is why
    genetic variation within a population differs qualitatively from
    genetic variation between populations. The first kind cannot be
    ironed out by similar selection pressures and thus tends to
    involve genes of little or no selective value.

    You don’t provide a concrete example of this claim, and it is
    contradicted by contrary data on the ground. Genetic variation
    within populations can involve genes of selective value. In
    Africa, genetically related sub-Saharan populations differ on
    lactose tolerance for example.

    The second kind occurs across population boundaries,
    which tend to separate different ecosystems, different vegetation
    zones, different ways of life … and different selection
    pressures. So the genes matter a lot more.

    At times, but not necessarily. Again you offer no concrete
    specific examples to back this claim, nor specific reference. But
    just on face value. contrary data easily appears. The mere fact
    of a geographic boundary does not necessarily increase the
    importance of genes, because (a) boundaries shift over time (like
    the Sahara which even now is not stable), (b) people in the real
    world are mobile and move back and forth across boundaries, and
    (c) people with similar genes easily are found on both sides of
    boundaries, making the gene factor moot. People speaking the same
    language, and related genetically, easily exist on both sides of
    various boundaries for example, and differences do not
    necessarily mean genes are more prominent.

    We see the same genetic overlap between many sibling
    species that are nonetheless distinct anatomically and
    behaviorally. Because such species have arisen over a relatively
    short span of time, like human populations, they have been made
    different primarily by natural selection, so the genetic
    differences between them are more likely to have adaptive,
    functional consequences … as opposed to “junk
    variability” that slowly accumulates over time.

    True in part, but the opposite is also true. Genetic drift can
    cause as great a variation as natural selection.

    The above synthesis should not be controversial. Yet it
    is. In fact, it scarcely resembles acceptable thinking within
    academia and even less so within society at large. There are two
    main reasons.

    Not quite. One big reason it is controversial is the sometimes
    shaky, distorted and dubious nature of "human
    biodiversity" claims. The numerous scholarly debunkings of
    JP Rushton and others demonstrate this in spades. Likewise the
    recent refutation of HBD writers like Nicholas Wade by several
    leading scholars, much more expert than Wade in anthropology,
    human genetics, palentology, etc. These heavyweight scholars
    rightly note that Wade continually distorts their work to
    manufacture support for his HBD ideology.

    http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/08/geneticists-decry-book-race-and-evolution

    This is one of the key reasons for "controversy" in the
    field- the weak, oft distorted claims and speculations of HBD
    proponents.

    In reading the literature of the time, one is struck by
    the restraint of early proponents of environmental determinism,
    especially when they argue against race differences in mental
    makeup.

    The restraint referred to is one determinist HBD proponents
    should learn from. However, few credible anti-racist scholars, or
    even activists deny that on constructs such as 20th century IQ
    tests, people conceived to be of different "races" in
    various recent race constructs, score differently. Alleged
    "denial of differences" is a standard strawman of HBD
    proponents. Who is going about "denying" this? The main
    point of contention is not that there are differences, nor that
    genetics play a role. Of course genetics play SOME role in making
    humans differ. That is not at issue. The main issue is the impact
    of genetic and environmental factors, and the varying weights
    different factors have at, and in, particular times, places,
    peoples and environments.

    Why didn’t the war on racism end when the Second
    World War ended? For one thing, many people, feared a third
    global conflict in which anti-Semitism would play a dominant
    role. For another, antiracism took on a life of its own during
    the Cold War, when the two superpowers were vying for influence
    over the emerging countries of Asia and Africa.

    This analysis is a bit flawed. WW2 was not substantially a war
    AGAINST racism. Not at all. In fact, racism, (on both sides- the
    Axis particularly) was one of the psychological drivers of the
    war- whether it be the industrial mass murder of subhuman
    uttermensch, to the milder racist relocations of American
    citizens of Japanese descent (and the usual "anti-Jap’
    racial sentiment explicitly and routinely expressed from the top
    commanders on down), to the vicious Japanese racism (and
    slaughter) against Chinese. All the major powers of WW2 were
    racist to one degree or another. The war assumed an anti-racist
    cast, only in the aftermath, because of the discovered mass
    murder of millions of Jews and other marginal groups. The crime
    (defined as such by Europeans prior to the war and committed most
    starkly by them) was too big and too openly documented to sweep
    under the rug and dismiss as mere ethnocentrism, or age old
    tribal conflict against outsiders.

    The end of the Cold War might have brought an end to the
    war on racism, or at least a winding down, had it not replaced
    socialism with an even more radical project: globalism.

    This analysis is also misleading. Anti-racism was a significant
    part at times, of the Cold War. The US Civil Rights Movement for
    example made excellent fodder for the Soviets in charging US
    democracy with hypocrisy. US policymakers likewise made
    concessions to the blacks to counter points the Soviets scored
    internationally on this score, as credible studies of the issue
    show. See Mary Dudziak, 2000, Cold War Civil Rights). Racism was
    still heavily embedded in numerous Western polities during the
    Cold War, decreasing somewhat over time in the US as the 1970s
    receded but still significant, as credible scholars show. As late
    as the 2000s US government anti-discrimination agencies like the
    EEOC have a backlog measured in YEARS, and various
    "testers" in housing and employment still document its
    existence. A late as the 1990s it took numerous lawsuits and
    congressional action to curb unlawful police search and seizure
    methods against minority motorists. THe end of the Soviet Union
    in 1989 did not by any means lead to a tapering off of racism.
    There were reductions in OPEN racism and polls show less racist
    attitudes in general to be sure, but the phenomenon of racism is
    alive and well after the Cold War, albeit in less open, more
    muted forms.

    This two-way movement redistributes wealth from owners
    of labor to owners of capital. Businesses get not only a cheaper
    workforce but also weaker labor and environmental standards. To
    stay competitive, workers in high-wage countries have to accept
    lower pay and a return to working conditions of another age. The
    top 10% are thus pulling farther and farther ahead of everyone
    else throughout the developed world. They’re getting richer
    … not by making a better product but by making the same
    product with cheaper and less troublesome inputs of labor.

    Agreed.

    With the collapse of the old left in the late 1980s, and
    the rise of market globalization, antiracism found a new purpose
    … as a source of legitimacy for the globalist project.

    Agreed in part. Anti-racism has been manipulated by the globalist
    project, but some anti-racist organizations have also in part
    fought the globalist corporatism, such as their advocacy on the
    part of indigenous and marginal peoples displaced by corrupt
    native elites working with equally corrupt Western corporate
    interests.

    Antiracism was subservient to the political
    left.

    Agreed.

    This was not a natural state of affairs, since the
    antiracist movement—like the Left in general—is a
    coalition of ethnic/religious factions that prefer to pursue
    their own narrow interests.

    Keep in mind however that the Left has always cobbled together
    disparate coalitions, just as the right has cobbled together
    coalitions ranging from rabid racists, to more moderate religious
    types. The right has also frequently manipulated its own
    "race card" for profit- continually playing on race to
    make political gains- whether it be the "coded" race
    language of the Reagan or Nixon regimes, to the well known
    "Southern strategy," to the successful "white
    hands" and Willie Horton political ads of Republican
    politicians. The white Right has always exploited and manipulated
    race for its own ends, openly and indirectly, both in America and
    Europe.
    Anti-racists have often cut through the propaganda and called the
    game for what it is.

    So we reoriented. Leftist rhetoric was out and slick
    marketing in. Our educational materials looked glossier but now
    featured crude “Archie Bunker” caricatures of working
    people, and the language seemed increasingly anti-white. I
    remember feeling upset, even angry. So I left.

    Fair enough, although crude Archie Bunker caricatures have been
    around since the 1970s to portray conservative whites. Before
    Archie came along, liberal/left folk also had a field day with
    portrayals of white southern racists and their sympathizers. It
    should be noted that in some cases these caricatures have some
    truth to them.

    There is a substantial slice of the US population for example
    that is racist, or if not explicitly such, will vote and act
    along racial lines. Furthermore they can be mobilized to win
    political victory with the right coded appeals, using their
    higher percentages of voting registration as Steve Sailer has
    pointed out. Race works for the right on many levels, and
    anti-racists have accurately pointed this out numerous times.

    Looking back, I realize things had to happen that way.
    With the disintegration of the old socialist left, antiracists
    were freer to follow their natural inclinations, first by
    replacing class politics with identity politics, and second by
    making common cause with the political right, especially for the
    project of creating a globalized economy. Antiracism became a
    means to a new end.

    I am not sure anti-racism makes common cause with the political
    right. It really depends on the anti-racists in question. In some
    cases, anti-racists are OPPOSED to the globalist project, and see
    corporate greed and exploitation as that of an ever more affluent
    white elite gaining at the expense of non-white indigenous
    peoples. Other anti-racists oppose elite policy, such as those
    that question the legitimacy of Israel’s harsh Palestinian
    policies, and the support for Israel in some American corporate
    circles. Anti-racists were also a thorn in the side for various
    corporate interests during the apartheid days of South Africa.
    Perhaps in other cases your analysis may hold true, but I think
    you need more specific examples to bolster your argument.

    This phony consensus is also being pushed at a time
    when the demographic cauldron of the Third World is boiling over.
    This is particularly so in sub-Saharan Africa, where the decline
    in fertility has stalled and actually reversed in some countries.
    The resulting population overflow is now following the path of
    least resistance—northward, especially with the chaos due to
    the NATO-led invasion of Libya. In the current context,
    immigration controls should be strengthened, and yet there is
    lobbying to make them even weaker. The idiocy is beyond belief.

    Sub-Saharan immigration to Europe is not a major problem,
    compared to say Mexico which shares a common land border with the
    US. A problem yes but one that is much easier to control than
    immigration from WITHIN the EURASIAN landmass. Muslim immigration
    from Turkey or the Balkans is much more a problem than say people
    from Ghana. Refugees from Burkina Faso are not exactly queuing up
    in terrorist cells to establish sharia law in Frankfurt. There is
    really no major crisis on this score. Libya by the way is in
    North Africa not sub-Saharan Africa.

    We in North America can nonetheless prepare the way by
    learning to speak up and stand up, and by recognizing that the
    “Right” is just as problematic as the “Left.”

    Agreed. And both "right" and "left" need
    credible solutions to one of the most entrenched problems that is
    influencing the whole numbers debate- the continued refusal of
    Europeans to keep their fertility rates up. The reasons vary- the
    expansion of the gay lifestyle, free-wheeling abortion (white
    Russia has the highest abortion rate in the world), white
    feminist liberation, decline of traditional religious mores in
    favor of monogamy and family, postponement of marriage by the
    European young, etc etc. Until this central issue among Europeans
    is addressed, all the voting will in the long run, make little
    difference.

    • Replies: @Wyrd
    , @Ron Unz
    , @Ron Unz
  79. […] great post by Peter Frost about how globalism and antiracism prevent people from accepting the realities of evolution. […]

  80. Wyrd says:
    @Enrique Cardova

    Not quite. One big reason it is controversial is the sometimes
    shaky, distorted and dubious nature of “human
    biodiversity” claims. The numerous scholarly debunkings of
    JP Rushton and others demonstrate this in spades. Likewise the
    recent refutation of HBD writers like Nicholas Wade by several
    leading scholars, much more expert than Wade in anthropology,
    human genetics, palentology, etc. These heavyweight scholars
    rightly note that Wade continually distorts their work to
    manufacture support for his HBD ideology.

    Hehehe, “shut up, you racist Nazi racist!” isn’t much of a refutation no matter how verbosely such a sentiment is expressed.

  81. Ron Unz says:
    @Enrique Cardova

    And in what sense is “evolution” “speeding
    up?”

    I’m totally preoccupied with various software issues and almost never participate in comment-threads, but happened to glance at this one, and noticed your extremely long and detailed comment.

    Without getting into any of the other contentious and sometimes imprecise issues, your initial question about how evolution is “speeding up” is an important and totally technical one, which I hope I can help address.

    Evolutionary results may be classified as either selection-driven (with the frequency of existing traits undergoing change) or mutation-driven (new traits appearing and perhaps sweeping if sufficiently beneficial).

    Obviously, the Agricultural Revolution, the rise of civilizations, and other changes in the last 10K years has produced new and potentially powerful selective pressures that impact the first type of evolution, and everyone has been aware of this basic idea for many decades. But the second type is an entirely new and absolutely fascinating possibility, unrecognized but totally obvious once stated.

    The rate at which new mutations appear in a population is obviously proportional to the size of that population, and as the number of people has increased 100x or more over the last 10K years, the rate of new, potentially beneficial mutations has similarly increased by that same factor. Meanwhile, for highly beneficial mutations, the speed at which they sweep to fixation in an entire population is largely independent of the population size, basically log N. Therefore, mutation-driven evolution enormously accelerated as the human population on earth rapidly increased. That’s a crucial reason why evolution has probably speeded up so dramatically in the last 10K years.

    Personally, I would argue that Acceleration is one of the most important and fascinating ev-bio ideas of the last couple of decades and definitely worth an eventual Nobel Prize. It’s rather embarrassing that so obvious and crucial an idea had never previously been considered, much like the basic notion of Darwinian Evolution/Natural Selection could have been developed in Ancient Greece just as easily as in 19th Century England.

  82. Ron Unz says:
    @Enrique Cardova

    Incidentally, regarding the utterly risible criticism of Nicholas Wade’s fine recent book, you might want to take a look at a couple of columns I wrote a few months ago, back when I had more time for such things:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/does-race-exist-do-hills-exist/

    http://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-should-scientists-bother-reading-the-books-they-denounce/

  83. Numinous says:
    To a non-white person, the 20th century “anti-racism”
    was first and last a struggle for dignity, a struggle to gain the
    right not to be judged as deficient in mental abilities,
    character, and agency, purely on the basis of physical
    appearance. It was (emphatically) not meant to be a pet project
    for idle left-wing activists, as you seem to describe it.

    Indeed. Anti-racism has very much been a grassroot black thing
    from the beginning, with or without the presence of elite
    organizations like the NAACP. Long before the NAACP, and long
    before the NAACP even assumed any prominence, there were
    significant numbers of black anti-racist organizations, and
    powerful black anti-racist public figures. How could there not be
    among those who were suffering most from racism? Even
    accommodation like Booker T Washington secretly financed court
    cases challenging racist laws. The NAACP is a latecomer to the
    party as far as anti-racism movements and organizations.

    SEAN SAYS:
    Ireland has many unemployed and is letting in more
    immigrants now than ever before. So is Denmark, which some bad
    jokers will tell you has shown a modern Western economy run on
    democratic lines can stop the inexorable increase in Third World
    immigration.

    Agreed. Ireland has seen an increase in immigration, particularly
    from Eastern Europe, followed by Asia and then Africa.
    Interestingly, it is the higher IQ Irish that are more tolerant
    about immigration than the lower IQ whites. [Denny, K and C Ó Gráda
    (2013), “Irish attitudes to immigration during and after the
    boom”,] Some have pointed to economic downturns which harden
    anti-immigrant attitudes but the pattern of the higher IQ being
    more apparently liberal still holds, and tracks with the HBD
    research of Kanazawa and others. As IQ grows, so does liberalism
    in a substantial number of cases. In the US, the pattern also is
    seen- higher IQ whites often seem less racist than lower IQ
    whites.

    Peter, the final straw for you was that poster from the
    anti racist organisation that you talked about a while ago. There
    is a concealed loathing for the lower orders. It showed a white
    man yelling ‘You’re stealing my job’ at a
    dark-skinned person. What struck me was the way the two were
    portrayed. The white man had a bald head, a hideous face, and a
    huge beer belly. He was also dressed in overalls, presumably to
    show he was a manual laborer. In contrast, the dark-skinned man
    was neatly dressed and normal in appearance”).

    But this is no different from or worse than similar right wing
    propaganda pieces displaying a stereotypical, brutish minority juxtaposed
    against a cleaner more virtuous white. Illana Mercer’s book for
    example, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot”, a right wing favorite, does it
    quite cleverly- playing on the "black cannibal" meme,
    and featuring a nubile white girl crouching pensively while dusky
    handprints play over her body. The White Right is just as devious
    and manipulative on the race propaganda front as the left. The
    "coded" racial appeals of the southern strategy or Jesse
    Helms successful "white hands" political ad are just a
    few illustrations of how the Right wing profitably milks "the
    race card".

    And as a belief that race is unimportant is the sine qua
    non that defines the identity of upper class whites, they feel
    virtuous about benefiting from the destruction of (their) people.
    The classes that the rulers are drawn from are very, very good at
    running things; it comes naturally to them. I mean, from a few
    things you’ve said over the years, I would think your
    parentage is not really working class even though your early
    environment was. In that anti racist organisation you were in, I
    bet there were a high proportion of upper middle class people at
    the top.

    It is rather naive to believe that upper class whites don;t think
    race is important. They do think it is important, they just want
    to DISGUISE and HIDE their concern under other veneers and
    pretexts. As conservative Thomas Sowell has pointed out, upper
    class white liberals have "ethnically cleansed"
    numerous neighborhoods by making the supply of housng shrink via
    zoning controls that hinder new construction or the free market
    in rentals. The happy end result- less darker types who are priced
    out. Upper class whites also controlled the corporate and
    political levers that implemented the often devastating
    "urban renewal" policies that destroyed numerous
    minority and working class white neighborhoods, leaving the door
    open for corporate land grabs or gentrification by the more
    affluent white. They can do all this yet appear cool, progressive
    and "into diversity" at the same time. Only the naive
    have not caught on to the game.

    The problem with the anti-racism movement is that they
    assumes only White people are capable of being racists. They
    should just blatantly re-name themselves the anti-White movement
    and not beat around the bush about it. I prefer when my enemies
    are just straight up blunt about their cruel
    intentions.

    Who says anti-racists are ANTI-white? To the contrary some are
    very pro-white. They just want the OPEN, ugly aspects of white
    supremacy to disappear under a kinder, gentler seeming veneer. As
    noted by some conservative scholars white liberals (anti-racists
    among them) have created all white zones using "non
    racial" levers that work to price out and freeze out their
    darker brethren. How many low income or working class housing
    developments you seen in tony upper white liberal suburbs?

    Furthermore measures pushed b white anti-racists often benefit
    mostly white people. "Affirmative action" quotas for
    example mostly benefit white women, as has the expansion of
    government spending in such things as education- the overwhelming
    bulk of those gaining employment thus are white. Same with numerous
    government programs. Welfare does not only benefit more white
    people but welfare benefits are relatively HIGHER in states with
    higher white populations than states with larger minority
    populations. White people are rigging the system to help
    themselves while speaking cool progressive things bout
    "diversity." Only gullible white right wingers have not
    caught on to the game- or maybe they have and are just running a
    propaganda front to keep it going as long as possible.

    ANON928 SAYS
    By the latter half of the 20th century, Western middle
    and lower classes were no longer benefiting from globalism and
    its primary beneficiaries were the wealthy and non-Western
    populations.

    Not quite. For one thing, the cheaper goods and services produced
    at times by globalization are of benefit to Western middle and
    lower classes. Much of the trendy gadgets and designer fashion
    enjoyed by the affluent and middle class white are produced n
    much poorer Third World venues. Who says they derive no benefit?

    Furthermore, the physical immigration of Third WOrld populations
    benefits the middle and to a lesser extent the working lcass in 2
    ways: (a) they often take on the dirty jobs that middle and
    working class don;t want (like the proud lower socio-economic
    whites that disdainfully refuse to pick crops in the field
    "like Mexicans") and (b) the immigrants particularly
    the undocumented in some analyses produce a net benefit in output
    greater than the services they consume. As a result, their
    younger populations support the pension and entitlement payouts
    for an aging, more affluent white population. And even when that
    white population is smaller in relative numbers, their higher
    rates of voting participation and deeper political pockets, can
    trump less organized, less able to vote immigrant populations, as
    Steve Sailer has pointed out.

    UNITY742 SAYS:

    Chinese and Japanese immigrants in early 20th Century California
    may not have ‘liked’ white attitudes towards Orientals
    but it didn’t stop them from successfully organizing their
    own communities or leave a ‘legacy of disadvantage’
    that had to be compensated for when barriers to their
    participation in the larger society came down. Racism” as a
    political movement only matters when a truly inferior population
    has no other way to compete economically with a superior
    population. Thus South African ‘apartheid’ or American
    ‘segregation’ were ‘morally evil’ because the
    excluded population, left to themselves, could not exist at the
    same level as the population who did not want to socialize with
    them.

    Dubious. Your argument is weak. Who says blacks were
    "unable" to do anything? In fact as conservative
    scholar Thomas Sowell shows blacks did successfully organize
    their own communities in spite of much harsher conditions than
    Japanese or Chinese, or Jews. As Sowell shows they too built
    schools, churches familes and businesses to the extent able under
    prevailing conditions. Other ethnic groups in the US had it
    easier Sowell notes. California for all its early racism was a
    better place, comparatively speaking than the Jim Crow South. The
    Chinese suffered progroms to be sure but nothing like almost a
    century of progroms endured by blacks or a century of persistent
    racial murder called lynching.
    Japanese and Chinese in addition
    had their own national governments to speak up on their behalf.
    The Burlingame treaty of 1869 for example stipulated certain
    rights for Chinese immigrants in the US as part of a deal if the
    US wanted more trade with China. Chinese immigration was limited
    afterwards but again, the US simply could not impose the vicious
    JIm Crow regime on Chinese that it had on blacks. And all the
    Chinese anti-exclusion practices from laws to punitive taxes were
    old news to American blacks, endured well into the 1960s.

    Likewise the US had to temper its racism when dealing with
    Japanese and could not institute the
    total, vicious Jim Crow that it imposed on blacks. In California
    Japanese and white children for example attended integrated
    school in numerous venues for decades, quite unlike the US South
    (Sowell "Ethnic America"). The emergency of dominant
    Japanese agriculture in some locales that caused so much white
    jealously could not have happened with blacks in the South.
    Japanese and Chinese via their US born children in addition were
    able to skirt many anti-Asian laws on top of all this.
    Jews in the US, while experiencing some discrimination, did not face the
    centuries of slavery that destroyed families and
    cultural organization, nor endure the grinding apartheid decades
    afterwards than US blacks faced. And US blacks only became fully
    organize after WW2, whereas Jews had a century to work with in
    the freer, urban venues with more opportunities.

    Secondly,contrary to what you claim, Racism as a
    political movement" first becomes significant when the
    DOMINANT GROUP moved to suppress those lower down the ladder.
    Racism began there. And apartheid and Jim Crow were not morally
    evil because excluded populations could not exist "left to
    themselves." Quite the contrary. In fact excluded
    populations often pleaded specifically TO BE LEFT TO THEMSELVES
    without the interference of whites and were doing quite well on
    their own without white hegemony. Indians for example time and time
    again asked to be simply left alone, but greedy whites time and
    time again refused – using bogus "treaties" or outright
    wars of extermination to seize their lands and displace them.

    Likewise black freedom fighters throughout the Atlantic World
    (the maroons), including the hard-fighting black Seminoles in
    Florida, did not ask to to hang around with white people, but
    demanded t be LEFT ALONE TO THEMSELVES. They didn’t give a damn
    about so-called "white levels."

    And apartheid and Jim Crow were morally evil because they
    involved a deep and corrupt hypocrisy on the part of whites not
    to mention massive deception and massive, murderous violence and
    exploitation. White anti-racists candidly expose the game for
    what it is, seeing through the standard, self-serving right wing
    propaganda. Your argument simply does not hold water.

    LEFTIST CONSERVATIVE SAYS:
    The fundamental truth here is that
    multiculturalism/political correctness/affirmative action, etc
    all work to increase corporate profits and the wealth of the
    upper class.

    Actually the opposite is the case historically. "Affirmative
    action" for example, when operating in favor of whites,
    worked very nicely to increase white wages, wealth and profits-
    from white unions that excluded black competition, to white
    corporations that suppressed black labor organizing for more
    wages or better conditions, or worked to dispossess black farmers
    from owning land in the Jim Crow south. White people have
    profited greatly from white "affirmative action."

    As scholar Daria Roithmeyer shows in her book
    on white racial cartels -"Reproducing racism"-
    ANTI-competitive white racial cartels paid off handsomely for
    white people in US history. Rothmayr details for example how
    white unions conducted strikes to force companies to fire
    productive black workers. Result: less competition, greater white
    wages, income and opportunity. This pattern is contrary to the
    propaganda narrative of virtuous white "merit" holding
    sway.

    And “multiculturalism” has enabled numerous white people to get
    paid- whether in be in expanded gubment programs to allegedly “help” minorities
    or as bureaucrats “coordinating” assorted “diversity” initiatives. Then there
    is they psychic payment of being considered more cool and virtuous. This is
    especially so with higher IQ whites.

    • Replies: @Sean
  84. @iffen

    Not only possible but it is an integral contributing factor in the political and economic success of the West.

    I agree, but people who rush to emphasize this point have the most unfortunate tendency to require those who embrace individualist principles to ignore even the most obvious of racial patterns and racial consequences. That’s a mug’s game if there was ever one.

    • Replies: @iffen
  85. PS: correction to above- not “organized” but fully “urbanized” after WW2.

    RON UNZ SAYS:
    The rate at which new mutations appear in a population is obviously proportional to the size of that population, and as the number of people has increased 100x or more over the last 10K years, the rate of new, potentially beneficial mutations has similarly increased by that same factor. Meanwhile, for highly beneficial mutations, the speed at which they sweep to fixation in an entire population is largely independent of the population size, basically log N. Therefore, mutation-driven evolution enormously accelerated as the human population on earth rapidly increased. That’s a crucial reason why evolution has probably speeded up so dramatically in the last 10K years.

    Thank you Ron Unz for your thoughtful comments. I have no particular quarrel with the idea of acceleration per se but rather the sweeping HBD claims in some quarters that downplay important factors like geography, environment. founder effect and genetic drift, and launch into subsequent race hierarchy models based on stereotypical categories of humanity, unrealistic notions of natural selection, or alleged behavioral predispositions due to evolution, as already detailed above. Serious, careful, expert scientists dispute many of these claims as noted too, including some of Wade’s claims.
    Your take on population expansion is interesting. Some seem to forget that natural selection is less effective in smaller population sizes. Population expansion from Africa showed a pattern of the loss of genetic diversity, as compared to the original African source. Yet Africa itself had its own internal population expansions- before and after global spreads, and also saw the appearance of the mutations you mention. Indeed, long-term effective population size was greatest in Africa early on. Pre-agricultural acceleration, as well as that greater factor, the agricultural, particularly in the Nile Valley as it was populated foundationally from the south, would also be part of this mix. The mutation influenced acceleration you note thus is a universal phenomenon, not limited to a particular place or group. Also in the mix is the environmental drivers that shaped that acceleration. I will check out other links you reference. I have no doubt science will shed more light on the role of population expansions.

    • Replies: @Sam J.
  86. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Chug Thug

    Good point. Except it will only take another 5 or 10 years. This might make Peter’s goals moot.

    After the science is solved, we still have to wait years for somebody like Jack Ma to build a global business out of it.

    What will be the decade that we’ll start seeing the cultural turning point? When Hispanics who look like Schwarzenegger’s maid/mistress will be pushing blonde babies in strollers?

  87. Sam J. says:
    @Enrique Cardova

    “… For example what evolutionary factors lead to the behavioral
    disposition to mass murder Jews over numerous centuries for
    example?…”

    What a self centered Jewish way of looking at things. Uhhh…could it be that it’s the Jews that’s the problem and not everyone else?

    “…Anti-racism is not anti-White…”

    Of course anti-racism is anti-White. Simple to prove because they DO NOT ask the same of other races that they ask of Whites. If every one is equal then it would follow that you have to ask the same of all the different races. Anti-Whites do not do this. Is there a large scale massive program to bring diversity to Asia? No. Is there a large scale massive program to bring diversity to Africa? No.

    Africa is HUGE. Look at this map

    Any sensible migration strategy would move people to less crowded areas. If all people are equal it would follow that they could develop these areas equally. Africa is much larger and has less people so the vast majority of migration should be to Africa.

    Peter Frost is exactly correct that Anti-Racism was a tactic of the cold war. It was of course was taken over by the Jews and a few weird demented White people to destroy White people.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  88. AG says:
    @iffen

    It is called evolution. If top 10% descendants become the median (middle 50%) in future (might be thousands years later), todays median becomes the left side. That is good for our species.

    If it goes other ways, then bad, as movie “Idiocracy”. Watch this movie, you will understand better about evolutional process.

    • Replies: @iffen
  89. iffen says:
    @AG

    Some people think that what is good for “our” species is how well the bottom 10% fares.

    Tried to watch Idiocracy; much too boring.

    10% of a small number, 10% of a large number, still 10%

    • Replies: @silviosilver
  90. iffen says:
    @silviosilver

    I agree that many are like that. Pleased to say that I’m not like that.
    Most people on both (all?) sides seem to either emphasize individualism or group identity depending on which one supports the point they want to make.

  91. AG says:

    “Some people think that what is good for “our” species is how well the bottom 10% fares.”

    Some people do not understand evolution.

  92. Enrique,

    You raise many interesting questions. Some of them have been addressed at length in previous posts and, more importantly, in the references at the end. In the future, please read the references before saying that I “offer no concrete specific examples to back this claim, nor specific reference.”

    I’ll address a few of your questions:

    Gene-culture co-evolution

    The pace of human genetic evolution increased by over a hundred-fold some 10,000 years ago. At that time, humans were no longer entering new natural environments; they had already colonized the earth’s surface from the equator to the arctic. Yes, physical environments were continuing to change, and humans had to adapt accordingly, but that rate of change was not accelerating. It was relatively constant. More to the point, the rate of change is many times greater for cultural environments than for natural environments, and this rate of change has been steadily increasing. Hence the acceleration of human genetic evolution, beginning some 10,000 years ago.

    I don’t deny that humans have continued to adapt to their natural environment, but that kind of evolution has not been accelerating.

    “Unfortunately a tendency in the “HBD” field is to reduce things to simplistic single factors or a very narrow range of factors.”

    I agree. We cannot shoehorn the evolution of human biodiversity into a single unified theory. Gene-culture co-evolution covers a lot of the big picture, but not all. Sexual selection, for instance, has played a major role in humans, particularly in the evolution of highly visible characteristics.

    “Few deny there is a difference between a pale northern Swede on the farm, and a dark, southern Zulu on the cattle range.”

    Actually, many antiracist scholars do. They’ll point to Lewontin’s study and say that the genetic differences within a group of Swedes are greater than the genetic differences between them and a group of Zulus. It’s important to address that argument, notably by pointing out that we see the same genetic overlap between many species that are nonetheless anatomically and behaviorally distinct.

    You say that I offer no specific examples or references to back that claim. Let me quote from one of the references at the end of my post:

    In the deer family, we see more genetic variability within some species than between some genera [7]. Some masked shrew populations are genetically closer to prairie shrews than they are to other masked shrews [8]. Only a minority of mallards cluster together on an mtDNA tree, the rest being scattered among black ducks [9]. All six species of Darwin’s ground finches seem to form a genetically homogeneous genus with very little concordance between mtDNA, nuclear DNA, and morphology [10]. In terms of genetic distance, redpoll finches from one species are not significantly closer to each other than are redpolls from different species [11]. Among the haplochromine cichlids of Lake Victoria, it is extremely difficult to find interspecies differences in either nuclear or mitochondrial genes, even though these fishes are well differentiated morphologically and behaviorally [12]. Neither mtDNA nor allozyme alleles distinguish the various species of Lycaedis butterflies, despite clear differences in morphology [13]. An extreme example is a dog tumor that spreads to other dogs through sexual contact: canine transmissible venereal sarcoma(CTVS). It looks and acts like an infectious microbe, yet its genes would reveal a canid and conceivably some beagles may be genetically closer to it than to Great Danes [14].

    In sum, total genetic variation poorly mirrors genetic variation in adaptive traits, be they morphological, behavioral, or physiological. Keep in mind that a new species typically arises when a founder group buds off from a parent population and enters a new environment with new selection pressures. The new selection pressures, however, will leave most of its genome unchanged. In some cases, this is because the gene itself has little adaptive value (e.g., most genetic markers), often being no more than ‘junk DNA’. In other cases, the gene’s variants are equally adaptive in a variety of organisms. Many blood polymorphisms span not only different species but even different genera. In terms of the ABO system, for instance, a person may have more in common with some apes than with other people [12].

    Of course, once the two populations have become reproductively isolated, they no longer accumulate the same mutations and will drift apart at all gene loci, including the many that weakly respond to natural selection. But this process is slow. For example, redpoll finches diverged into two species some fifty thousand years ago and have distinct phenotypes, yet their mitochondrial DNA shows a single undifferentiated gene pool [11]. The past ten thousand years have seen dogs diverge into distinct breeds, which nonetheless cannot be told apart by genetic markers. In fact, greater mtDNA differences exist within the single breeds of Doberman pinschers or poodles than between dogs and wolves [6].

    Frost, P. (2011). Human nature or human natures? Futures, 43, 740–748. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2011.05.017

    Cold War

    I agree that it’s naïve to believe that the end of the Cold War would have brought an end to the war on racism. There was simply too much ideological momentum, and too many people had invested their lives in the struggle against racism. People don’t change their minds easily, even when they know deep down that they’re wrong.

    But there could have been a winding down of the war on racism. By the 1990s, most antiracist organizations were faced with declining revenues, declining membership, and a general loss of purpose with the collapse of the old Left. In the mid-1990s, many people — especially in academia — were starting to question antiracism. Discrimination is not responsible for many if not most group differences in behavior and cognitive performance. That paradigm is flawed, and people were starting to point out its flaws.

    “Keep in mind however that the Left has always cobbled together disparate coalitions, just as the right has cobbled together coalitions ranging from rabid racists, to more moderate religious types.”

    In the U.S., the political right is dominated by a single demographic: White Christian Americans. It is thus easier to manipulate: once you have that demographic in your pocket, you’re home free. The political left is harder to manipulate because there are more factions to convince or buy off.

    “It should be noted that in some cases these [Archie Bunker] caricatures have some truth to them. ”

    Working people live in an environment where they don’t control the media or even their culture. Nor can they count on friendly voices to express their concerns. Those voices have been silenced, for the most part.

    It’s easy to make almost anyone look like a fool. Most people are too busy trying to make a living, and they don’t have the time to articulate their concerns and worries. Moreover, if shoved into a TV camera, they will stutter, try to find something sensible to say, and generally look silly. This is why we have intellectuals and politicians. They have the job of speaking eloquently and convincingly. And that’s why there has been a systematic effort to purge academia and politics of “racists.”

    “Sub-Saharan immigration to Europe is not a major problem”

    When I read that statement, I fell off my chair. You write like someone whose thought processes haven’t changed for the past twenty years.

    “Until this central issue [declining fertility] among Europeans is addressed, all the voting will in the long run, make little difference.”

    Europe lost one third of its population during the Black Death. It’s possible to recover from population decline, but population replacement is something else entirely. The central issue is population replacement. No other issue comes close in terms of importance.

  93. Sean says:
    @Enrique Cardova

    “The “coded” racial appeals of the southern strategy or Jesse Helms successful “white hands” political ad are just a few illustrations of how the Right wing profitably milks “the race card”.”

    Affirmative action was explicitly racial and against whites on the basis of their race. Whites were capable of drawing conclusions about who to not to vote for. And in fact Nixon did not reverse AA, quite the opposite.

    “As IQ grows, so does liberalism in a substantial number of cases.”

    The real correlation is with higher social class, whose interests are with immigration because affluent liberals are made more affluent by immigration, as I said the upper classes despise the lower orders and being a stupid overpaid overweight manual worker is the ultimate insult for the chattering classes, as shown in the poster Peter wrote about. High IQ working class people are not in favour of immigration.

  94. Peter Frost says:
    Actually, many antiracist scholars do. They’ll point to Lewontin’s study and say that the genetic differences within a group of Swedes are greater than the genetic differences between them and a group of Zulus. It’s important to address that argument, notably by pointing out that we see the same genetic overlap between many species that are nonetheless anatomically and behaviorally distinct.

    Fair enough. Some may overstate the case, I have no doubt, relying on Lewontin’s 1970s work. I see a more balanced trend in some saying it depends on the level of genetic detail drilled down to, with geographically close populations generally being more similar.

    But there could have been a winding down of the war on racism. By the 1990s, most antiracist organizations were faced with declining revenues, declining membership, and a general loss of purpose with the collapse of the old Left.

    I more or less agree, and only dispute various right wing (and some liberal) formulas on the web and in traditional media that naively (or cynically) declare the “end of racism.” Your critique is echoed by several others, former leftists included. By the 1990s the major fermenting civil rights issues had indeed receded, and assorted activists seemed to be stretching the racism meme out of proportion – i.e. some excesses of Sharpton, etc.

    In the U.S., the political right is dominated by a single demographic: White Christian Americans. It is thus easier to manipulate: once you have that demographic in your pocket, you’re home free. The political left is harder to manipulate because there are more factions to convince or buy off.
    Agreed.

    They have the job of speaking eloquently and convincingly. And that’s why there has been a systematic effort to purge academia and politics of “racists.”
    Fair enough. Anyone can see the dominance of the liberal/left in the mainstream media and on campus. I only object to distorted formulas that claim virtual liberal totalitarianism with everyone else muzzled. This has not been so. There has been no shortage of vocal anti-liberal/left opposition, and that’s before the big rise of things like Fox News or Limbaugh on talk radio. Affirmative action for example has attracted no end of criticism or commentary, and has been a major and profitable wedge issue for the white right wing for years.

    “Sub-Saharan immigration to Europe is not a major problem”
    When I read that statement, I fell off my chair.

    Hold on though :) As I specifically said, continuing the sentence above:
    “.. compared to say Mexico which shares a common land border with the
    US. A problem yes but one that is much easier to control than
    immigration from WITHIN the EURASIAN landmass. Muslim immigration
    from Turkey or the Balkans is much more a problem than say people
    from Ghana.

    The Muslim issue, involving peoples from the Middle East, Anatolia and
    the Balkans are much more a problem to Europe, especially a Europe that
    is not reproducing itself and is increasingly giving up foundational Christian traditions.

  95. SEAN says:

    Affirmative action was explicitly racial and against whites on the basis of their race. Whites were capable of drawing conclusions about who to not to vote for. And in fact Nixon did not reverse AA, quite the opposite.

    Actually whites pioneered the preferential treatment patterns of “affirmative action” for almost 2 centuries prior to the 1970s. As for the modern formulation of AA with its timetables and court cases, AA actually began at the behest of WHITE union members who were discriminated against by corporations due to union membership. Courts recognized that merely saying “please stop” was meaningless and initiatied goals, timetables and quotas for making whole the damage done to the white unionists (Sowell 2004, 1975). And whites have milked AA very profitably. The main beneficiaries are white women, particularly in public sector and linked venues such as in governmental contracting. On top of that are the usual “front” manipulations that at times saw such things as white Portugese businessmen receiving the lions share of “minority” construction contracts in the nations’ capital under the guise of being “Hispanic.” (Sowell 2004). In any event, AA has been a sick man for years crippled by court challenges and bureaucratic opposition. And as Sowell repeatedly shows, AA has had little overall impact on black economic progress which was on an upswing decades BEFORE any significant application of AA in the 1970s.

    As for Richard Nixon, one of his specific purposes in initiating his so-called “Philadelphia Plan” in 1969/70 was not simply his exasperation at the entrenched racism and intransigence of white unions to equal opportunity for blacks, but to drive a wedge in the Democratic coalition. After his Philly PLan had began working its wedge magic, Nixon specifically struck an ANTI Affirmative Action stance, charging Dems with being quota-happy and stoking white counter-reaction, particularly in the South. Almost every credible scholarly history on this specific topic shows this. See for example- Yuill, K, 2006. Richard Nixon and the Rise of Affirmative Action. A shrewd politician, Nixon’s gambit paid off, and is still profitable to this day for the white right.

    The real correlation is with higher social class, whose interests are with immigration because affluent liberals are made more affluent by immigration, as I said the upper classes despise the lower orders and being a stupid overpaid overweight manual worker is the ultimate insult for the chattering classes, as shown in the poster Peter wrote about. High IQ working class people are not in favour of immigration.
    Agreed in general. But high IQ working class people do not dominate society to the extent that high IQ liberals do- from the media, to corporations, to government, to education. Many HBDers tout high IQ, but what is ironic is that higher IQ types are disproportionately represented in the liberal column, along with some other things undermining traditional values. High IQ volk for example not only tend to lean more liberal, but on the average are more atheist, or non/anti religious. (Zuckerman 2013).

    • Replies: @Sean
  96. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sam J.

    So then anti-anti-racism is anti-non-white, right? The anti-anti-racists do not ask the same of whites that they ask of non-whites. If every one is equal then it would follow that you have to ask the same of all the different races. Anti-non-whites don’t do this. They criticize non-whites being in Europe. They don’t criticize whites being in the western hemisphere.

  97. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Respectfully, I think most of you are debating this wrong. What you’re facing is forced race replacement in All white populations and Only white populations. Everything your debate opponent says is in justification of this unjustifiable policy.

    Start with a mantra like the one posted in post #10. Then nearly anything your opponent says can be met with:

    “Is that how you justify genocide?”

    If they debate the term genocide, you can point out that forced mass immigration and assimilation into Tibet is called genocide. If you end up spending too much time getting the word to stick, or it’s censored, or you aren’t comfortable with it yourself, just say:

    “So you support forced race replacement in All white populations & Only white populations, but want to quibble over the semantics?”

    No sane person would ever try to justify this in any non-white population. The more you debate, the more you seemingly accept the premise that targeted race replacement is a plausible policy. It’s not.

    Also, non-white anti-whites are just doing what’s normal and advancing their ethnic interests at your expense. White-skinned anti-whites usually either hate white people or have a personal interest in this anti-white system. Either way, you’ll never convince them, so there is no point in trying. The more successful strategy is just to show the frustrated White & Normal mass audience how to debate this successfully, and to introduce anti-antiwhite terminology and memes into the debate.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  98. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Peter, it’s nice to see you voicing your views in an increasingly clear and uncompromising way. One of those rare cases where tenure does something good.

  99. Bill P says:

    …whites pioneered the preferential treatment patterns of “affirmative action” for almost 2 centuries prior to the 1970s.

    -Enrique Cardova

    Come on now, Enrique, you can’t seriously believe that favoring one’s own kind was invented only 200 years ago by Americans.

    Do you think the rest of the world were holy equalists who treated everyone the same regardless of what tribe they were from?

    That reminds me of those Jehova’s Witness pamphlets where the lion is hanging out all buddy buddy with his pal zebra while everybody takes a walk in the park with Jesus.

    As for your dismissal of high IQ working class people as irrelevant, keep in mind that affirmative action (the real kind I mean — not the imaginary one mentioned above), has been kicking more and more whites down the stairs to the working class. This means that there is a growing number of high IQ whites in the working class, and you may eventually discover that this will matter quite a lot more than was anticipated.

    • Replies: @jack shindo
  100. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous

    Respectfully, I think most of you are debating this wrong.

    They’re not debating it wrong. They’re being intellectually dishonest. They can’t consistently base their position on your line about genocide while ignoring whites being in the western hemisphere. Ultimately they’d have to base it on really the only grounds available: ethnic interest. And that’s not something they’d like to do publicly, at least not for the time being. Either because they’re deceiving themselves and or trying to deceive others.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @silviosilver
  101. @iffen

    Cracker, you’re being an idiot. IC’s point was very simple to understand. If the more intelligent breed at a higher rate than the less intelligent then median intelligence shifts rightwards. (Or as he put it, today’s median would, in such circumstances, shift leftwards.)

    None of the above in any way obviates a concern for how well or poorly the bottom 10% of a putatively “improved” population fares.

    It would be much easier to respond to you less scathingly if you stated upfront what your real fears and doubts are.

    • Replies: @iffen
  102. Marc says:
    @Simon in London

    @Simon in London

    The alliance of the New Left with Big Business certainly is more complicated, but it may be more apparent in America than elsewhere. Every corporation I’ve worked in uses precisely the anti-racism ideological legitimizing that this article describes, and which was developed by the New Left. Of course for Big Business, like their Green/Environmental initiatives, the adoption is motivated by tactical market calculations, but the acquired New Left/anti-racism style ideology becomes indiscernible from true belief when the agents are so shallowly motivated. Anyone who thinks critically outside the paradigm can see that corporate anti-racist mantras are a thin veneer leaving open to display the fact that all the top talent remains mostly white men, who are merely trying to protect themselves by adopting the politically correct views.

  103. conatus says:

    My two bits:
    YT is always scurrying around trying to avoid the shadow of racism.
    Talk all you want to, write all you want to, draw as many verbal distinctions as you can think of but all non YT accusers will never let you out from under that shadow. They have to keep you stepping back in guilt to maintain their power.
    Just give up and say “Yeah I agree with Ave Q, Broadway musical, “Everyone’s just a little bit racist.”

    http://www.songlyrics.com/avenue-q/everyone-s-a-little-bit-racist-lyrics/

    That is ‘everyone’ and ‘little bit’
    Forget the nuances, yeah ‘everyone’ and’ little bit.’

    And this is what i mean by racism:
    It seems to me that the definition of racism has expanded greatly over the years, first being used to describe race based Birmingham ‘separation’ regulations back in the sixties and now it has expanded to mean even noticing race, but especially if you are white. David E.M. Thompson said, “Racism was once defined as behaviors – what people did and what they said.
    Racism is now defined as an attitude – what people think and how they feel.”

  104. iffen says:
    @silviosilver

    Thanks for the offer of help with my idiot problem.

    I doubt that the top 10% are making decisions that are good for me.

    I fear that I am correct.

  105. Sean says:
    @Enrique Cardova

    “Courts recognized that merely saying “please stop” was meaningless and initiated goals, timetables and quotas for making whole the damage done to the white unionists (Sowell 2004, 1975).”

    The San Francisco General Strike, Auto-Lite strike and Minneapolis general strike of 1934 could not have been suppressed by ” preferential treatment patterns” (ie beatings) of white union men by police, hired goons and vigilantes then.

    “Nixon specifically struck an ANTI Affirmative Action stance, charging Dems with being quota-happy and stoking white counter-reaction, particularly in the South.”

    You are not seriously saying, are you, that whites could not have noticed that AA was explicitly anti white without Nixon saying the Democrats were taking it too far?

    Nixon (unlike Goldwater) did not oppose civil rights, and he won, then he integrated white schools. Whites had nowhere else to go because Democrats were always going to be worse than Republicans.

  106. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Anti-racist Hitler” video, made by BUGS:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz2kTbMIzs4

    Note the references to the infamously hate-filled, anti-European Barbara Spectre and Sarkozy speeches.

    Imagine if Hitler forced mass immigration and assimilation into Israel. Would it be called diversity, multiculturalism, antiracism? Or would it be called genocide?

  107. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Ridiculous.

    What is your position then? Because whites are in America, therefore we must force mass immigration and assimilation into every white population and Only white populations? You want to justify a Current genocide using history?

    Do you spend your nights reading history to determine who should be where, and who to get rid of next?

    Under what circumstances would you justify forced mass immigration and assimilation into, say, Japan? Let me guess: none.

    And where in your fanatical hatred is concern for what’s good for the Indians? Do you want everyone except Indians out of America? Why do you keep inviting more “thieves” to this “stolen land”?

    You start with the premise of “we must get rid of white people because…” and look for any excuse to justify your hate.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  108. BILL P SAYS:
    Come on now, Enrique, you can’t seriously believe that favoring one’s own kind was invented only 200 years ago by Americans. Do you think the rest of the world were holy equalists who treated everyone the same regardless of what tribe they were from?
    Not at all Bill. Just saying that the notion of AA, or more accurately preferential treatment policies, as Thomas Sowell calls them, is very much a white thing in the US, and its outlines, in such things as court cases and quotas, originated with white people, namely white union members. Keep in mind too that modern AA race quotas, as they took shape in Nixon’s “Philadelphia Plan” were something initiated also by WHITE people. Credible histories of the subject show that there was really no clamor of black leaders on the late 1960s for head count quotas. In fact black leaders, and even prominent Dems, in the late 1960s SHIED AWAY from quotas. It was white Nixon that pushed quotas as part of his cynical racial wedge strategy.
    See Univ of Mi graphic below:

    As for your dismissal of high IQ working class people as irrelevant, keep in mind that affirmative action (the real kind I mean — not the imaginary one mentioned above), has been kicking more and more whites down the stairs to the working class. This means that there is a growing number of high IQ whites in the working class, and you may eventually discover that this will matter quite a lot more than was anticipated.
    You are completely wrong. AA has had little to do with economic declines of white people. This is simply the usual nonsensical, oft naive “HBD” propaganda. That decline has many causes. AA is very far down on the list. Crumbling white families and divorces for example are an ongoing trend since the 1970s and have nothing to do with any AA quotas. The shift away from blue collar manufacturing that hurt white employment is something long underway and has nothing to do with any AA quotas. You have to start analyzing things in depth. I recommend you read conservative Thomas Sowell’s hard-hitting exposes of AA. Sowell is a fierce OPPONENT of quotas, and one of the striking things he shows about quotas is how little they have to do with overall or general black progress. Black employment, income gains, college attendance, home ownership etc etc were all on the upswing BEFORE AA quotas of the 1970s. Civil Rights Act of 1964 definitely helped in these gains, but the CRA congressional deliberation and that of its sponsors specifically REJECTED quotas, and the positive trends noted above were already moving even BEFORE the CRA.

    Sowell shows that while a minority of already better off blacks saw some benefit, especially in government, most blacks did not need, nor did they rely much on any quotas to advance. The neutral GI Bill for example in the 1950s sparked a boom in black college enrollment as it did among many white returning veterans. This was long BEFORE quotas. The booming post-war economy lifted all boats in addition, and did much, much more to advance black incomes and employment than any AA quotas. And I don’t dismiss high IQ in the working class. I only say that higher IQs are concentrated in those of higher social class, on the average, and these higher IQ types tend to be on the average, more liberal, atheist, etc etc, as various HBD writers have shown.

    Frost argues that the some debate is often phoney, because the better off elites are playing all sides, racism, anti-racism, etc, controlling the game, while a flurry of phony debate dominates the zone below. I have to agree in part. Thus for example the elites push for more immigration or legalization, while at the same time erecting barriers that ensure THEIR interests are protected from any negative consequences. Hence they may erect numerous zoning controls to restrict housing supplies ensuring that the unwashed mass of immigrant or minority types are priced out of tony white suburbs and schools. They may also push for various public power seizure of land that poor people live on for so-called “re-development” and “urban renewal”- using state power to dispossess the lower income so they can gain valuable urban properties for higher end gentrification and profitable development benefiting the more affluent. While minorities have been hardest hit, old line white ethnics have also suffered on this score.

    Elites may rail against “sweatshop” conditions in Third World venues, but they are busy snapping up luxury designer goods and gadgets made more cheaply in those venues, or they are shifting investment monies and production offshore to these “terrible sweatshop” locales. HBDers may rail against “the liberals,” but it is allegedly more “conservative” corporate types that are also in part responsible for incentivizing illegal immigration in their quest for cheap labor. It was these same corporate types that manipulated, pushed and profited from the fraudulent mortgage boom, and when the balloon popped they got bailed out- some walking away with nice bonuses, and none of the top bigwigs saw any jail time. Allegedly “conservative” politicians are also part of the game. They will push all the right buttons to get right-wing/Tea Party votes, but once these are sown up and they are in power, its business as usual. In short Frost’s piece would warn us that we are being played in many ways, and that some of these debates raging in the zone are ultimately phony. Controllers of the game sit back, and are probably laughing.

  109. Sam J. says:

    “…#97 Anonymous
    says:
    January 8, 2015 at 3:12 am GMT
    @Sam

    “…So then anti-anti-racism is anti-non-white, right?…”

    No. The anti-Whites want to obligate the Whites to their viewpoint/power. The anti-anti-Whites do not wish to obligate the anti-anti-Whites they want to be left alone.

    “…The anti-anti-racists do not ask the same of whites that they ask of non-whites. If every one is equal then it would follow that you have to ask the same of all the different races…”

    Wrong again. Everyone is not equal. Whites wish to be left alone. We leave them alone they leave us alone.

    “…Anti-non-whites don’t do this. They criticize non-whites being in Europe. They don’t criticize whites being in the western hemisphere…”

    Wrong again. If you believe that Whites are not criticized for being in the western hemisphere then you haven’t been paying attention. As for the Anti-non-whites not doing this we’re busy. Do it yourself.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  110. SEAN SAYS:
    The San Francisco General Strike, Auto-Lite strike and Minneapolis general strike of 1934 could not have been suppressed by ” preferential treatment patterns” (ie beatings) of white union men by police, hired goons and vigilantes then.
    The examples you give are of general union strikes. I am not talking about those, but rather of the fact that modern AA quotas with their remedies for discrimination began as a measure benefiting white union people in the 1930s who were being discriminated against because of union membership.(Sowell 1975). Courts imposed remedies, having recognized that merely saying “please stop” would do little to deter corporate bosses or compensate white unionists hurt by the bosses discriminatory actions.
    It should be noted that white unions are among the biggest, most vicious opponents of merit and equal opportunity where blacks are concerned. There were several strikes for example that forced companies to fire good black workers, people who had been on the job for decades, so whites could take over their slots. White union goons also murdered black workers because they were employed in so-called “white only” jobs. This continued on into the late 1940s. The ugly history of the railroads shows such things in stark detail.

    You are not seriously saying, are you, that whites could not have noticed that AA was explicitly anti white without Nixon saying the Democrats were taking it too far? Nixon (unlike Goldwater) did not oppose civil rights, and he won, then he integrated white schools. Whites had nowhere else to go because Democrats were always going to be worse than Republicans.
    AA as noted was a white thing to begin with. AA never began as anti-white. iT began as a measure, for which there was the white union precedent, of forcing white unions to live up to their rhetoric about “fighting for the working man”, and to cease their openly racist practices. By 1969 when Nixon was in office, many of those practices, such as separate seniority lists for black workers to ensure they never moved up beyond a certain point, were illegal. Nixon was within the law in getting unions to cleanup their act. Even then, unions dragged their feet for years and found ways to water down provisions, such as tokenism. BUT, Nixon also saw quotas as a shrewd way to split the Dem coalition of labor, Jews, and blacks. Every credible history shows this. So while he pointed to his Philly plan as “fighting discrimination” his broader purpose was a racial wedge strategy, and indeed, having himself implemented the major quota plan, he turned around and argued loudly about the unfairness of quotas.

    Nixon got to play it both ways. He knew unions would drag their feet, and obstruct and delay. But he also knew his quota plan would expose their racist practices, anger blacks and liberals who saw them, and drive a wedge in the Dem coalition. It would also “signal” white Southerners that he really was on their side and bolster rising GOP “backlash” prospects in the South. In this white Nixon was successful, and his cynical calculus is profitably used by the white right to this day.
    Frost’s article invites readers to look beyond phony surface debates and grasp the deep game being played. Nixon’s gambit is one of those deep games. Liberal elites are also playing a number of deep games as well, many of which operate under cover of supposedly “helping” blacks but in reality are nothing of the sort- they are mostly benefiting themselves, and other white agendas. Corporate elites likewise may speak patriotic language, while undercutting the home volk in their search for cheap labor.

  111. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous

    I think people should base their positions on good, honest, consistent reasons, like being pro-white or favoring certain ethnic interests, not on reasons that aren’t, like being against the genocide of the indigenous, which isn’t tenable as long as the western hemisphere and other regions are ignored.

  112. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sam J.

    Right, so then the anti-anti-racists are anti-non-white. The anti-anti-racists do not ask the same of whites that they ask of non-whites. They criticize non-whites being in Europe. They don’t criticize whites being in the western hemisphere.

    • Replies: @Sam J.
  113. @Anonymous

    Ultimately they’d have to base it on really the only grounds available: ethnic interest. And that’s not something they’d like to do publicly, at least not for the time being. Either because they’re deceiving themselves and or trying to deceive others.

    That’s quite likely true. I suspect that many of the most ardent advocates for white rights probably do clandestinely harbor a “white makes right” view of life, such that if the most innocuous of their demands were met they’d very quickly up the ante and issue a new set of more problematic demands and so on.

    Nevertheless, if that’s true of some of them it’s not necessarily true of all them. And it wont’ do to use the fact that it’s true of some of them in order to obfuscate the bottom line reality that whites really are being screwed out of any kind of a future. Whites are told they simply must submit to racial extinction. If “genocide” is too strong a word for that to your way of thinking, then feel free to nominate less emotive term that still gets the point across.

    The general reaction at this point is to claim that whites aren’t being race-replaced, that it’s all some kind of illusion, and the end point of the process is definitely not racial extinction. However, the moment that line of argument becomes untenable – ie as soon as it’s demonstrated that it’s clearly wrong – the exact opposite line is taken: yes, it’s all true, whites are being race-replaced but the process has gone too far and there’s nothing that can be done about it. My question is this: is it really so far-fetched to describe this kind of behaviour as “making excuses for white genocide”?

    I can understand that the language used here can have a jarring effect since today’s western culture vehemently insists that whites have no racial interests – in fact, whites supposedly don’t even exist – but ask yourself how the excuse-making behaviour described above would sound in a cultural environment which rejects claims that whites have no racial interests? Something to think about.

  114. Bill P says:

    You are completely wrong. AA has had little to do with economic declines of white people. This is simply the usual nonsensical, oft naive “HBD” propaganda. That decline has many causes. AA is very far down on the list. Crumbling white families and divorces for example are an ongoing trend since the 1970s and have nothing to do with any AA quotas.

    -Enrique Cardova

    Not true, Enrique. White males were the first group to see slower job growth and lower labor force participation in the early 1980s, right at the beginning of the shift away from an egalitarian society. This is because affirmative action started to be implemented in a meaningful way right at that time.

    Pushing women into the workplace was also a result of affirmative action, and that had a negative effect on marital stability for non-elite whites. Affirmative action has been a net negative for whites, and liberals often gloat over our reduced status, saying things like “white men are enraged because they are no longer ‘privileged’” (as though the white working class ever was).

    Affirmative action has had real, negative effects on non-elite white males, and that was by design. You may deny this, but it is universally unpopular with these non-elite whites. Is this because they are all stupid, ignorant, inbred rednecks as the anti-racist left would have us believe? Are they suffering from mass delusion? Were they fooled by aliens? Or the Republicans (who simply exploited white resentment of Democrats who sold them out)? No, they aren’t really that stupid. They know that affirmative action is against their interests.

    Sure, elite whites supported it from the beginning. Republicans wanted women in the workforce during the Eisenhower administration. Democrats fought that hard for a while, and women mainly voted Republican until the 1970s (today’s gender gap is a reversal from those times). Saturating the labor market has always been capitalists’ goal, and women and minorities were seen as convenient tools for that.

    Sure, it sucks for minorities that white men opposed immigration and didn’t want their jobs opened to others circa 1960, but they were looking after their and their families’ interests, and they comprised about 90% of the population. Maybe you think that’s evil. I think it’s pragmatic, just as Cesar Chavez thought it was pragmatic to keep immigrants from taking farm workers’ jobs in California back in the day.

    And frankly speaking, blacks as a group are incapable of creating the kind of society that can support the industry and lifestyle whites built in the US, and that was and continues to be a widely known (although seldom admitted) fact. Contemporary Detroit is a sad testament to this inadequacy. So white workers felt that they deserved to share in the wealth created by a white society without the threat of replacement by cheaper labor, and rightly so. Is it fair that blacks should benefit from the society that made white industry possible while the whites who formed its bedrock are cast aside and forced to pay the bills for the problems created by black failure to conform to it? Maybe you think so, but for the white working class it was an enormous betrayal, yet a triumph for thieving elites. Remember: white industry was stifled in the slave society of the American South, and that’s what motivated most people to vote for Abe Lincoln — not Harriet Beecher Stowe and her quaint little fantasy.

    As long as the white majority was steadily accumulating wealth this situation could be tolerated, but all that has changed, so white priorities will change as well. It’s as sure as the sun setting in the west. Maybe there’s nothing we can do about it, and we’re destined to live a lifestyle approximating that in Jalisco or – heaven forbid – Port au Prince, but that isn’t what we want, and we have every right to try to prevent it.

  115. anon • Disclaimer says:

    @IC

    “In a pure darwin world, individual with bad alleles and combination should perish or have low reproductive success; the health and evolution of species depending on such process.”

    The problem with that is where genes are both good and bad. For example sociopath genes may help individuals become one of the 1% within a society but a society ruled by a 1% with no sense of stewardship isn’t going to survive imo.

  116. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @jos'more

    Just to correct you on Africa (and this is not a country by the way): Africa is estimated to reach 1.069 billion people in the year 2014

    http://www.worldpopulationstatistics.com/population-of-africa-2014/

  117. SILVIO SILVER SAYS:
    Nevertheless, if that’s true of some of them it’s not necessarily true of all them. And it wont’ do to use the fact that it’s true of some of them in order to obfuscate the bottom line reality that whites really are being screwed out of any kind of a future. Whites are told they simply must submit to racial extinction. If “genocide” is too strong a word for that to your way of thinking, then feel free to nominate less emotive term that still gets the point across.

    Laughable pablum. White people aren’t being “replaced” by any stretch of the imagination into “racial extinction.” And who says that there is some sort of sacred “percentage” of America that HAS to be white? What is this “holy number”: 70%? 80%? 90%? Where did this “holy number” come from, and who says it is supposed to be enshrined in stone for all time?

    And what you convenient seem to forget is that white people themselves are failing to reproduce- it is they who are sowing the seeds of their own extinction. Where is this “conspiracy” of minorities “forcing” white people not to reproduce? What? “Gangsta” rappers or “eternal” Jews roaming the white suburbs preventing white people from having sex and making babies? Puhleeze..

    The reasons for white failure vary- such as the increasing white embrace of homosexual culture including “gay” marriage that undermines traditional family mores, the rise of white feminism that bashes men and continues that undermining in some ways, and the rise of white male “slackers” who have pulled back from their responsibilities, especially in the face of white female gains and power. All these things have been put in place by white people, not minorities. These trends have been much discussed by white conservatives and liberals. Amazon groans with books on them. No one is “forcing” white people into these trends. They are heading down that road of their own volition, with their eyes wide open. It is of course much easier to blame “evil minorities” than to face the reality. The “white genocide” meme is standard “stormfront” propaganda.

    I can understand that the language used here can have a jarring effect since today’s western culture ve1emently insists that whites have no racial interests – in fact, whites supposedly don’t even exist – but ask yourself how the excuse-making behaviour described above would sound in a cultural environment which rejects claims that whites have no racial interests?

    Equally laughable. Who says whites have no racial interests? They have always had racial interests, and indeed one of the key founding factors of America was white racial interests. It is enshrined in parts of the early US constitution for example. Everyone, even liberals, recognizes that white have racial interests. What the game is today is that white don't want to appear too OPEN about it, as they were in the days of Jim Crow. OPEN racism eventually backfired on white people because it exposed their hypocrisy, and their hypocritical claims to virtue, merit, democracy and such. That hypocrisy became an international issue during the Cold War, as the Soviets had a field day twisting the knife. This is one reason some Civil Rights concessions were granted, to remove the embarrassment of white hypocrisy being exposed.

    Today’s white game is one of “plausible denial.” They don’t want to appear too OPEN in pursuit of their interests, preferring a soothing propaganda front of multicultural pablum, and stirring words about merit and togetherness etc. But behind the scenes, whites are pursing their own racial interests with vigor and never ceased to do so. Whites may proclaim bold commitments to “diversity” and so on, but behind the scenes enact policies that serve to price minorities out of various venues, ensuring that there is in reality, trivial “diversity.” Or they may boldly denounce “affirmative action” for the culluds, while quietly steering “affirmative action” policies that help white women. Anti-racist whites have long seen through the cynical game, as have many blacks, as have clear-eyed libertarians like Thomas Sowell.

  118. BILLP SAYS:
    Not true, Enrique. White males were the first group to see slower job growth and lower labor force participation in the early 1980s, right at the beginning of the shift away from an egalitarian society. This is because affirmative action started to be implemented in a meaningful way right at that time.
    Bill, your point that white males have seen slower job growth and labor force participation is accurate. I agree. But the data shows that AA has little to do with this trend. For one thing, the white decline is heavily a product of a shift away from manufacturing, into the service economy. This is a trend in place since the 1960s, accelerating into the 1980s. AA has very little to do with this. Even HBD favorite Charles Murray in his lament for white America “COming Apart” notes the trend. Let me quote him:
    “High-paying unionized jobs have become scarce and real wages for all kinds of blue-collar jobs have been stagnant or falling since the 1970s.” (Murray, Coming Apart)

    Pushing women into the workplace was also a result of affirmative action, and that had a negative effect on marital stability for non-elite whites. Affirmative action has been a net negative for whites, and liberals often gloat over our reduced status, saying things like “white men are enraged because they are no longer ‘privileged’” (as though the white working class ever was).
    I don’t dispute that AA has had an impact for white women, especially in government influenced sectors, and liberal dominated bastions like colleges. You are correct. But keep in mind that the economic expansion of WW2 brought a lot of women into the workplace, and the shift away from manufacturing to services also brought a lot of women in. As far as the volume of women pouring into the workplace, AA is minor. The upward trend was already underway before AA quotas kicked in.

    Also keep in mind that the 1980s was a time of retrenchment. Under the Reagan regime, AA compliance oversight was rolled back, and government agencies like the EEOC had their budgets cut, developing a backlog measured in YEARS. Far from the 1980s being a surge time for AA, it was a time of retrenchment.(Kayley and Dobbin 2005). Your notion of a 1980s AA boom doesn’t stand up to the facts.

    Affirmative action has had real, negative effects on non-elite white males, and that was by design. You may deny this, but it is universally unpopular with these non-elite whites. Is this because they are all stupid, ignorant, inbred rednecks as the anti-racist left would have us believe? Are they suffering from mass delusion? Were they fooled by aliens? Or the Republicans (who simply exploited white resentment of Democrats who sold them out)? No, they aren’t really that stupid. They know that affirmative action is against their interests.
    I see your argument to some extent, and yes some non-elite white males have suffered. But the impact of AA quotas has been small. AA was pitched as a way also to help the poor blacks. But in fact it has done little for them and rather helped those already better off, or better positioned. But all credible data shows that AA quotas has had little to do with the decline of non-elite white males. They were already on the downslope with the decline of manufacturing and union jobs- ongoing since the 1970s. Non-elite white males have also lost out because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 opened up numerous “protected” or “reserved” jobs to open competition. White employers found they could get equal or better black labor, cheaper than the white union people they had to earlier employ. This opening up of previously “off-limits” jobs is not AA quotas, but standard equal opportunity door opening endorsed by both liberals and conservatives.

    In SOME cases yes, AA did hurt non-elites, but the overall impact is small, compared to the much larger economic trends that have hurt non-elite white males. One study of govt contractors with AA between 1974 and 1980, for instance, Leonard (1984;1990) [Leonard, Jonathan, "Impact of Affirmative Action on Employment, Journal of Labor Economics, etc] finds that among contractors black male employment rose from 5.8% to 6.7, an unimpressive .9 percent, LESS than even 1%- rather trivial. In the same study whites fell from 58.3% to 53.3%, an equally unimpressive 5%. But in firms not covered by AA, white employment STILL dropped anyway from 44.8% to 41.3% and black employment still rose anyway from 5.3 to 5.9%. In short, the black gains under AA were a minimal 1%, and were unimpressive compared to blacks without AA who moved ahead anyway. Without AA there were still black gains.

    The overall picture is of AA having a minimal or small impact. Without AA involved, the white guys were STILL on the downslope. AA made little difference to the white overall trend. Indeed credible studies of “reverse discrimination” show that it has had little effect on whites. (Blumrosen 1996). This is contrary to the standard HBD propaganda line of vast numbers of white jobs being lost to “quotas for blacks”. Such claims are fantasy.

    But let me ask you- what sort of policy prescriptions would you put in place to reverse the trends you see?

  119. Sean says:

    Early American slaves were often white, early breeding of slaves was done by mating white indentured laborer women with African slaves. Back then hardly anyone (no Catholic or Quaker) was free as we understand it today. It think it is increasingly believed by academic historians that the 13 colonies rose against what they saw as a papist plot: religious liberty for Catholics under the Quebec act. Slavery was extremely controversial from the beginning of the USA, but there was a cotton boom and the best land was malarial, which meant the more malaria-resistant Africans were required. That caused a war by whites against whites for blacks that virtually destroyed the South. You seem to think that was nothing remarkable, yet it is a powerful counter example to the thesis that whites were running the country to benefit themselves. The worst thing that happened to free blacks after the Civil War was the eradication of hookworm, which had given them a powerful advantage over white farmers, who were less resistant to the disease.

    The Republican party in Chicago is an admittedly extreme example, but when Republican Big Bill Thompson narrowly won in 1927 he got 93 % of the black vote. ( Of course he had Capone’s men bombing the polling stations in his opponents strongest wards and killing umpteen voters, few of whom were black I suspect.) But the point is Thompson had Italians and Blacks voting in a block for him because he favoured them. I don’t doubt working class whites tried to opposed blacks using political muscle to take scarce jobs. The fact remains blacks had the vote because whites had fought a civil war among themselves

    There is not a single instance of Nixon or anyone speaking for him even implying he would oppose civil rights, or much less doing anything against civil rights legislation. Indeed, once in power he actively brought in affirmative action. And everyone knew what AA and busing meant for whites. The working class whites in places like Boston were completely helpless.

    It is massively stretching words to say Nixon or the Republicans pursued a ‘strategy’ of taking white votes away from Democrats in the South . A strategy involves more than just noticing you are going to get a windfall for some reason unconnected with anything you have done or said you would do, because whites had nowhere else to go.

    Barry Goldwater had opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964,; and the net effect was to not to increase his support nationally, which made it obvious the reservoir of potential extra support that could be tapped by a strategy of appealing to white southerners by attacking civil rights for blacks would have came at an extremely high cost had Nixon tried to use it. Whatever his motivation, the fact is Nixon did not try a ‘southern strategy’, and Goldwater’s example suggests the strategy simply did not exist as an option for anyone who wanted to win the country.

    Lee Atwater: “Reagan goes out and campaigns on the issues of economics and of national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference. And I’ll tell you another thing you all need to think about, that even surprised me, is the lack of interest, really, the lack of knowledge right now in the South among white voters about the Voting Rights Act.“

    (2013 “The majority [in the supreme court] held that the coverage formula in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, originally passed in 1965 and most recently updated by Congress in 1975, was unconstitutional. The section determines which states must receive preclearance from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington before they make minor changes to voting procedures, like relocating a polling place, or major ones, like redrawing electoral district).

    Can’t say that was not about racial power, but the white Southern voters were never even aware of it. Black are not a majority and so what they have has been given to them by whites. Yes, once upon a time there was vicious treatment of blacks in America but that was not stamped on very firmly indeed by the majority white state . However the judicial rationale originated, AA was in truth and in fact anti white measures by a white society. No one forced them. What has been a majority white thing is legal protection and privilege of people simply on the basis of their race. (ie AA for people who were not even Americans) . White people are the only people who have come up with ideas like that and put them into practice to their own detriment.

  120. Sean says:

    “White people aren’t being “replaced” by any stretch of the imagination into “racial extinction.”

    They will cease to be majorities in every major western country in about 50 years. Nothing can stop that now.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
  121. RW says:
    @Svigor

    Svigor It may be true that there is more room for HBD on the right, but creationism is a mismatch still. It is not ideal.

  122. Sean says:
    Slavery was extremely controversial from the beginning of the USA, but there was a cotton boom and the best land was malarial, which meant the more malaria-resistant Africans were required. That caused a war by whites against whites for blacks that virtually destroyed the South. You seem to think that was nothing remarkable, yet it is a powerful counter example to the thesis that whites were running the country to benefit themselves.

    I agree that the mass production of things like cotton, which was one of the key drivers that made the US rich required slaves to do that work. True. And yes, I would agree with some conservative arguments that the North, which so often lectured the south was complicit in slavery, as indeed some books like 2005′s “Complicity” show. New York for example became the commercial and financial capital of the US early on partially through the massive cotton trade. In short, BOTH the white North and South reaped handsome profits and wealth from the slave economy.

    The white South went to war to preserve that profitable state of affairs. Some say it was “state’s rights.” But what was the key “states rights” that was at issue? Slavery. No revisionist arguments can get around this central fact. Some argue that the North didn’t care about blacks but wanted to preserve its industrial and commercial hegemony, and that meant crushing an independent south. This may be true, but again, what was the key issue making up that hegemony? The wealth created by slavery which the North also coveted. So both areas benefited from slavery, and the bottom line of the war was slavery.

    The worst thing that happened to free blacks after the Civil War was the eradication of hookworm, which had given them a powerful advantage over white farmers, who were less resistant to the disease.
    This statement makes no sense Sean. If hookworm alleviated the suffering of free blacks and made them healthier, how would this be the worse thing that happened to them? These positive outcomes are actually the opposite. In any event hookworm eradication campaigns in the south after the Civil War benefited whites as well.

    The Republican party in Chicago is an admittedly extreme example, but when Republican Big Bill Thompson narrowly won in 1927 he got 93 % of the black vote. .. The fact remains blacks had the vote because whites had fought a civil war among themselves.
    Prior to the Civil War most northern states prevented blacks from voting. After the Civil War the withdrawal of northern troops from the south enabled most southern regimes to crush black voting rights for almost a century. The north didn;t really hurt its head over that.

    There is not a single instance of Nixon or anyone speaking for him even implying he would oppose civil rights, or much less doing anything against civil rights legislation. Indeed, once in power he actively brought in affirmative action. And everyone knew what AA and busing meant for whites. The working class whites in places like Boston were completely helpless. It is massively stretching words to say Nixon or the Republicans pursued a ‘strategy’ of taking white votes away from Democrats in the South .
    Dubious. You merely offer personal opinion. But every credible history of the Nixon regime shows the opposite of what you claim. In fact Nixon did deploy a “southern strategy” and actively courted white voters using “coded” appeals, and, while racist unions stalled and delayed, actively developed the cynical racial wedge plan using “affirmative action” as the wedge.
    See Univ of Mi graphic below:

    Barry Goldwater had opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964,; and the net effect was to not to increase his support nationally, which made it obvious the reservoir of potential extra support that could be tapped by a strategy of appealing to white southerners by attacking civil rights for blacks would have came at an extremely high cost had Nixon tried to use it. Whatever his motivation, the fact is Nixon did not try a ‘southern strategy’, and Goldwater’s example suggests the strategy simply did not exist as an option for anyone who wanted to win the country.
    Wrong again, for the reasons listed above. And in fact Goldwater’s “southern” gambit did yield some traction, and his campaign saw an increasing shift of white southerners to the GOP, even as blacks started to swing Dem. Nixon did not use open racist appeals like George Wallace, and seemed more friendly towards civil rights. Nevertheless he continued Goldwater’s outreach approach using “coded” racial appeals.
    It was a shrewd double game. He knew racist unions would stall, delay and sandbag his quota plan, but he rammed it down on them, knowing also it would bring them into conflict with other Dem coalition members. At the same time quotas themselves would cause friction with Jews, and indeed they did as some Jewish liberals in time became prominent opponents of quotas. Nixon then turned around and argued against the unfairness of quotas, thus gaining white southern support. It was a master stroke by tricky Dick.
    Lee Atwater: “Reagan goes out and campaigns on the issues of economics and of national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference. And I’ll tell you another thing you all need to think about, that even surprised me, is the lack of interest, really, the lack of knowledge right now in the South among white voters about the Voting Rights Act.“
    Reagan was not racist compared to Fabus and Wallace. But his campaign did use “coded” racial appeals- whether it be invoking stereotypical “welfare queens”, or “states rights”. Naturally his campaign denied any racial angle, but the game of “plausible denial” and “signaling” certain white constituents was well understood. Reagan’s administration followed up by rolling back EEO enforcement mechanisms and oversight, and cutting the EEOC budget to skeletal levels. Books such as “The Rise of Southern Republicans”, 2010, or “Dog Whistle Politics”, 2013 give numerous detailed examples. Lee Atwater of course would never OPENLY admit the game. What politician would?

    However the judicial rationale originated, AA was in truth and in fact anti white measures by a white society. No one forced them. What has been a majority white thing is legal protection and privilege of people simply on the basis of their race. (ie AA for people who were not even Americans) . White people are the only people who have come up with ideas like that and put them into practice to their own detriment.
    AA was never an anti-white policy. As noted before Nixon cynically used AA quotas as a knife to split the Dem coalition. It is true that by 1969 a lot of the practices of white unions were illegal, such as separate black seniority lists to route black workers into dead end slots, or the limitation of apprentice pipelines to white friends, buddies and cronies, so few blacks could not get a toehold on the skilled job ladder. Nixon correctly told the unions to clean up these abuses, and tired of their stalling, imposed the quotas of the Philly Plan on them. Where years of appeals failed, hard numbers talked. But Nixon also turned that to advantage as credible studies show, and used the situation to split the Dem coalition- divide and conquer.
    Furthermore, quotas were stalled and sandbagged using a variety of devices from the get-go. Some workplaces went the “tokenism” route- hire a few blacks to make a lawsuit go away and prevent the lawyers from digging too deeply into racist practices. Others used bureaucratic sleight of hand to end-run lawsuits and consent agreements by promoting huge numbers of whites into certain job slots or eligibility lists, thus clogging the pipeline for years so very few blacks moved up. Lawsuit after lawsuit in the 1970s revealed all these shenanigans, as did government investigations. Whites in turn also filed numerous lawsuits to block and sandbag quotas, and often succeeded. The Adarand and Croson decisions from over 20 years ago for example, gutted so-called contract set-asides. Bluntly put, the reputed vale of tears and suffering for white people under “cullud” quotas is bogus.

    And where quotas did go into effect they were quickly expanded to cover white women, and in time, the bulk of the beneficiaries of quotas became white women. White conservatives could thus rail against “the culluds”, even as their white daughters, girlfriends and wives ultimately reaped most of the benefits. Whites also found lots of ways to game the system, such as using bogus “minority” front men. The rich white Fanjul family in Florida garnered huge benefits by using a “Hispanic” angle, as did white Portugese businessmen in Washington DC for several years (Sowell 2004). In short, white people have served themselves well using AA quotas. They just like to disguise the game.

  123. SEAN SAYS:
    [White people] They will cease to be majorities in every major western country in about 50 years. Nothing can stop that now.

    Maybe. The main problem is that white people refuse to reproduce themselves at replacement level. They are going into the “gay” thing, including “gay” marriage- thus downgrading traditional family mores and relationships, and both white men and white women are delaying marriage, even as white females gain more power and influence. An immigration freeze will only delay this trend. Some look to white Russia for salvation, but while white Russia, which still has the highest abortion rate in the world has shown recent gains in birth rates, the overall forecast is still down-sloping.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/white-deaths-outnumber-births-for-first-time/2013/06/13/3bb1017c-d388-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html

    Some cynics say that whites always have to option of expanding the “whiteness” category, much as was done with the Irish and Italians, who at one time in America were not considered to be of “good white stock”. Whites they argue can always go the “mestizo” route, as is done in South America. In scenario, a mixed “mestizo” group- of whites, Hispanics and Asians assumes a middle position, but whites, as in Brazil and other parts of South America, remain on top. In this way, white supremacy is still maintained.

    Furthermore, whites even as a minority are a majority of voters, and gain by having entitlements paid for my youngr minority populations. QUOTE FROM ARTICLE:
    In California, we roll our eyes at this,” he said. “Whites have been a minority here since 1999. But whites are still a majority of voters. Babies don’t vote. Older people vote. So it doesn’t have any direct functional meaning.”

    But Frey said the natural decrease in whites suggests that aging whites will increasingly come to rely on the younger, mainly minority population to underwrite social programs that will sustain them. “Last year, we saw the majority of babies are minorities,” he said. “Now we see more whites are dying than being born. Together, that tells us a lot about where we’re going as a country.”
    ———————————
    Hence some critics say, given that whites have this option, and can still remain on top, even as a minority, what are they complaining about?

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    , @Sean
  124. @Sean

    That’s not strictly true, not even of America. Immigration restriction could even now, at this late date, delay a loss of majorityhood for a few more decades. That would be a very welcome development, even if it still left a number of very important issues unresolved. What do the Enrique Cardova’s of the world have to say about immigration restriction, I wonder? Apparently he is able to acknowledge that whites have racial interests – at least in the abstract. But translating those interests into actual policies? My guess is: no way, Jose – whites are on this earth to cater to the desires of other races, not to pursue their own.

  125. @Enrique Cardova

    Hence some critics say, given that whites have this option, and can still remain on top, even as a minority, what are they complaining about?

    It’s not about “remaining on top.” It’s about securing long-term racial existence and enjoying the fruits of positive racial identity, even if that means no more than escaping the predations of anti-white racial blocs (such as of blacks, to cite the most notorious example).

  126. RW says:

    Peter I’ve seen you mention the marriage patterns of northern Europeans from the 12th century onward in a couple of your articles. Do you have a source you could point us towards for more reading on that. Thanks.

  127. Sean says:
    @Enrique Cardova

    You say whites are venal and have looked out for whites while shaping the system for their own ends. And they will continue to oppress the other people in the country as a minority. So whites are like the high caste in India basically. White moral principles are to do whatever they want, insofar as it suits their purpose of white supremacy.

    You don’t seem to think there has been any actual decline in white influence. Now you are raising the spectre of the current developments as a prelude to an Apartheid state where a white racial minority will be in control in perpetuity,. That is really sick, and proves you don’t give whites credit for the explicit anti racial moral principles that are almost universally espoused by actual white human beings, especially the ones in positions of power. So, assumed by themselves to have an aim of retaining control of societies that they are clearly not acting to retain control of, and condemned by themselves as greedy even as they are giving everything away. Game over.

  128. SilvioSilva says:
    My guess is: no way, Jose – whites are on this earth to cater to the desires of other races, not to pursue their own.
    This seems naive. The record of history shows the opposite. Even assorted “diversity” initiatives have some agenda that benefits whites, if only to provide a handle for additional government controls, manna for the white left, or excellent rhetorical racial talking points for the right. And the “diversity” thing quietly incorporates white women, ensuring that whites benefit on the back end anyway. As Derbyshire notes, reputed “colored” issues are frequently used as stalking horses in the cold war battle battle between white factions. Whatever the exact configuration, or phony debates, its primarily a white game.

    It’s not about “remaining on top.” It’s about securing long-term racial existence and enjoying the fruits of positive racial identity, even if that means no more than escaping the predations of anti-white racial blocs (such as of blacks, to cite the most notorious example).
    But it is about remaining on top. That’s the uh, bottom line. And who says long term racial existence and positive racial identity isn’t preserved even with a smaller white population? Even the “South American” mestizo solution, for all its subtle gradations of color coding, still has white as the highest value.

    And a smaller white population can still run the game, and do, using the minorities to white advantage. The aging of the white population for example will require increasingly younger minority bodies to help meet future subsidy payments for that aging population, not to mention adding to overall output. California’s whites lost their numerical majority in 1999, but they are still the majority of voters. All those illegals and their kids don;t vote. So the game is still controlled by whites. In longer term, the “mestizo hierarchy” option still remains available to whites, not to mention plenty of presence in other, less populous states. The mestizo hierarchy model still means white racial identity and existence. Once adjustments are made for inevitable demographic change, whites are still comfortably situated well into the next century and beyond.

    One critical area of course where whites can always help themselves is reproducing at replacement levels. However white trends show a failure to to this increasingly- there are white shifts towards “gay” alternatives, “gay” marriage, more white feminism, more delay of marriage and childbearing, and less white respect for traditional family and moral strictures. These are long term white trends ongoing since the 1970s. And they are seen not only in the US but in other white nations as well. Supposed Aryan “role models” in Sweden circa 2000 for example had more than half their births out of wedlock. In the US non-college white women now post about the same 50% out of wedlock rate. Both are way higher than the black OOW rate that stood at around just 20-22% in 1960 (Sowell 2005).
    As far as abortions, white Russia posts the highest rate in the world, killing two white children for each live birth. White broken families are a trend also going back decades. In 1965 there were about 480,000 divorces. A decade later this had climbed to one million and increasing. The same pattern is seen in other mostly white countries. “Mexican illegals” or “ghetto blacks” are not to blame for these white trends. They are long standing patterns, that in some cases have been embraced and celebrated by whites. Reducing the flow of illegals at the border may slow the numerical growth of minorities, but will not fundamentally reverse these longstanding white trends.

    Some pin their hope on a rise in white “racial consciousness.” But aside from some short term publicity and political gains, this too is dubious in the long term. Whites ALREADY have plenty of racial consciousness. They just are not as OPEN about it as in the past, and have adopted more sophisticated “plausible denial” strategies. But the bottom line remains. They have mostly segregated themselves off from assorted darker minorities- hence schools for example while more mixed than in the past, overall in many areas remain just as segregated today as in the days of Jim Crow. Affirmative Action has been a sick man corpse for over a decade- gutted by white opposition and co-optation.

    Intermarriage rates are likewise unimpressive, and only appear significant because the numbers are starting from a very low base to begin with. The impact of interracial marriages is mostly felt in MINORITY communities not white ones. Black-white marriages for example only make up LESS that 1% of all marriages- a laughably trivial number. And as Razib Khan notes in his piece on white genetics, white Americans are overwhelmingly European to an incredibly high degree for a population with roots on this continent for 400 years. Hysterical propaganda about “genetic annihilation” is laughably bogus. In short, it is an open question whether another round of racial “consciousness” will do much to reverse the white trends noted above.

    • Replies: @iffen
  129. iffen says:
    @Enrique Cardova

    You lose. After all this verbiage, you start talking about Aryans.

  130. Sean says:

    “the US simply could not impose the vicious JIm Crow regime on Chinese that it had on blacks”

    ” the US had to temper its racism when dealing with Japanese and could not institute the
    total, vicious Jim Crow that it imposed on blacks”

    “right wing propaganda pieces displaying a stereotypical, brutish minority juxtaposed
    against a cleaner more virtuous white.”

    According to Enrique, white society is morally bankrupt , even when they are going to war with other whites for the benefit of blacks. You always return to that idea idea that whites never are in the right. You have not given them credit for a single moral act. You are denying any actual decline in the power of the white community. And you NEVER accept that whites communities are anything but evil. I brought up AA and you say whites were the beneficiaries. I brought up the civil war you say the “bottom line of the war was slavery”. You will never ever give whites any credit. . Whites are helpless in the face of this moral critique you are parroting and that is why whites see themselves as ‘stereotypical, brutish minority juxtaposed against a cleaner more virtuous non-white.

    BTW you completely misunderstand that 200o paper of Jablonski; she doesn’t say white skin appeared late, she said humans’ skin lightened as soon as they lived at high latitude. That is now known to be wrong. And blacks are more resistant to hookworm, just like whites have adapted to other selection pressures. No one is to blame for people having useful adaptations because of a particular evolutionary history, not even whites.

  131. Silvio said:
    Now you are raising the spectre of the current developments as a prelude to an Apartheid state where a white racial minority will be in control in perpetuity,. That is really sick, and proves you don’t give whites credit for the explicit anti racial moral principles that are almost universally espoused by actual white human beings, especially the ones in positions of power. So, assumed by themselves to have an aim of retaining control of societies that they are clearly not acting to retain control of, and condemned by themselves as greedy even as they are giving everything away.
    Not at all actually, and I did not speak of any apartheid as regards the “mestizo hierarchy” option. The old apartheid days are long gone. The “mestizo hierarchy” gambit clearly will have a “mixed” group and more flexible racial arrangements- BUT, white will still be ranked on top. This is the situation now in several South American countries.
    And I specifically say several times that today’s white game is one of subtle cover and “plausible denial”. This is obvious. Anti-racists have long noted that OPEN racism and OPEN apartheid is no longer fashionable, but behind the scenes, white racism is alive and well. Ironically, many HBDers seem to agree with them on this point, and indeed, see racism as a good, justifiable thing.

    As regards giving whites credit for anti-racial moral principles, I already SPECIFICALLY noted the positive contributions of many white anti-racists above, but you sweepingly condemn all blacks as an “anti-white racial bloc”, which is completely untrue and easily contradicted by credible history. There are SOME “anti” factions as among any other groups, but this is a minority among blacks. Most for example, supported Martin Luther King and his civil rights campaigns.

    Furthermore many HDEers, or sympathizers sneer at white anti-racism, or efforts to extend to blacks full rights enjoyed by other citizens. They mock it as weakness, and sneer at even the minimal efforts to basic decency that some whites sought to guarantee their fellow black citizens- the right to vote, the right to participate freely in free markets, the right to be treated equally before the law, etc. Indeed some prominent HBDers say they would ROLL BACK back or revoke even minimal basics- like the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Convicted felon and HBD favorite Dinesh Dsouza for example advocates just that in his book “The End of Racism.”

    According to Enrique, white society is morally bankrupt , even when they are going to war with other whites for the benefit of blacks.
    But did whites really go to war for the benefit of black people? Many HBDers and assorted “southern heritage” types say NO. They never tire of arguing that the Civil War was not for the benefit of blacks. Indeed people like Sailer point out that Lincoln wanted nothing more than to ship “the black problem” back to Africa, and indeed dragged his feet on the Emancipation proclamation, and indeed ensured that said Proclamation only applied to the white south, NOT the supposedly more enlightened North. His observations are accurate. The Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave. Lincoln did not apply it in the white north where he had the power to do so.

    You always return to that idea idea that whites never are in the right. You have not given them credit for a single moral act. You are denying any actual decline in the power of the white community. And you NEVER accept that whites communities are anything but evil.
    Not at all. I gave credit to white anti-racists above, and ordinary whites who fought against Jim Crow. But as already noted, many HBDers embrace racism- terms vary- “natural racism” and “rational racism”- or whatever- but their bottom line is clear. In fact HBDers sneer at whites who seek to give the black man a better deal. They dismiss for example the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and indeed would revoke it. Heaven forbid that there may be a black man 2 tables down eating his hamburger in peace. Indeed most HBDers mostly see whites as paragons of virtue and goodness- and they justify or excuse racism and all kinds of atrocious behavior on the part of whites as “natural” or “based on evolution.”

    HBDer Jared Taylor for example specifically promotes a brand of “natural racism” as good and proper for whites. He is coy in his public phrasing for different audiences, but the conclusions are obvious. White people prefer their own kind he says, therefore, the American apartheid state dismantled in the 1960s and 1970s was actually a good thing. It was fine, and indeed natural and rational for white America to deny black people the vote, block them from getting a decent education, oust them from jobs, pay them less for the same work, give them inferior public services, etc etc. Underneath the polite phrasing and “coded” appeals, the white HBD bottom line is clear. White anti-racists have broken the “coded” talk and have brought it out into the open. For that they deserve credit.

    I brought up AA and you say whites were the beneficiaries. I brought up the civil war you say the “bottom line of the war was slavery”.
    But it is a fact that whites in many instances ARE the beneficiaries of AA, and I spell it out in detail above using the data of CONSERVATIVE scholars, like Thomas Sowell. And as for the Civil War, yes, the bottom line WAS slavery. Dude, this is History 101.

    BTW you completely misunderstand that 200o paper of Jablonski; she doesn’t say white skin appeared late, she said humans’ skin lightened as soon as they lived at high latitude. That is now known to be wrong. And blacks are more resistant to hookworm, just like whites have adapted to other selection pressures. No one is to blame for people having useful adaptations because of a particular evolutionary history, not even whites.
    Actually Jablonski says no such thing. She doesn’t say human skin lightened as soon as they lived in high latitude. She notes that skin lightened as an adaptive change to differing levels of UV radiation. Obviously this would not be an immediate or instant change, as people moved from the tropics to higher latitudes with less UV. And yes, I agree with you that as a result of resistance built up in tropical locations, Africans are on the average more resistant to hookworm, just as whites as a result of higher latitudes had to adjust to less tropical zone level radiation. But you said:
    ” The worst thing that happened to free blacks after the Civil War was the eradication of hookworm, which had given them a powerful advantage over white farmers, who were less resistant to the disease.”
    Which again, doesn’t make sense. The blacks were ALREADY MORE resistant than white people. The ALREADY had the advantage. But even then hookworm was still a serious health problem, for BOTH blacks and whites. How then could it be a bad thing for hookworm to be eradicated? Lives were saved by hookworm eradication, including more white lives. If anything the eradication of hookworm was actually of more benefit to white people.

    • Replies: @Major Problem
  132. This comment thread is unreadable. Pity. Is there no moderation? What entitles one to hijack a comment thread on somebody else’s blog? How distasteful and uncivilized. .

  133. Galtonian says:
    In order to evade being labeled as EVIL RACIST SINNERS, many Race-Realists have tried to pretend that they are not actually RACISTS, but this not true because according to accepted dictionary definitions even if one merely believes that there are important innate differences between ethnoracial groups then one is a racist.
    Indeed, and unlike those who have nothing substantive to say, you make a good point. Many whites on a whole are STILL “race realists” – they just don’t want to be seen as OPENLY racist, for that undermines their claims to moral goodness and virtue. HBDers themselves recognize this. Jewish HBDer Weissberg for example specifically advises today’s white racists to downplay the snarling redmeat racism of the past, and go for a more subtle, muted racialism, using coded language, “plausible denial”, and various covers, drawing upon the inherent or latent racism of today’s whites. It is a shrewd strategy that is the order of the day among leading figures. Unfortunately, anti-racists keep messing up the game by exposing it to a wider audience, as their many books demonstrate. By the way believing there are innate differences between ethnoracial groups does not make one a racist. It is the MISREPRESENTATION and DISTORTION of those differences, as to their detailed content and cause, and use of said MISREPRESENTATION and DISTORTION to disparage and attack other ethnoracial groups, that makes one a racist.

    Christianity, particularly Protestantism, has always been rather left-wing in the sense that it has been anti-hierarchical.
    A fair assessment, but being anti-hierarchical is no monopoly of the left wing. Conservative Protestantism in some cases has also been very anti-hierarchical. Indeed, such Protestants in many ways were the wet blankets, the killjoys- insisting on such stuff as salvation by faith rather than cash pressure on the palm, or dampening the free wheeling sexual fun and corruption enjoyed by the some of the friars and monks, and heavens, criticizing the elaborate Catholic hierarchy. And conservative Protestant “temperance” types have also been active in social and charity work among the downtrodden, despised, and the underdog. Straight-laced conservative Protestants were and are responsible for numerous missionary endeavors among the less favored in society, including the United States, where they were important in establishing schools for black ex-slaves after the Civil War.

    The new Western secular religion now professes pious belief in the absolute innate equality of all people and peoples. The inculcation of these sorts of beliefs about equality are also attractive to Jews because now Jews are no longer seen as being excluded from the religion of the majority Christian population.
    Fair enough and this is supported in part even by Black nationalist Malcolm X, who noted that the same minimal civil rights measures for blacks, also benefited people like Jews who were better positioned to take advantage of opportunities. But a belief in the innate equality of all peoples is nothing new, and did not begin with the new Western secular religion. In fact, such beliefs were espoused by white churchgoers long before, who in later centuries became the vanguard of an influential Abolitionist movement, which in turn was influential, after a long period, in getting slavery to be abolished. As credible histories such as Adam Hochchild’s “Bury the Chains”, or conservative Thomas Sowell’s analyses show, slavery in many ways was quite profitable. The Christian Abolitionists did not triumph in isolation, but still achieved a remarkable victory over not only some forms of racism, but the greed that made the slave system run.
    Consequently the new Atheists and the new secular-Christians/Jews profess to believe that everyone is innately equal and that Racism is the absolute greatest sin. The Dark Enlightenment refers to the modern mainstream Western EQUALITARIAN mindset as “the Cathedral”; this makes perfect sense because the pro-multicultural antiracist viewpoint is indeed the new religious doctrine of the West.
    Your substantive observation, if one is honest, is a reasonable one on some counts. Said mindset has become a fashionable mantra, and has been used as a weapon to bash traditional mores and Christianity. It could be added though that a belief in the equality of all peoples did not begin with the new Atheists or secular Jews and liberals. Certain branches of Protestantism have centuries past strongly advocated for the innate equality of people, and in some eras were successful on the basis of this argument- the Abolitionists for example.

    It is easy to new secular religion of left-liberal EQUALITARIANISM believes that racism is WRONG, but they see this as “wrong” in the moralistic sense of “right and wrong” (i.e. racism is evil and sinful) but not really “wrong” in the scientific true/false sense of being untrue . Most left wing whites.. but they see it as a great sin to openly acknowledge these facts
    Another solid argument, unlike those who have nothing to say, can add no value, and don’t understand the key issues in the anti-racism meme. OPENLY is the operative word. Some express a naive bafflement that white people will not crank up a bold “race consciousness” campaign or prepare for “racial war.” But most white people are eminently practical. They already got things sown up. Why stir up another hornet’s nest, or fierce pushback from the “culluds”, when a “down low” racialism gets the job done much more quietly and effectively?

    They are already comfortably well off. They have mostly segregated away from the “NAMS” in schools and housing with plenty of police power to suppress any problems. Interracial marriages are trivial, and even in their biggest manifestation (Hispanic-White) numbers are small, and are not often immediately recognizable to the casual white observer, who in any event can do nothing about them, and has no interest in butting into other people’s business. And even when a minority as in California, whites are still the majority of voters. Who needs an open, snarling “white power” campaign, when white supremacy is well in hand? Why stir up another round of turmoil from “the culluds,” when most are not really focused on white people or their whiteness, but are simply ordinary people focused on going about their daily business?

    Peter Frost notes that the left wing has incorporated anti-racism as a means to pursue numerous agendas. He is correct. Hence for example, the proponents of “gay” marriage use the language of anti-racism to stifle or sidetrack serious debate. But I think Frost could have added that anti-racists these days are themselves getting frustrated by the reluctance of white people to jump on the “anti-racism” bandwagon. Leading anti-racists express this frustration time and time again, noting that discussions of race among white people, even white liberals, are often sidetracked, muffled, censored or passed over in silence. The book by prominent anti-racist Edward Bonilla-Silva, “Racism Without Racists” goes over some of this in detail. Even white liberals are increasingly tired of the anti-racism meme and want to change the subject to something more soothing.

    It is sometimes claimed that the anti-racists have massive power- almost totalitarian control of universities, the media, government etc etc. But leading anti-racists themselves say quite the opposite. Again and again they are not just stymied by conservative white reluctance to buy what they are selling, but even by lack of enthusiasm from white liberals for the subject, and their tendency to sidetrack or muffle “open” discussion of the narrative. They also are frustrated by “gestural” behavior- such as some celebrity saying something about whiteness- but it is merely a trendy gesture- as said white celebrity quickly returns to their gated communities and lily white suburbs and schools. In short, anti-racists, despite publicity given to a small cadre of individuals, ain’t getting the massive traction people claim they are getting, even from liberals.

  134. @Enrique Cardova

    Well, Enrique, one thing seems very clear: You are terrified of what Peter Frost has to say.

  135. Sam J. says:
    @Anonymous

    Anonymous
    says”
    January 9, 2015 at 6:32 am GMT
    @Sam

    Right, so then the anti-anti-racists are anti-non-white. The anti-anti-racists do not ask the same of whites that they ask of non-whites. They criticize non-whites being in Europe. They don’t criticize whites being in the western hemisphere.”

    No what this means is you speak with Jew tongue or Hasbara tongue. The general principle of Jew tongue being to confuse the issue as much as possible.

  136. Sean says:

    “She notes that skin lightened as an adaptive change to differing levels of UV radiation.”

    Jablonski said white skin was an adaptive change to increase vitamin D synthesis at north European levels of UVb radiation. It is now established that white skin did not appear until over 10,000 years after humans had first entered northern Europe. See The brown man with blue eyes.

    “”But it is a fact that whites in many instances ARE the beneficiaries of AA, “

    You have cited white women getting affirmative action. White women got rights generations after black men had been given them. It is not obvious that once the rationale for affirmative action (correcting historical disadvantage) is accepted, women ought not to be given affirmative action just because they are white.

    Whites as a people are willing to make big sacrifices to help members of disadvantaged groups Your standard of moral uprightness requires withholding help from white individuals for no other reason than their race. You are arguing, in effect, that an individual’s whiteness outweighs all other considerations to make them without merit.

    The “white HBD bottom line is clear”.
    If HBD was influential in the white-majority societies of the west you could say that it appealed to something in white psychology. But it isn’t influential at all.

    ‘UK Prime Minister David Cameron has paid tribute to the former South African President Nelson Mandela, … Mr Cameron said that “one of the brightest lights of our world has gone out”. He described Mr Mandela as “not just a hero of our time, but a hero of all time.”‘ Cameron also said “Half a century ago, the amazing courage of Rosa Parks, the visionary leadership of Martin Luther King, and the inspirational actions of the civil rights movement led politicians to write equality into the law and make real the promise of America for all her citizens.” In the USA politicians espouse the same views about MLK. Sarah Palin said “May his dream become reality”. John McCain and George W Bush were no less effusive.

    Politician say whatever they think will be popular, espousing mild HBD in the style of Nicolas Wade is not something any mainstream politician will do. HBDers are willing to say that there are adaptations which can make a people more successful than others (like resistance to hookworm did for blacks). As whites possess an particular evolutionary history, genetic adaptation can explain their particular type of success. If white masses wanted to hear this message they would get it, but they prefer eulogies to black nobility. So there is no explanation for the relative success of whites that is considered mentionable. That leaves only one explanation: whites are guilty of unjustly oppressing non-whites. The received wisdom of white society is whites are blameworthy, as you never cease telling us.

  137. I’m confused as to why you are calling the consensus on anti-racism phony: isn’t the consensus that anti-racism is just a code word for anti-white?

  138. Sean,
    There actually is no “consensus” that anti-racism is a code word for anti-white, save in the usual right wing propaganda pools. Anti-racism that rejects or downplays the OPEN racial discrimination, murder, etc of the past is actually quite acceptable to most white people, which is why assorted “race warriors” and ex Ku Kluxers like David Duke don’t get elected. Even David Duke these days shies away from the OPEN “white supremacist” label in the general media, just as most white Americans do. Unlike certain HBDers or sympathizers, most white Americans have no interest in rolling back or revoking the Civil Rights Act of 1964, nor do they wish a return to the apartheid system of Jim Crow celebrated or justified by said HBDers. Nor do they show much stomach for OPEN racist appeals,or activities. Most white people today are eminently practical and realistic.

    They know that the time for OPEN racism has passed, and in practical terms, such OPEN racism is too much trouble and hassle. The racialism of the past would not fly these days- it would provoke too much fierce pushback from “the culluds”, who are no longer the patient, silent sufferers of the yore. White people have run the numbers and have chosen the realistic course. Who needs another draining round of media battles, lawsuits and street protests? And the racialism of the past is bad for business on top of that. These days boycotts and pressure tactics can be very effective in the new Internet age, and can damage a company’s reputation AND sales nationally and internationally virtually overnight. Mere “politically correctness” does not stop white corporations from OPENLY refusing to hire black people- lost sales will.

    Furthermore, just as in the Cold War, white people want to appear, good, just and virtuous, rather than evil. This is not something that suddenly sprung up with “political correctness” in the 1980s, as right wing mythology has it. As early as the 1940s and 1950s one sees the Truman and Eisenhower administration concerned about white America losing face overseas because of its racial policies. During the Cold War white people sometimes had to grant Civil Rights concessions to maintain their stance of virtue, and non-hypocrisy. Numerous credible scholarly studies document how the Cold War and Civil Rights interacted like this- see Mary Dudziak’s Cold War Civil Rights book for example.

    THis was long before “political correctness” became such a big meme in the 1980s. In the 1950s, Eisenhower, a man much criticized as too slow on Civil Rights by the NAACP etc, to demonstrate that the “leader of the Free World” was not filled with mean-spirited racists, and to further US interests and influence in securing various military basing and commercial concessions in the Third World, invited perplexed non-white diplomats to the White House after they were rudely turned away and insulted from Washington DC businesses. Even in a purely American internal matter, like the Little Rock crisis, Ike made sure that his decision to send troops to protect integration was internationally broadcast in 43 languages on Voice of America, just so people around the world knew knew the United States was not filled with rabid white racists. Ike was quite frankly embarrassed by mean-spirited white behavior- like spitting on little kids. Note this was a Republican president in the 1950s, not “politically correct” college campuses or media of the 1980s.

    The Kennedy Administration, was likewise hit with numerous incidents involving African diplomatic officials. President Kennedy himself made a personal appeal to Maryland civic leaders to cease and desist from segregation in motels, hotels and restaurants to bring an end to such incidents. The US State Department even called on realtors in Washington D.C., to lighten up on their discriminatory practices in the nation’s capital, which was creating ugly diplomatic situations when bemused non-white foreign diplomats and officials tried to do normal business in the erstwhile “leader of the Free World.” Asian and African diplomats could go to Bonn, Paris or London and conduct normal business like other people, but was soon as they arrived in America, “the Leader of the Free World” they were treated like dogs. Secretary of State Dean Rusk was to write: “the biggest single burden that we carry on our backs in our foreign relations in the 1960′s is the problem of racial discrimination here at home.” (Klarman 1994)

    In short, any notion that anti-racism is a product of the 1980s, 90s and 2000s that somehow “made white people look bad” is sheer rubbish. White people made themselves look bad decades before, and responsible white officials at the highest levels recognized this, and moved to correct it. Anti-racism as being opposed to OPEN manifestations of racism is not at all unreasonable to most white people, and both Republican and/or Democratic presidents, going back to the 1940s, also show this. Anti-racism becomes unpopular when it begins to point out the hidden, covert or “under the table” racism that has replaced the open variety, and when it becomes a handmaid of the Left to push more extreme leftist agendas. Hence “gay” marriage or lifestyle boosters use the language of antiracism to stifle or sidetrack in-depth, open debate or criticism.99

  139. Sean says:

    Europeans possess an particular evolutionary history and genetic adaptation can explain their particular type of success, but they prefer to believe otherwise; you can’t reasonably assert that they are secret racists without evidence. Not even the mildest HBD explanation for the relative success of whites is considered tenable by any mainstream politicians, journalists or scientist, to the extent that one explanation (whites are guilty of unjustly oppressing non-whites) is implicitly espoused by the leaders of white countries. The pres and the PM (and Palin) are falling over themselves to say MLK and Mandela are their heroes. Obama got a Nobel prize before he had done anything. He was as unqualified as Palin, but elected pres by whites, basically as affirmative action over white female Hilary Clinton, because he is a black ( man) . What else could have made whites think him qualified to be pres but Palin unqualified to be vice -pres, eh?

    The relative success of whites is not explained by them via HBD explanations; that is only espoused in a tiny subculture. White people prefer to believe whites are guilty of unjustly oppressing non-whites; it’s received wisdom in white societies that whites are to blame. As you keep pointing out, whites have all the power, so white society is the way it is because whites want it that way, not because of any power non-whites have to defeat white prejudice by complaining about it independent of whites receptiveness to complaints about whites as such.

  140. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @Numinous

    Go ahead, which part of the article was wrong?

  141. @Sean

    Got back from Sweden last month and I was surprised at the foreigners working in the downtown area (Central Terminalen-bus/train hub). If I had blinked, I am sure that I was in Chicago or New York. And they spoke Swedish, no less!

  142. @Bill P

    But that is not what Mr Cordova is saying! The laws of the USA, prior to 1970 relied on the US Constitution to dictate winners and losers based on the preferences that were in force. How can that be unclear? Where is IQ when you really need it, kind sir. Your US laws dictated that the brown and black people could not go to school, get educated, or even vote. That is why you had the Civil RIghts Act of 196x! You can look it up as I forgot. It is one thing to have preferences but then it is obvious when you make those preferences into law. The evidence is there, obviously.

  143. @Stan D Mute

    I have observed the exact opposite of what you describe! Your IQ may be the best but you have failed to understand female psychology at its root. It is exactly those attributes that allow for the symbiotic closeness to occur. No doubt that in this modern society, if economic conditions are equalized then the more the merrier as we see with the alpha athletes of this great US sports champions. You have seen the movie about the white girl and her simian gegantic admirer!

  144. @Anonymous

    Since the high IQ stuff seems to be in vogue regarding responses, I will affirm it at will.
    I will assume you have a high IQ based on attributes that I cannot see but it is self evident based on your feedback, to wit, that racism as we know today, has come from one source only and that is from USA. I am sure you understand the words and the meaning. Even South Africa and Hitler stated at one time or another that their system was based on how USA treated its native Americans and the Negroes! US laws through the Constitution granted priviledges to the white Euro population while taking away those same priviledges from the African. It did not start that way but for certain purposes (economic) someone had to be the donkey, as it were. These laws were formulated for one purpose only and that was to designate winners and losers.

    Racism; the use of legal means to institute social order at the expense of one group (the simple definition. Pianist is one skilled through practice in the wizardry of the instrument through application of said skill. The same with a cellist but then you add racism and you will see that no native American, Asian, African descended person has passed laws in USA using the US Constitution in abrogating the rights of any white or Euro designated citizen. That just never happened. If it has then I am always willing to learn.

    There is no doubt that ignorance is an equal opportunity behaviour as those so inclined regardless of IQ will be touched by it since they made that choice, because of or in sspite of said IQ level

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Peter Frost Comments via RSS