Category: Race realism
The number of whites stands at 500 million. White women on average give birth to 1.4 children each. Not all of these children are white, and the number of white children born per white woman on average is 1.2. Very pessimistic assumptions, aren’t they?
Under the following assumptions, how long will it take to reduce the white population to 50 million, 10 million, 5 million and 1 million? If the extinction point is reached at 500 white people, how many years will this take? What can be inferred from this exercise?
At start, the age distributions are as follows, the birth and death rates remain constant throughout, only women between the ages of 20-40 give birth, and men and women are matched in numbers.
Age-Range | Percent | Death rate per 100k 0-20 | 20 | 300 20-40 | 40 | 150 40-60 | 25 | 500 60-plus | 15 | 5000
Most answers in this excel sheet (if you can’t open it, install the free and open source open office or libre office suite).
There was a public celebration in London today. You can study the crowd who made it to the gates of Buckingham Palace here (click on the redirect). They are only a small part of the million or more patriots in total, including many (equally white) tourists, who crowded central London. The capital’s racial minorities appear to be somewhat under-represented.
In this recently posted video Pastor Manning speaks about the nature of the African as no one outside of WN will. At times his frankness and his frustration are almost unbearable. One cannot help but feel sympathy for the man. His solution to the serial destructiveness of his own people, unsurprisingly, is to class it as an Original Sin from which only faith in the Almighty can deliver them. But sociobiology is not Original Sin. The conjunction of male assertiveness, impulsivity, poor moral apprehension, and a poor capacity to calculate the consequences of personal choices must have been producers of fitness in the Sub-Saharan evolutionary context. They were producers of human suffering too, of course. But Nature contains no aversion to suffering, human or otherwise. So in diaspore, in the context of other peoples existence, these characteristics remain producers of human suffering, and that suffering is not exclusively African.
One or two of the commenters in the thread to the video have picked up on the fact that:
As Europeans it isn’t our responsibility to exemplify the civilised for Africans to imitate or to suppress African nature in perpetuity and minimise thereby the costs to us in lost lives, lost genetic interests, and in hard cash. It is our responsibility to protect our own.
Thanks to Hugh for mailing me the link.
In carrying the story the Scotsman has done what none of the mainstream newspapers in England has so far been willing to do. It would be interesting to know how big a deal this is in Germany. The response from the Establishment is predictable. But what do ordinary Germans say about it?
Richard Dawkins is one of the most prolific writers and defenders of evolution and rational thinking. Still, I assumed from his books, speeches and articles that I am familiar with that he would fall into political correctness when it came to the issue of race realism. For anyone not familiar with Dawkins work, a quick overview at Wikipedia should convince all that he is a major contributor to the biological sciences.
I read his book in defense of evolution and his rebuttal of intelligent design: The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, (Richard Dawkins, 2009) and was pleasantly surprised that he seems to accept eugenics and race realism. Virtually every book I read that deals with the biological sciences, at some point, makes a short statement that dismisses any credibility in the notion that race is real or that there can be any heritable group differences between races in intelligence, behavior, criminal tendencies, etc. And Dawkins discusses how he once made a statement that the “intelligent design” crowd was able to use against him, so he is very aware of what he writes and “how” he writes about it. He is very aware of carelessly worded positions taken about sensitive issues.
by Alexander Baron
Recently, while doing some totally non-controversial research into contemporary music, I happened upon a website called 100GreatBlackBritons; I was led there by the name Phil Lynott. I was surprised to find his name on this site, because although I knew he was born in Britain, I have never regarded him as great in that context. I have been a Thin Lizzy fan since I first heard Whiskey In The Jar way back in the early 1970s, and have studied no less than three biographies of the man.
Phil Lynott was one of a kind, along with Rory Gallagher he is unarguably the most influential figure in Irish rock music. Thin Lizzy hailed from Dublin, and Lynott himself often claimed to be Irish born and bred. In March 1973, articles in Melody Maker and New Musical Express said he was born at Dublin and in the Irish Republic respectively; the former gave his date of birth as August 20 1951. In fact, Philip Parris Lynott was born in the Hallam Hospital, West Bromwich, the illegitimate son of an Irish Catholic teenager and a Negro civil servant. Although black, or technically half-black, he was totally assimilated, paying only lip service to his Negroid roots by writing a mere handful of songs with racial themes, mostly early on in his career. In his personal as well as his musical life he was surrounded by white people, and was totally accepted by them as he grew up between Manchester and Dublin. It is doubtful if he ever experienced racism, even if such an entity existed.
Although renouncing his British identity, Lynott was not in any way ashamed of it; he identified with Ireland for mystical reasons, primarily his fascination with Irish history and legend, which is reflected in many of his songs. This romanticising flowed over into his personal life; he liked to claim his father was a Brazilian seaman, but in January 1976, after rising star Phil and his band were featured in the popular weekly Titbits, Cecil Parris materialised. Rather than a character from an Errol Flynn film, he appears to have been more like Del Boy out of Only Fools And Horses. They did not meet again.
Phil Lynott was the archetypal rock star – live fast, die young. He succumbed to septicemia and multiple organ failure in January 1986, the result of his addiction to heroin. Although not the greatest bass player in the world, he was a competent rock musician, but his true strength was as a writer/composer. A lot of his songs, even the more commercially oriented, have deeper meanings, and to call him the High Poet of Irish Rock is no exaggeration. But was he a great man?
A new book has hit the bestseller list and is being promoted in every liberal nook and cranny imaginable. If one did a search on this book, and read the reviews, you would come away thinking that it was remarkable, insightful, and of intellectual merit. When I actually read it, however, it was incredible rubbish; not because I disagree with the conclusions, but because the author, Nell Irvin Painter, is simply an unintelligent Black woman. But the Left unashamedly promotes her book as if it had even a scintilla of redeeming value.
I saw Ms. Painter being interviewed by Stephen Colbert, where he mercilessly made fun of her while maintaining his liberal comedic bias—it was quite entertaining. But Painter, author of The History of White People, has been interviewed and reviewed by the more serious side of the anti-White establishment. Acclaimed for spending ten years researching and writing the book, she makes a mockery of Black scholarship—if that is not an oxymoron. In fact one only has to read the very beginning of the book and the very end, to realize that she contradicts herself repeatedly. The book makes no sense. It also struck me that she probably had read Noel Ignatiev’s How the Irish Became White and followed the same line of argument with slightly different material. The book was published in 2010, but it is apparent that she finished the book in 2005, just ten years after publication of Ignatiev’s anti-White screed.
In my review of the book Strange Fruit, I said I would expand on the question about whether any moral/ethical system can be justified, with reference to the book A Very Bad Wizard by Tamler Sommers, 2009. Sommers interviews nine scholars on the subject of morality and ethics. Following are excerpts showing how evolutionary psychology undermines any justification for a universal moral doctrine.
by The Narrator
The following text was written by Thomas Jefferson two centuries ago. The subject: blacks. His observations and conclusions look surprisingly fresh and modern in both the good and bad sense.
For example the first president of the Banana Republic of North America comes to mind when Jefferson states:
The existence of rap and hip-hop seems quite natural, as centuries ago it is observed that blacks:
Indeed the verdict is still out.
His most profound observation on them, though, is at the heart of why any kind of social/political/religious agreement or mutual understanding with them is impossible. He writes of them:
Most interesting of all though is Jefferson’s seeming moments of slipping into sentimental leftism that seems a habit of some Whites. For example, of black crime he writes (the very modern looking apologetic):
Of course, as their situation has changed much over the past two hundred years while their proclivity towards crime remained unabated, we can see the faulty conclusion of Jefferson’s appraisal. It’s his motivation for writing such that is of interest, though.
In his concluding sentence we can see the all too familiar appeal to religion and a murky notion of “social justice” as Jefferson writes:
Naturally that can also be read as a warning. Still it’s interesting to see Jefferson do what so many in our own time do in coming to a natural conclusion on the obvious differences in the races, yet flirting with the idea that he wishes it were not so and that it will one day, miraculously, go away.
Like so many Whites of modern North America, Thomas Jefferson makes reasonable deductions based on an abundance of study and observations on the undeniable and profound fact of the multitude of differences in the races, yet still wishes to imagine that it will all resolve itself in some egalitarian utopia at some unspecified future date under some mysterious bit of magical circumstance.
The text is interesting not in so much as it represents a mirror image of our thoughts as modern White Americans, but as more of an old home movie of how those thoughts used to look.
Here it is in full.
by Happy Cracker
Why is it that the glimpse of a related physiognomy opens so innocently the floodgates of affection? Why is so much of our ‘liking’ dependent on the face of the person we interact with?
I had a chance to ponder this last month, as I filled a temporary position working for a catering company, and interacting with several thousand party guests - each of whom I had to greet, make small talk with, answer their questions and hand them off to be seated. I myself was determined - regardless of the type of person I was interacting with - to be a non-stop fountain of charm. I did my best to smile as wide, and think as warmly of the other person as possible. This is a technique I’ve learned to convey the most positive image to the other person: think about them as warmly as possible. And although I am committed to the 14 words and the existence of my people, I don’t think giving lukewarm receptions to wogs is going to advance the white cause. So I did everything possible to beam charm at everything that came before my eyes. I looked into thousands of faces, always the same eye contact, and performed the same motions thousands of times.
What I discovered is that physiognomy reigns over us - pre-determining the trajectory of our interactions far more than we would like. There are secret stores of human affection whose access is restricted based on physiognomy - and these secret stores don’t represent gifts which one is conscious of, and thus eager to distribute fairly, but primordial feelings of liking, which spring up innocently from within us and are beyond conscious control. They are thus hard to quantify - it is even hard for people to recognize the subtle influence these feelings have on their dealings with others, in the case of people with limited introspection.
The Accusation of Racism
By Robert Reis
It applies to a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type.
“Racism” became part of the English vocabulary in 1936.
The 2007 edition of the WordWeb Dictionary defines “racism” as “the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races.”
“A Conspiracy of Silence”
On April 21, 1958, Time Magazine published the last known article to appear in America’s mainstream media stressing the extraordinary high rate of crime in America’s Negro community. [“THE NEGRO CRIME RATE: A FAILURE IN INTEGRATION” [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,810262,00.html]
The intelligence of presidential candidates and presidents is the topic of discussion during and after elections. And, it seems that the Left is more enamored with this question than the Right—the same people who deny that intelligence has any real meaning and that if we just got to know people they would all show the same cognitive abilities, but in diverse ways. “We are all equally smart” they will submit.
Along comes Sarah Palin, a nobody, according to the Left, but a popular governor in the eyes of Alaskans. They declare that she is “stupid” because she has not travelled outside of North America, she could not name Supreme Court decisions, and many of her interview questions seemed rehearsed, etc. Are these adequate criteria to formulate how intelligent a person is? I for one read a lot of books where court discussions are discussed, and I will remember the results while forgetting the name of the court decision. Not all intelligent people like travelling, especially those perhaps who enjoy outdoor sports. And of course she has had to be coached; her focus over the last two years has been on Alaskan issues, far away from the Washington scene. But as I suspect she is in fact quite intelligent, at least intelligent enough to be president where ideology is more important than raw intelligence. After all, she would be surrounded by advisors and experts, and her learning curve would be steep.
There are two factions that try to explain racial inequality: the equalitarians that deny any differences in the essence of different population groups such as average intelligence, conscientiousness, forethought, etc. and the Jensenist faction that studies heredity, twin studies, correlations between wealth and intelligence, etc. One is anecdotal and non-theoretical without any program to in fact test or try and disprove the theory—they are primarily dialogs about accepted oppression. The psychometricians however are grounded in statistical analysis; developing theories that rely on methodologies that can be disproven or verified based on observable outcomes and collected data. The two are worlds apart in applying the scientific method of narratives versus scientific empiricism.
Trepagnier, with “feminism, racism, and postmodernism” shaping her thinking, writes, “My goal in writing this book is to encourage well-meaning white people to reconsider their ideas about racism. The title, Silent Racism: How Well-Meaning White People Perpetuate the Racial Divide, suggests that concerned whites are implicated in racial problems, including the disparity between blacks and whites. The title also introduces the term silent racism, which raises the question: Why talk about silent racism? After all, if it is silent, how could it possibly matter? [T]he racist thoughts, images, and assumptions in the minds of white people, including those that by most accounts are ‘not racist’—is dangerous precisely because it is perceived as harmless. The silent racism in people’s thoughts, images, and assumptions shapes their perspective of reality. And a perspective that is shaped by racist thoughts, images, and assumptions—no matter how subtle they are—will produce behavior that reflects racist thoughts, images, and assumptions.”
An article not written by me that deserves wide distribution.
Postcard from Zinnlandia
I am on the MAX Red Line light rail car going from downtown Portland to the Airport. Some things socialists do better. Among them are public transportation, recycling, French poetry readings, yoga, coffee, artisan food and arthouse cinema. Would it that the counterscale were not so much more loaded.
Two hefty women in Birkenstocks and Nordic sweaters sit on the bench in front of me. They are either academics or lesbians or both. Portland is a babe magnet for this kind of babes.
Linda Chavez wrote an article in the June, 2008 issue of Commentary—the Neocon magazine—entitled Let Us by All Means Have an Honest Conversation about Race. She notes that fewer than 8% of Whites hold negative attitudes about Blacks, while other minorities hold more negative attitudes about Blacks. There is nothing new in this observation—anyone familiar with Kevin MacDonald’s work knows that Whites are the least ethnocentric, but also we know how to behave and be agreeable. Whites are subject to negative implicit attitudes but not explicit attitudes where we are more likely to conform to the diversity/multiculturalism/naïve environmentalism with regards to race.
Again, she points out that non-Whites have higher levels of tension between them than is present between Whites and other races. In fact, “a plurality of blacks would rather do business with whites than with either Hispanics or Asians.” (the poll conveniently left out Jews.) And later, “As against the 10 percent or fewer of American whites who hold negative views of blacks, the same mid-1990’s survey of intergroup attitudes cited above registered over three-quarters of blacks holding negative views of whites.” And yet she notes that Blacks would rather do business with Whites than with other minorities.
Warfare as waged by Sub-Saharan Africans is significantly more chaotic and excessively brutal than that which was known historically in Europe. In order to get a taste for what African warfare entails, I catalogued some passages from a 1999 Human Rights Watch report on the RUF’s massacre in Sierra Leone.
Some of the readership will wonder what connection this has to political theory or our situation in the West. Well, there are several, but let me suggest just one. We have to cultivate a more coarse, and less squeemish sensibility for all things. We have to be able to look every truth in the face, regardless of whether it’s aesthetically pleasing. This is a lesson in itself, to halt the recoil of aesthetic reflexes and digest the ugliness of the world without flinching and without conceptual cushioning. Don’t draw back into your Victorian or Edwardian citadel - these people now live amongst us. Let us, instead, look at them in an unflattering but not uncharacteristic moment, as they slay each other in their natural habitat.
Race in humans: A reply to the “Statement on Race” by the American Anthropological Association (AAA)
This is a discussion section for the race FAQ at the wiki, which presently doesn't discuss all the things that it should, but it will be periodically updated. Suggestions for improvement and criticism will be appreciated. If you offer criticism, stick to scientific issues, and you better have the requistive scientific background.
In 1984, Lewontin, Rose and Kamin wrote Not In Our Genes: Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature. I decided to read the book to see how the arguments fared after 23 years of additional research, argument and debate. As it turned out, even for 1984, the arguments against at that time primarily sociobiology were very weak by the authors own admission. That is they don’t argue against genetic influences and racial differences so much as against science itself.
They start out: “Each of us has been engaged for much of this time in research, writing, speaking, teaching, and public political activity in opposition to the oppressive forms in which determinist ideology manifests itself. We share a commitment to the prospect of the creation of a more socially just—a socialist—society. And we recognize that a critical science is an integral part of the struggle to create that society, just as we also believe that the social function of much of today’s science is to hinder the creation of that society by acting to preserve the interests of the dominant class, gender, and race. This belief—in the possibility of a critical and liberatory science—is why we have each in our separate ways and to varying degrees been involved in the development of what has become known over the 1970s and 1980s, in the United States and Britain, as the radical science movement.”
Realist at Inverted World now has a piece about David Duke. I was disappointed to see this, because per Realist’s comments in his first column I was led to believe he’d be outlining his censorship policies and hoping to get to poke fun at them. I’ll have to settle for a less interesting subject to poke fun at.
On a personal level I like Realist, he seems a good sort. That said, he seems to be out to lunch when it comes to logically supporting a position. The piece is basically a string of fallacies designed to discredit David Duke, and by extension, White Nationalism.
First he reminds the reader of why he created IV - because Amren wasn’t quite philo-Semitic enough for his tastes. Sure, Amren heavily censors the topic in moderating comments, but the occasional tepid criticism of non-Arab Semites was allowed through to sully the constant philo-Semitism and finally it became too much to bear. To make matters worse, Jared Taylor didn’t excommunicate Duke for his heresy at the last Amren conference.
Then Realist states his thesis:
They’ve got to be kidding. Is it just me? Or, is it obvious that Obama as VP would guarantee a Republican victory?
Couple of thoughts:
1) as a Stormfronter pointed out, Obama may be getting all the hype precisely because he’ll make an excellent punching bag for Hillary down the road.
Putting aside the not-so-rigorous question of why Auster (an ethnic non-Arabic Semite) has produced all Realist’s examples of acceptable criticism of non-Arabic Semites, I wondered why all such criticism must contain the disclaimer about sick and evil WNism, and invited Realist to stop by MR and comment. I’m genuinely interested in hearing what he has to say.
He cites Auster as having spelled out the differences between responsible and irresponsible criticism of Jews, so let’s take a look at Auster’s piece (again).
Update: Auster responded (see below).
Now THIS is an interesting topic. I’ve thought before about how racial reality impacts the demographics of fighter pilots in America, but I hadn’t even considered what a wonderful petri dish SA will no doubt represent as it forces “diversity” on itself.
Steve Jones, the professional professorial race-denier and friend to snails in and out of the Labour Party, has been guiding the insufficiently universalist Telegraph reader away from harmful thoughts.
Stevie-baby is an interesting case. All through his career he has exemplified the triumph of leftist politics over scientific integrity. But as the haplotype blocks relinquish their secrets it is becoming much harder for him to operate. These days he mostly confines himself to soft targets.
He first came to my attention in the late 1990s when BBC Radio 4’s “Today”, always keen for a bit of white-race baiting, regularly turned to him for expert wiseacreage. He was just required to mouth a few pieties, condemn racism and genetic determinism and kill off all complaint with a few forbidding words like “chromosome” and “mytochondrial”. The listening audience, presumably floored, was left to embrace the nearest wonderful human being in any skin colour but white.
It’s strange how memory dances around the detail, but I remember one “Today” interview from the late 1990s involving Jones the Gene and an expert, unusually, from the other side of the argument. The subject was the then-imminent effort to crack the human genome. I heard the broadcast while on the return leg of the morning school run. I can remember being caught in traffic in Seaford at the time - not an intellectually stimulating environment. But I was certainly stimulated when Our Steve’s opponent, whose name I do not recall, caught him cold with a straight right, “The race debate is over,” he said, “Our side is proved to have been right all along.”
Jennifer Gratz sued the University of Michigan in 1997 for discrimination because she could not attend the university, because preferences were given to minorities. In 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case that satisfied no one. The university could take race into consideration for the purpose of diversity but could not use rigid formulas to do so.
Since then, Gratz has been active lecturing on the unfairness of affirmative action, and now the public voted for Proposal 2 on November 7. It will amend the State Constitution to “outlaw consideration of race and gender in deciding which applicants get into college, who receives government jobs and what businesses secure state and local contracts.”
Now passed, Michigan will join California and Washington where similar measures passed. Ward Connerly, who helped pass the California initiative, plans to take the initiative to other states now that Michigan has joined. Not surprisingly, “Virtually every religious, political, business and civic organization in Michigan opposes the measure,” as well as both gubernatorial candidates. (Article from the Chicago Tribune, 10/19/2006.)
White Genocide Project
Also see trash folder.
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Endorsement not implied.
Nationalist Political Parties
Whites in Africa