The story of the struggle for racial equality in the United States is, coincidentally, the best evidence for the lack of equality between the races.There are two ways you can bring about equality between two groups:, equality of opportunity,and equality of results. The 14th amendment and later Supreme Court decisions targeted the former.
Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. – 1 Corinthians 10:12
With everything that has been going on as of late, this verse comes to mind. You do not have to be of Christian faith in order to apply this message to your life.
Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.
Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.
We have a duty to reject, and abstain from every, and any form of degeneracy. Whether that degeneracy is a “small” lie or something as egregious as committing adultery. For those charged with defending the future of their race, there is an overwhelming duty to abstain from such things that jeopardize that final goal.
How can we expect anyone to take our message seriously when we become degenerates ourselves?
I implore everyone who claims any form of White Nationalism to continually show intolerance to degeneracy in your life, and to show intolerance towards degeneracy in the lives of others as well.
The more we reject degeneracy the easier it becomes to abstain from degeneracy.
This is about building healthy habits in our lives.
This is about saving our race and saving our people.
This is about building strong, traditional families.
This is about securing a future for our children.
This is bigger than us.
Will you eliminate any form of degeneracy in your life? Whether it be in your life, or the lives of others you must stand firmly against it with fanatical passion.
Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us… – Hebrews 12:1
Grace and peace.
It’s parroted over and over in our media, in our schools, and by our politicians; diversity is not only a strength, but a cultural phenomenon worthy of the sincerest of praise. When diversity comes to mind to the average Westerner, he may picture men and women from all over the world coming together in mutual market interests, sharing their culture with those around them in harmonious living, and through this experience of diverse unification, we gain greater wisdom and greater knowledge.
However, is this truly an accurate depiction of what transpires on the sociological level? Yes, of course, the “rational” egalitarian may expect a few snags in a newly “diverse” society, such as those which irrationally react to the change of their culture; clinging to a whole series of nasty little “isms” to preserve something without irrational justification. Bigots, racists, and many other sorts of modern heretics clinging to a past in which mere simple and honest critical reasoning would dismiss from the individual devoid of fear; to the enlightened mind open to change.
Unfortunately for the “enlightened,” philosophy can only take us so far away from who and what we are – a diverse species with diverse needs. These needs are not raised merely from conditioned and meritless sociocultural nothings, but of our ancestral bloodlines. For example, it is of no mere coincidence that Whites tend to favor culture which is sociologically individualistic, as there are genetic variants associated with individualism which are much more common in White populations than non-White populations (1). It can be argued that perhaps this is the outcome of a shift in survival tactics during the Ice Age, as large collective methods of survival would have been far less effective. Whatever it may be, however, the genetic variants are a reality with far reaching sociological consequences. This desire for a more individualistic lifestyle goes hand-in-hand with our misguided philosophical propositions of a united diversity. Unfortunately for Whites, the desire for a non-uniformed way of living is not a result of enlightenment, but a general result of being a misguided White.
Regardless, White or not, diversity on a collective level has been shown to be detrimental to social cohesion. One example of where this is best shown is in a sociological study conducted by Professor Putnam, a political scientist. On a quest to prove diversity has more pros than cons, Putnam analyzed more than 40 regions in the United States, comparing racially diverse regions with racially segregated regions, and the social capital of these different regions. He controlled for poverty, crime, age, and other variables which may conflict with the outcome. Rather than the results he expected to find, he found that diverse regions were far less trusting of one another. Furthermore, these residents were far less likely to sociologically contribute to their community. They voted less, donated less to charity, were less likely to be involved in local projects, and they were overall much less happy when compared to their segregated counter-parts (2).
These results are not unique to Putnam’s study. Similar results have been replicated over and over, from England (3) to the Netherlands (4), we witness the same lack of social cohesion. Furthermore, in the United States, a meta-analysis of 90 previous papers confirms this social degradation is most common in regions which are most racially diverse, rather than merely ethnically or religiously diverse, and studies conducted which fail to replicate Putnam’s findings are less than 25% (5).
We can see this decline in happiness observed over time, not simply within a vacuum. Take the USA, a nation with an abundance in wealth and high survival rates. We can see as the White population begins to decline, due to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 forced upon its citizens, so does its happiness and social capital, and popular explanations for this decrease in social capital, economic or otherwise, fall short when put to the test (6). In fact, the United States has only increased in GDP and PPP over time as the happiness of the nation falls over time. On top of this, older individuals are typically happier than younger individuals born into more racially diverse societies, which is to be expected by this analysis (12). These same trends can be witnessed in other Western nations facing White displacement and racial diversity, such as in Britain (13). Ultimately, there are no compelling studies which suggest racial diversity provides any form of strength to a society; only a deflation of social capital.
One may perhaps point to studies which suggest there is a benefit to racial diversity in work environments as a compelling case for sociological diversity (6). What is usually not understood about these studies is that individuals in these diverse groups were better at coming up with solutions to hypothetical problems in which they were less likely to trust each other, and therefore, largely unaffected by imitation and conformity. Racially homogenous groups were far more likely to place trust one another, where the distrusting diverse groups were less likely to distinguish between wrong and accurate answers to their problems. This may perhaps be beneficial within a workplace vacuum (and then only to employers), but extremely detrimental to society at large.
The “rational” egalitarian may object to this data as a mere irrational human reaction to change in environment; one that must be combat through societal “discussions” of tolerance and diversity. This is a very selfish and irrational objection; that we must subjugate and condition society at large, against their natural desires, to fit our sociological whims. Furthermore, I would point out that yes, while we are often familiar with data which suggests we are more likely to enjoy the company of those more physically similar to us on a phenotypical level (7), it is shockingly true on a genotypical level as well.
The fact of the matter is, friends and spouses of individuals tend to be far more genetically similar to an individual than his outside peers. One may point out that this is to be expected, as individuals regionally develop most friendships, and members of one race tend to be more genetically similar than two members of outside races (8). However, the genotypical relations are shockingly specific. The more heritable a trait is, the more similar friends and spouses tend to be in it (9). De facto, as expected similarity in highly heritable traits is a better predictor of marital success than less heritable traits (10). Because of this, we may conclude that our fondness for our kin is more than mere irrational clings to familiarity; it is our evolutionary inclination.
The racial segregation witnessed in our neighborhoods, schools, and churches is not the result of an underlying hatred of others, but of the natural fondness, trust, and understanding we experience when interacting with our own race. Racially ideological or not, individuals tend to befriend those of the same race, and the closest friends of any individual are, much more often than not, members of the same race. This is true regardless of racial minority or majority status (11). I do not believe this is due to mere racial tension, but mostly due to natural sociological interactions.
It seems that, empirically, a case for racial diversity cannot be made. Rather, it must be argued ethically as a moral good regardless of the end result. This being the case, it would need to be a devastatingly convincing ethical proposition, as promoting something which ultimately destroys happiness and social cohesion is undesirable on all accounts. The ethical good must outweigh the functionality, trust, and peace of a homogenous society. We have yet to hear such an argument.
For some committed advocates of diversity, these objections and answers do not suffice. For the devoted egalitarian, these biological inclinations are a force to surmount. It is here we begin to see the absurdity of these egalitarians; they combat nature tooth and nail as she made us to force her into their ideological frame. This is not a fight that can be won. This is a perpetual struggle with no end in sight forced upon our populace by psychotic sociological utopians. The ignorant civilian must be made aware he is a subject forced into a sociological worldview which is ultimately against his best interests.
Imposing diversity upon a population is demonstrably a net negative. De facto, maintaining racial homogeneity is in the best interests of all of Western civilization. This is not an “evil,” as so many young men and women have been conditioned to believe by sociological utopians. This is not only good, but sane; just as refusing to swallow poison is not only a “good” decision, but an obvious act of sanity. As sane members of our nation, we have a responsibility to our nation and society. Therefore, we have an interest in maintaining the well-being of our kin; not only physically, but psychologically. The anti-nationalist has no love for his nation, only a fervorous commitment to ideological universality in the name of his conditioned philosophical interests and political aims. The rejection of globalism is an act of rationality. Fighting nationhood is an act of violence against prosperity and happiness itself. Those pushing a globalist philosophy are not seeking the best interests of society, but of themselves.
Reject the anti-homeland conditioning of egalitarian sweet nothings. Embrace your kin, for they have already embraced you, whether they know it or not. A high trust society of high social capital is already in place. It must be defended against arrogant philosophers seeking to morph and alienate society to fit their global egalitarian ethical foundations. Defend your kin from politicians seeking to usurp your nation in the name of ethical dopamine highs. Defend your kin from international “compromises” seeking to undermine your race, identity, and culture. You already have something beautiful to cherish and maintain. Do not toss it to the dogs.
No topic is more controversial and forbidden from rational discussion than the topic of race. This is because race, as a valid biological construct, possesses many implications which blaspheme the religious egalitarian worldview of the West. When racial questions are brought up, or racial observations made, the egalitarian intellectual promptly arrives on the scene to either “dispel the myth of race,” or rationalize a way to pin the shortcomings of specific racial populations onto the White race. It’s time we own up to the biological reality of race. How dare we, the West, fancy ourselves an intellectual forefront while denying basic evolution? Ancestral separation carries vast biological consequences, but the moment the human species enters the picture, we adopt some useful race creationist worldview.
As we all know, race as a category was created to categorize humans by their ancestry. This has proven useful far beyond the realm of socio-political ends, although the egalitarian would of course be ignorant of this fact. Indeed, race as a biological categorization of the human species possesses many useful medical ends, predictive behavioral capabilities, and an overall clearer picture of the world as we know it once we own up to the biological implications of race; That shortcomings of certain races are not necessarily the fault of sociological inequality, but of genetic reality.
People are often surprised to find out just how great a role heritable genes play in the intelligence, personality, and behavior of individuals. Consider a study conducted by professor Bouchard on hundreds of identical twins given up for adoption, and separated at birth (1). Often times, the twins were even unaware of the existence of the other twin. Yet, when researchers compared the two twins, they found that the twins were similar in mannerisms and personality. Many had chosen the same professions, and shared the same hobbies. In one case, the twins had a similar psychotic episode around roughly the same age, and around roughly the same amount of time. This study is just one of many which conclude how significant a role heritable genes play in the behavior and personality of an individual.
What about race? First it must be established that, when looking at the whole genome, pairs of people of the same race are almost always more genetically similar than pairs of people from different races (2). So would it follow that members of a specific race are more alike in personality and behavior? The answer is yes. In Race, Evolution, and Behavior, psychologist Phillippe Rushton documented significant racial differences brain size, intelligence, sexuality, personality, growth rate, life span, crime, and family stability (3). On all these measurements, Orientals (East Asians, Mongoloids) fall on one end of the spectrum, and Blacks on the other end of the spectrum. Whites fall somewhere in the middle, often close to Orientals. For example, the average IQ for Blacks in The United States is 85 (70 for African Blacks), while the average IQ of Whites is 100, and 106 for the average Oriental. The gap between American and African Blacks, environmental factors aside, is likely due to the fact that American Blacks are, on average, of mixed racial descent. Rather, they have obtained heritable intelligence genes from White racial mixing.
Objections to these facts typically are, more often than not, objections to IQ as an accurate measurement of intelligence. In defense of IQ as a valid measurement of intelligence, I would point to the fact that IQ often predicts how much money one will be making, and how well one does in school (IQ is also slightly stimulated by being engaged in schooling) (10)(11). Furthermore, occupations which require higher intelligence, such as medical doctors, or lawyers, are far more often than not occupied by individuals with high IQ scores (12). IQ doesn’t seem to fall short for its designed utility; it’s clear IQ measures intelligence.
The next objection which is likely to follow is projection of the ever-unfalsifiable systemic oppression; Blacks must perform poorly because there is an inherent bias in the methods of intelligence testing. After all, the IQ test originated in the West, so perhaps it is best fit for its native peoples. While this objection carries with it a delicious irony, that people of different races think and rationalize differently, I will simply address the substance of the objection at hand. Experts in IQ testing are in agreement; the tests are valid, and generally free of racial bias (13). Even if we were to accept the premise of this objection, it very clumsily forgets that East Asians outperform Whites in “their own” IQ tests.
An objection to this data is typically an appeal to environment; that we ought to consider the economic status of the races involved. It should be known that this data holds true even when controlling for environment. In fact, on average, Whites from poor families have a higher IQ than Blacks coming from rich families. Furthermore, when controlling for fixed IQ  and fixed age, Whites, Blacks, and Latinos all three earn roughly the same in annual wages (14). As expected by this data, those with a low IQ score are more often than not below the poverty line. Additionally, those with lower IQ are more likely to dropout from high school, go to jail, be on welfare, and have children out of wedlock (15). The impact of this is also racially correlated, as Blacks seem to suffer heavily from these sociological issues. In other words, while environment certainly does play a role in one’s cognitive development, even more so, one’s cognitive development plays a heavier role in how one constructs his environment. How can we know this to be the case?
Environment is an important factor in the development of an individual, but it should be noted that the intellectual capabilities of individuals are almost entirely due to their genes. As reported by David L. Kirp in a New York Times article (4), “A century’s worth of quantitative-genetics literature concludes that a person’s I.Q. is remarkably stable and that about three-quarters of I.Q. differences between individuals are attributable to heredity.” This also can explain the socio-economic status of these races, as, mentioned earlier, IQ serves as a reliable predictor of one’s financial success (5). Yes, even in White countries, Asians tend to outperform Whites on a financial level.
There are some other less known psychological differences in the races. For example, some races have larger brains than other races. The brain size gaps are consistent with the IQ gaps mentioned above; Blacks on one end of the spectrum, Orientals on the other end of the spectrum, and Whites in the middle for a close second place (6). Large cranial cavity size is needed for a large brain. Because of this, and as expected, females belonging to racial groups of larger brain sizes have larger pelvic anatomy for birthing (7). Some races also physically mature faster than other races (3). Once again, this is consistent with the previously listed patterns. Furthermore, animals with larger brains also tend to have longer lifespans. This is also consistent with, but not entirely explanatory of, the differences in lifespans between the races (3)(8).
It’s clear that race is a valid categorization of taxonomy. The fact that the culturally Left-oriented intellectuals of the West love to point out that categorizations can change depending on the sociological circumstances is irrelevant. The motivations behind such a construction has no bearing on whether or not the concept will be useful for science, or if it pertains to an obvious biological reality. Plenty of scientific concepts have changed and adapted over time, such as mathematical units for measurement. Change within these concepts do not invalidate them. The usefulness remains intact.
How the egalitarian is to deal with dismissing such an obvious truth is beyond my understanding from a rational basis. However, the egalitarian is anything but rational. The religious convictions of the West, both religious and post-religious, keep their rationality forcefully tucked away in a comforting dark blanket. Removing this blanket is to invite heresy into one’s life. To be rational in this age requires expulsion from many facets of life. The racist, the heretic, is the modern witch. Over and over again, society is reminded that today’s racists are everywhere and nowhere. It could be anyone; your mother, your brother, your best friend, or even yourself. We must always be aware, we are taught, of our surroundings and peers; to be on alert at all times for the heretic, for if they are allowed to roam without check, surely society will succumb to the devil’s magic.
This comforting egalitarian bliss has had absolutely detrimental effects upon our society. Where the egalitarian sees inequality, he fights tooth and nail to equalize. No gap is acceptable, and all gaps are the product of mere socio-political structures in the mind of this potato. Of course these “gaps” hardly dissipate with cultural war and legislative efforts. Blacks still underperform when compared to Whites regardless of how much welfare we create, or how many intellectual egalitarian talking points we repeat to impressionable young students. Blacks still commit much more violent crime than Whites, and no amount of blaming the police or Black apologetics have changed this fact (9).
The egalitarian fights a fight that cannot be won. These sociological outcomes are the products of biological reality; not of mere baseless tribalism. He self-righteously pats himself on the back after stirring the fires of cultural and racial tension, and the longer the struggle goes on, the longer he pats himself on the back. It’s an endless cycle of masturbatory self-validation. He violates peace and harmony in the name of this moral mainstream; the self-stroking religion of egalitarianism. Such a parasite seeking moral dopamine highs at the expense of harmony is a plague on our civilizations.
It’s time we grew up, and own up to reality. Race denial has plagued the Western mind for long enough. The moral highs so eagerly sought after from egalitarian religious crusades have torn our society into an everlasting mess of infighting. As long as we strive for egalitarian “purity,” what we will have, and continue to have, is a state of perpetual cultural war. There will be no end to this struggle, but there will be a continuing degradation of societal cohesion. Let us drop these self-serving ideologies and return to truth once again.
- Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, The Bell Curve, Pg. 52-55
- Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, The Bell Curve, Pg. 323
- Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, The Bell Curve, Pg. 368