Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Basic Questions and Answers about Race

  1. #1
    Spirit of the Reich „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Ahnenerbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    European Union European Union
    Gau Westmark
    Zodiac Sign
    Ecological Geniocracy
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    140 Posts

    Lightbulb Basic Questions and Answers about Race

    "Is race real?"

    Race is a hard genetic reality, which can be defined according to region of ancestral origin or certain genetic characteristics. Genetic tests, commercially available, can easily discern one's racial character and ancestry.

    The fact that marginal/hybrid individuals exist who cannot be easily classified into a particular race is irrelevant; just as the fact that intermediates exist between all colors of the spectrum does not mean that the different colors are not clearly distinct from one another.

    The fact that the different races have most genes in common is also irrelevant, since tiny differences in gene sequence can have an enormous impact on phenotype. A single gene can have a cascading effect on the expression of other genes; for examples, it is believed that a small variation of a single gene (FOXP2) may account for humans' ability to speak, and several major diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis are caused by a single genetic variant. It is nearly impossible to tell apart the DNA of Great Danes and Pekinese, yet the miniscule differences produce their huge differences in physique and temperament.

    Approximately half (50,000) of the genes that vary in humans play a role in brain function, and about 30,000 of them affect the brain exclusively.

    "Why can't non-Whites join us and adopt our culture?"

    Because race is what determines the character of a society - its social mores, its culture, and its level of civilization. That is why all White nations have certain broad similarities, as do all Black ones, Mestizo, Oriental, Arab, etc. The races have major physical differences in skull shape, body proportions, muscularity and so on. But, as the brain is the most complex and advanced organ in human beings, it is with mental traits that our greatest variation lies: in intelligence, personality, and character. The races differ measurably in brain size and structure, hormone secretions, and nervous disorders. Such factors clearly determine what sort of society a people is able to create and maintain.

    "How can you be sure that intelligence is based on genes rather than environment?"

    Because studies of separated identical twins, reared by different families in disparate environments, have proven it. They have demonstrated that a wide variety of behavioral traits, including intelligence, academic performance, creative talent, social/political attitudes, personality type, and aggressiveness are to a large extent determined before birth. For example, IQ measurements of identical twins reared separately are much closer together than the IQs of fraternal twins reared together. The IQs of Blacks adopted as infants into upper class White families are, upon their reaching maturity, close to the Black norm and far below that of their White siblings.

    Jewish power created and sustains the pseudoscience of racial equality

    Academic institutions do not exist in a vacuum. In order to maintain their prestige and financial support, as well as public acceptence, they must conform to a large extent to the dictates of the wielders of power in a society and the manipulators of public opinion. Jewish media pressure has spelled the doom of many a courageous professor speaking the truth about race. The Jews have dominated not only the mass media, but all the organs of intellectual critique; all the major social/political journals and literary reviews. They can make or break anyone trying to get his intellectual views accepted in society, including social scientists (taking full advantage of the nonempirical nature of this discipline). They were able to demonize and suppress the pioneering White racial scientists who early last century were just beginning to establish and publish the hard biological/experimental evidence regarding race, and they legitimized and popularized in their place the Jew-dominated equalitarians whose chief purpose was to obscure the rapidly developing facts in the field of racial differences.

    The movement in colleges to obscure the facts of racial differences and promote the baseless ideology of racial equality has since its inception been dominated by Jewish professors, working in conjunction with their Jewish colleagues in the media. These include Franz Boas, Isador Chein, Otto Klineberg, Ashley Montagu (Israel Ehrenberg), Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin, and Stephen Jay Gould. Kevin MacDonald detailed this process in chapter 2 of his The Culture of Critique, namely:

    The Boasian School of Anthropology and the Decline of Darwinism in the Social Sciences

    An excerpt regarding the "father" of egalitarian pseudo-anthropology, Franz Boas (pages: 23-5):

    Boas was reared in a "Jewish-liberal" family in which the revolutionary ideals of 1848 remained influential.59 He developed a "left-liberal posture which… is at once scientific and po litical" (Stocking 1968, 149). Boas married within his ethnic group (Frank 1997, 733) and was intensely concerned with antiSemitism from an early period in his life (White 1966, 16). Alfred Kroeber (1943, 8) recounted a story "which [Boas] is said to have revealed confidentially but which cannot be vouched for,… that on hearing an anti-Semitic insult in a public cafe, he threw the speaker out of doors, and was challenged. Next morning his adversary offered to apologize; but Boas insisted that the duel be gone through with. Apocryphal or not, the tale absolutely fits the character of the man as we know him in America ." In a comment that says much about Boas's Jewish identification as well as his view of gentiles, Boas stated in response to a question regarding how he could have professional dealings with anti-Semites such as Charles Davenport, "If we Jews had to choose to work only with Gentiles certified to be a hundred percent free of anti-Semitism, who could we ever really work with?" (in Sorin 1997, 632n9). Moreover, as has been common among Jewish intellectuals in several historical eras, Boas was deeply alienated from and hostile toward gentile culture, particularly the cultural ideal of the Prussian aristocracy (Degler 1991, 200; Stocking 1968, 150). When Margaret Mead wanted to persuade Boas to let her pursue her research in the South Sea islands , "She hit upon a sure way of getting him to change his mind. ‘I knew there was one thing that mattered more to Boas than the direction taken by anthropological research. This was that he should behave like a liberal, democratic, modern man, not like a Prussian autocrat.' The ploy worked because she had indeed uncovered the heart of his personal values" (Degler 1991, 73).

    I conclude that Boas had a strong Jewish identification and that he was deeply concerned about anti-Semitism. On the basis of the following, it is reasonable to suppose that his concern with anti-Semitism was a major influence in the development of American anthropology.

    Indeed, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that ethnic conflict played a major role in the development of American anthropology. Boas's views conflicted with the then prevalent idea that cultures had evolved in a series of developmental stages labeled savagery, barbarism, and civilization. The stages were associated with racial differences, and modern European culture (and most especially, I suppose, the hated Prussian aristocracy) was at the highest level of this gradation. Wolf (1990, 168) describes the attack of the Boasians as calling into question "the moral and political monopoly of a [gentile] elite which had justified its rule with the claim that their superior virtue was the outcome of the evolutionary process." Boas's theories were also meant to counter the racialist theories of Houston Stewart Chamberlain (see SAID , Ch. 5) and American eugenicists like Madison Grant, whose book, The Passing of the Great Race (1921, 17), was highly critical of Boas's research on environmental influences on skull size. The result was that "in message and purpose, [Boas's anthropology] was an explicitly antiracist science" (Frank 1997, 741).

    Grant characterized Jewish immigrants as ruthlessly self-interested whereas American Nordics were committing racial suicide and allowing themselves to be "elbowed out" of their own land (1921, 16, 91). Grant also believed Jews were engaged in a campaign to discredit racial research:

    "It is well-nigh impossible to publish in the American newspapers any reflection upon certain religions or races which are hysterically sensitive even when mentioned by name… Abroad, conditions are fully as bad, and we have the authority of one of the most eminent anthropologists in France that the collection of anthropological measurements and data among French recruits at the outbreak of the Great War was prevented by Jewish influence, which aimed to suppress any suggestion of racial differentiation in France. (1921, xxxi-xxxii)"

    An important technique of the Boasian school was to cast doubt on general theories of human evolution, such as those implying developmental sequences, by emphasizing the vast diversity and chaotic minutiae of human behavior, as well as the relativism of standards of cultural evaluation. The Boasians argued that general theories of cultural evolution must await a detailed cataloguing of cultural diversity, but in fact no general theories emerged from this body of research in the ensuing half century of its dominance of the profession (Stocking 1968, 210). Because of its rejection of fundamental scientific activities such as generalization and classification, Boasian anthropology may thus be characterized more as an anti-theory than a theory of human culture (White 1966, 15). Boas also opposed research on human genetics—what Derek Freeman (1991, 198) terms his "obscurantist antipathy to genetics."

    Boas and his students were intensely concerned with pushing an ideological agenda within the American anthropological profession (Degler 1991; Freeman 1991; Torrey 1992). Boas and his associates had a sense of group identity, a commitment to a common viewpoint, and an agenda to dominate the institutional structure of anthropology (Stocking 1968, 279-280). They were a compact group with a clear intellectual and political agenda rather than individualist seekers of disinterested truth. The defeat of the Darwinians "had not happened without considerable exhortation of ‘every mother's son' standing for the ‘Right.' Nor had it been accomplished without some rather strong pressure applied both to staunch friends and to the ‘weaker brethren'—often by the sheer force of Boas's personality" (Stocking 1968, 286).

    By 1915 the Boasians controlled the American Anthropological Association and held a two-thirds majority on its Executive Board (Stocking 1968, 285). In 1919 Boas could state that "most of the anthropological work done at the present time in the United States" was done by his students at Columbia (in Stocking 1968, 296). By 1926 every major department of anthropology was headed by Boas's students, the majority of whom were Jewish. His protégé Melville Herskovits (1953, 23) noted that the four decades of the tenure of [Boas's] professorship at Columbia gave a continuity to his teaching that permitted him to develop students who eventually made up the greater part of the significant professional core of American anthropologists, and who came to man and direct most of the major departments of anthropology in the United States. In their turn, they trained the students who…have continued the tradition in which their teachers were trained.

    Some arguments and refutations:

    I suspect that cultural differences--at least the initial ones--have more to do with geography than biology, though. Jared Diamond wrote a book called "Guns, Germs and Steel" (which also was made into a 3-part TV documentary) that discussed why certain cultures became super-successful while others never advanced much past the Stone Age. Obviously I can't do justice to the whole book in a single post, but here's a super-short Cliff's Notes version: people in Europe and east Asia, where advanced civilizations formed, had two huge geographical advantages over people in Africa or certain Pacific-island cultures.

    Jared Diamond's book is a classic example of tendentious argument: He begins with an assumption he wants to be true (that races are genetically equal), and then proceeds to formulate a premise which can plausibly explain the desired outcome, while by and large ignoring evidence to the contrary. If the data assembled by Mr. Diamond was all we know about race and race history, if there was no hard evidence, no compelling case that races are in fact genetically/biologically distinctive, then his theory would be reasonable, though hardly compelling (see below). But there is conclusive evidence proving his hypothesis is false.

    If it were true that social/cultural/technological differences were merely an environmental happenstance, then nonwhites who are taught by Whites, live with Whites -- are even adopted and reared by successful Whites, would certainly learn to adopt White social/cultural/technological norms. On the contrary, when Whites have left Black areas--be they in America, Africa, or anywhere else--Blacks have almost immediately reverted to barbarism. The observable realities of race cannot be refuted by any speculative theory on ancient history.

    Even if it were true that civilization originated only on account of the convenient presence of heavy grains, tractable animals and passable landscapes (which our White progenitors just happened to discover and take advantage of), this is quite consistent with the development of racial differences. An environmentally-determined potential for civilization would obviously confer a great natural/social selective advantage on individuals possessing genetic traits conducive to the development of this potential (as well as to the creative utilization of the free time it allows). Diamond's argument is basically that Blacks could not have developed civilization in Africa. But even if this were true, it is no indication that that Blacks could have developed it anywhere.

    Various groups of Whites have experienced terrible poverty over the last 150 years, and they all rebounded fairly quickly. If Black poverty was just some kind of bad luck, then it would not have persisted for 150 years (of freedom) in America and thousands of years in Africa, in spite of much contact with Europe. Whites have been as successful in Africa as everywhere else. No Black society has ever been successful.

    I don't think blacks in the last 40 years have been given cultural advantages, but DIS-advantages. Black people used to have strong family structures until the 1950s or 1960s, when our damnable welfare system was implemented. What buffoon thought it was a good idea to set up a welfare system that says "We'll pay you if you're a single mother who has babies you can't afford, but we will penalize you if you marry or even *live with* the baby's father? We'll pay you to sit on your butt and do nothing but we'll penalize you if you get a job or try to improve your life?"

    After Blacks got nowhere in a century of being let be their failure was blamed on White neglect, and now after half a century of actively assisting them we are being blamed for our assistance! What more can we possibly do for Blacks? After 150 years it's obvious that nothing can be done to make Blacks equal to Whites.

    Mass-media and the educational system have had far more influence on our culture than race ever had. There is still research going on about which individual traits are genetic (especially research with twins in different environments is important here but ethically difficult). Nurture and keeping people too busy to double check things is one reason why nature might get less important in the culture discussion (as long as we all work). However, it does tell us that genetics and culture do not have a strong connection. It's values that we are tought by our ancestors that make culture, not their genes.

    Genes and environment interact very closely with one another in producing culture. Any given culture requires both genetic and environmental conditions, including a sufficiently evolved gene pool (i.e. a race) and an appropriate social-educational milieu (i.e. an intermediary culture). Genes and environment have a limiting influence on one another, hence each factor determines the cultural potential of the other: A given genotype has only a certain cultural potential, regardless of how favorable to higher culture is the environment into which it is placed, and vice-versa. An advanced genotype can produce but limited culture in a very poor environment, while a deficient genotype can produce but limited culture even in a very favorable environment. However, we speak here only of proximal cause.

    Speaking of distal cause, genes are clearly a more primary cause of culture than is environment, because an advanced genotype (e.g. the White race) in an impoverished environment (e.g. the American South in 1865, Germany in 1945) can can quickly produce an excellent culture; while a deficient genotype (e.g. Blacks, Mestizos) in a rich environment (e.g. contemporary America) cannot. Blacks in Africa who appropriate the accouterments (including the industrial capital) of the culture of departing Whites quickly revert to savagery. Higher culture is entirely dependent upon advanced genes; primitive races could never produce it.

    That the basic character of our culture (i.e. moral attitudes, intellectual standards, artistic pursuits) is largely determined by race, is evident from the fundamental similarities between the cultures of various White nationalities and dissimilarities from those of non-White ones, which persist even where where educational influences have been artificially equalized. The differences between White cultures separated by time and space are largely superficial, e.g. varieties of language, dress, etiquette, and artistic styles. Needless to say, media and educational systems are themselves largely a product of racial character, with Western (White) institutions having a distinctive regard for honesty and objectivity.

    When assessing the pernicious influences of the Jewish media on White culture, it is necessary in the first place to distinguish White culture from the Jew/Negro-dominated media and entertainment industry, and from the culture of American society in general, which includes large numbers of nonwhites. The penetration of Jewish/Negroid degeneracy into White culture is largely restricted to those elements of White society unable to flee the onrush of the non-White tide, and to those most impressionable on account of subaverage intelligence or immaturity. Predominantly White communities have largely retained their culture in spite of all the efforts of the Jew; that is, they have maintained their devotion to order and cleanliness, politeness and civility, appreciation for finer arts, and reasonably high academic standards. They have become largely alienated from the Jewish/Negroid "popular culture".

    The Jewish media is having a destructive effect, to be sure, and does threaten to ultimately annihilate all that remains of White culture. But the Jews could do so only by destroying our racial integrity itself, in which case the resultant culture, if it could be called such, would have ceased to be a White one.

    Source: The White Realist

  2. #2
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, July 16th, 2012 @ 01:14 AM
    Vinland Vinland
    Alabama Alabama
    Married, happily
    Tree Wizard
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    But you do not comprehend this? You are incapable of seeing something that required two thousand years to achieve victory?—There is nothing to wonder at in that: all protracted things are hard to see, to see whole. That, however, is what has happened: from the trunk of that tree of vengefulness and hatred, Jewish hatred—the profoundest and sublimest kind of hatred, capable of creating ideals and reversing values, the like of which has never existed on earth before—there grew something equally incomparable, a new love, the profoundest and sublimest kind of love—and from what other trunk could it have grown?

    One should not imagine it grew up as the denial of that thirst for revenge, as the opposite of Jewish hatred! No, the reverse is true! That love grew out of it as its crown, as its triumphant crown spreading itself farther and farther into the purest brightness and sunlight, driven as it were into the domain of light and the heights in pursuit of the goals of that hatred—victory, spoil, and seduction—by the same impulse that drove the roots of that hatred deeper and deeper and more and more covetously into all that was profound and evil. This Jesus of Nazareth, the incarnate gospel of love, this "Redeemer" who brought blessedness and victory to the poor, the sick, and the sinners—was he not this seduction in its most uncanny and irresistible form, a seduction and bypath to precisely those Jewish values and new ideals? Did Israel not attain the ultimate goal of its sublime vengefulness precisely through the bypath of this "Redeemer," this ostensible opponent and disintegrator of Israel? Was it not part of the secret black art of truly grand politics of revenge, of a farseeing, subterranean, slowly advancing, and premeditated revenge, that Israel must itself deny the real instrument of its revenge before all the world as a mortal enemy and nail it to the cross, so that "all the world," namely all the opponents of Israel, could unhesitatingly swallow just this bait? And could spiritual subtlety imagine any more dangerous bait than this? Anything to equal the enticing, intoxicating, overwhelming, and undermining power of that symbol of the "holy cross," that ghastly paradox of a "God on the cross," that mystery of an unimaginable ultimate cruelty and self-crucifixion of God for the salvation of man?

    What is certain, at least, is that sub hoc signo [under this sign] Israel, with its vengefulness and revaluation of all values, has hitherto triumphed again and again over all other ideals, over all nobler ideals.——


    "But why are you talking about nobler ideals! Let us stick to the facts: the people have won—or 'the slaves' or 'the mob' or 'the herd' or whatever you like to call them—if this has happened through the Jews, very well! in that case no people ever had a more world-historic mission. 'The masters' have been disposed of; the morality of the common man has won. One may conceive of this victory as at the same time a blood-poisoning (it has mixed the races together)—I shan't contradict; but this intoxication has undoubtedly been successful. The 'redemption' of the human race (from 'the masters,' that is) is going forward; everything is visibly becoming Judaized, Christianized, mob-ized (what do the words matter!).

    On the Genealogy of Morals

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 65
    Last Post: Saturday, July 25th, 2009, 07:40 PM
  2. Replies: 16
    Last Post: Saturday, September 18th, 2004, 11:37 PM
  3. Couple of questions concerning Race and Sub-Race
    By rusalka in forum Physical Anthropology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Saturday, October 11th, 2003, 05:55 PM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts