The Minds and the Bloods

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 10 September 2005 00:13.

Few MR readers will argue with the proposition that there is a seemingly irreparable fissure running through the politics of the right. As I see it, it is demarcated by the lack of sympathy which those who answer to their intellects feel towards those who answer to their sense of kin. Of course, I am leaving out all those whose attitudes and opinions are merely received. Unless or until they free themselves they are just the prisoners of liberal thinking. But the others – those capable of independent thought and those who have “woken up” - are all people of interest to me. I want to understand them better than I do.

In particular, I want to understand the thinkers and why it is they can obviously see issues of race, demography, difference, culture war etc ... yet they hold firmly to the conviction that primacy rests with the individual over the group and with ideas over the ties of blood. Why? Is it intellectual pride that causes them to spurn the principle of kinship? But then I firmly believe that mainstream Conservative thinkers in past times did not spurn kinship but, on the contrary, respected it and even strove to serve – or conserve - it.

I will go further. They will have understood that kinship is the solid, even sacred, foundation on which all social stability depends. A discreetly related people sovereign in their ancestral homeland, living through stable times within their own traditions and mores represents the optimum conditions for a good, Conservative outcome - and that, in turn, represents the most practical basis by which to foster continuity. Encouraging the one, therefore, encourages the other.

For Conservatism is practical politics. It has no magnificently constructed, over-arching philosophy that drives men to impractical ends. It does not vouchsafe Superman or The End of History. It practises laissez faire because the people do not ask to be transformed by force, and know well enough what they want. It holds the individual in higher regard than sectional groups whose dynamic is destructive. It commends religious and ethical toleration to bind the people closer – not, of course, to open them to an alien influx. And of freedom it holds that such is possible only insomuch as stability is present.

Still, not many thinking Conservatives go along with that today. The primacy of kinship is too inconvenient. The fissure, then, exists. And it exists on this blog, too - by design, let it be said.

Now, I am quite sure that those folk who speak here for the primacy of the individual over the group and especially of ideas over kinship could not, by dint of their own constitutions, condemn a proposition unexamined. And that would go for kinship too, notwithstanding the suspicion with which intellect invariably views such inchoate emotion.

So one can only assume that thought has been applied by the advocates of the individual and of ideas – for the sake of brevity let’s call them “Minds”, gangbanger-style, and the kinship advocates “Bloods”. The Minds’ rejection of kinship’s centrality is not, therefore, merely another nose-holding liberal production. They are not vain political snobs. They do not follow the knee-jerk liberal in disdaining the coarse, stupifyingly dull and limiting etc, etc, date-expired tendency of the herd etc. Something more is at work. But what, exactly?

Well, let’s deal with the most obvious fissure-factor first:-

There are many qualities, high and low, to intellect – subtlety, integrity, independence, courage, perceptiveness, boldness, luminosity, brilliancy, penetration, depth, ambition, curiosity and their opposites, to name but a few. The exercise of the best of them brings private delights the dull will never know and can never comprehend.

Even for a middle-brow ineducate like me the pleasures of thinking in the abstract – entrance-level IQ 124, apparently – comfortably exceed everything else I can do with my trousers on. So it should be no surprise that those few who can fly at real altitude should perpetually yearn to do so … no surprise that the pleasures of the earthly crowds do nothing to pull them back … and no surprise that the companionship of like-minds, whether or not they actually think alike politically, is a far greater consolation in this life than, for example, the lumpen, unchosen associations of blood and soil.

That explains the pull of ideas in personal terms, and I’ll return to the issue shortly. But what about the fundamental idea itself: the twin claim that primacy rests with the individual over the group and with ideas over the ties of blood? Is it true in is own right?

Well, in the case of the individual it is an affordable goal while stability obtains. But it is self-evidently not affordable in times of threat, chaos or war when the survival of the group takes precedence. By the same token, the primacy of the individual can never fully apply in a liberal polity since the pursuit of ever more exotic political goals undermines society in toto - a fact that seems to be conveniently beyond the ability of liberals to process and understand.

The liberals who are new-wave libertarians, for example, contend that all evil flows from the state, that it continually extends its power over the individual because authoritarianism is its nature. But I think that is a fantasy. It is liberalism which creates the instability, and it is the liberal state which burgeons to control it through authoritarianism. True Conservatism, by contrast (and if it was ever again put into practise), would aim for stability and should thereby shrink the state machinery.

I want to take a moment to deal with the issue of the individual and morality. The latter, much spat upon though it is these days, is no more than a set of pervasive social rules by which the group contains the individual will and directs it to a benign end. It is perfectly obvious that individual will has been placed above group morality in every Western society for the past forty years, and it has proven disastrous.

Nonetheless, the greatest advocates of the individual – libertarians - refuse to contemplate a return to traditional morality because it constitutes an affront to personal sovereignty and the power of choice. They believe that if the cost of socially negative behaviour is applied to miscreants it will serve as a deterrent, and everything will soon be tickitty-boo.

This argument is rooted in the quaint expectation that the wallet and the purse are the arbiters of self-interest. Thus, if a woman can afford a bastard child the libertarian will stay silent on the matter. If she can’t he will still stay silent on her immorality but insist that she and the child suffer in private. This is, of course, a facile position. The group interest in children lies in them being brought to healthy, responsible adulthood. The group, not the individual, is prime because its interests are greater.

What really wrecks the rule of the wallet and the purse is good old human nature - always the stumbling block for liberalism. There are powerful emotional incentives that accompany the birth of a child in or out of “a stable relationship”. It is weak-minded to think that individual will has anything but the most superficial role in this. Women tend to have children first and foremost because they want them, biologically. Or, just perhaps, because they desperately want to hang on to their man. And where is cost in this? Even promiscuity, for some women, has a reward that outweighs its cost. They can feel desirable, and as near to being wanted as such creatures can aspire. Men and women of low intellectual ability are particularly prone to the persuasiveness of such incentives, and given to poor and impulsive judgements. It is, I am afraid, all too human.

It is a pity that experience of such colourful humanity is not always given to those who idealise the individual. Their creed is only good for bright young things who want to be free to pursue some serious self-interest. It demands that everyone think and act as a bright young thing. It ignores that half of (white European) humanity which is not bright and has a double-digit IQ. It denies human difference. It denies the extended ties of kinship that comprise

... our nation and race. It advocates cosmopolitanism, a diasporic, identify-if-you-want-to approach that would turn us all into Ashkenazim without the advantages of culture and intelligence that mark them for survival in that role.

I am a cynic so I harbour the depressing suspicion that the philosophers who dreamt up new-wave libertarianism were well aware of this (yes, Friedrich Hayek was one of the dreamers and he was a gentile. But he was also a rabid anti-Conservative and had got it all mixed up in his head with authoritarianism).

So, all in all I cannot agree that the individual enjoys primacy over the group. The only grounds on which I could do so are rather narrow – a stable, essentially conservative society which we have not seen since the 1950’s and may never see again.

Now turning to the primacy of ideas ...

It’s a bit rich that the Minds invariably gut every idea they can lay their hands on save their own. Religion? Superstitious bunk. Nazism? 20 million deaths. Communism? 50 million deaths. Thatcherism? Bloody women made me cringe every time she was on the box. Blairism? Bloody woman makes me cringe every time she’s on the box.

But what, then, of the highly interesting and intelligent ideas which have emerged from across the fissure, in the race-realist regions of psychology and sociology? What of Kevin MacDonald’s astounding scholarship on Jewry, Phil Rushton’s findings on evolutionary racial psychology or Frank Salter’s groundbreaking exposition on ethnic genetic interests? None of these have been gutted. Why, then, do they not inform the Minds dealings with kinship? Is it, perhaps, that individuals and ideas per se are actually less important than advertised, and political respectability trumps them?

Sadly, I think this may be so. It’s not that MacDonald’s, Rushton’s, Salter’s ideas are wrong. But really, Jews and race … impossible. The liberal establishment applied to them tactics ranging from noisy and vile persecution in Rushton’s case to deafening silence in MacDonald’s. By that means it reinforced the basis on which one may be admitted to the society of decent people.

All ideas are not equal, then. The taint attached to some, albeit a recent leftist creation, is too strong. The truths they contain may be spoken on on the right side of the fissure but, in these ideologically authoritarian times, not on the left. On that side liberal sensibilities must be respected, and ideological censorship exercised, or one will lose all respect oneself.

Kin people, the Bloods, the proponents of instinctuality in kinship, discard all pretence to respectability. They don’t believe liberalism is respectable anyway. They simply don’t recognise the legitimacy of the liberal proscription on their opinion. They don’t give a damn what Pavlov’s liberal dogs think while salivating over their false moral superiority. The choice for Bloods lies between truth and loyalty to kind or the living disgrace and failure of putting their narrow, personal interests first, for whatever reason. Either they fight or they acquiesce. It is not a hard decision to make.

So they speak of the too, too solid fact of demographic crisis in the West, of human nature, human difference and human imperfectability. For them, these things render their worldview universally true, eternal and, therefore, of the good. They repeat their tragic certainties and their mantras of kinship over and over again in the belief that these things must be understandable, must be persuasive - not to liberals, for sure, but to every sane and whole person and, of course, to other denizens of the right like themselves.

It frustrates them no end (and me too, because I do this as much as anybody) to see with what untoward lightness and alacrity their worldview is rebuffed. The fissure is real and it is deep. Understanding does not grow where basic sympathy is lacking.

And yet … and yet … it seems to me, as a pretty “awake” sort of chap, that this lack of sympathy is not that easy to nail. I can’t put it down simply to the exhilarations of a higher imperium of thought purified of all lumpen instinctuality. Likewise, I am not entirely satisfied that intellectual fellowship is a strong enough candidate. Then there is Pavlov’s PeeCee and the costs of exclusion from polite society. But still, it seems to me that the Minds’ lack of sympathy is not a calculated phenomenon. Would the combination of all three suffice? Or is something still missing here, something that allows for the Minds to gaze across the fissure through the medium of intellect, and yet fail to attach the appropriate emotional value to what they see?

Personally, I think one is bound to favour the latter. A most damning proof of it lies in the mere palliatives – polite Asians, recovering white birth-rates, etc – which Minds bring forward quite sincerely to address just about the gravest threat their people could face. On the left of the fissure things just aren’t taken seriously enough. And that has to be because the Mind valuation of the racial specificity of European peoples is flat wrong. In this hour, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, they have quite simply ceased to attach due importance to their own people.

What has engineered that wrong valuation, that fundamental error? Suddenly an interesting explanation hoves into view.

Well, yes, there is the six decades of relentless left-liberal hatred of the West. You knew I was going to say that. Individually, though, left-liberals are also victims of the great political machine they drive. They are blinded to the fact, of course - and that is what negates self-criticism. But the Minds are not blinded and retain the capacity to critique left-liberals and left-liberal politics. So, I think we must look beyond liberalism as politics and to its effects upon the self. And that leads us to the comforts and corruptions of modernity, all the spiritual soporifica that flow from our wealth and advancement and education, from excess, from freedom itself as the greater cause of their detachment from kinship.

I would wager that as a result Minds tend to look upon Bloods, in particular, with some disdain, even if they don’t always do so intentionally. It is simply the way people are: they strive for dominance and are restless if bested. Minds tend to take as the measure of themselves and of Man their own urbanity and high sophistication. In that, they are never bested. Quite simply, they can safely place their civilised selves, complete with fixed ideas of a broadly liberal character on race, above the poor, ignorant Bloods. In so doing, they further confirm the fissure, and cut themselves off from the possibility of learning from the Bloods. Learning requires emptiness, humility and this they do not have. Are they not the brightest and best of a (perhaps too) bright and almost limitlessly rich world?

And that reading, if correct, leaves as the only open question how there came to be a fissure in the first place. I have already said it. Liberalism has warped the entire political landscape. The divided self of right politics is the direct consequence of Conservative accommodation with a leftward-migrating milieu. The fissure on the right was caused about sixty years ago because part of our political landscape did NOT yield , but was rock-steady against the leftward pull.

Now, I happen to be of the conviction that the political right cannot fulfil its historic destiny unless and until intellect and instinct operate in harness. In large part, MR is an experiment to test this thesis. From the difficulties we have had these past months it is clear that this is a formidable, perhaps impossible undertaking. It requires the right of the fissure to mature politically and to review its understanding of Conservatism, because that is the only current, viable alternative to a liberal milieu. And it requires the left of the fissure - at least the intellectuals there, who are strategically essential - to re-assess whether they may be wrong about the crisis in the West, and their humble neighbours right.

Tags: No particular place to go

Comments:

Posted by John S Bolton on Sat, 10 Sep 2005 01:57 | #

Part of the problem here is the difficulty of setting out the principles of loyalty to nation. Government schools have engorged with stolen funds, to the point that there is now antiloyalism; there are antiloyalists. We owe loyalty to our fellow national when he is attacked by foreigners, even by such means as the immigration of those who take net public subsidy. The nation cannot mean less than this; but loyalty to ideas does not oblige us to contribute to the defense of those who say they believe the same as ours, and who are foreigners. Individualism has a different scope in time of peace than in time of war. Independent mindedness correlates with individualism in high degree. America, in theory places the individual good above that of the state; but not all who say they believe this can be Americans. Likewise, an American who does not agree with any of our constitutional laws, is still my fellow citizen, to whom I owe loyalty when he is attacked by foreigners. The right needs to relearn all this.

Posted by anonymous on Sat, 10 Sep 2005 03:08 | #

I found this post somewhat difficult. Consequently I may not be addressing the central idea. However I do have some ideas about how “Bloods” develop.

Charles Darwin, no less, worried about widespread use of contraception emerging and believed it had the potential to cause the decline of Western cilvilisation. In this (as with almost everything else) I believe Charles Darwin was correct. As far as I know Darwin did not expand on his reasoning.

My take follows. But firstly, note that from a societal or political point of view the problem should be interpreted as mathematical weighting, or a numbers game.

In a nutshell, correct (in the sense that nature intended) psychological and behavioural development relies on an individual having offspring. Significantly, for proper development it needs purchase against a challenging physical environment, as was invariably the case over evolutionary time.

For a practical example, let’s consider young men. Young men are frequently disparaged for their manifest flaws and their unreadiness for fatherhood. Yet here is the key. Young men are not ready. In fact, they rise (more often than not) to the challenge when fatherhood is thrust upon them. Fatherhood per se is not in primary in their headspace. The first imperative is to obtain sex and have a child. With the child comes psychological change.

Historically the younbg father grates up against a myriad of complex environmental problems in raising these children and provisioning them for the next generation. This is the substrate on which the inter-generational “Bloods” form. It’s an r/K thing. Now mix in reciprocal altruism and kin ethnicity and we’re on our way to sovereign and patriotic states.

With contraception things are delayed. From a societal point of view even small delays may be crucial. From a biological/psychological view prolonged delays are profound. The median age of death as recently as a few centuries ago used to be near forty.

And with delay nature alternate psychological strategies come into play. Historically these were limited to the fringes of society. That is at low frequency. Thus even small changes in the frequency of behavioural strategies can have profound effects.

Women should be also just as vulnerable to perturbation of psychological development resulting from delays as are men. Perhaps even more so given men typically reproduced at later ages and that lower status males would spend much of their life alone (yet planning and suceeding in a trickle of genes to the next generation).

Now abstract this kind of reasoning,
in the statistical sense I’ve described, and you may begin to get an idea of what I’m trying to convey.

In no sense are the “Minds” irrelevant here. In fact historically they may have made some of the best Bloods. Consider some of these aloof Professor with no children. Now imagine the same individual in a harsh environment, growing up, and having a sole (surviving) child with their common law wife.

In summary, without enforced environmental difficulty in rearing children, psychology is canalised along a different route and different imperatives come into play. The Minds are lost and at a loss.

None of this suggests naively that Minds do not have or love their children and that Bloods always do (or vice versa). In fact saccharine love might not be the right way to conceive effective fatherhood anyway. This is why I prefaced the remarks by framing it as a statistical phenomenon.

Posted by Matthew on Sat, 10 Sep 2005 04:11 | #

“With contraception things are delayed. From a societal point of view even small delays may be crucial.”

Anonymous

Yes, I have thought about this quite a bit too. If men are delayed in getting to manhood,defined as bearing children and having wife and the child to look after, it has a profound negative effect on how the men view society and its ability to keep his offspring safe.

If an entire society is delaying starting a family and you bring in other factors like libertine sexual mores and governmental programs to support single mothers, you end up with the disaster we see today.

I always laugh at glaring examples of emasculated and effeminate boy men like Jay Leno and David Letterman. Leno is childless and Letterman just had his first child at 60.

Both have no problem with any comments that disparage white women or have an obvious effect of lessening the overall safety of childbearing for 95% of non-elite whites in society.

You may see this as a bizarre example, which it may be, but look at the most watched 60’s and 70’s TV. Lawrence Welk, Andy Griffith, Any Xmas special and Leave it to Beaver and all of these, albeit in different Genres, had a patriachal approach to the way they delivered entertainment.

Saying that men lost control of society is easy, but analysing different areas of collapse is more complex

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 10 Sep 2005 04:15 | #

I think Matthew and Anonymous both make excellent points, ones which are somewhat new for me by the way—I’ve never thought of those points in those specific ways. Something to think about, certainly.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:17 | #

There are 2 separate problems here:

1) The more sparsely populated paleolithic environments, such as Europe, selected for greater self-reliance hence innate individualism is a racial characteristic that we must preserve if we aren’t to eliminate who we are.

2) The innate individualism of our race is compensated by our humanity—ie: our ability to understand the nature of our situation and act rationally.

The problem isn’t in our individualism—that’s like saying the solution to murder is to kill everyone or the solution to genocide is to eliminate all nationalism.

The problem is in dehumanizing us via mutilation of the psyche.

I’ve written about how this sort of thing arises and why those who evolved individualism might also have difficulty defendnig their psyches from biological attack. Here’s an excerpt from the section titled “Mind Control”:

When mental processes—particularly those concerning the genetics of kin identification and reproduction—are up for grabs, the GOD hypothesis predicts genetic omni-dominance will override the mental processes of individuals of lesser GOD producing behavior that seems bizarre if one does not consider the externality of the genes being served by said behavior.

For example, arguing in good faith about genetics with those subject to the “logical fallacies” of “political correctness” is frequently akin to arguing with the bee in the following passage from “The Extended Phenotype” by Richard Dawkins chapter titled “Host Phenotypes of Parasite Genes”:

“Many fascinating examples of parasites manipulating the behavior of their hosts can be given. For nematomorph larvae, who need to break out of their insect hosts and get into water where they live as adults, ‘...a major difficulty in the parasite’s life is the return to water. It is, therefore, of particular interest that the parasite appears to affect the behavior of its host, and “encourages” it to return to water. The mechanism by which this is achieved is obscure, but there are sufficient isolated reports to certify that the parasite does influence its host, and often suicidally for the host… One of the more dramatic reports describes an infected bee flying over a pool and, when about six feet over it, diving straight into the water. Immediately on impact the gordian worm burst out and swam into the water, the maimed bee being left to die’ (Croll 1966).”

We can rest assured the bee was not thinking “I must atone for the abuses to which my species’ immune system has put the poor little nematomorph larvae throughout our history of coevolution together. Therefore, with full knowledge and forethought, I now die for my little friend inside, and it I feel _so good about myself_!” despite how impressive our little parable of “the politically correct bee” is. However, when the mental processes are as complex as those supported by human nervous systems, the GOD influences of parasite genes may be masked in entire academic and theological disciplines with libraries filled with the scholarly works of the generations.

The fact that such genetically suicidal behavior is almost entirely on behalf of more GOD gene pools—with the most extremes of “political correctness” exhibited by the most recessive gene pools ecologically furthest from human origin, in places like Stockholm, Sweden (one of the last benefactors of Zimbabwe’s Mugabe regime to withhold its enormous monetary gifts during Zimbabwe’s extended low level war against white farmers) or Seattle, Washington (the Gates Foundation gives more to benefit sub-Saharan African populations than any other) expressing altruism toward places closest to human origin—is something directly predicted by the GOD hypothesis. Likewise it is unsurprising when populations not so far from human origins are less charitable toward those populations even nearer to human origins. Take, for example, this quote:

“Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness.”

—Mahatma Ghandi Collected Works II p.74

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:32 | #

What if, however, individualism is not entirely a racial characteristic? Salter, and Rushton frame their position in the context of race exclusively. However, KMac, like Cantrell allude to a different motivation, class.

The Celts, the South, the Boers, the Jews and the Germans all developed race/ethnic based collective strategies for survival. They were threatened by out group elements who were either numerically or intellectually supperior. The English people, however, developed in splendid isolation. It was not out group conflict that boiled within the English polity but in group. Class was the defining notion for the English and this pervailed wherever the English put down roots.

Cantrell writes…“the British Empire waged cultural war; ultimately it was directed at the whole of Western Christian Civilization and not exclusively Celts and Catholics. The great truth that Cannadine highlights is that the empire for and by WASPs was erected upon a simultaneous loathing for not merely non-British whites, nor even for Celtic and/or Catholic whites, but also for the masses of non-wealthy English Protestants…” Thus Churchill’s notion of Anglo-Saxon superiority was not race based. The reason the English elite came to see aboriginals throughout the Empire as inferior is that those natives “were seen as the overseas equivalent of the ‘undeserving poor’ in Britain”.

Cantrell posits…“The British ruling class developed a “relationship of equivalence and similarity: princes in one society were analogous to princes in another, and so on and so on, all the way down these two parallel social ladders”. This is the origin of Affirmative Action and ‘race-norming.’ The British elite decided that each racial/ethnic/national group in its empire [but it did not apply to Irish Catholics] had its own elite that was comparable to the British elite”.

Thus the Yankee elite, (encompassing the Anglosphere), like the English elite before them, drafts Anglophilic whites and non-whites to further the imperium by destroying national cultures, heritage and theology and replacing them with the doctrine of individualism.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:54 | #

What if, however, individualism is not entirely a racial characteristic?

Of course its not entirely a racial characeristic. In fact the way the mutilation of the psyche I described usually proceeds is to take some innate behavioral predisposition and perversely amplify it as a moral or intellectual principle.

In so doing the reason is turned to the engine of rationalizing the desruction of our moral fiber—moral fiber which should first lead us to use reason for adaptive rather than base purposes.

Posted by Andrew L on Sat, 10 Sep 2005 09:26 | #

I would say it is harder now day’s to gaine collective rationalization, not as the rule, but simply put the intergenerational and education, and that ugly librilism, has created a whole area of Individuallity to a point where it becomes useless and perhaps Elitist self serving, again not the general rule but the neverending compounding effect even if it is only a few at the start.
When you grow older, there is like a Genetic signal that emplores you to discover your anccestory, but by then, the Younger Progressives have allienated society, and that is a deliberate act of political and cultural sabotage, and that word must raise more questions , and that is not a to hard question.
I suppose what people had in common then has now been replaced with Miss-trust, and again a deliberate act of social sabotage.
Once Academics and Judges, the Intellectual types were pinnicles of Society, are now viewed with some deserved outrageous contempt for the culpable attitudes and view’s, this is where the chain has been broken, and society on a whole as it use to be has been conned, nearlly out of it’s own existance.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 10 Sep 2005 09:50 | #

What extremely interesting ideas, some new to me too. I shall respond to them individually when it is clear the thread is near enough exhausted.

Meanwhile, my apologies to anyone who found my investigation of the intellectual psyche too long and unfocussed. Like many posts that get finished after midnight I am left to reflect that perhaps I should have waited til morning.

The post is essentially in two parts. Is it true that the individual and ideas trump kinship and, if not, why do intelligent commentators believe them to? Why do people whose judgement is often so sound in other areas refuse today to cleave to kin as intelligent men cleaved at every other time in our history?

I am leaning towards the view that liberalism + modernity contains the seeds of an answer. It may of course be that no one answer outweighs the others, and that different considerations apply to different people.

But my suspicion at the moment is that since we know the delights of modernity affect moral fibre - to use James’ old-fashioned term - in many vital ways, they must play in some regard with intellectuals too. I am positing the possibility that one way is that they literally cannot see kinship’s imprimateur on their own psyches - even when it is pointed out to them.

It isn’t a developed theory like James GOD. It’s just the musings of someone groping in the dark!

Posted by Andrew L on Sat, 10 Sep 2005 09:57 | #

Wait till you have been shot and splattered by kids half your age in Paint ball, or Skurmish.I still have not lost my touch, just my Physical touch.
The pain the pain, oooohhh

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:04 | #

BTW, the best counter-argument I’ve yet seen to the genetic omni-dominance hypothesis referenced in the “mind control” posting of mine above, is “Omni-Reality” at an excellent and now-defunct website that was called “legioneuropa.org”. I believe the maintainer of that site suffered some sort of health or personal crisis that rendered him unable to continue supporting it.

In any case, it is worth reading. His argument is that there has been a great deal of destruction of the original upper castes of India (the original Aryan gene pool of India) but without the level of displacement of the Aryan Y-chromosome that he thought would be predicted by the genetic omnidominance hypothesis. I’m grateful to him for digging this information out—he is a good researcher. It is evidence that my predictions about the Y chromosome are either incorrect or that they don’t apply until the technological “climate” has reached a certain level of “warming” required for the encroaching genepool—ie: technological adaptations have rendered the effective comfort of the environment sufficiently great.

I tend to think the latter due to the fact that there is a clear gradient of Y-chromosome type with the climatic gradient from southern to northern India and India has been technologically backward for a long time. Northern India is now undergoing a lot of the dynamic experienced in the colder parts of Europe—which is one reason there has been such pressure from India for a diaspora of their upper caste to the US and other english speaking countries. They’re attempting to escape to an environment in which they are more genetically dominant than the majority. Of course, now they’re being followed by a lot of the lower castes which may be, according to may be a major vector of pathogens creating the autism epidemic—although more validation research is needed.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 05:47 | #

Look at <u>this</u> blatantly anti-white-race, pro-race-replacement propaganda poster put out by the German government. The text on it says, “Family-Germany: More opportunities, more rights, more security.” One could make a good case for saying the government is trying to tell German girls that if they marry African Negroes they’ll have “more opportunities, more rights, more security.” I don’t see how the plausibility of such an interpretation could possibly be disproven. (I saw the poster <u>here</u>.)

Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:28 | #

Exactly, James.

Posted by edward holland on Sat, 02 Dec 2006 19:58 | #

THE AMERICA IS A NEW MEXICO AND EUROPE IS A NEW AFRICA AND EURABIA!!!

OH MY GOD!!!

IT?S VERY, VERY BAD!!!

Posted by Fred on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 06:42 | #

Originally, only “white” men could be American citizens. It’s right there in the statutes.

The Fourteenth Amendment has a loophole: it doesn’t say that Congress must naturalize all races. In fact, until 1954, our naturalization statutes contained the word “white.” Only white foreigners could become American citizens.

I used to think that American white-pride went out of fashion when Hitler lost the war. However, in looking at naturalization court-cases, I see that the phrase “ineligible for citizenship on account of race” became “ineligible for citizenship” somewhere between the 20’s and 1945.

In other words, during that period the judges became embarrased about the race-qualification for naturalized citizenship.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:14 | #

“somewhere between the 20’s and 1945 [...] the judges became embarrased about the race-qualification for naturalized citizenship.” (—Fred)

Just when the first wave of strong Jewish influence on the U.S. legal profession was making itself felt, in other words.

Race is nothing to be embarrassed about. It’s a fact, period. Everybody has one. Is a Chinaman embarrassed about race? Is a Jap? Is a Mexican? Is a Jew? Neither should a white be.

Jews certainly aren’t embarrassed about the “must be Jewish” qualification for the Israeli Law of Return.

They’re certainly not embarrassed about keeping their Jewish bloodlines pure with marriage laws at least at strict at the German Nuremberg Laws of 1935, which were what got Kaufman and Morgenthau so incensed they plotted to genocide the entire German nation.

ISRAEL TODAY HAS THE EXACT SAME LAWS. IS THERE A PEEP FROM THE EXACT SAME JEWS? THREE GUESSES.

Jews love messing our nest because they see it as not only not theirs but a rival. The nest they see as theirs? Oh, they wouldn’t mess that one for anything in the universe. Embarrassment in that case? WOW I CAN’T FIND IT ANYWHERE.

You know, I’ve searched high and low, and embarrassment in that case is nowhere to be seen .....

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments