|
|
|
The Attack On Civilisation From Within by David Hamilton Science is supposed be objective and free of the scientist’s values, but Franz Boaz turned Anthropology into an ideology: an ideology is a set of ideas that incorporate value judgements. In the Soviet Union everything was presented as they wished it was and not a reflection of reality. All policies were introduced ostensibly for the workers but the elites were rich and lived in exclusive areas like our elites; it explained everything in economic or material terms and other aspects of life are left out. Ideology is reasoning from the orthodox belief rather than from empirical evidence and the subjects are slotted into it. There are two sides good and bad people like the war with The Devil in Christianity. Boas changed the object of the racial bias in anthropology from tribes onto Europeans. He taught that theories should be treated as works in progress, until proven beyond doubt. His grounding in the natural sciences made him aware that the difference in the study of humans from geography or zoology was the study of “culture.” He did not see culture as linear progression, until it reached the level European civilisation and rejected the attendant notion that those who were behind were inferior. Boas was the first scientist to state that the White and the Negro were fundamentally equal and he actively supported African American organizations. (1) As an anthropologist he sought to use science, including his studies of tribal peoples, to seek out and document the truth about the significance of race. It was his hope that people could learn to be tolerant of difference, and to see so-called primitives not as inferior or less developed, but as a source of diversity that had much to offer. Researchers had noted differences in height, cranial measurements, and other physical features between Americans and people from different parts of Europe and to many this showed innate biological difference between races. Boas’s primary interest was the study of processes of change; he set out to determine whether bodily forms are also subject to processes of change. This was in his mind when he studied 17,821 people, divided into seven ethno-national groups. The problem with that is diet: the cranials of Japanese immigrants grew bigger because of nutrition. People grow bigger now and there are fewer bandy-legged people because of less rickets. His 1912, study on the plastic nature of the human body in response to changes in the environment has for the past 90 years been taken as evidence of cranial plasticity but never seriously examined for statistical and biological validity. By using pedigree information in Boas’ data, narrow sense heritabilities are estimated by the method of maximum likelihood. In addition, a series of tests and regression analyses are performed to determine the statistical validity of Boas’ original findings on differentiation between American and European-born children and the prolonged effect of the environment on cranial form. Results show the relatively high genetic component of the head and face diameters despite the environmental differences during development. In 2002, anthropologists Corey S. Sparks and Richard L. Jantz, claimed that differences between children born to the same parents in Europe and America were insignificant, and that there was no detectable effect of exposure to the American environment on the cranial index in children. Their results contradicted Boas’s findings and showed they could not be used to support arguments of plasticity in cranial morphology. The ideological approach led to massive damage to our way of life when Margaret Mead adapted her findings to her ideology. Her book Coming of Age in Samoa(1928) undermined Western civilisation. The book is based on nine months of anthropological fieldwork in which she claimed that Samoan teenage girls experienced neither the sexual restrictions nor the psychological problems of Western women. The claim was presented, and widely accepted, as significant evidence in the debate between biological determinism and cultural relativism. Published in 1928, it is one of the most influential books of the twentieth-century. The book influenced Dr. Benjamin Spock and Bertrand Russell and changed people’s attitudes on adolescence and its crises, free love, feminism, sexual diversity, child rearing and libertarian education. The media loved pictures of this young woman scientist and the cover of the first edition had a half-naked couple gamboling hand in hand among palm trees. She used her research as propaganda and following a suggestion by her publisher added chapters on “what all this means to Americans”. The result was a change in Western society’s self-perception and attitudes to sexuality. She ignored and played down data that did not fit the ideology she wanted. (4) A follower of Boas was one of the most influential people of the twentieth-century, Claude Levi-Strauss. After the Second War the UN set up a cultural and scientific body, UNESCO. They held a series of conferences to get away from Nazism and return to the values of The Enlightenment. Never again must a people be imprisoned within their culture. (5) He presented a paper to the UNESCO meeting in London in 1951 and claimed that “a tribe” was no less sophisticated than Westerners. To present them as equal the content of culture must be disregarded and only the structure considered. To explain: a folk story from Africa or anywhere, is equal to our cultural productions like Hamlet because it can be shown that they have similar structures. As someone who has studied scriptwriting, play writing and is familiar with the mythological writings of Joseph Campbell, I am well aware that the enjoyment of a film or play, needs things to occur in the right order. The simplest order is beginning, middle and end. You can not omit the content because then you would not be watching anything. It is the content of Hamlet or Pride and Prejudice that we enjoy. How often do you hear one say: “Wasn’t it marvellous the way the film got the chase scene in the right place?” Levi-Strauss also criticised the way we see everything from our point of view - “Ethnocentrism.” This is seeing our own culture as best and prejudiced to regard other cultures as less advanced than European: yet, it is self-destructive to see other cultures as better than ours. Prejudice had to be destroyed and the method was, not to advocate our reason to others but to adopt their reason. In Race and History Levi-Srauss denied that the concept of race explains anything and the differences between human groups were because of:
Again, if we read or watch Hamlet or Pride and Prejudice, the vocabulary, dress and manners are strange to us but not the basic human nature of falling in love, wanting status and money. This is not the “one Race” of Progressives, but a common humanity, common to all peoples. The difference is not in the structure of their minds but in the content: the propensity to common traits like belonging, loyalty, enmity, grudges etc are directed to their own respective peoples, not all people. If we go back far enough, everyone came from somewhere else. Such kinship instincts are straight-forward in wild animals but become confused in domesticated animals and humans. Richard Dawkins argues that altruism towards non-kin is a misfiring of a genetic urge to help bodies that contain a high proportion of our own alleles. Hamilton’s rule implies that such misfiring (insufficiently discriminating altruism) on a large scale will cause the very allele for altruism itself to be phased out of the gene pool - and make it genetically advantageous to be an exploiter of others’ generosity until such “goodness” disappears as a trait in the population.(6) That scientific statement is similar to Edmund Burke’s definition of a nation as involving a shared identity, history and ancestry, and continuity:
I see no reason why we should need to demonstrate scientific evidence of our being a race. This our White British country(ies) We have possession by long occupation which is sanctified by time and emotional bonding. We have the opposite imposed on us and it has been discovered that increasing genetic diversity in a population causes altruism to become proportionately less common (Professor Putnam). Our would-be disposessors use a trick to de-humanise us as “mongrels”, “no such thing as the British” or “were all immigrants.” It is to reduce us to an “unpeople” and to dispossess us of our country and communities. It prevents the elites having to feel any conscience at their wicked behaviour because we don’t really exist and therefore have no claim to the territory. It belongs to anyone and everyone. The fact that scientists have refrained for decades from describing, defining or categorising people by their morphological characteristics is a reflection of the flight from Hitler that has been imposed than it is a demonstration that race is not a scientific concept. (7) If we consider the peoples of the world in their native settings, it is easy to define those peoples who are distinctly ‘European’ or of ‘white race’. In doing so, we should not worry that no-one has absolutely white skin, because the term ‘white’ when used in the context of race is simply a taxonomic term. This taxonomic term refers to the paleness of the skin of people people of white race, it is not a literal chromatological description in the same way that when we refer to negros (‘negro’ being derived from the root word meaning ‘black’), we are describing people who fall into a taxonomic group characterised in part by the darkness of their skin colour. The term ‘negro’ is again a taxonomic term in this context, and again, not a literal chromatological description. The defining or racial groups is therefore a matter of taxonomy, i.e. based upon a process of classification, and the discussion of race should not be clouded by the disingenuous use of semantics. In Race(1974)J.R.Baker classifies human races as animal subspecies are classified. He looked at the nature of civilisation and gave 23 criteria by which civilizations may be identified. He explores the relationship between the biological traits and the cultures of five civilizations. Based on these criteria, Baker declared no indigenous civilisations ever appeared in Africa. He rejected the methodological relivatis used in anthropology since Boas and reverted to hereditarianism and cultural evolution. He used the Latin term stirps for a line It is not possible for most people to trace each ancestral line back beyond the 1800s, as the first census of England, Wales and Scotland was not conducted until 1801. Beyond this there are only parish records which are very laborious and time consuming to research and which are often incomplete or inconclusive and which can result in a ‘dead end’ where there was illegitimacy in the family, when a mother’s name may be recorded in a birth certificate, but not the father’s. Genealogical records only record genealogy and genealogy should not be confused with genetics. We should not confuse geography with race. For example the E1b1b1 Haplogroup does originate in North East Africa (Egypt), but that was c.20,000 years ago during the height of the last ice age, when the climate of Egypt would have been much more temperate than at present and when North Africa was inhabited by people of Cro-Magnon or Proto-European. As the ice age subsided and the ice sheets retreated northwards, so people from southern Europe migrated northwards and people from North Africa migrated up through the Middle East into the Balkans. The presence of the E1b1b1 Haplogroup therefore provides no conclusive evidence of non-European ancestry, it simply shows that one of a person’s ancestral lines originated in Egypt 20,000 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity (1) Boas’s talk on racial equality was delivered in 1911 http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5069/ http://www.anthro.fsu.edu/people/faculty/CG_pubs/gravlee03b.pdf (2). http://classes.yale.edu/02-03/anth500a/projects/project_sites/99_Zheng/kelly1.html (3) UNESCO http://www.comminit.com/en/node/2471/36 http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13161&URL_DO=DO_PRINTPAGE&URL_SECTION=201.html (4) http://imponderabilia.socanth.cam.ac.uk/articles/article.php?articleid=34 (5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Race_Question (6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._D._Hamilton http://www.opensourcebuddhism.org/matcphilosophy-group6-relativism-abe-paper.htm Comments:2
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 24 Dec 2010 23:16 | # I like “Big History” essays like this one, which contains some important ideas, and was obviously the product of thought and effort. Mr. Hamilton badly needs a firm editorial hand, however, in terms of both ‘content’ and ‘structure’. 3
Posted by Eeyore on Sat, 25 Dec 2010 00:42 | # Don’t be bothered, Mr. Hamilton. Owl and Rabbit think themselves to possess the only brains in the 100 Acre Wood. But, neither could have written the POEM: Christopher Robin is going. 4
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 25 Dec 2010 01:13 | #
It’s missionary work, James. You don’t think we should do missionary work? 5
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 25 Dec 2010 08:54 | # GW: The reason I ask is that by focusing on the target audience it is easier to see how to publish it. Clearly this isn’t reaching out to any of “Smart Set” organs like the Atlantic or Huffington Post. It has some interest here mainly due to the fact that he offers some scholarly insights that confirm, but merely confirm, the readerships’ model of the world. It has potential for missionary work and MR’s readers might be helpful. I might suggest VDARE. 6
Posted by alan Beddoes on Sat, 25 Dec 2010 14:48 | # I don’tthink many people do know that. Some do but very few. This blog does 7
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 02:00 | #
LOL. Bowery, I think I can reasonably assure you that those who frequent those liberal rags are neither intellectual giants nor very likely to be convinced. 8
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 10:05 | # Really? But seriously, you’re unfamiliar with the early 20th century midatlantic social term to which I refer?
Who can deny the virtue of reintroducing such aristocracy to the wonders of the mutual individual Upstate hunt? 11
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 18:34 | #
‘Fraid so. It is one of the glistening gems bequeathed to us by WASPdom that has sadly eluded me. 12
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 18:56 | # I can’t help but wonder what Zuckerberg would have done with a 10 inch blade and 15 meters of strong cordage hunting one of the Winklevoss twins, similarly equipped, in the Adirondacks.
More importantly, what would “Scarily Smart Lady”:
Think of it all? 13
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 19:36 | # Is that Zuckerberg in the middle, or Hunter Wallace’s “after” photo? 14
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 20:03 | #
15
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 21:30 | # As penance for the rather curt response that led this thread away from Hamilton’s most worthy offering: DH writes:
The Bayesian Prior (in postmodernist-speak “the narrative”) within which one observes events is on a continuum with the observed events themselves in that the BP is, at best, constructed from the minimum description length of all prior observations. Observation itself involves choice, hence value, in the sense that one must invest resources to make the observation at all—one directs one’s attention as an investment. In this non-trivial sense, science is not, and cannot be, value free. This, of course, leaves all kinds of wiggle room for the likes of Boas to worm their way to your heart therein to bask in the warm, moist glow of your precious bodily fluids.
Which gets back to my argument that the only polity that can in, any practical sense, be minimally theocratic is one which unreservedly admits theocracy at the level of what the Greeks might term the “deme”: An association of sovereign individuals, and their wards, occupying shared territory by mutual consent within which to live out their shared strongly held ecological beliefs—their own private theocracy.
To compound matters, they defined various “autonomous” zones that were anything but. This lent the appearance of the scientific polity accomodating diverse theocracies while, in fact, denying all theocracies save the Marxist theocracy as interpreted by the elites.
This is a crime against reason committed by scientists when they refuse to revisit their models to perhaps find a more minimal description. Backtracking is hard. Perhaps “NP hard” is not too pedantic.
There is “science” and “pseudo-science”. Take for example the battle over “scientific racism” which is frequently characterized as “pseudo-science” by the premiere pseudoscientists of the 20th century such as Lewontin and Gould, both of whom, in no small measure, founded their pseudoscience on Boas’s pseudoscience posing as the scientific debunker of pseudoscience.
This is, of course, absurd. All animals have to make decisions in the face of incomplete information. Its what brains are supposed do!
And on the other hand we have Freud with “Civilization and its Discontents”. Funny how the “discontented” Europeans need to pay Jews for “therapy” to accommodate “civilization” but other “primitives” are held up as “noble savages” by Jews.
And this is where our Bayesian Priors come into play. If an observation is to be “expected” by the reigning theocracy, then why sinfully waste resources verifying it? The only question is how is the priesthood, responsible for allocating resources, established? The obvious answer is that if you want to honor religious freedom, your first priority is to examine any radical differences in “expectation” by the “priesthood” as compared to the theocracy’s faithful. There is no way that Boas or those in the higher academies could have reasonably been put in the priesthood over the vast majority of the founding stock Americans of 1900. Despite being a majority they still had some rights! At the very least some sort of reservation system should have immediately been put into place for the founding stock Americans the moment Boas and his disciples were admitted to the American higher academies. That no such reservation system was introduced is indication that not only Boas, but the elites of the posterity of the Founders, were enslaving the people. More later… 16
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 23:54 | #
There was the opportunity in the 20th century to have been freed from the yolk of the Jew for all time. Regrettably, WASPs didn’t cotton much to it, though the Krauts did all they could. 17
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 27 Dec 2010 01:03 | # Captain, sir: Lest you get egg on your face, avoid the Jewish yolk. 18
Posted by Vita Brevis on Mon, 27 Dec 2010 04:21 | # This is an excellent summary of Boas and Liberal injustice on Race 19
Posted by danielj on Mon, 27 Dec 2010 07:53 | # There was the opportunity in the 20th century to have been freed from the yolk of the Jew for all time. Regrettably, WASPs didn’t cotton much to it, though the Krauts did all they could. I consider what the English did then forgivable (hell, I married one), but if they did it again it would be a whole nother ball game. 20
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 27 Dec 2010 19:18 | # DH wrote:
In this passive voice you just neutralized the primary impact of your entire article and terminated reading of your article in much of your readership. The article should have started and ended with variations on the next paragraph:
DH futher writes:
Mead was in very high demand as a revival preacher for the nascent religion of Holocaustianity across the US during the onset of boomer fertility—trying to free the demographic bulge of sexually maturing girls from their repression in preparation for their migration from small towns to liberation in the big cities. (Our Frankfurt School therapist, CaptainChaos, has pointed out that my observations of such phenomena disqualifies me from acting on my thoughts due to my so-demonstrated psychopathology—ie: I am diagnosed as a “hater”.) I was provided dispensation to leave my high school classes for a day to attend her 1971 worship service held at our small Iowa town college so I could report for the school newspaper on the wisdom of this “very together lady” (the words of Herb Roth, a gestalt psychologist hired by the city of Des Moines to “counsel” youths experiencing bad acid trips). Holy Margaret, Full of Grace! But this poor sinner wasn’t particularly impressed by anything she said, so I wrote an uninspired article basically recounting random sound-bites of her sermon. This was undoubtedly a reflection of my spiritual and intellectual poverty.
Bertrand Russell basically admitted that his mind was burned out by writing Principia Mathematica. No longer capable of intellectual heavy lifting, enjoying a bit of fame and representing a potential threat if he genuinely philosophized, he was offered some sex in exchange for displaying “Coming of Age in Samoa” credentials.
You should scare quote “imprisoned” and clarify that what Levi Strauss really meant was that non-Jews should “never again” have cultural integrity. The rest of the comments on Levi Strauss are basically toward the same point: Having cultural integrity is dangerous because it might provide reliable demonstrations of the value of various cultures to various peoples—genuine sociology as opposed to the pseudo-scientific sociology as the foundation of Holocaustian supremacy. Since some cultures would want to actually test the beliefs of Holocaustianity, the very idea of empirical tests of cultures must be placed outside the realm of discourse.
More to the point, no one should need to demonstrate the scientific evidence for their beliefs in order to be allowed to practice those beliefs in mutual consent with others—and this includes beliefs that pertain to what acts have what kinds of ecological effects on humans residing on a territory.
Again, this kind of empiricism in the social sciences is anathema to Holocaustianity’s theocrats, hence any such work as Dr. Putnam’s must be exorcised with the incantation “correlation doesn’t imply causation” in combination with a demonization of any practical means of conducting (border-)controlled social experiments on mutually consenting human subjects.
Again we must face the central dogma of Holocaustianity is that any “peoplehood” among Europeans other than the Jewish people is a clear and present threat to the peoplehood of Jews—hence an act of aggression that justifies preemptive genocide as simple justice for such aggression. More later… (these responses really are costing me money) 21
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 27 Dec 2010 23:44 | #
Check’s in the mail. 22
Posted by G on Tue, 28 Dec 2010 08:01 | # Bowery, you try so hard to seem clever you don’t seem to realise that article is not specifically about Boas. Where are your articles? “His 1912, study on the plastic nature of the human body in response to changes in the environment has for the past 90 years been taken as evidence of cranial plasticity but never seriously examined for statistical and biological validity. By using pedigree information in Boas’ data, narrow sense heritabilities are estimated 23
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 28 Dec 2010 16:10 | # I wish I could offer some assistance, but it’s all I can do to keep an editorial yolk on the Captain. 25
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 28 Dec 2010 16:23 | # But, very dedicated to the volk. I should probably write a poem about him, (but they cost me too much money). 26
Posted by G on Tue, 28 Dec 2010 18:16 | # What is your goal dasein? To try to save the White race or just pick everything apart? You are very negative. By the way what is an abstract? There is not a constructive point on these comments so you lot are obviously reds trying to hold Whites back. 28
Posted by G on Tue, 28 Dec 2010 18:43 | # No wonder you can’t find anyone intellectual to write for MR. Do any of you write anything or just criticise? 30
Posted by G on Tue, 28 Dec 2010 19:23 | # Here u r coward behind a screen name. Do you like this Jewish humour? You should be able to understand this. 31
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 28 Dec 2010 19:46 | # I’m sorry G. I meant no personal offense to you. I took advantage of your name to pose as a man of letters. Please forgive me. While your initial criticism is justifiable, I think, in fairness, you should also admit that MR hosts some talented writers, and criticism is vital to the development of others. 32
Posted by G on Tue, 28 Dec 2010 20:07 | # Thank you. Yes, Jimmy, I do agree, but think it better if we try to encourage each other as we have enough to contend with without arguing amongst ourselves. Actually, there is a lot of talent on our side but we are in rival groups. We have a lot of talent in the UK but it seems so disjointed to me - everyone falling out with each other. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD2qlUYfgzg 33
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 28 Dec 2010 20:36 | # G, whoever he/she/it is, just doesn’t understand writing (and that’s the charitable view). The passive voice is appropriate when in the context of an abstract, as the referent is clear. We can ignore the questionable practice of copying text without so much as an attributing footnote and observe only that the passive voice as used in:
Is simply asking too much of the reader. Now this might be so bad if the referent weren’t central to the thesis, but given that it is, and on top of that it is buried in the middle of the article, it is really very damaging to the writer’s goal. And, yes, the article is about Boas bracketing the 20th century’s genocide committed by Jews against the founding stock of the United States. 34
Posted by G on Tue, 28 Dec 2010 21:22 | # Because it is just one article. I do about 4 a month and can not always get everything exactly as you would like it. There is so much to write about and of few of us writing. The idea was to put some little known information into the public sphere which few people know. The most important being Levi-Strauss and I note you don’t mention him. I regard this as negative criticism which serves only to destroy. That is what I would expect from the opposition - petty nit picking and am sincere when I urge you people to write something but suspect all you do is criticise others. If you did write I would accept the criticism. 35
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 28 Dec 2010 22:15 | # Jimbo,
No doubt your punsmanship is the eighth wonder of the world. Now, don’t make the mistake of so much as exhaling within fifteen feet of Bowery’s Faberge egg or the hissing and scratching will begin. G, Pay no attention to us ignorant and obstreperous Amerikwans. The best we can manage without the guidance of our British betters is to differentiate our elbows from our asses, and not even always that. I like your stuff, but again, I’m an Amerikwan, so take that with two grains of salt as my judgement in such matters may not be worthy of trust. 36
Posted by Gudmund on Wed, 29 Dec 2010 05:22 | #
A couple of stray thoughts on this matter: a.) Boasian anthropology really has no method, other than to completely obfuscate the reality of race thus making any inquiry into the field impossible. And to accomplish its objective in turn involves the obfuscation of our very language, viz. English words are constantly redefined making communication and understanding impossible. In this way Boasianism is an offshoot of the so-called “structuralism” or “postmodernism.” b.) Boas may have been the originator of the poison, but damn me if his co-ethnics didn’t circle the wagons like good little culture-pathogens. From Lewontin, Gould and Montague all the way through Rose and his compatriots, the queering of anthropology has been systematically and single-mindedly pursued for the last century. Just like every other facet of the Jewish kultur kritik. 37
Posted by G on Wed, 29 Dec 2010 08:43 | # The idea was to get some ideas over that offer a basis for saving our people. That is why it is necessary to show that anti racist anthropology is an ideology not an objective science and that Mead adapted her findings to the ideology. The important part of the Boas section was the reference to his findings being shown not to lead to the results he claimed they did. “In 2002, anthropologists Corey S. Sparks and Richard L. Jantz, claimed that differences between children born to the same parents in Europe and America were insignificant, and that there was no detectable effect of exposure to the American environment on the cranial index in children. Their results contradicted Boas’s findings and showed they could not be used to support arguments of plasticity in cranial morphology” 38
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 29 Dec 2010 10:01 | # All this material is fairly old hat, dissected at least as far back as Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority (1972). A brief, excellent summary, containing pretty much everything even a fairly advanced racialist needs to know (for the education of the general public, anyway), is Pearson, Heredity and Humanity. Surprisingly, he doesn’t emphasize the Jewishness of the anti-hereditarians (if I’m remembering correctly; I read the book about 12 years ago), but it’s pretty obvious if one’s “Jewdar” is sufficiently attuned. I believe Jared Taylor reviewed the Pearson book in American Renaissance. That review is now probably available online for free. 39
Posted by Ken Day on Wed, 29 Dec 2010 10:25 | # 1933 – “The Shape of Things to Come” by H. G. Wells is published. Wells predicts a second world war around 1940, originating from a German-Polish dispute. After 1945, there would be an increasing lack of public safety in “criminally infected” areas. The plan for the “Modern World State” would succeed on its third attempt, and come out of something that occurred in Basra, Iraq. The book also states: “Although world government had been plainly coming for some years, 40
Posted by G on Wed, 29 Dec 2010 11:06 | # With respect Leon, the idea for example that Margaret Mead slotted the results of her research into a pre-existing ideology id not “old hat” and you know it. Why be dishonest? Or did you not understand what you read? Please try to give evidence that that point about ideology is dated. 41
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 29 Dec 2010 17:37 | # G, presuming you are DH, it is rather strange that you missed the point of my comments: We are not your audience but we might be able to help you refine your writing for the missionary work to which it is suited. That was the spirit of my comments from beginning to end. If those comments are unwelcome then I truly regret my attempt to give your article the attention it deserves. 42
Posted by Frank on Wed, 29 Dec 2010 18:35 | # The AmRen review Mr. Haller references: The Future of the Species: Heredity and Humanity, Roger Pearson, Scott-Townsend Publishers, 1996, 160pp., $16.00 (soft cover) by Jared Taylor 43
Posted by G on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 07:47 | # Sorry gentlemen for being rude but I’m not well at the moment. 44
Posted by G on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 07:53 | # These 2 reviews are from amazon.com and I think they are excellent. Thank you for the link. This review is from: The Dispossessed Majority (Hardcover) 45
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 08:08 | # G, seeing as you are a strongly identified Brit, I’d like to run a quick question by you: do you believe the “Krauts” “debased” themselves per their embrace of NS such that they can never fully overcome the resultant ignominy? (That would probably entail, you know, inculcated a due sense of shame in little “Kraut” kids not yet ten years of age. But of course that necessary exercise would not itself be “debased”.) 46
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 09:20 | # For those who think that localized action is the way around the problem, a little review of the history of judicial action against racial covenants on real estate may be in order. Most instructive for me was the attitude reflected by Lorraine Hansberry (of Hansberry vs Lee fame) in her Broadway play titled “A Rasin In the Sun”. In that play, the financially suffering black family has purchased a home in a white neighborhood but before they move they are visited by a representative of the neighborhood who offers to buy their house for substantially more than they paid for it if they will agree to move to another neighborhood. The representative is classically obsequious in his approach. The play centers not on the question of whether the man actually represented the white neighborhood, but on the moral duty of all blacks to make financial sacrifices to buy into white neighborhoods despite (because of?) the fear of some whites that their children will intermarry. The family is unanimous across the generations that even if it means no college for their premed child and perhaps even aborting a baby, the presence of whites that don’t want them in their neighborhood must lend steely resolve to make the move. This sort of violation of mutual consent is not an “Oopsie! We went a little too far with that one didn’t we?” phenomenon. Violation of mutual consent is the very essence of the civil rights movement. It should hardly be a surprise, then, that rape ceased being a capital crime as part of that movement. 47
Posted by G on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 10:12 | # Captain, no blame attaches to young “krauts”. But, Hitler has nearly destroyed the White race single-handedly. 48
Posted by G on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 10:15 | # We have our own traditions in Britain and the precedent for deportation is Queen Elizabeth1. If I were American I should cite Eisenhower’s Operation Wetback. 49
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 11:25 | # With respect Leon, the idea for example that Margaret Mead slotted the results of her research into a pre-existing ideology id not “old hat” and you know it. Why be dishonest? Or did you not understand what you read? Please try to give evidence that that point about ideology is dated. (G) G/David Hamilton, I didn’t mean to come across as overly critical. Anyone who is willing to labor to compose essays advancing racial truth in some way is to be commended (though you do need to tighten up your writing style a bit syntactically, and eliminate simple typing/punctuation errors). By all means, continue in your work! Re: Mead , however, I’ve long known she was a fierce racial/cultural egalitarian and anti-hereditarian, and that her research was highly ideologically tendentious: From The Dispossessed Majority: p 15 - “Other leading members of the equalitarian school ... were ... two vociferous Anglo-Saxon females, Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead.” p 386, n31: ” ... the argument of the Boas school of anthropology, voiced most loudly by Margaret Mead ...”. From Heredity and Humanity: p 61, n2: “Although the egalitarian forces were unable to defend Mead from Freeman’s charges after the fraudulence of her research was exposed, it is significant that some of the most powerful forces in American anthropology still strove to rescue what they could of her academic image in view of her historic importance as one of the main disciples of anti-hereditarian egalitarianism and Boasian anthropology.” I’ve read about Mead’s mendacious data in many other places over the years as well. Two broader points. First, racialists, especially those of us not working either directly in science, or in the intellectual history of racial science, ought to re-read Heredity and Humanity once a year (I’d suggest Americans do likewise with Brent Nelson, America Balkanized, and Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation, though the Pearson book is the most useful of the three). It is brief, yet amazingly compendious. Second, that said, no one should entertain any illusions that our enemies, or even many of our potential converts, care very much about scientific fact. Our enemies want to dispossess and either enslave or exterminate us. Facts for them are merely ideological weapons, to be used or ignored accordingly. Our ignorant co-racials may occasionally be moved by presentations of racial truth, but mostly, mere empirical reality is not good enough to get them suddenly willing both to reject PC nonsense, and then act in a racial preservationist/nationalist way. Our enemies have brainwashed the white majority planet-wide into thinking that acting in a racial nationalist manner, even if only to resist the ‘passive aggression’ of the race-replacement elites, is wicked, and thus forbidden (either by Christ, or some secular liberal/humanist norm). We have to ‘deprogram’ them. And that task is ethical, not scientific (even if the arguments for our side are based in part on scientific truth). 50
Posted by G on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 11:47 | # I don’t know where he got the Anglo Saxon bit from! How do you mean ethical? Actually, I don’t believe in science as a supporting argument. It opens a debate rather than finishes it. I only did that because I thought people would be interested and a discussion had cropped up on the British Democracy Forum. 51
Posted by G on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 14:55 | # Whites have been atomised and no longer understand group consciousness. They think every act is individual. 52
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:06 | # Any practical approach to white racial preservation must utilize their uniquely (or predominately) white innate characteristics. Fail in this and you have failed the white race. To white racialists, individualism would seem to be a glaring exception. Its not. Indeed individualism is the characteristic that most sets whites apart from other races and if there is anything that renders us superior to other races, it is our individualism. When white racialists fight white individualism, they fight the very thing that makes whites valued among the races, hence the white race itself. Killing is a defining aspect of male action and it is white male action that is directly targeted by The Beast. Advocation of white collective action must be directed toward supporting the individual male’s right to kill another individual male in a “fair” fight, regardless of race. Jews would have us believe that the “fair” fight is money and/or using words as weapons. Any degree of compromise on this point is inimical to the white race. PS: The highest rated comment on the video linked to by “G” above is the following:
53
Posted by Bill on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:50 | # Just revisited BDF, apparently it (video) is the London Notting Hill carnival. 54
Posted by anonymous on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 17:24 | # If the choice is between having a “fair fight” with a nigger with a knife and 15 feet of rope in a jungle and National Socialism, then I stand with Captainchaos. 55
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 17:33 | # National Socialism has never, and will never, seriously deal with the eugenics question. By its very nature, it cannot. The claim that some mythical elite will be able to come up with the correct breeding program is pure wishful thinking. Of course National Socialists couldn’t do worse than the current dysgenics pogrom against whites. Everyone knows better than everyone else what should be selected for and against and until you deal directly with that problem you may as well jerk off to porn. 56
Posted by G on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 15:19 | # This is interesting on Africans http://alexkurtagicofficial.blogspot.com/2010/04/geldofs-folly.html 57
Posted by Frank on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 16:16 | # In some ways, whites are the least individualistic. We’re better at voluntarily acting for the benefit of the whole. White nation-states are strong while whites are weak outside nation-states - that is to say we’re strongest as a group. 58
Posted by Frank on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 17:23 | # “Indeed individualism is the characteristic that most sets whites apart from other races and if there is anything that renders us superior to other races, it is our individualism.” Whites seem fit for harsh environmental circumstances which they endure as a group. Even though they act individually, they’re very altruistic. Blacks are at the other extreme - very individualistic in how they’ll exploit the whole for their vanity or pleasure. But at the same time, they’ll serve the group when threatened externally. A eugenics program designed to encourage whites to be more individualistic might make us into Negros or Jews. - Pre-Christianity, I suspect whites were far less individualistic. There were clans and tribes conflicting. In developed societies of the MidEast you had social leaches thriving, but in Europe clans and tribes. 59
Posted by pug on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 18:04 | # James, Individualism hedged on “humanity,” and not the ingroup, is a rather late development. It is, as many have noted, based on clowns’ relentless repetition as an unexamined assumption and may not be in our European nature to declare all “human” fauna as individuals. Therefore,
sounds better. See, what you’re missing out is that
there is no “on their own,” so the good outraged chap would do absolutely nothing to remedy the chimpout situation—all you get is a conga-line of individuals waiting for the “fair” shot. Maybe he would find it “fair” for them to be “on their own,” but they’re still not—not because of his fantasy wish-so. As for W. D. Hamilton’s assertion, the loss of our Faustian spirit may not be primarily dysgenic, but a matter of overscale. Which is undone by actually undoing it with readily available ecological control (the evil Nazi way), not duelling (the hatstand way). 60
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 20:08 | # Dueling is ridiculous, another waste of intellectual effort and time. White individualism is a wonderful achievement, so long as it is confined to whites (intra-white). As against nonwhites, whites must be tribalist. The key points, as ever, are that racialists need to develop, and, especially, disseminate, both positive arguments in defense of our race (these emphasize the intrinsic worth, and extrinsic/planetary importance, of whites), and negative arguments detailing the hard truths about nonwhites. 61
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 20:30 | # Race-realists should not only be talking among ourselves. I posted the following at mises.org, to rattle the libertarians: Chodorov was a leading advocate of radical individualism. Individualism, however, is really no more than an evolved white racial trait. It is appropriate in intra-white contexts; that is, amongst undiversified (authentic) white nations. It is totally inappropriate outside of white contexts, under conditions of horrible, Big Totalitarian Government-inflicted ‘diversity’ (unwanted Third World immigration being the leading statist program of our age in the West). In those latter contexts, whites must subordinate their individualistic instincts, and behave tribally, if only for mere survival. Libertarians are congenitally/psychologically incapable of understanding the limits of individualism, but circumstances will eventually put an end to their dreams of “libertarian universalism”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiN6k-kF-fc (Thanks G, for calling my attention to this excellent video.) 62
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 20:39 | # Incidentally, the proper relationship between individualism and tribalism is one of the most important issues in contemporary political and ethical philosophy. I don’t mean this, BTW, institutionally, that this issue is much discussed or even recognized by professional academics, only that it is in fact a real, major issue for true intellectuals and scientists (actually, the scientists in their fields seem to be further along in theorizing this issue than philosophers, theologians, political scientists, etc). 63
Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 19:53 | #
Exactly. 64
Posted by Mike on Tue, 04 Jan 2011 01:28 | # “Boasian anthropology really has no method, other than to completely obfuscate the reality of race thus making any inquiry into the field impossible.” Good point, this is a common tactic of liberals when it comes to human science. if something has fuzzy boundaries or exists on a continuum, then hard core liberals argue you can’t prove it exists, so therefore it probably doesn’t exist. The liberal left takes this position over race and gender, while the liberal right often takes this position with mental illness and personality traits. For example, many right liberals argue that because there are degrees of say, bi-polar disorder, then bi-polar disorder doesn’t exist (similarly, for some reason a lot of right liberal business people seem to dislike the idea that people are born introverts or extroverts, probably because the later are more valued in a service economy). Sure, at the margins it’s difficult to determine whether someone is Black or White, or does or doesn’t have a particular mental illness, but doesn’t mean there aren’t people who do have particular mental illnesses or belong to particular races. And in any case, so what if there are fuzzy boundaries? in a liberal society people usually have the luxury to decide for themselves what race they tend to identify with, or whether or not they seek treatment for a particular mental condition. Nobody is going to force someone with a mild case of ADHD into a hospital for example. For the right liberal’s all about trying to minimise the role that both society and genetics plays in human traits and behaviour in the interests of free market capitalism, while for the left liberal is about totally denying the influence of genetics so they can exaggerating the malleability of society. Post a comment:
Next entry: Who were the winners and losers of 2010?
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 24 Dec 2010 19:42 | #
What is the target audience of this essay?