“It is necessary to have “watchers” at hand who will bear witness to the values of Tradition in ever more uncompromising and firm ways, as the anti-traditional forces grow in strength. Even though these values cannot be achieved, it does not mean that they amount to mere “ideas.” These are measures…. Let people of our time talk about these things with condescension as if they were anachronistic and anti-historical; we know that this is an alibi for their defeat. Let us leave modern men to their “truths” and let us only be concerned about one thing: to keep standing amid a world of ruins.” ― Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World: Politics, Religion, and Social Order in the Kali Yuga.
“We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who died at his post during the eruption of Vesuvius because someone forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honorable end is the one that can not be taken from a man.” ― Oswald Spengler, Man and Technics: A Contribution to a Philosophy of Life.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Plastered all over today’s front page of the Communist News Network (CNN) website is the story of a 25-year-old illegal Mexican immigrant killed in a street-fight with three drunken white high school jocks, ages 16, 17, and 18, in PA. I’m not specifically interested in condoning or condemning anything about anyone involved in this incident, but I am interested to note aspects of the media coverage and that any specific incident of this type is part of a bigger picture.
On the media-hype level, note how CNN systematically uses the sanitized term “Undocumented Worker” as a less emotionally-charged, and less truthful, euphemism for ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT. They also go to great lengths to state how the “Undocumented Worker” worked hard at two jobs to take care of his two children, both parented with his white “fiancé,” along her child from a previous marriage.
The article goes to some length to emphasize “Blows had struck the 25-year-old Mexican immigrant with such force that they left a clotted, bruised impression of Jesus Christ on the skin of his chest from the religious medal he wore.” This is intended to impress upon us the brutality of the beating as well as to imply the pious nature of an innocent young man, so religious that he was wearing a Jesus medallion. Here’s a hint for honest researchers; go look up images of Mexican prison inmates and gang members and observe how many of them are wearing Jesus medallions and have Jesus and other religious tattoos. I’m sure there are non-criminal Mexican men with Jesus Bling and catholic tattoos, but let’s not lose all perspective, and let’s not also mistake it as an indicator of Christ-like personality traits.
Also note after stating how hard the Illegal Immigrant works to feed his girlfriend and their illegitimate brood, CNN accidently mentions “His diamond-encrusted religious medal, which cost him $300, now hangs over the fireplace in the three-story home on Main Street where Dillman and the children live.” How many meals did the poor, huddled, wretched-of-the-earth, half-Illegal-Immigrant babies go without so daddy could afford his $300 Jesus Bling?
Yes Virginia, CNN smells like fish as usual, and Jesus Bling means Jack Shit in this or any episode.
Not to mention the three story home with a fireplace. Whose job did he take by not being here legally? Do "undocumented workers" pay taxes?
The Communist News Network also sort of understates the fact that the Illegal Immigrant was not with his 25 year old white girlfriend when he fatally encountered the beery white jocks in the park at night, he was with her 15 year old white sister.
The incident is better understood when you realize what the drunk white jocks saw walking through the park that night was a 25 year old Mexican male wearing $300 Jesus Bling and a 15 year old white girl. It is little wonder they confronted the guy, and given the fact that they were white high school football jocks and he was a 25 year old Mexican blingster, it is no shock that the confrontation degenerated from testosterone-driven machismo into deadly violence. It is also pretty obvious that it was not intentional murder. It is also interesting to note that had the perpetrators not shouted racial epithets, they probably would not be charged with a “hate crime” and the event would not be garnering national attention.
As I said above, I’m not condoning or condemning anyone without ALL of the facts, but I also won’t succumb to the naïve “shock and awe” or self-righteous anti-racist outrage that the Communist News Network is trying to elicit in a timely way to coordinate with the campaign efforts of the first black would-be President in the USA.
I am certainly not going to feign shock at drunken white teenage football jocks throwing a beat-down on a 25 year old illegal Mexican immigrant male walking through the park at night with a 15 year old white girl. This may be a “hate crime” by contemporary idealistic political standards, but from the Darwinian perspective it is predictable biologically instinctive out-group behavior.
This is akin to how I look at the frequency of youths and teens violently targeting homeless people. On some deep biological level there is an instinct that the weakest elements are a liability to the tribe. The natural pack instinct is geared toward high-speed low-drag survival. Weeding out the unfit has been a necessary process for far longer in our biological history than any more recent ideological commitment, or retrograde life-denying instinct, to preserve and coddle whatever whines. It is the same basis as the instinct among children to single out the weak and stupid and bully them. The collective pack function is to force the weak and stupid to get smarter and stronger, or else exit and not drag down the gene-pool or pack with their life-negating deficiencies.
Young people are also instinctively and painfully aware of the future, whether they are consciously aware of it or not. Being confronted with the mediocrity of their parents on a daily basis is instinctively demoralizing enough, but being confronted with an adult that has abandoned any effort to preserve itself, and abandoned itself to self-destructive alcohol and drug abuse to the point that they are sleeping in and wearing their own urine and excrement is not just a demoralizing offense, it is an overt slap in the face to any biological instinct for survival of the race. Without condoning or soliciting a get out of jail free card for the miscreant-liquidating youth, their instincts are probably right on track from an evolutionary perspective.
Xenophobia is at least as biologically hardwired a pack preservation instinct as that for weeding out the unfit. Most people FEEL this way even when they have systematically programmed themselves not to THINK that way. The bottom-line is that most human behavior is motivated by feeling rather than intellect.
I recall some years ago, I was driving with a friend, both of us white, when we passed a somewhat sleazy looking black man walking quickly down the sidewalk carrying a white baby. We both looked at each other in mutual unspoken skepticism, then turned around and followed him up the block until he just happened to meet up with a white woman who was obviously the mother (in front of the state welfare offices no less). I’m sure a sleazy white guy with a baby would evoke unease, but this response was at a much more primal level. My friend, who was not a “racist” by any stretch of the imagination, may have felt some pang of “guilt” at what was an entirely reasonable suspicion, but he was even more shocked by the level of his EMOTIONAL RESPONSE to seeing a black man hustling down the street carrying a white baby.
He said “My natural instinct was to kill the black guy and save the baby.”
That pretty much sums it up.
The US Census Bureau has projected that by 2050 the racial demographics of the USA will have shifted white people to less than 50% for the first time in history. Racial issues will become progressively less apologetic, overt, and more openly confrontational as that shift progresses. Blood in the streets will copiously precede any “honest” overt mainstream political “discussion” taking place. Things will get far worse before they get any better.
In any event, it looks like I will be growing old in “interesting” times.
In the meantime, don’t forget what color skin you are wearing. Your life may depend on that awareness.
THE ARTICLE: http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/31/shenadoah.beating/index.html
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
"I could hardly restrain an exclamation of surprise as I viewed the interior of this chamber. It was very much as I should have imagined the den of some old sorcerer to be. There were tables strewn with archaic instruments of doubtful use, with astrological charts, with skulls and alembics and crystals, with censers such as are used in the Catholic Church, and volumes bound in worm-eaten leather with verdigris-mottled clasps. In one corner stood the skeleton of a large ape; in another, a human skeleton; and overhead a stuffed crocodile was suspended. There were cases overpiled with books, and even a cursory glance at the titles showed me that they formed a singularly comprehensive collection of ancient and modern works on demonology and the black arts. There were some weird paintings and etchings on the walls, dealing with kindred themes; and the whole atmosphere of the room exhaled a medley of half-forgotten superstitions. Ordinarily I would have smiled it confronted with such things; but somehow, in this lonely, dismal house, beside the neurotic, hag-ridden Carnby, it was difficult for me to repress an actual shudder. On one of the tables, contrasting incongruously with this m êlange of medievalism and Satanism, there stood a typewriter, surmunded with piles of disorderly manuscript. At one end of the room there was a small, curtained alcove with a bed in which Carnby slept. At the end opposite the alcove, between the human and simian skeletons, I perceived a locked cupboard that was set in the wall..."
Read the original story "The Return of the Sorcerer" by Clarke Ashton Smith.
He made his film debut in 1938 with Service de Luxe and established himself as a competent actor, notably in Laura (1944), opposite Gene Tierney, directed by Otto Preminger. He also played Joseph Smith, Jr. in the movie Brigham Young (1940), as well as a pretentious priest in The Keys of the Kingdom (1944).
Price's first venture into the horror genre was in the 1939 Boris Karloff film Tower of London in which his character was murdered by Karloff's. The following year he portrayed the title character in the film The Invisible Man Returns (a role he reprised in a vocal cameo at the end of the 1948 horror-comedy spoof Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein).
In 1946 Price reunited with Gene Tierney in two notable films, Dragonwyck and Leave Her to Heaven. There were also many villainous roles in slick film noir thrillers like The Web (1947), The Long Night (1947), Rogues' Regiment (1948) and The Bribe (1949) with Robert Taylor, Ava Gardner and Charles Laughton. He was also active in radio, portraying the Robin Hood-inspired crime-fighter Simon Templar, aka. The Saint, in a series that ran from 1943 to 1951.
In the 1950s, he moved into horror films, with a role in House of Wax (1953), the first 3-D film to land in the year's top ten at the North American box office, and then the monster movie The Fly (1958). Price also starred in the original House on Haunted Hill (1959) as the eccentric millionaire Fredrick Loren. (Geoffrey Rush, playing the same character in the 1999 remake, was not only made to resemble Price, but was also renamed Steven Price.) In between these horror films, Price played Baka in The Ten Commandments. In the 1960s, Price had a number of low-budget successes with Roger Corman and American International Pictures (AIP) including the Edgar Allan Poe adaptations House of Usher (1960), The Pit and the Pendulum (1961), Tales of Terror (1962), The Comedy of Terrors (1963) The Raven (1963), The Masque of the Red Death, and The Tomb of Ligeia (1965). He also starred in The Last Man on Earth (1964), a film based on the Richard Matheson novel I Am Legend. In 1968 Price gave an iconic, coldly menacing, performance as Matthew Hopkins the "Witchfinder General" in the film of the same name.
He also starred in comedy films, notably the cult-classic Dr. Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine (1965). In 1968 he played the part of an eccentric artist in the musical Darling of the Day opposite Patricia Routledge, displaying an adequate if untrained singing voice.
He often spoke of his pleasure at playing "Egghead" on the Batman television series. Another of his co-stars, Yvonne Craig (Batgirl), often said Price was her favorite co-star. In an often-repeated anecdote from the set of Batman, Price, after a take was printed, started throwing eggs at series stars Adam West and Burt Ward, and when asked to stop replied, "With a full artillery? Not a chance!", causing an eggfight to erupt on the soundstage. This incident is reenacted in the behind-the-scenes telefilm Return to the Batcave: The Misadventures of Adam and Burt.
It was also in the 1960s that he began his role as a guest on the game show The Hollywood Squares, even becoming a semi-regular in the 1970s, including being one of the guest panelists on the finale in 1980. He was known for usually making fun of Rose Marie's age, and using his famous voice to answer maliciously to questions. During the early 1970s, Price hosted and starred in BBC Radio's horror and mystery series The Price of Fear. Price accepted a cameo part in the children's television program The Hilarious House of Frightenstein (1971) in Hamilton, Ontario Canada, on the local television station CHCH. In addition to the opening and closing monologues, his role in the show was to recite poems about the show's various characters, sometimes wearing a cloak or other costumes. He has also appeared in The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971) and Theatre of Blood (1973), in which he created a series of campy, tongue-in-cheek villains. Price also recorded dramatic readings of Poe's short stories and poems, which were collected together with readings by Basil Rathbone.
He greatly reduced his film work from around 1975, as horror itself suffered a slump, and increased his narrative and voice work, as well as advertising Milton Bradley's Shrunken Head Apple Sculpture. Price's voiceover is heard on Alice Cooper's first solo album, Welcome to My Nightmare from 1975, as well as the TV special entitled Alice Cooper-The Nightmare. He starred for a year in the early 1970s in a syndicated daily radio program, Tales of the Unexplained. He also made guest appearances in a 1970 episode of Here's Lucy showcasing his art expertise and in a 1972 episode of The Brady Bunch, in which he played a deranged archaeologist.
In the summer of 1977, he began performing as Oscar Wilde, in the one man stage play Diversions and Delights. Written by John Gay and directed by Joe Hardy, the play is set in a Parisian theatre on a night about one year before Wilde's death. In an attempt to earn some much-needed money, he speaks to the audience about his life, his works and, in the second act, about his love for Bosie, Lord Alfred Douglas, which led to his downfall.
The original tour of the play was a success in every city that it played, except for New York City. In the summer of 1979, Price performed it at the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado on the same stage that Wilde had spoken to the miners about art some 96 years before. Price would eventually perform the play worldwide and to many, including his daughter Victoria, it was the best acting that he ever did. In 1982, Price provided the narrator's voice in Vincent, Tim Burton's six-minute film about a young boy who flashes from reality into a fantasy where he is Vincent Price. That same year, he performed a sinister "rap" on the title track of Michael Jackson's Thriller album. A longer version of the rap, sans the music, along with some conversation can be heard on Jackson's 2001 remastered reissue of the Thriller album. Part of the extended version can be heard on the Thriller 25 album, released in 2008.
In 1983, Price played the Sinister Man in the British spoof horror film Bloodbath at the House of Death starring Kenny Everett & he also appeared in the film House of the Long Shadows. One of his last major roles, and one of his favorites, was as the voice of Professor Ratigan in Walt Disney Pictures' The Great Mouse Detective from 1986.
From 1981 to 1989, he hosted the PBS television series Mystery!. Also, in 1985, he was voice talent on the Hanna-Barbera series The 13 Ghosts of Scooby-Doo as the mysterious Vincent Van Ghoul, who aided Scooby Doo Scrappy Doo and the gang in capturing thirteen evil demons into an ancient chest. During this time (1985-1989), he appeared in horror-themed commercials for Tilex bathroom cleanser. In 1989, Price was inducted into the St. Louis Walk of Fame. His last significant film work was as the inventor in Tim Burton's Edward Scissorhands (1990).
A witty raconteur, Price was a frequent guest on Johnny Carson's Tonight Show, where he once demonstrated how to poach a fish in a dishwasher. He also was a frequent panelist on Hollywood Squares during its initial run. Price was a noted gourmet cook and art collector. From 1962 to 1971, Sears, Roebuck offered the Vincent Price Collection of Fine Art, selling about 50,000 pieces of fine art to the general public. Price selected and commissioned works for the collection, including works by Rembrandt, Pablo Picasso, and Salvador Dalí. He also authored several cookbooks and hosted a cookery TV show, Cooking Pricewise. Price was a lifelong smoker. He had long suffered from emphysema and Parkinson's disease, which had forced his role in Edward Scissorhands to be much smaller than intended.
His illness also contributed to his retirement from Mystery, as his condition was becoming noticeable on-screen. He died of lung cancer on October 25, 1993. The Arts & Entertainment Network aired an episode of Biography highlighting Price's horror career the next night, but because of its failure to clear copyrights, the show was never aired again. Four years later, A&E produced its updated episode, a show titled Vincent Price: The Versatile Villain, which aired on October 12, 1997; it is often rebroadcast and is available on DVD. The script was by Lucy Chase Williams, author of The Complete Films of Vincent Price (Citadel Press, 1995). In early 1991, Tim Burton was developing a personal documentary with the working title Conversations With Vincent, in which interviews with Price were shot at the Vincent Price Gallery, but the project was never completed and was eventually shelved.
Vincent Price reads THE RAVEN by Edgar Allen Poe:
Vincent Price narrates "Vincent" by Tim Burton:
The Vincent Price Collection of Fine Art: http://www.searsarchives.com/history/art/
Monday, July 28, 2008
1. Gene Pool (Human Race)
1.1. Gene Pool of Subspecies (specific races as we think of them)
1.1.1. Family (specific ancestry)
It is not inaccurate, genetically, to refer to racial subspecies as extended family.
Within every human subspecies (race) the intelligent functional specimens are in the extreme minority.
Collectively every human subspecies approximates their general collective traits, usually behaving less than average when in pack-mode.
Behavior of people with above average intelligence is significantly less predictable than average.
Behavior of people with below average intelligence is significantly more predictable than average.
Each subspecies (race) differs from one another at ratios approximating the differences between any given individuals.
On average, most members of a collective subspecies (race) look, think, and act approximately like their typical stereotypes (where "stereotypes" come from), and frequently worse.
Most white Americans are mediocre crass mindless consumers, most black Americans are surly loud and economically incompetent, most Jews are pushy whiny and cheap, most Asians are quiet inoffensive and good at school, most Chicanos bring their whole family everywhere with them in one car, including cousins and grandparents, etc.
Even if you are committed to being non-racist, it behooves every individual to keep racism in their personal psychological arsenal for the simple fact that most people of all races are racist, so you may find yourself in situations where being "racist" at a simple awareness level will be a useful survival instinct.
If one race decides to abandon "racism" while all others embrace it - guess who gets wiped off the map?
Ingroup/outgroup inter and intra-group pecking order is hardwired human monkey behavior. Use it or get used by it.
Maybe someday the smart people of all races will weed out the stupid people of all races so they can all sit down together and devise better reasons to hate and more efficient ways to oppress and kill each other.
Really, EVERYONE has it coming.
The fallacy at the root of "prejudice" (meaning literally pre-judging) on an INDIVIDUAL level is in treating the next person as if they were the previous person.
For example; anyone who deals with the public comes to appreciate that most people are assholes. The hard part is NOT automatically assuming the next person through the door IS an asshole, after dealing with so many assholes.
If you divide people into groups (by race, religion, favorite eye color, etc.) the same applies. Most people from any group are probably assholes, and by definition "most" will be "average" at best.
That is not to say all groups are equally bad. Some may be worse than others, one group’s average may be another’s below average, or vise versa, but it won't be automatically reflected in a consistent way in each individual from that set.
You may be safe in saying GROUP Q is for all practical purposes incompatible with the society of GROUP Z, or that GROUP S is for all practical purposes a quasi-organized crime cartel and should be packed off to Siberia. It is unfortunate that isolated individuals who are the exception will be lumped together with the rest and receive the same privileges or abuse whether they deserve it or not.
This can be avoided by conscientious individuals on an individual level, but at the level of collective interface between groups it is frequently a juggernaut disaster riding rough-shod over human concepts of "justice" or "fairness."
"Ethnic" is a more fuzzy term than "race" (subspecies), as is "culture"; the correlation to race is clear in some cases, less clear in others.
Germanics, Scandinavians, Dutch, English, French etc. are all essentially the same race or subspecies, descended from Germanic tribes; Goths, Franks, Angles, Saxons, etc. but have developed specific regional "cultural" or "ethnic" differences based on geographic, economic and sometimes religious factors (such as the reformation) resulting in incessant genetically-fratricidal wars. WWI and WWII were just as genetically fratricidal as the American Civil War and every inter-European war (in contrast to the Crusades and wars against Ottoman Turks, Arab Muslims, etc.) after the fall of Rome.
Hutu's and Tutsi are the same racial group but with "ethnic" differences resulting in what is more properly called "ethnic cleansing" rather than "genocide."
Arabs and Jews are both "Semitic" people, although Jews later became racially mixed with Eastern European Slavs, Khazars, etc., and Arabs are genetically distinct from Iranian Persians, Kurds, Turks, etc.
Serbs and Croats are more or less of the same racial subspecies, but divided by religious and other "ethnic" factors.
Distinct racial subspecies of black (sub-Saharan) Africa are far more diverse than those of Europe. Not surprising considering how small Europe is and how HUGE Africa is, and how divided/isolated different gene pools of Africa were by insurmountable geographic factors.
The re-Mixing of Dutch, English, Germans and French in North America was basically a genetic reunion.
The mixing of different black African racial subspecies in the Americas as a result of slavery was much more radical, even though mostly from West Africa.
The genetic demographics of East and S.E. Asia are another story. How many different genetically Chinese "ethnic" groups are there in China? How many different genetic and ethnic groups were pulled together under the Majapahit Empire?
The big ruckus about Sociobiology, Evolutionary Psychology etc. is that it lends weight to xenophobia as a historically valid adaptive evolutionary strategy (albeit without validating "racism" in the retarded angsty commonsense idea of the term).
Americans are pathetically obsessed with "equality."
Anything that remotely challenges that idea, which means basically everything in existence, results in histrionic fits of insecurity and excessive protests to the contrary.
Preference naturally implies something is better than another.
Anything but "better" ... "better" is a SIN against equality.
If there is a "Master Race" on Earth it is probably the Chinese.
If European culture could claim unbroken continuity as far back as Ancient Egypt, we could claim to be Historical peers of the Chinese.
China does not have to defeat the West. China can sit back and wait while we self-destruct.
I've always said, in another century or two the USA will be a VERY short chapter in a Chinese history book.
The other day I needed to look up "Japan" on Wikipedia to get a time-line for something else and this line struck me "The first written mention of Japan begins with brief appearances in Chinese history texts from the first century AD."
China is odd. They tend to have too many internal issues to act "imperialistic" abroad, but counter to that they have so many people that their version of emigration (as what is happening in Africa now) is another culture's idea of invasion. Demographically one thin slice of their pie is enough to saturate a smaller nation. Interestingly the Chinese tend to set themselves up as "economic middlemen" in whatever countries they emigrate to, especially in SE Asia and Africa, historically parallel to Jews in Europe, Russia, and the USA. They are an extreme minority in crucial economic hub positions of resource distribution, banking, etc. and subject to similar resentment from the majority host culture in times of crisis.
Two core books on race and culture:
RACE by John R. Baker. (Oxford University Press)
RACE & CULTURE by Thomas Sowell.
Anyone who imagines these are "racist" texts either has never read them, or their definition of "racist" is so broad that anyone admitting there are different races, much less differences between them, is "racist."
Beyond a certain point, for people with certain standards and sensibilities, "Fascism" ceases to be a practical political position and becomes a purist-outsider ideology of alienation, which I have come to regard more and more as a sign of integrity. It definitely has FAR more to recommend itself as a basic framework of BRUTALLY HONEST social criticism than mainstream "Kosher Conservatism."
I'll still pitch for mainstream conservative politics here and there where it serves my interests (guns, taxes, crime) but over time I'm less and less "inhibited" about being a non-Utopian Blackshirt at heart. In other words, expect to see me getting even more "Fascistic" as the hour grows late. I mean really, the situation is fucked beyond the point of no return with scarce reason to pull punches about it.
I'm in the process of re-writing something I wrote about 15 years ago about Nietzsche in relation to 20th century history that has been bringing this to a head for me. At this stage the essay is almost long enough to be a small book, which I may publish along with some other strictly political/social writing I have done (and am doing).
The opinions, misconceptions, and mass-media-brainwashed ideas of the average morons on the street regarding "Fascism" means NOTHING. If you ask someone who has honestly studied the literature surrounding it over a period of years to define "Fascism" and they will usually start out, "Hmm.....Well, it depends...." before gliding into a long list of what it is NOT. But beyond that there is a fairly consistent value set. Just a thumbnail sketch would look like cliffs notes to THE LUCIFER PRINCIPLE:
Ingroup/Nationalism/monoculturalism over outgroup/internationalism/multiculturalism; Eurocentric (White) racial/cultural supremacism; although there are have been Japanese, Pan-Arabic, and Pan-African movements corresponding to Euro-supremacists. Any flirtations or infatuations with outside cultures are at the "exotica" level. Nationalism is also invariably is attached to specific geographical TERRITORY.
Stratification/Hierarchy/Pecking-order; there are leaders and followers; ALL human organization ultimately forms itself into a hierarchical pyramid.
Action over "Dialectics"; Action for its own sake valued above "theory" or talk. This also corresponds to the Fascist primacy of the Hero, which in turn relates to violence, the aesthetic glorification of violence, especially in the form of heroic victorious triumph. This is embodied in a specific attitude toward DEATH; fearlessness in facing your own and fearlessness in inflicting it on others. If you fear your own death you are not in control of your own life - your fear of death will be used to enslave you. Those who do not fear death, and who do not fear inflicting death, are always the masters. This has philosophical roots in Hegel. You kill for victory or die trying. This is why Mussolini said the skull and crossbones was the symbol, par excellence, of Fascism.
Heroic Man over Economic Man; Heroic as defined above vs. "Economic Man" as defined by Capitalism AND Socialism/Communism. Capitalism and Communism are akin in the Fascist playbook in that they reduce man to an economic factor; or that all social ills can be alleviated either by levelling (Communism) or by the "invisible hand" of supply and demand working in a free market system. There is a pervasive critique of banking and financial structures throughout far-right thought, specifically in Fascism and National Socialism (which is reflected or bolstered by Nietzsche's critique of ressentiment and its correlation to the creditor/debtor dynamic). Another thing you rarely hear about Hitler, as an area of provocation, is how he restructured the economy and international trade, basically eliminating international banking and currency exchange by reverting to barter. He also tied the value of the currency to the working hour (rather than to gold or oil). Of course "The Jewish Question" is always tied to monetary/banking issues for historical reasons that placed Jews prominently in this field.
A total rejection of liberal post-enlightenment ideologies of equality, democracy, and "progress." There is no "blank slate," man is just another animal, groups are as different as individuals, intelligence and ability are largely biologically/genetically determined. Equality does not exist in nature. Nature IS Fascistic. Progress is a myth; entropy, regression and decline are more of a given than the pipe-dreams of "progress."
Biological primacy; the biological will-to-power; rejection of the "blank slate"; acknowledgement of biological determinism, fatalism, "organic" interpretations of culture and history (including "decay" ala Spengler); naturalistic biological stratification; correlating RACIAL consequences of this.
This is just off the cuff, in response to an informal inquiry, and not intended to be a formal "academic" outline of Fascism.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Saturday, July 26, 2008
This is really beautiful and the choice of music is impeccable. Kudos to the creators for not ghettoizing it near the end, although one cannot help but note the decline of aesthetic standards reflecting that of "modern art" toward the end. Maybe Hitler was onto something there?
More drivel is talked about the Jews than most subjects; both ways. The views that all Jews are born wicked, or that all Jews should be the sacred objects of the system, seems to me equal nonsense. I am neither an anti-Semite, nor a sycophant of Semites. The attitude of our movement has been both consistent and intelligible throughout. We have never attacked any man on account of race or religion, and we never shall. But we attack any man, whatever his race or religion, who acts against the interests of Britain or Europe; particularly Britons who ought to know better than to serve alien interests. It is a straightforward attitude, which has been formed by clear principles.
Why then have we been involved in clashes with Jewish interests, and why are so many Jews violently against us? The answers again are clear. Before the war I believed that certain great Jewish interests were trying to involve us in war, not in a British, but in a Jewish quarrel: I still believe it. The reasons for our belief and for the Jewish action are equally intelligible. It is true that a considerable number of Jews were having a bad time in Germany, and it can also be argued that if a similar number of Englishmen had been having an equally bad time in Germany, there would have been a demand among many Englishmen for war against Germany. But it is beyond question from the evidence of the period, that powerful Jewish interests were trying to produce war between Britain and Germany. They made it their business to start a war in the Jewish interest. I, and my friends, made it our business to stop that war, in British interest. That led to a head-on clash, and I still think that we were right in doing our utmost to prevent that war.
The issues between us, and those Jews before the war, were therefore quite simple and clear. They wanted to make a war, and we wanted to stop it. That is the long and the short of the whole matter. There was no question of racial persecution on our part. That was entirely contrary to our principles, which I put on public record at the time. We British were running a great Empire composed of many different races, and any suggestion of racial persecution would have broken it up. For practical, as well as moral reasons, it would have been the gravest error for us to pursue a policy of any kind of racial persecution. The Germans had entirely different national problems, as well as in some respects, a different national character, which was derived from a diversity of historic experience.
Our duty then, was to hold together and develop a multi-racial Empire. Their task, was to bring together and unite, the German peoples of one race. Because we wanted entirely different things, there was no need whatever, for a clash between us. The man you were apt to quarrel with, is the man who wants the same thing you do. The closely related peoples of Britain and Germany were by every design of nature complementary powers; a sea power concerned with a great Empire, and a land power concerned with its own people in a continental land mass.
The crime of those who then ruled Europe on both sides was to permit the division of Europe, which resulted in fratricidal war. The division of Europe was the supreme crime. It is true that the British Government actually declared war in a quarrel which was none of our business. But the errors of the German Government certainly assisted that act, and the consequent catastrophe. The world combination of their enemies against them was facilitated by the precipitate arrogance of the "patience exhausted" line, which provides a striking and instructive contrast to the more adroit and successful policies of characters so different as, Bismarck and Khrushchev. But the fatal line-up against Germany was above all aided by their anti-Semitic policy, which enabled their main enemies, in the international finance world, to build up a front against them. These errors brought to nought, all of the great social achievements of the National Socialist movement.
We, always rejected the nonsensical doctrine that a whole people were born wicked, and doomed to sin and damnation from birth. This is the deep moral and intellectual error of anti-Semitism, which has for a long period impeded the whole movement of European renaissance; despite all its wide diversity of form, in different countries. Neither before, during, nor after the war, did we have anything to do with the doctrine of anti-Semitism. Our policy now remains the same. When after the war, at the time of Suez, some Jewish interests were trying to drag us to war, not in a British, but Jewish quarrel, we again attacked them. We have neither fear nor favour; we attack men not for what they are, but for what they do. When you see in some periods little or nothing about Jews, in our speeches or publications, it does not mean that we have changed our principles, but that at this time we see nothing to quarrel about. We only attack a Jew, a Gentile, an Englishman or an Eskimo, when he is doing something against the interests of Britain.
But, reply those possessed by a fuddled anti-Semitism, many Jews are doing something wrong all of the time. Quite right, we reply, and so are a number of Englishmen and members of other peoples of this island. The point is, that we are going to bring all of these damned rackets to an end, whoever does them. Those who run the rackets will find themselves either in jail, or out of the country, whoever they are. We shall do this by the fearless application of existing law, which could stop this corruption, if the government itself were not corrupt. If this is not enough, we shall ask the people to give us the power to make new laws. We are going to smash this corruption. That will solve the problem.
If the views of the anti-Semites were correct, then all Jews would be caught by these laws; so they have nothing to bellyache about. But, of course, their view is not true, because no people have what the Victorians called "a double dose of original sin". The only effect of this foolish opinion is to let the big rogues go scot-free.
While anti-Semites are busy pursuing the little Jews, the big villains of all races who run international finance are sitting back and laughing at them in the City, or Wall Street, or in kindred haunts of the usury species. How many of them were ever caught by the Nazis ? On the contrary, the error of some Nazis played right into their hands, and gave them the weapons to defeat the European renaissance in every country. Now comes again, in a newer and higher form, the renaissance of the European man; this time not to lose, but to win.
Friday, July 25, 2008
'Opening' (O Fortuna)
Music by Carl Orff (1895-1982)
Directed by Jean-Pierre Ponnelle
Chor des Bayerischen Rundfunks
Kurt Eichhorn, conductor (1975)
The whole film can be found in pieces on YouTube....
A Family Tree in Every Gene
It's an old-fashioned, even Victorian, sentiment. Who speaks of "racial stocks" anymore? After all, to do so would be to speak of something that many scientists and scholars say does not exist. If modern anthropologists mention the concept of race, it is invariably only to warn against and dismiss it. Likewise many geneticists. "Race is social concept, not a scientific one," according to Dr. Craig Venter - and he should know, since he was first to sequence the human genome. The idea that human races are only social constructs has been the consensus for at least 30 years.
But now, perhaps, that is about to change. Last fall, the prestigious journal Nature Genetics devoted a large supplement to the question of whether human races exist and, if so, what they mean. The journal did this in part because various American health agencies are making race an important part of their policies to best protect the public - often over the protests of scientists. In the supplement, some two dozen geneticists offered their views. Beneath the jargon, cautious phrases and academic courtesies, one thing was clear: the consensus about social constructs was unraveling. Some even argued that, looked at the right way, genetic data show that races clearly do exist.
The dominance of the social construct theory can be traced to a 1972 article by Dr. Richard Lewontin, a Harvard geneticist, who wrote that most human genetic variation can be found within any given "race." If one looked at genes rather than faces, he claimed, the difference between an African and a European would be scarcely greater than the difference between any two Europeans. A few years later he wrote that the continued popularity of race as an idea was an "indication of the power of socioeconomically based ideology over the supposed objectivity of knowledge." Most scientists are thoughtful, liberal-minded and socially aware people. It was just what they wanted to hear.
Three decades later, it seems that Dr. Lewontin's facts were correct, and have been abundantly confirmed by ever better techniques of detecting genetic variety. His reasoning, however, was wrong. His error was an elementary one, but such was the appeal of his argument that it was only a couple of years ago that a Cambridge University statistician, A. W. F. Edwards, put his finger on it.
The error is easily illustrated. If one were asked to judge the ancestry of 100 New Yorkers, one could look at the color of their skin. That would do much to single out the Europeans, but little to distinguish the Senegalese from the Solomon Islanders. The same is true for any other feature of our bodies. The shapes of our eyes, noses and skulls; the color of our eyes and our hair; the heaviness, height and hairiness of our bodies are all, individually, poor guides to ancestry.
But this is not true when the features are taken together. Certain skin colors tend to go with certain kinds of eyes, noses, skulls and bodies. When we glance at a stranger's face we use those associations to infer what continent, or even what country, he or his ancestors came from - and we usually get it right. To put it more abstractly, human physical variation is correlated; and correlations contain information.
Genetic variants that aren't written on our faces, but that can be detected only in the genome, show similar correlations. It is these correlations that Dr. Lewontin seems to have ignored. In essence, he looked at one gene at a time and failed to see races. But if many - a few hundred - variable genes are considered simultaneously, then it is very easy to do so. Indeed, a 2002 study by scientists at the University of Southern California and Stanford showed that if a sample of people from around the world are sorted by computer into five groups on the basis of genetic similarity, the groups that emerge are native to Europe, East Asia, Africa, America and Australasia - more or less the major races of traditional anthropology.
One of the minor pleasures of this discovery is a new kind of genealogy. Today it is easy to find out where your ancestors came from - or even when they came, as with so many of us, from several different places. If you want to know what fraction of your genes are African, European or East Asian, all it takes is a mouth swab, a postage stamp and $400 - though prices will certainly fall.
Yet there is nothing very fundamental about the concept of the major continental races; they're just the easiest way to divide things up. Study enough genes in enough people and one could sort the world's population into 10, 100, perhaps 1,000 groups, each located somewhere on the map. This has not yet been done with any precision, but it will be. Soon it may be possible to identify your ancestors not merely as African or European, but Ibo or Yoruba, perhaps even Celt or Castilian, or all of the above.
The identification of racial origins is not a search for purity. The human species is irredeemably promiscuous. We have always seduced or coerced our neighbors even when they have a foreign look about them and we don't understand a word. If Hispanics, for example, are composed of a recent and evolving blend of European, American Indian and African genes, then the Uighurs of Central Asia can be seen as a 3,000-year-old mix of West European and East Asian genes. Even homogenous groups like native Swedes bear the genetic imprint of successive nameless migrations.
Some critics believe that these ambiguities render the very notion of race worthless. I disagree. The physical topography of our world cannot be accurately described in words. To navigate it, you need a map with elevations, contour lines and reference grids. But it is hard to talk in numbers, and so we give the world's more prominent features - the mountain ranges and plateaus and plains - names. We do so despite the inherent ambiguity of words. The Pennines of northern England are about one-tenth as high and long as the Himalayas, yet both are intelligibly described as mountain ranges.
So, too, it is with the genetic topography of our species. The billion or so of the world's people of largely European descent have a set of genetic variants in common that are collectively rare in everyone else; they are a race. At a smaller scale, three million Basques do as well; so they are a race as well. Race is merely a shorthand that enables us to speak sensibly, though with no great precision, about genetic rather than cultural or political differences.
But it is a shorthand that seems to be needed. One of the more painful spectacles of modern science is that of human geneticists piously disavowing the existence of races even as they investigate the genetic relationships between "ethnic groups." Given the problematic, even vicious, history of the word "race," the use of euphemisms is understandable. But it hardly aids understanding, for the term "ethnic group" conflates all the possible ways in which people differ from each other.
Indeed, the recognition that races are real should have several benefits. To begin with, it would remove the disjunction in which the government and public alike defiantly embrace categories that many, perhaps most, scholars and scientists say do not exist.
Second, the recognition of race may improve medical care. Different races are prone to different diseases. The risk that an African-American man will be afflicted with hypertensive heart disease or prostate cancer is nearly three times greater than that for a European-American man. On the other hand, the former's risk of multiple sclerosis is only half as great. Such differences could be due to socioeconomic factors. Even so, geneticists have started searching for racial differences in the frequencies of genetic variants that cause diseases. They seem to be finding them.
Race can also affect treatment. African-Americans respond poorly to some of the main drugs used to treat heart conditions - notably beta blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Pharmaceutical corporations are paying attention. Many new drugs now come labeled with warnings that they may not work in some ethnic or racial groups. Here, as so often, the mere prospect of litigation has concentrated minds.
Such differences are, of course, just differences in average. Everyone agrees that race is a crude way of predicting who gets some disease or responds to some treatment. Ideally, we would all have our genomes sequenced before swallowing so much as an aspirin. Yet until that is technically feasible, we can expect racial classifications to play an increasing part in health care.
The argument for the importance of race, however, does not rest purely on utilitarian grounds. There is also an aesthetic factor. We are a physically variable species. Yet for all the triumphs of modern genetics, we know next to nothing about what makes us so. We do not know why some people have prominent rather than flat noses, round rather than pointed skulls, wide rather than narrow faces, straight rather than curly hair. We do not know what makes blue eyes blue.
One way to find out would be to study people of mixed race ancestry. In part, this is because racial differences in looks are the most striking that we see. But there is also a more subtle technical reason. When geneticists map genes, they rely on the fact that they can follow our ancestors' chromosomes as they get passed from one generation to the next, dividing and mixing in unpredictable combinations. That, it turns out, is much easier to do in people whose ancestors came from very different places.
The technique is called admixture mapping. Developed to find the genes responsible for racial differences in inherited disease, it is only just moving from theory to application. But through it, we may be able to write the genetic recipe for the fair hair of a Norwegian, the black-verging-on-purple skin of a Solomon Islander, the flat face of an Inuit, and the curved eyelid of a Han Chinese. We shall no longer gawp ignorantly at the gallery; we shall be able to name the painters.
There is a final reason race matters. It gives us reason - if there were not reason enough already - to value and protect some of the world's most obscure and marginalized people.
READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE HERE.
The Edge Annual Question — 2006
WHAT IS YOUR DANGEROUS IDEA?
The history of science is replete with discoveries that were considered socially, morally, or emotionally dangerous in their time; the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions are the most obvious. What is your dangerous idea? An idea you think about (not necessarily one you originated) that is dangerous not because it is assumed to be false, but because it might be true?
STEVEN PINKER - Psychologist, Harvard University; Author, The Blank Slate
The year 2005 saw several public appearances of what will I predict will become the dangerous idea of the next decade: that groups of people may differ genetically in their average talents and temperaments.
In January, Harvard president Larry Summers caused a firestorm when he cited research showing that women and men have non-identical statistical distributions of cognitive abilities and life priorities.
In March, developmental biologist Armand Leroi published an op-ed in the New York Times rebutting the conventional wisdom that race does not exist. (The conventional wisdom is coming to be known as Lewontin's Fallacy: that because most genes may be found in all human groups, the groups don't differ at all. But patterns of correlation among genes do differ between groups, and different clusters of correlated genes correspond well to the major races labeled by common sense. )
In June, the Times reported a forthcoming study by physicist Greg Cochran, anthropologist Jason Hardy, and population geneticist Henry Harpending proposing that Ashkenazi Jews have been biologically selected for high intelligence, and that their well-documented genetic diseases are a by-product of this evolutionary history.
In September, political scientist Charles Murray published an article in Commentary reiterating his argument from The Bell Curve that average racial differences in intelligence are intractable and partly genetic.
Whether or not these hypotheses hold up (the evidence for gender differences is reasonably good, for ethnic and racial differences much less so), they are widely perceived to be dangerous. Summers was subjected to months of vilification, and proponents of ethnic and racial differences in the past have been targets of censorship, violence, and comparisons to Nazis. Large swaths of the intellectual landscape have been reengineered to try to rule these hypotheses out a priori (race does not exist, intelligence does not exist, the mind is a blank slate inscribed by parents).
The underlying fear, that reports of group differences will fuel bigotry, is not, of course, groundless.
The intellectual tools to defuse the danger are available. "Is" does not imply "ought. " Group differences, when they exist, pertain to the average or variance of a statistical distribution, rather than to individual men and women. Political equality is a commitment to universal human rights, and to policies that treat people as individuals rather than representatives of groups; it is not an empirical claim that all groups are indistinguishable. Yet many commentators seem unwilling to grasp these points, to say nothing of the wider world community.
Advances in genetics and genomics will soon provide the ability to test hypotheses about group differences rigorously. Perhaps geneticists will forbear performing these tests, but one shouldn't count on it. The tests could very well emerge as by-products of research in biomedicine, genealogy, and deep history which no one wants to stop.
The human genomic revolution has spawned an enormous amount of commentary about the possible perils of cloning and human genetic enhancement. I suspect that these are red herrings.
When people realize that cloning is just forgoing a genetically mixed child for a twin of one parent, and is not the resurrection of the soul or a source of replacement organs, no one will want to do it. Likewise, when they realize that most genes have costs as well as benefits (they may raise a child's IQ but also predispose him to genetic disease), "designer babies" will lose whatever appeal they have. But the prospect of genetic tests of group differences in psychological traits is both more likely and more incendiary, and is one that the current intellectual community is ill-equipped to deal with.
by Marian Van Court
This article appeared in the Winter 2004 issue of The Occidental Quarterly
1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.
2. Civilization depends totally upon innate intelligence. Without innate intelligence, civilization would never have been created. When intelligence declines, so does civilization.
3. The higher the level of civilization, the better off the population. Civilization is not an either-or proposition. Rather, it's a matter of degree, and each degree, up or down, affects the well-being of every citizen.
4. At the present time, we are evolving to become less intelligent with each new generation. Why is this happening? Simple: the least-intelligent people are having the most children.
5. Unless we halt or reverse this trend, our civilization will invariably decline. Any decline in civilization produces a commensurate increase in the collective "misery quotient."
Logic and scientific evidence stand behind each statement listed above.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
The first edition of The Mismeasure of Man appeared in 1981 and was quickly praised in the popular press as a definitive refutation of 100 years of scientific work on race, brain-size and intelligence. It sold 125,000 copies, was translated into 10 languages, and became required reading for undergraduate and even graduate classes in anthropology, psychology, and sociology.
"May I end up next to Judas Iscariot, Brutus, and Cassius in the devils mouth at the center of hell if I ever fail to present my most honest assessment and best judgment of evidence for empirical truth" (p. 39). So swears one Stephen Jay Gould, justifiably worried that his activist background may have tarnished his reputation for scholarship. Critical examination of the new edition of The Mismeasure of Man shows that, indeed, Gould's resort to character assassination and misrepresentation of evidence have caught up with him.
Hailed in the popular media as the definitive deconstruction of the 'myth' that science is an objective enterprise, the original The Mismeasure of Man was in fact an ad hominem attack on eminent scholars, past and present, who have scientifically studied race, intelligence, and brain size. Despite the masses of empirical research using state-of-the-art technology published in highly prestigious journals that refute the obscurantist arguments Gould first served up in 1981, all the chapters of the initial edition have now been unapologetically regurgitated. Gould's failure not only to conduct any empirical research of his own but to even acknowledge the existence of any and all contradictory data speaks for itself. Revealed political truth may abhor revision but science thrives on it. Scientist that he is, Gould may yet regret agreeing to produce this 'revision'.
Rather than being appropriately revised, the original edition of The Mismeasure of Man has merely been expanded. Gould includes a 30-page preface on why he wrote the original and why the renewed interest in race, behavior, and evolution, required that he 'revise' it after 15 years, although he also maintains (p. 35) that his 1981 arguments needed no modification. Gould's 1996 book also contains five end chapters including essays on J. F. Blumenbach, the 19th century German anthropologist who developed the first scientific system of racial hierarchy, and Gould's own previously published reviews of Herrnstein and Murrays (1994) The Bell Curve.
Looks like Rev. Slick has copped a plea. So to speak.
The US Attorney’s Office has called off a criminal probe of Al Sharpton’s mysterious personal and professional finances, accepting instead the reverend’s promise to make good on up to $9 million in unpaid back taxes, interest and penalties.
Sharpton’s word being what it is, the G-men better have it in writing—with multiple copies.
Even so, New York authorities—who have stood aside as the feds proceeded—will now be stepping up to the plate.
Criminal charges are said to be unlikely—but The Rev owes Albany gazillions, too, so there’s more to come on this story.
Two fires—six years apart—conveniently destroyed Sharpton’s financial records just as he was about to turn them over to government officials.
Clearly, the Rev. Al was feeling a different sort of heat—which is why last month he tried to enlist House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers to investigate his “harassment” at the hands of the IRS.
We’re sorry the feds have decided that no criminal charges were warranted. (That’s our right, of course—Sharpton isn’t the only one allowed to object to the outcome of criminal proceedings.)
As to why the feds decided to settle things civilly, who knows?
Or maybe those corporations recently reported by the The Post to have been paying Sharpton handsomely—right on the heels of his threats to target them with “racism” demonstrations—decided not to cooperate.
Then again, maybe the feds simply held the threat of an indictment over Sharpton’s head until he agreed to a figure the IRS thought adequate.
Now, where might they have come up with that idea?
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Likened to one race deciding to adopt a new home on another planet, Beijing has launched its so-called 'One China In Africa' policy because of crippling pressure on its own natural resources in a country where the population has almost trebled from 500 million to 1.3 billion in 50 years.
China is hungry - for land, food and energy. While accounting for a fifth of the world's population, its oil consumption has risen 35-fold in the past decade and Africa is now providing a third of it; imports of steel, copper and aluminium have also shot up, with Beijing devouring 80 per cent of world supplies.
Fuelling its own boom at home, China is also desperate for new markets to sell goods. And Africa, with non-existent health and safety rules to protect against shoddy and dangerous goods, is the perfect destination.
The result of China's demand for raw materials and its sales of products to Africa is that turnover in trade between Africa and China has risen from £5million annually a decade ago to £6billion today.
However, there is a lethal price to pay. There is a sinister aspect to this invasion. Chinese-made war planes roar through the African sky, bombing opponents. Chinese-made assault rifles and grenades are being used to fuel countless murderous civil wars, often over the materials the Chinese are desperate to buy.
Take, for example, Zimbabwe. Recently, a giant container ship from China was due to deliver its cargo of three million rounds of AK-47 ammunition, 3,000 rocket-propelled grenades and 1,500 mortars to President Robert Mugabe's regime.
After an international outcry, the vessel, the An Yue Jiang, was forced to return to China, despite Beijing's insistence that the arms consignment was a 'normal commercial deal'.
Indeed, the 77-ton arms shipment would have been small beer - a fraction of China's help to Mugabe. He already has high-tech, Chinese-built helicopter gunships and fighter jets to use against his people.
Ever since the U.S. and Britain imposed sanctions in 2003, Mugabe has courted the Chinese, offering mining concessions for arms and currency.
While flying regularly to Beijing as a high-ranking guest, the 84-year-old dictator rants at 'small dots' such as Britain and America.
He can afford to. Mugabe is orchestrating his campaign of terror from a 25-bedroom, pagoda-style mansion built by the Chinese. Much of his estimated £1billion fortune is believed to have been siphoned off from Chinese 'loans'.
The imposing grey building of ZANU-PF, his ruling party, was paid for and built by the Chinese. Mugabe received £200 million last year alone from China, enabling him to buy loyalty from the army.
In another disturbing illustration of the warm relations between China and the ageing dictator, a platoon of the China People's Liberation Army has been out on the streets of Mutare, a city near the border with Mozambique, which voted against the president in the recent, disputed election.
Almost 30 years ago, Britain pulled out of Zimbabwe - as it had done already out of the rest of Africa, in the wake of Harold Macmillan's 'wind of change' speech. Today, Mugabe says: 'We have turned East, where the sun rises, and given our backs to the West, where the sun sets.'
According to one veteran diplomat: 'China is easier to do business with because it doesn't care about human rights in Africa - just as it doesn't care about them in its own country. All the Chinese care about is money.'
One line is worth repeating:
'We have turned East, where the sun rises, and given our backs to the West, where the sun sets.'