Posted by John S Bolton on Wed, 05 Jan 2005 11:35 | #

Addressing points 2 and 10: It would be that nature has made us to start with hostility and suspicion towards outsiders, and such as would increase as genetic distance increases. The unseen outsider was a threat, that had to be detected also olfactorily from the beginning. It is known that women have this faculty of detecting genetic distance thus, and it protects against inbreeding depression. What is not widely known is that such a faculty is set against outbreeding depression as well. Losing the co-adapted complexes of genes, of irreplaceable value, is the outbreeding depression that racial interbreeding can easily be a further degree of. If this is not so, let science find one individual who can combine the highest genetic resistance to malaria and tuberculosis. The other points I must leave unaddressed just now.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 05 Jan 2005 14:38 | #

To be precise, John, it would be competition for resources.

I read a long post at gnxp today by David B on Hamilton’s Rule.  I have never understood the strangulating intrusion of mathmatics into primitive logic, when the logic is so plain.

Early homo sapiens would defend a water hole against competitors to the death, not for himself but for his family, extended kin and outwards - and he would do so because they would participate in the same defence and benefit him accordingly.  Cooperation beats individualism.  The cooperative survive to breed.

But resource limitations impose limits on cooperation viz-a-vis the number of benefactors.  Competition and cooperation are two sides of the same fitness coin.  The variable is not ethnic distance but the limitation of natural resources.

I would note in any case that the above ten points will seep into the public consciousness not directly because IQ measurements or h-bd are proven, but because the political right will pick them up and logic again, possibly even rather primitive logic, will do the rest.

In this regard the gnxp-ers and all the scientistic mob rather overplay their hand.  They are, though, invaluable as seekers after truth.

Posted by Larry on Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:11 | #

I think you have a typo in the original post. You wrote “anti-white racists” when I believe the proper term is “anti-white-racists” since the people you oppose are actually opposed to the racists instead of the whites.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:58 | #

Wherever you prefer the hyphens, Larry, the people I oppose are opposed to my people.

Posted by John S Bolton on Thu, 06 Jan 2005 09:02 | #

I use the term anti-caucasianism, without saying look, ~look~, this is a species of established racism. The term racism is so malignantly equivocated, that, to reinforce it by using it straight, seems ill-advised. Much of what is called racism is all to the good, yet is complained of as if it were that which holds back the disadvantaged minorities.

Posted by John S Bolton on Thu, 06 Jan 2005 09:11 | #

If you do not affirm disaffinity which increases with genetic distance, how can competition for resources substitute? One competitor is as bad as another, when what needs to be observed is that governments are exploiting natural disaffinities, to push societies which today have freedom to lose, into civil war and dictatorship. This explains why the focus of the malice is upon those countries which have wealth and freedom beyond others, and it requires no leap to see where officialdom and professoriate are pushing us.

Posted by John S Bolton on Thu, 06 Jan 2005 10:18 | #

Answering the other points; patriotism that can defend its every point on rational grounds should come before a nationalism that reduces to saying ‘because it’s our people’. The other side has to use emotive and ad hominem approaches first; patriots may call out officials for treason, who divert the citizens’ tax money to the foreigner at home or abroad. Imagine a picture of Kofi being used to recruit soldiers, and one realizes at once, how far down into an abyss of weakness, has fallen the internationalist appeal.

Posted by Arcane on Fri, 07 Jan 2005 03:45 | #

An addendum to your comments:

All the socialist experiments, the affirmative action, access regulation etc are an attack on merit, an abuse of the tax system and a denial of justice to the European [or East Asian] host.

Please note the brackets I inserted in the above.

Posted by John S Bolton on Fri, 07 Jan 2005 03:58 | #

When the malice of officials is directed against one race in particular, and it is said that one population has too much, and should be randomized out of existence for that reason, it is weakness to say: but we really have nothing. When the professoriate says kill the rich, officials don’t have enough power, it is wretched appeasement to say; but we don’t feel rich.

Posted by Marc on Sat, 08 Jan 2005 01:50 | #

Alas, if only the right WERE right on race.  In recent years the right has joined the left in being more interested in p.c. than the truth.  Yes, there is still the occasional oasis of sanity, but they are slowly being surrounded by the encroaching darkness.

Posted by Marc on Sat, 08 Jan 2005 02:44 | #

Oh, by the right you mean race realists, not necessarily Republicans.  Duh.

Forgive me.  I have not been sleeping well.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 Jan 2005 09:39 | #

Yes, Marc.  Insufficient Republicans in your homeland and Conservatives in mine belong to the right, in the true, non-liberal sense.  My ten points are truths which the (race-)real right must find a way to export leftwards into its dominant political vehicle and, thence, into the electoral debate.  There are probably several ways to achieve this.  Support for minority parties such as the BNP puts direct pressure on the Conservative mind.  Simple entryism is another.  But speaking out generally against every aspect of the gathering disaster, hopefully in a voice which non-WN readers can hear without running screaming from the room, is the one we are focussing on here.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 09 Jan 2005 07:23 | #

GW has penned here one of the best log entries anywhere in the blogosphere.  Every sentence is exactly right and excellently put, the whole entry not only extremely important for today’s world but of unparalleled importance:  nothing is more important than, or perhaps even as important as, the ideas expressed.  I’ll comment just a bit on three of the points:

“3.The achievements of European Man cannot be replicated by all peoples.”

Absolutely right, and I would only clarify (what GW would certainly consider goes without saying but others reading the entry might wonder about):  neither can the achievements of Oriental Man be replicated by all peoples, nor those of African Negro Man, nor yet those of Indian Subcontinental Man, American Red Indian Man, Arab Moslem Man, and so on:  we all have our unique gifts and we all have our unique contributions to make to humanity, ones no other people than us is capable of making or capable of making so well. 

“5.Treating peoples of lower mean intelligence as intellectual equals is not a kindness.” 

This is so, of course, and the worst unkindness it causes is that inevitably visited upon those of higher intelligence who become, first, objects of jealousy because of their unequal status, then victims of retribution both undeserved and unending for somehow having “caused” the inequality.  In the end there’s no solution other than to allow the two groups to separate once things get to the point of being intolerable.

“10. Racial feeling is natural.  It is healthy and not a sin to prefer one’s own people.  It is not hate to acknowledge otherness.  The European peoples of the West are guilty of nothing.”

This is one thousand percent correct.  I’ll mention if I may that in a recent comment at Turnabout I discussed the similar ideas.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 09 Jan 2005 09:46 | #

Fred,

I’ll copy that comment from Jim’s blog because it demonstrates the positive in racial prejudice, which is the better part of the argument.  Here it is: Fred on Everything about pre-judging other peoples ...

There is prejudice on both sides of the Christian-Jewish divide. It’s occurred to me recently that not only is a certain degree of ethnic, national, and/or religious prejudice proper and healthy, it’s not really psychologically normal for people to be entirely without these prejudices. It’s aberrant when individual members of a group are entirely without them in a world full of other groups who don’t wish them well and will harm them if they can. Stripping groups of their instinctive prejudices in today’s world is like sending city-dwellers into bad neighborhoods after confiscating their hand guns. It can amount to sending them to their deaths.

White-Euro Christians today are being attacked as a group and as distinct individual racial, sub-racial, and ethno-cultural nations in a campaign promising to subdue them and actually eliminate them eventually. This sounds incredible, insane even, but it’s exactly what’s going on (and has many causes). What white-Euro Christians need to be doing at the moment isn’t worrying about being hated by some segments of the Jewish Community, but rather defending themselves as a group, and each European-derived Christian nation of the world needs to be doing the same. Jews and Israel, if they want to survive, must do likewise, as must all groups. (This Jewish man Shamir who wrote that article, by the way, sounds like a very good, very moral man but a man who sees no particular value in the preservation of distinct nations. Today he’s tattling on some Jews about their private prejudices; tomorrow he’ll be tattling on some Christians about theirs. He sounds like a one-world universalist. People like that, moral and good though they be, don’t help distinct nations, races, and ethnicities to survive any more than outright enemies do. A man like that will help neither Jews nor distinct Christian nations to survive intact.)

All the heavy-handed, persistent “anti-prejudice” indoctrination white U.S. schoolchildren have been receiving from the earliest age since at least the end of the Second World War ought to be halted if, as appears to be the case, the resultant disabling of their natural protective group instincts of prejudice turns out to have been a precursor to attacking them later and actually replacing, displacing, and eradicating them as a group, done in part under the influence of rival groups who themselves somehow escaped extinguishing their own group prejudices as the whites were educated to do, and now in a sense have whites where they want them. An entire generation of young Germans for example almost yearns to be extinguished as a race and nation, as a result of this relentless anti-prejudice education they apparently underwent there from kindergarten up, because of the Holocaust.

Prejudice is nothing terrible, and in fact is actually something good. This applies to Christians, Jews, whites, Negroes, Moslems, Chinese, everyone. It is the way the ordinary person who is not a philosopher has some instinctive idea who his friends and his people are and what behavior on his part and on that of his countrymen will help the survival of his group into the future. Let those with the wit to be philosophers dismantle their own personal racial, ethnic, and religious prejudices but leave intact the ones of non-philosophers among us lest the entire group disappear for lack of group-instincts of self, or of self-defense, on the part of the mass of the people. Ordinary people aren’t philosophers and rely on folk-instincts of all sorts to survive as a group, and are not doing anything wrong in that.

Fred Scrooby @ Jim Kalb’s Turnabout, 01.02.05, 11.05am

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 09 Jan 2005 14:56 | #

Thanks, GW.