Notes on THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST 'RACE' by Edward Dutton — Species Cannot Exist without Race — Globalism pushed Ideology of Equality but Idolatry of Black Supremacy — Jewish Perfidy in the Discourse on Race

https://www.unz.com/article/the-arguments-against-race/

--Is “race” an outmoded, morally dubious idea that was deservedly cast into the dustbin of history, along with Stalinism, astrology, and blood-letting? Many say so.--

A hysterical(and tiresome) argument used by the Thought Police so many times. Of course, the problem with such line of argument is everything has a dark side. After all, capitalism did much harm as well as good. Nuclear science led to wonders but also destruction of cities. Socialism can mean anything from radical communism of the Khmer Rouge to the welfare state(a fact of life in all modern societies). So, if critics of race argue that racial ideas may lead to great harm, most of us would concur. But this is true of anything. Without fire, there is no civilization. But fire has also burned down entire cities. Same with water. Without rain we are dead, but floods are dangerous.

So, we need to be cautious with ideas. The problem isn't so much the concept of race per se as the radicalization of racial science into hardline ideology, as with National Socialism. (Indeed, if Adolf Hitler and his followers were more like Benito Mussolini, who was less into racial ideology than the 'democratic' Anglos were, the horrors of Nazism could have been avoided.) Socialism need not be khmer-rouge-ism, and racial knowledge need not lead us to something like National Socialism(or the more extreme forms of Zionism). The real danger is not socialism or racialism(or race-ism) but radicalization of any idea. This even goes for democracy. Radical Democratism has led to 21st century wars that destroyed millions of lives, especially in the Middle East and North Africa. The US, by invoking 'muh democracy' at every turn, has justified its despicable and murderous acts of neo-imperialism. Radicalism is extremism, moral narcissism, and moral puritanism. "I am so very right, you are so very wrong" or "If you're not with us, you're against us."
So, the problem isn't race-ism per se but radical racism. (By race-ism, I mean belief in the reality of race and racial differences. Ism means belief, and race + ism should mean belief in the reality of race. To emphasize the -ism element of the term, the dash[-] is used: Race-ism. It is not to be confused with 'racism' that is usually meant to mean racial hatred and supremacism, esp of the white kind.) When we consider most ideas, we don't automatically obsess over the most extreme manifestation. So, 'socialism' doesn't mean Stalinism or Maoism. Those are forms of radical socialism, but most forms of socialism haven't been extreme. Likewise, when we say 'capitalism', we don't mean the most extreme kind of libertarian plutocracy with no protections for workers and the poor.
And yet, when it comes to the matter of race, people automatically jump to conclusions and assume it's about extreme hatred, mass repression, and mass murder. Of course, it has a lot to do with Jewish control of media and narrative. Indeed, the discussion of race is not unlike the discussion of Jewish Power. For example, even the slightest noticing and criticism of Jewish Power is denounced as 'antisemitism'. So, if you notice Jewish Power and its abuses, you are automatically a 'Nazi'. You are to be denounced, that is unless you get on your knees and roll over like a dog. On some issues, taboos dominate the discourse in the West. This is where Reason and Enlightenment Values break down. While we can be rational and honest on most things, we must suspend our reason, skepticism, and critical faculties on certain matters, especially if they're 'triggering' to Jews, blacks, and homos. Their FEELINGS count for more than demonstrable facts. Blacks are the most violent and murderous, but the Taboo says we must get on our knees and bawl about BLM.

--(Anti-racists insist) there is no clear way to divide different races. They merge into each other, with great variation in-between. A version of this argument is that there is no specific gene that is found only in one specific race. It can be countered that races are, of course, not entirely discrete categories because, if they were, they would be more like species, or perhaps genera, families, or orders on up the taxonomic scale.--

It is so obvious but PC follows its own twisted logic. We all know race is not species. Races are differences within a single species. Also, different species exist only because different races evolved into different species. If races don't exist, species cannot exist. For example, take the common ancestors of (1) the apes that became the chimps and (2) the apes that became humans. At one time, there were no separate species of humans and chimps. Their deep ancestors belonged to the same species of ape. But within that species, groups went separate ways and they began to diverge gradually. For a long time, there were merely different races of the same ape species. But little by little, the differences accumulated, and something resembling separate species arose. One branch became the chimpanzee and the other branch became the ape that eventually evolved into humanhood. In other words, a species cannot suddenly split into new separate species. Rather, groups within it can gradually diverge and change. This process is race-ization. For a long time, the emerging races still belong within the same species. But over prolonged periods, especially in extreme geological separation from one another, they can evolve into separate species.
This is true of mankind as well. If human races were to remain separate for another million years, they could evolve into different species. Evolution has proven this to be the case. For now, all human races belong to one species. But they have developed different characteristics, and there is a chance that they could evolve into separate species in the next 100,000 or million years. At any rate, if race isn't real, then species isn't real. Any organism, in order to evolve into a new species, must first evolve into different races(within the species). Consider tigers and lions. At one time, they had a common ancestor. It's not like this common ancestor suddenly split into species tiger and species lion. Instead, it began to diverge into different races of itself. One race eventually became the tiger, and the other race eventually became the lion. They began as different races but eventually became different species.

Also, mixed-race people can exist ONLY BECAUSE there are different races. After all, there can't be mulattos in a world that is all-white or all-black. There can't be mestizos in a world that is all white or all brown. Those mixed-breeds came into existence ONLY BECAUSE different races interbred. If we mix apple juice with grape juice, the mixture exists only because apple juice and grape juice existed in the first place. It would be stupid to deny the reality of apple juice and grape juice because a mixture exists. If anything, the mixture proves the existence of the other two.

--Even if it were true that no unambiguous line can be drawn between races, this does not undermine the utility of race. The line between Grizzly bears and Brown bears is blurry, too—but you still know one when you see one and making distinctions between these subspecies is meaningful.--

Brown Bears and Grizzlies are not a good example. They are nearly indistinguishable. Generally, grizzlies are a bit smaller than brown bears, but they are almost the same. A better example is brown bears and polar bears. Though considered as separate species, they are actually different races of bears if we use the Rule of Fertility. Horses and donkeys are separate species because their offspring, the mule, is infertile. Likewise, a lion and leopard can mate and produce offspring but it is infertile. In contrast, the offspring of a polar bear and brown bear, like the offspring of members of different human races, is fertile. Therefore, polar bear and brown bear are really separate races within the same species. But who can deny the differences between the brown bear and polar bear? Just because hybrid bears exist doesn't mean that the differences between brown bears and polar bears are meaningless, insignificant, or negligible. Also, contact between those races of bears usually means more danger to the polar bears. Though polar bears are equal in size and weight, brown bears are built more sturdily and are more aggressive. So, in most encounters, polar bears lose out and take 'white flight' from the brown bears. (For a long time, scientists believed Neanderthals to be a different species of humans, but recent DNA studies show that 5% of European DNA is Neanderthal. That means the offspring of Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals were fertile, and that means Neanderthals were another race of humans. But, the differences between Neanderthals and other humans were significant.) Another useful example comprise wolves, coyotes, and dogs. Like human races and polar/brown bears, wolves, coyotes, and dogs can mate and produce fertile offspring. That means, from a scientific viewpoint, they all belong to the same species. But should we ignore the very real differences among wolves, coyotes, and many breeds of dogs simply because various mutts and mongrels exist among them? Only a fool would say so. The fact is coyotes are no match for wolves in combat, and wolves can demolish any dog, just like a pitbull can demolish a beagle(just like a Nigerian can demolish any Briton or Japanese). A coyote that ignores the threat posed by wolves because a weasel tells it, "Hey, don't be racist as if wolves are different and pose a danger" is a dead coyote.

--Some say that race is illegitimate or immoral because it is steeped in Western history (and thus things like slavery and oppression), as well as the supposedly myopic and suffocating outlook of “Western science.” But this same argument could be made about almost any concept—including the ones that supposedly undermine or overcome Western hegemony... If race is “problematic” because it’s Western, then, presumably, we cannot use Western concepts at all to analyze anything non-Western.--

Very true. Chemistry and physics are also Western Concepts. So, does that mean the world should reject medicine resulting from Western chemistry? Should people deny the laws of physics discovered by Western Scientists? Is atomic power just an illusion steeped in 'western bias'? The West developed the scientific method, and that meant it was applied to just about everything. As humans are part of biological reality, a scientific view led to categorizations of race.
Now, were all ideas associated with race valid? No, but that could be said of any scientific field. So many medical ideas once accepted as true turned out to be false. Physicists once speculated outer space was filled with ether. Science improves with more observation, testing, trials, and experiments. But in order for it to improve, there must be more truth, integrity, and honesty. There is no question that National Socialists misconceived and misapplied racial theories. Indeed, they were less interested in the science of race than in the ideology of race. Hitler and his cohorts(and the favored partisan hack scientists) insisted on the Correct Theory of Race that put 'Aryans' at the center. If they were truly interested in racial science, they would have allowed debate, but they didn't. Aryanism became the national mythos of Germany. It was not unlike the concept of Chosen-ness among Jews except that it was explained in scientistic terms. Likewise, Marxism was less a rational economic theory than a prophecy. While claiming to be 'materialist' and 'scientific', it had more in common with Judeo-Christian vision of apocalypse and redemption. Communism was secular-christianity, and fascism was neo-paganism. Marxism was a form of scientism than real science. But as science gained prestige, all sides claimed to have 'science' on their side. Indeed, even Creationists play that game. They are allied with Intelligent-Design people who argue that one can 'scientifically' prove the existence of the supreme being behind the cosmos. Even more crude forms of Creationism pretend to 'scientifically' explain how mankind once lived alongside dinosaurs by pointing to 'archaeological' evidence. And Sigmund Freud insisted that his theory of sexuality was purely scientific when it had more to do with speculation, personal hang-ups, and resentment toward goy society.

Sir Isaac Newton

At any rate, the fake/flawed radical racial 'science' of the National Socialists wasn't supplanted by true, rational, and improved science but by the fake/flawed radical anti-racial 'science' of Jewish Deracinators. It was out of the frying pan into the fire. The world went from false racial science to false anti-racial science. It went from one radical certainty to another. It was like going from a crazy pseudo-scientific argument that one should eat ONLY meat to another pseudo-scientific argument that one should eat NO meat. How about a truly scientific dietary plan that argues for meat, grains, and vegetables?

Now, given World War II and the Shoah, there is no doubt that the radical racism of the National Socialists did great harm. And we can understand why people became freaked out about race. But the radical anti-racism since World War II(which especially accelerated in the 1960s)has also done great harm. Mass migration of non-whites into the West will surely lead to the fall of Western Civilization. And lack of white defenses against blacks will lead to racial doom for white folks. Europeans Europeanize, Africans Africanize. If Europe fills up with Africans, it will be Africanized like the Dark Continent(or Detroit).

Consider the Jesse Owens and Joe Louis Narratives. They are often invoked to discredit the notion of 'Aryan Supremacy'. You see, blacks beat the 'Aryans', and that means Nazi 'racism' was all nonsense. But that is only one side of the coin. Did Owens and Louis' achievements prove that races are equal? They would have IF Louis fought Schmeling to a draw and if Owens finished in a tie with the 'Aryan' sprinters. But in fact, Louis destroyed Schmeling, and Owens beat the white runners by a considerable margin. So, even if their achievements blew 'Aryan supremacism'(in athleticism) out of the water, they demonstrated the fact of black athletic superiority.
What is the social implication of this? Tougher blacks can beat up whites. And in Europe, the racial violence is usually black on white, just like in the US and Brazil. That means blacks end up feeling contempt for white wussy weaklings. That means white males are robbed of manhood. It means white women become infected with jungle fever. BAMMAMA(blacks are more more muscular and more aggressive) leads to ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs). It means total sexual triumph of blacks over whites. White males turn into pathetic cucks who watch their women go over to blacks who not only have tougher muscles but bigger dongs. (But then, the very people who say race is false and that 'we all bleed red' are also saying whites should import more blacks because blacks are so awesome in song, strong, and dong. So many Jewish-funded movies, TV shows, and advertising are predicated on Jungle Fever that says white women should reject white men and go with black men because the latter are superior in manhood. Go figure. They say one thing but show another. They say 'race is not real' but show 'look at the big muscular Negro with the big dong compared to that flabby wussy maggoty white boy'. The ideology is 'anti-racist' but the idolatry is totally 'racist' in favor of blacks uber whites.)

It's also been said that German science suffered due to the exile of Jewish scientists during the National Socialist era. But if all races and human groups are the same, why was it a loss for Germany and a gain for the US when Jewish scientists went from one nation to the other? It was a loss for Germany and gain for the US only if Jews are smarter and superior at scientific research. That would imply group differences are true, or at least true enough.

Now, there is a kernel of truth in the denunciation of Western bias in the science of 'race'. While it's true that virtually everything related to modern science, math, medicine, and technology emerged from the West, the non-human endeavors surely got a more objective treatment than human-related ones. Even today, hard sciences are more scientific than social sciences(that are never fully devoid of tribal or ideological bias). Now, there were examples of ideological bias in hard science as well, e.g. National Socialist science that denied the physics theories of Jewish physicists and Lysenko-ism in the USSR.
Still, generally speaking, when it comes to hard science, the West transcends the West, i.e. the objective is to arrive at the truth, not to trump the specialness of any people, nation, or civilization. When a German chemist or physicist works on a project, he is seeking the truth, not waving the banner of German pride. Thus, even though modern science developed in the West, it goes beyond culture and race. The scientific method can be used by any nation or people.
But the topic of race, even under scientific scrutiny, was never entirely empirical or objective. Rather, many racial scientists had ideological agenda or something to prove. And this has been the case in other nations as well. Chinese, for example, long insisted that they evolved from Peking Man than some group that emerged from Africa. Japanese racial 'scientists' insisted there is something 'unique' about the Japanese. Much of this is closer to mysticism than science. Jewish anthropologist Jared Diamond has argued against race but says DNA studies can identify who is really Jewish and who isn't. Humans can be objective about lots of things but not themselves. They are too vain, too proud, too anxious, and/or too much at competition with, dominant over, or servile to other races to be totally objective. Take the controversy of "Were Ancient Egyptians black?" By the American one-drop rule, many Ancient Egyptians could be said to have been black. But as they were more Caucasian than Negroid, one could argue they were more 'white'. Or, are Jews more 'Semitic' or 'European'? Even Jews are confused about this.

Still, if there was a Western Bias in racial science in the past, the proper way forward is to be rid of those biases and approach race more scientifically than to throw the baby out with the bathwater and pretend the very concept of race is untrue. But then, was anti-racism really sincere? I don't think so. Deep down inside, many Jews surely believed in race and only pretended it didn't exist because racial thinking might probe into differences among whites, blacks, Jews, and others that might prove to be inconvenient for Jewish Power. After all, even as Jews took pride in having higher IQ over goyim, their fear was that goyim might realize this and begin to resent Jews for their superior intelligence that leads to more wealth and power, which could be used by Jews to boost Jewish Power at the expense of white interests. The fact that Jews insist on the abolishment of white identity all the while insisting that whites revere, support, and lionize Jewish Identity & Power gives the game away. But white cuckery has become so ingrained in the white psyche that whites are in habitual denial of what is really going on. Take the recent election debacle. Jews are most responsible for the Crazy 2020, but most conservatives are blaming China, China, China, a secondary player if that in the fall of White America. Denial of racial differences in IQ is also useful to Jews in perpetuating 'white guilt' & white submission and in directing black rage at whites. If it were known that black failure in education and economic achievement owes to genetic factors, whites would feel less guilty about their history. Fading of white guilt would mean it'd be harder for Jews to guilt-bait whites into seeking redemption by sucking up to Jews(and blacks and homos). Also, if blacks realized they're on the bottom due to lower IQ while Jews are on top due to higher IQ, blacks would be most envious and resentful of Jews. So, it is advantageous to Jews to blame black failure on white 'racism' and to keep blacks hating whites above all.

--While the history of words is interesting, the fact that the meaning of words change over time is simply irrelevant to our purposes here. We are clear that by “race” we mean breeding populations separated in prehistory and adapted to different environments.--

True enough as 'gay' can mean happy or homosexual, but still, maybe it's useful to come up with a new term. As races developed through genetic changes over geographical distances, maybe racial science should be called geo-netics or geonetics. And maybe 'geon' should be used for 'race'.

--Another supposed problem with race is that developing the concept leads to bad consequences.--

How about we denounce Zionism because it led to bad consequences for Palestinians? Also, if race is a relatively recent idea(and a toxic one at that), could it be said human history was more pleasant in the pre-race eras? Bantus didn't have a concept of race, but they sure butchered a lot of people all across Africa. Maybe the Mongols didn't think in terms of race, but they sure could conquer, pillage, and kill. Maybe the Conquistadors lacked the scientific notion of race, but they should committed many horrors in the Americas. And before them, the Aztecs could be cruel as hell.
In contrast, the Anglos were profoundly mindful of race and racial differences, but one could make a strong case that they did most to advance mankind as a whole. Didn't Anglos do more for their colonies than the less race-minded Spanish and the French for their colonies? And didn't Anglo enslavement of blacks lead to more advancement for blacks than enslavements under Arabs and other Africans who presumably didn't think in terms of race? So, one fallacy could be countered with another. If Political Correctness says, "The concept of race is evil because of all the bad things done in its name", it could be countered, "The concept of race is good because Anglos, the most racial-minded of all imperialists, did most to advance and lift up mankind." Was it better for blacks to come under Arab rule or Anglo rule? Who did better in the Americas? Blacks who lived under Anglo-American power or blacks who under less-racially minded Spanish/Portuguese power? Anglos were more 'racist' toward the Chinese than the Mongols were. It's doubtful the Mongols called the Chinese 'chinks' since they were also a slanty-eyed people, but China achieved more under Anglo intrusion than under Mongol rule. Of course, such line of argument is fallacious but no more than the anti-racist school of thought that seeks to discredit all notions of race because some radical racists did bad things.

Another thing. Anti-racism can be used to justify imperialism. After all, if races are all the same, it wouldn't make a difference if People A invade and rape People B. After all, they are all the same. Chinese are taking over Tibet and push 'anti-racism'. They say Chinese and Tibetans are all brothers under the skin, and Tibetans should just mate with Chinese and become fellow Chinese. On the surface, this sounds humanitarian and 'inclusive', but it also means doom for Tibetans as the Han Chinese outnumber them by a huge margin. Latin American elites justify the history of conquest, rape, and domination on the premise that there is only ONE people in Mexico and South America. Supposedly, people don't see 'race' because they are all equal and all mixed. But it totally ignores the fact that the indigenous brown peoples were invaded, raped, and dominated by another people. 'Inclusion' is often a justification for invasion.

Another thing. Some anti-racists argue that race-mixing is beneficial. But if all races are the same, why would race-mixing be beneficial when all groups are the same under the skin? Either the PC-pushers are stupid and ignorant of their contradictions or they are mendacious and push for race-mixing with full knowledge that it will favor certain races over others. Interracism between whites and blacks, for example, favor blacks. Not only do mixed-race people identify as black, but it's usually black male and white female. Black men sexually conquer white women while white men are relegated to cucky-wuck dork-hood.

--Beyond that, it can be convincingly argued that suppressing the concept of race leads to very bad consequences. If a South Asian person has a kidney transplant and is given the kidney of a White person, then his body will likely reject it, elevating the possibility that the patient will die of kidney failure.--

All very true, but that is a petty example. It's about individuals and illness. No civilization ever went under because people died of disease. After all, Europe survived the Bubonic Plague and Spanish Flu. So, the medical argument for race is weak. The real danger of overlooking the issue of race is that the white race might not wake up to the black threat and Jewish threat. Blacks are superior in brawn, and Jews are superior in brain. So, when whites allow Jews and blacks to run wild and free, Jews will take over elite institutions/industries and use their power to weaken white identity and unity. And blacks will dominate sports and take over as the new idols of national prowess. Black athletes who destroy white British ones are hailed as National Champions, and that means white girls will grow up with jungle fever and white boys will be instilled with cuckitis. As whites come to celebrate blackness as 'badass' and 'cool', it will be deemed especially evil to have any doubts about blacks. And that means whites won't be able to say NO to further black immigration-invasion. And this will mean more black crime and black violence against whites in the streets and schools. And that will mean the end of Europe. THAT is the real evil of anti-racism.
However, the real danger of the Current West isn't ideological anti-racism but idolatrous pro-racism in favor of blacks. Today, many whites welcome more black immigration not on the basis of equality of the races but superiority of blacks. Whites in UK and France revere blacks as sports champions, rappers, twerking mamas, and big-donged studs. And this idolatrous supremacy of blacks is disseminated all around the world. There are tons of black-centric advertising in Germany and Poland, even in Russia. Even Japan, so distant from Europe and Africa, is falling into the Jungaru Trap. Japanese women are whores who mate with blacks, and their kids are taking over Japanese sports, and Japanese elites, ever so servile to the West, are pushing for 'Japan That Can Say Ho'.

--“There are more differences within races than there are between them.” This is wheeled out with great profundity by biased scientists when interviewed in biased newspapers, without any references. It has come to be known as “Lewontin’s Fallacy,”--

It's a fallacy alright. Besides, how can there be differences within the race when race doesn't exist in the first place? If race doesn't exist, then the differences within and outside the 'race' would be the same.

My take on Lewontin's BS is simply this. Most people within any group are average and part of the norm. So, even if it may well be that the genetic difference between a retarded Japanese giant and a genius Japanese midget is greater than between an average Japanese and an average Nigerian, the fact is most Japanese are not genius midgets or retarded giants. If we were to randomly pick two Japanese, they would most likely be average. Same if we randomly pick two Nigerians. Most Japanese belong to the average norm, and same goes for Nigerians. Now, would two average Japanese be more different from one another than either of them is to an average Nigerian? No way. That'd be like saying there's more difference between Woody Allen and Alan Dershowitz than between either of them and Mike Tyson or George Foreman. That's total BS.

--Another argument—and there are many versions of it—amounts to an appeal to emotion, in which a person essentially argues that “race” makes him feel unhappy.--

This is, of course, BS and very selective. 'Race' is supposed to make people uncomfortable IF it is about the validity of white race-hood. It's NOT OKAY to be white. But blacks feel most comfortable when they are going on and on about their blackness and black identity and blackity blackness. So, when black people claim to find 'race' problematic, they really mean not enough (positive)attention is being showered on them. How dare any time be spent discussing other races when it should be about blacks 24/7, sheeeeiiiiiit.
And Jews are the same way. It's Jewish this, Jewish that. And it's not just about culture and history. After all, Jewishness isn't just about religion or historical consciousness. Even atheist Jews are considered as fellow Jews. A Jew can be a Buddhist or even Christian, but he's still a Jew and can live in Israel. Jews seem to have no problem with Zionism's blood-based identity of what constitutes Jewishness. Indeed, Zionism will accept an atheist person of Jewish lineage while rejecting an African, Chinese, or Arab who is eager to convert to Jewishness.

Also, the Holocaust has gone from an Anti-Racist Narrative — "We Jews were victims of German racial supremacism" — to a Neo-Racist Narrative: "Jewish Lives Matter More". After all, the 20th century has seen tons of deaths, and Jews did their share of killing. But it seems 80% of all moral outrage has been devoted to the Shoah. Why? Do Jewish lives matter more? Are Jewish lives more precious? Are Jewish Lives so precious that it doesn't matter when Jews kill millions of goyim, as in the communist horrors of the USSR? Anne Frank matters more than the millions of Ukrainian kids who died in the Great Famine? A Jewish life matters more than the 100,000s killed by AIPAC-driven US Wars for Israel and crippling sanctions? Jewish life is so precious that it's okay for Jews to kill others, but one mustn't harm a hair on a Jew. Madeleine Albright can say it's worth killing 500,000 Arab kids, but damnation to anyone who hurts Jewish feelings.
Thus, Holocaust Narrative has come to mean that Jewish Lives are more precious and matter more. Anything is justified to save Jewish lives, protect Jewish lives, and to favor Jewish lives. It's like the insane logic of BLM. Nothing is spoken about black violence on non-blacks. Blacks commit tons of crimes. Black soldiers in US bases around the world are the top rapists. Black athletes in colleges commit most crime and rape. Blacks are top thugs. But the moral outrage is only about the rare black who dies at the hands of whites. Same dynamics operates in US and UK. Also, this moral burden is placed on white shoulders. So, even though blacks kill blacks by the bushel in Africa, it's no big deal because blacks, being special, can do as they please among themselves. Blacks can be amoral and nihilistic, but that's okay because they are blackity-black wonderful. So, the burden of caring about black well-being falls on whites, even when blacks make other black lives miserable. (If non-whites mess up their own nations, they can't be expected to bear the burden of fixing their own problems. Rather, whites must bear the burden of providing sanctuary for them in white nations.) But then, when white cops do their job and try to minimize crime and violence in black areas, blacks howl about 'racism' and riot(often with encouragement from Jews). It's damned if you do, damned if you don't.
So, when Jews and blacks say 'race' makes them feel uncomfortable, they really mean all the talk should be about the Jewish race or black race, all favorable. After all, if race is real and if all races matter, then Jews and blacks must share the moral space with other groups. But Jews and blacks want to hog all the space for the Jewish race and black race.

Now, there are whites who feel uncomfortable about 'race', but why? Because their minds have been molded by Jews who control media, academia, and whore politicians/officials who spout PC nonsense 24/7. This discomfort isn't natural but ideological. It's been inculcated in their minds by nonstop anti-white propaganda and education. If Jews and blacks feel angry when the discussion veers into anything other than their own noble/soulful identities, whites have been made to feel disgust about any positive expression of white identity. But then, the very PC whites who can't abide white racial identity have no problem babbling endlessly about how great the black race or Jewish people are. So, the question must be asked, "Why is racial supremacism great for Jews and blacks but mere racial identity is evil for whites?"

--On a deeper level, we should understand that science is fundamentally amoral. It is about the relentless search for the objective truth.--

But let's be honest here. Racial science is never meant to be merely scientific, objective, or amoral. When we study the differences among wolves, coyotes, bears, cougars, birds, and etc., we can be detached and neutral(though some people may favor certain animals over others while others may be alarmed about invasive species that may upset existing eco-systems in the interest of preserving bio-diversity). No one in the HBD movement has been merely scientifically interested. They are usually white identitarians who root for their own kind. Even as they acknowledge certain genetic advantages among non-whites, they use those facts to argue for white well-being. Richard Spencer, for example, says it's not good for US to take in high-IQ Indians and Chinese as they might become the over-class over whites. Others admit that blacks are athletically superior, and THAT is the reason against 'inclusion' of blacks in white spaces. Tougher blacks will terrorize and wussify the whites, just like Mongol Wrestlers made a mockery of Japan's sacred fatty sport of Sumo.
So, while science itself is amoral, its uses and purpose is always moral or tribal or political. The physics behind the nuclear bomb is amoral, but the Bomb was used for reasons that biased one group against another. The dynamics of evolution is amoral, but every organism works to maximize its own survival and dominance. Indeed, why do we look into the science of race? After all, science can be used to look into just about anything. But we ignore most things and focus mostly on those that matter most to our survival, well-being, happiness, and power. The science of race is all-important because there are obvious problems in the West, and the most serious ones cannot be understood apart from race. Jewish brain power and black brawn power can only be understood in terms of racial differences. Power decides history, and racial differences profoundly affect power dynamics among various groups.

--This is why the kind of scientists who tend to make really important discoveries—so-called “geniuses”— seem to combine outlier high IQ with moderately low Agreeableness (altruism and empathy) and moderately low Conscientiousness (impulse control, rule following). This means that they can “think outside the box,” not bound by conventional rules—maybe they even take pleasure in slaughtering sacred cows.--

But then, why is the scientific community so PC and craven? While certain scientists may be like William Shockley or James Watson, most are smart enough to know that they must play the game. Also, even though they think outside the box, they work within the box of specialization. Thus narrowly focused, they outsource their social diplomacy to others. Take Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates. Maybe deep down inside, they know more than they let on, but as super-geeks, they are savvy enough to hire public relations and parrot the party line. Or take Craig Venter, the guy involved with DNA studies. He surely knows about race but pushed the PC line to keep his position.

Now, there may be people who are so aspergish that they can't help spouting off inconvenient views. Even with public relations department all around them, they can't help muttering things that are bound to offend people(especially in a time when people are conditioned to feel 'offended' or 'triggered' by just about anything, now known as 'micro-aggressions'). But such people are hardly inspirational, and their views are narrowly focused on one thing or another. They don't offer the big vision. This was the case with James Watson. He narrowly focused on black IQ and despaired of the future of Africa. But he failed to construct and deliver a larger message about what black failure means to the West, especially with massive black migration to Europe. He also failed to address the Jewish Question at the heart of PC and anti-whiteness. After all, Jewish Intelligence may be even more fatal to the West because, despite being smart and genuinely capable, Jews use their amassed power and privilege to subvert and destroy the pillars of white power. Blacks degrade society because they are underachievers, but Jews degrade society by over-achieving and using their vast fortunes/power to subvert goy civilizations out of revenge, resentment, paranoia, or just plain nastiness that they revel in. Now, had James Watson gone further in his critique, he would have gotten into more trouble, but it would have been inspirational and earth-shaking. He would have spoken like a prophet. But he talked about race only as a geek, and just like a geek, he cowered under pressure. Aspergy types may say inconvenient stuff but lack the balls to see it through when pushed back. (Bobby Fischer was an exception though, to be sure, he went off the deep end.)

Also, high IQ types don't make good leaders for the people. They live in a world of their own. They don't feel much camaraderie with the dummies and morons who make us most of humanity. When they go on and on about IQ, they favor the meritocracy of the best and brightest regardless of race. They are for the natural aristocracy. Take the lunatic Michio Kaku. He feels nothing for the Japanese. He feels nothing for most Americans. He just thinks the dummy masses should work and consume and pay taxes so that geniuses like him can advance science to the point where humanity can merge with artificial intelligence and become 'gods'. So, even though aspergy types may sometimes go off-script, they offer nothing to inspire the masses or the volk. They are too narrowly focused than broadly aligned with 'my people'.

--In the wake of World War II, “racist” gradually came to mean what “racialist” had once meant.[21] However, the term “racist” has been extended far beyond this, to refer to anybody who is seen to deviate from ideological orthodoxy with regard to the issue of race. Terming such a person the “racist” associates him with that which is accepted as somehow evil and immoral.--

No, following WWII, 'racist' came to mean 'bigot', 'white supremacist', 'hater', or some loon. It was never meant to be synonymous with 'racialist'. The problem with the term 'racist' is it makes a mockery of the meaning of -ism. As -ism means belief, race + ism should mean belief in the reality of race. So, how did race + ism come to automatically mean racial hatred, racial supremacism, racial bigotry, and etc? Imagine if 'socialism' automatically means Stalinism or Maoism. It would be toxic. Socialism at its radical extremes can mean Stalinism or Maoism, but the generic meaning of socialism means some degree of statist role for collective interests. Thus, even social-democracy can be deemed socialist. And fascism too.

But precisely because generic race + ism has been defined as racial extremism(especially of white variety), it's difficult for people to honestly discuss matters of race. Genericism on race has been made synonymous with extremism. But same goes for the concept of whiteness. Once a neutral term — quality of European descent — , now it's treated like some evil phantom of history. So, 'whiteness studies' doesn't mean an objective study of white people and culture but an alarmist diagnosis of white people, history, culture, and whatever as the source of all the evils of the world. Whiteness isn't a subject but a disease. It isn't something to really study but to search and destroy or burn at the stake. It's like Jewishness was never a neutral matter in National Socialist Germany. When Nazis studied Jewishness, they weren't detached scholars but doctors studying a pathogen that must be wiped out.

This is why the ONLY WAY to dig out of the hole is to embrace the term 'race-ism'. The dash(-) emphasizes the true meaning of 'ism'. Race-ism can become radical racism but need not be.

But what's most outrageous about all this is the Jews(as pathological semites) are playing a truly dirty game. If Jews, in their naive idealism, were waging war on 'racism' in an earnest effort to stamp out all manifestations of bigotry and hatred, it would at least be understandable. But the real reason why Jews bull-whip and terrorize white identity and interests is because they want to keep white people servile to Jewish supremacism. After all, Jews don't say, "You whites give up your identity and interests, and we Jews will do the same." No, Jews say, "You surrender your banner and carry ours." It's a case of "heads I win, tails you lose." Jews denounce whites as 'nazis' because they want to be Judeo-Nazis over the world. Jewish message to Hungarians is as follows: "Give up your 'racist' Hungarian identity and borders but then be sure to support Israel uber alles." Jewish message to white Americans is as follows: "Feel white guilt over the Holocaust and Slavery and always remind yourselves that you whites totally suck as the mass murderers of history, but then be sure to suit up with military gear to smash and kill any number of Arabs and Muslims for the benefit of Israel." Pathological-Semites or Patho-Semites are truly sick in the head. But they rule the West because Anglos have weaker and more yielding personalities. Jews even joke about the lack of will among Anglos:

Notes on "THE GREATEST JEWISH JOKE EVER TOLD" by Spencer Quinn
https://counter-currents.com/2020/11/the-greatest-jewish-joke-ever-told/

Now, some might say that I'm trying to 'blackpill' people with all the doom-and-gloom talk. But we must speak honestly, just like a doctor must tell a cancer patient about his ailment. Unless the truth is outed, there can't be any real treatment. The current West is like treating cancer with ALL MEANS except those meant to deal with cancer cells. Imagine a cancer patient who is given the most elaborate and expensive treatment for EVERYTHING but the cancer. His eyes, ears, throat, stomach, liver, pancreas, arms, legs, groins, buttocks, and etc are given special treatment with all the tools and medicine. Millions and millions are spent on the treatment... except his cancer is ignored. He will surely die. The black problem is handled that way in the West. Why do blacks fail in school? Lower IQ and rowdy behavior, but no one addresses the problem of natural lower IQ and natural higher aggression among blacks. Instead, money is poured into everything without addressing the crucial fact.
And same goes for Jewish Power. So much of financial, cultural, and foreign policy failures can be traced back to Jewish supremacist abuse of power, but people blame Everyone and Everything but the Jews. Take the recent election. Jews were most responsible for the fiasco that was 2020. With control of medicine, media, deep state, Wall Street, and whore politicians, Jews were hellbent on doing EVERYTHING to topple Trump, but these Trumpists are blaming everything but the Jews. So, nothing will change, nothing will be fixed.

Also, what the West needs is to study the Portnoid Style in Jewish Politics, just like a famous Jewish historian Richard Hofstadter once wrote of the Paranoid Style in American Politics. 'Portnoia' is necessary if we are to spill the beans on what is really happening. There must be no more inhibitions. In a way, Jews gained over Wasps because Jews were vulgar and portnoid in spilling the beans on the Real Wasp, i.e. while Wasps put on a respectable Country Club image, they were really a bunch of a--holes like Senator Geary in THE GODFATHER PART 2. Well, it's about time whites did the same to Jews and went totally portnoid on Jewish Power. To be sure, this is harder to do as Jews immunized themselves with shamelessness. It's easier to expose the phoniness of Wasps with their air of respectability and dignity than to expose the Jew who inoculated himself with the pride of vulgarity. One can shame William F. Buckley but not Howard Stern. Still, there is such a huge gap between the tragic and noble image of Jews as a long-suffering people full of wisdom and the obnoxious image of Jews as two-faced a--holes who've turned the Holocaust into License to Steal and Kill for the sake of stuffing their own pockets and securing their own supremacism.

Being portnoid isn't to blackpill but to see truth for what it is. Then and only then can people embark on the right and righteous path. Unfortunately, not everyone sees it that way. I got the following email complaining that my views have a blackpilling effect:

"If your goal is to encourage cucky-wuckery and Jungle Fever then you're doing a great job. Constantly hearing about BAMMAMA, ACOWW, the pussification of the white boy and big black dongs along with your convincing but pessimistic predictions regarding the future of white manhood is extremely de-moralizing. Reading your vivid, primal descriptions of black thugs smashing wussy white boys and humping white girls to mind-blowing orgasms is going to give your white male readers an uncomfortable number of masochistic boners and your white female readers plenty of tingles. The only way then to comfort yourself in your racial-sexual loserdom as a white boy is by whanking to videos of muscular Negro studs pumping beautiful Aryan women into cascades of convulsive ecstasy. You can only repeat this humiliating ritual so many times before you accept the inevitability of white racial defeat and even the desirability of bigger, stronger, more dominant black men conquering the women of your tribe and blotting-out the genes of the degenerate males too credulous, perverted and weak to prevent it. Do you really write for White National Liberation/National Humanism as you claim? Because I can assure you that the effect you are having is very different. Enough nationalists have a white genocide fetish already without any need to encourage it. I had already arrived at these basic conclusions a couple of years ago but your writings certainly added fuel to the fire. I would be interested in reading your thoughts on these subjects."

So, the writer assumes that facing the truth and speaking of the dangers is demoralizing, therefore fatal. But the ONLY way to change course is to speak the truth as things really are. I maintain American History could have been very different IF, in the time of Jack Johnson, white people spoke of the black threat in portnoid ways. But they didn't, so here we are. Truth may not save a people, but it's the only chance they have in a world of lies.

WHY WAS THE 1960S THE PEAK OF HUMAN ACCOMPLISHMENT (AND PRO-SOCIALITY)? by DR EDWARD DUTTON: THE JOLLY HERETIC

Jared Taylor Cannot Win with Facts and Reason Alone - Vision of Future trumps View of Reality - Richard Spencer’s Vision Needs to Smoke Less Crack

There are two prominent figures in the alternative sphere of the rightist spectrum. There is Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer.

Jared Taylor makes good sense backed with facts and logic on a host of issues, but he lacks the vision thing. After all, Moses didn’t manage to lead all those Hebrews out of Egypt just by noticing facts around him. He inspired his people with the vision of a better tomorrow and the Promised Land. He promised them the laws of God on the conviction that God, the one and only God, was on their side. Without such prophecy, neither the mythical Moses nor the historical Muhammad could have achieved what they did. We may learn a lot from someone who points to things around us and gives a factual analysis of every item. But we aren’t likely to be inspired by him or look to him for The Truth, the one that lends meaning, purpose, and direction to our lives. Rather, it is the man who points to the distant horizon and speaks of the great future that inspires people and make them want to follow him. He is the prophet who is far-sighted, whereas the ‘factualists’ are short-sighted.

We need all the fact-based people we can find as they get things done in the world, but the future is made by those who lead the people to ‘another’ world. This another world could be literal in the sense of discovering or conquering a distant territory. Or it could be a vision of how our own land could be transformed into something far greater.
Now, Jared Taylor does have a passion and objective of sorts. He is passionately committed to his own race, culture, and heritage. And he looks forward to a world where whites will be safe and secure in identity and posterity. But it doesn’t excite or inspire because the Taylor’s vision of a good society is all about the A-B-C’s of stability. If he could have a Father-Knows-Best-like society for his own people, he would be content, and that would be that. Such a society would certainly be nice, but it’s not visionary enough to inspire masses of white people to view it as their Promised Land. To inspire the masses, the vision must be more than something nice or something-that-had-been. It has to be something that has yet to be, something so great, wondrous, and glorious. It needn’t be something as fanciful(and ridiculous) as Wakanda, but the vision has to be powerful enough to turn people into zealots and true believers who are willing to kill and die for this vision.

If Bolsheviks, Italian Fascists, National Socialists, Zionists, and Lazarusites have one thing in common, it is the Vision thing. Benito Mussolini convinced Italians that they could once again become a race of heroes, like the warriors of Roman Times, if they come together as a people under his leadership. Bolsheviks intoxicated both the educated elites and landless peasants with a future vision of the End of History of justice and truth. Zionists excited Jews with the hope not only of nation of their own but the recovery of their lost Holy homeland. And the cult-worshipers of Emma Lazarus romanticized the notion of America as a Proposition Nation, the full greatness of which has yet to be realized with the arrival of dreamers from all over the world. Good or bad, sensible or insane, those -isms offer more than facts and reasons. They offer a vision.

In the end, people are not moved by clarity of the empirical mind but the fever of the imperial spirit. Clarity of facts and logic reduces our emotional heat. So, while Jared Taylor makes a convincing case on matters of race and culture, he leaves us feeling calm, cool, and collected. But history is not made by gentlemen. Gentlemen are good managers and officials. But they are not the ones who supply the heat and the juice to make the people want to do something more than the usual, the normal, the routine, and the mundane. Napoleon didn’t inspire his men with facts and data. He made them believe in him, his abilities as leader and his vision of glory for France and the Revolution. T. E. Lawrence convinced all those divided Arab tribes to follow him and serve him not with dry lectures on history or cold political analysis. And it wasn’t just the promise of loot either. He made them believe in his special powers and the dream of Arab unity and glory that had been out-of-reach under Ottoman Rule.
And he did all this despite not even being a Muslim. He managed to convince Arab Muslims to fight fellow Muslims of the Ottoman Empire because his showbiz quasi-prophet act was so compelling.

In the end, history is made by people who believe in a Taboo. They feel what they believe isn’t merely factual or true but holy and sacred. Indeed, the holy and sacred is favored even over factual evidence. After all, we can factually debunk or intellectually deconstruct much of Jewish religion, myths, legends, and history. We can say that, as there never was a God, the notion of Promised Land or Holy Land is just nonsense. Based on chemistry, the dirt in Palestine/Israel is no different from dirt in any neighboring nation. So, there was no Covenant. It was all an invention. And Moses probably never existed, at least in the version told in the Old Testament. But none of that matters to Zionists, even the most secular ones. They BELIEVE in a covenant with history if not with God. And this myth fills them with a vision of the future that MUST be. It is NOT negotiable. And this vision is so powerful that even the most secular leftist Israeli Jews will pick up assault rifles and kill bushels of Arabs, Muslims, and Persians IF that’s what it takes to preserve Israel as the eternal vision of home for the Jews.

Richard Spencer understands this need for Big Vision, a sense of not only being right but righteous. In the end, an order cannot exist for long without its zealots. Israel may have secular elites who think about ‘higher’ and drier things, but it survives only because it has its core neo-Zealots who are willing to go to any length to defend the nation from enemies from both within and without. Now, if an order is totally overrun by zealots, things can get out of hand, like Iran during it rabid Islamo-revolutionary phase. A healthy society needs more than vision, passion, and conviction. There is value in liberal open-mindedness and inquiry. But if an order is only open-minded and dryly intellectual, it won’t have the ferocity to come together and defend the order against enemies. It’s like a person needs more than passion and fists. He needs a mind and heart. But without the fists ready to fight off the threats, the mind and heart will have no security. Before any idea or value, the person must survive as an organism, and that means it must be ready at all times to move into the mode of ferocity and fists to fend off any enemy that threatens his survival and well-being. And this will to survive isn’t based on an idea but an animal passion. But since animal passion alone will just keep a person on the level of an animal(like so many blacks), the mind and heart have to create a vision for the fury and fists to serve. And this vision is something more than objective accounting of reality. Israelis are not committed to defending their nation because they have an objective assessment of their land in terms of economics, minerals, agriculture, water, and etc. After all, the rules of agriculture and market economics, like laws of gravity, are pretty much universal all around the world. All nations read from the same economics and chemistry books. No people ever wanted to defend their nation based on the mere sciences of economics, sociology, psychology, or archaeology. After all, a rational and scientific understanding of anything is a universal endeavor and belongs to all peoples. Even non-Germans can read about German history or brush up on what archaeology has to say about ancient Germanic folks. Even non-Greeks can learn about Greek philosophy, and even non-Jews can read about the history of the part of the world called Palestine/Israel. Knowledge doesn’t belong to any single people. So, if anyone can learn about the history of Jews or Israel(and can even gain more knowledge about Jewish history & culture than your average Jew does), why is it that Jews believe that Jewishness and Israel belong to them in the way such don’t belong to any other people? Why are Jews willing to fight and die for Jewishness and Israel in ways that mere gentile scholars of Jewish culture and Israel do not? It’s because Jews have something more than objective or scholarly interest and knowledge about Israel. They have a powerful sense of their myth, narrative, tragedy, and future/destiny that binds them together. And Jews feel that even gentiles who strongly identify and sympathize with Jews cannot be part of the Tribe. (Incidentally, the reason why many whites so strongly identify with Jews and Israel even though they’re rebuffed by Jews is because they’ve been denied passion in their own identity or failed to develop something on their own with their own vision of the covenant.)
Furthermore, it’s not enough to say that whites are special and especially accomplished. After all, a people who do great things only attract attention from around the world. All great empires not only tried to conquer the world but absorb the world. So, if whites are said to be so great, then, it leads to the logic of universalism, i.e. whites should spread their greatness all over the world(because, after all, greatness wants to rule and doesn’t want to be contained), and the rest of humanity should be able to partake of this greatness.
If whites are to survive as a unique race and culture, the notion of greatness or superiority(in IQ or talent) isn’t enough. Greatness only attracts the attention of others. Also, greatness wants to be admired by others. What great actor or actress doesn’t want to be loved by as many people as possible? What great corporation doesn’t want to expand its market share all over the world? Indeed, when it comes to their great achievements in science, financial power, entertainment, and media, Jews want to take over the entire world. While greatness seeks to dominate others, it also absorbs them, and as the result, the Other also becomes a part of the Great Power. Also, greatness, in its sheer meritocracy, doesn’t necessarily favor one group over another. In some cases, group differences are so stark that meritocracy does lead to total or near-total domination by one group. On meritocracy alone, women cannot compete with men in sports. If women want to play, they need a sports league of their own. In basketball, meritocracy has led to near-total black domination. But greatness in many fields does not so decisively favor one group over all others. Greatness in chemistry, physics, and computer sciences led to the rise of many white, Jewish, and Asian scientists and engineers. Since greatness favors greatness over mediocrity, white greatness will favor non-white greatness over white mediocrity. So, even if one could make the argument that whites have achieved the greatest things in history, putting greatness, ability, and talent at the center of everything will undermine ethno-nationalism and identity of collective racial inheritance. After all, even if it’s true that whites have been more adept at reason and science than other races, the fact still remains that most whites are not very smart or creative. Meanwhile, there are plenty of non-whites who are very smart and creative, and if given a chance by the Western system, will do head-and-shoulders better than most whites. And then, whites of intelligence and creativity will favor non-whites of intelligence and creativity because the system would put greatness and meritocracy at the center of all things. And this is why all this stuff about IQ doesn’t cut it. It’s interesting and informative but doesn’t support the Vision necessary for the survival of a race, culture, and territory.

This is obvious from the case of Jews. If indeed Jews should primarily care about greatness and meritocracy, then the smartest, most creative, most successful, and most powerful Jews should primarily seek out their counterparts of excellence among the gentiles. Smart Jews shouldn’t care about dumb Jews just like smart whites are told to dump on dumb whites. Smart whites are told to think meritocratically and identify mainly with smart Jews and smart non-whites. If smart and powerful Jews acted just like smart and privileged whites, would Jewish people, Jewish culture, and Jewish nation survive? After all, even though Jews are, on average, smarter than other groups, there are plenty of not-so-smart Jews. And yet, Jewish identity, culture, and nationalism remain strong because smart Jews believe they should primarily identify with other Jews, smart or dumb. So, even though smart Jews will work with smart non-Jews in elite endeavors of physics, chemistry, finance, and computers, when away from work their main identity and loyalty are with Jewishness, Jewish history, Jewish culture, and Jewish nationhood in Israel.

In contrast, look at the decline of Episcopalians despite the fact that they had an IQ equivalent or possibly even higher than of Ashkenazi Jews. So, why did Jewish power keep rising whereas Episcopalian power faded despite their individual successes. As individuals, there are still many successful, rich, and/or super-privileged Episcopalians. But because they abandoned their sense of racial/cultural unity and history/heritage, the sense of their own community was lost. Episcopalianism was both too exclusive and too weak to survive as an identity. Those within the denomination were exclusive enough to set themselves apart from other white Christians, but they lacked an communal sense that was powerful enough to hold the community together like among Jews(or even Mormons). Power isn’t more than a series of individual successes. True power is the unity of those of individualities. It’s like a bunch of individuals can be great warriors, but if each fights only for himself than coming together to form an army, they won’t stand a chance against the power composed of individuals working as a team. If every wolf acted as a lone wolf, it could not bring down a moose, elk, or bear. But if they work as a team, they can bring down the biggest game.
Jews retained a powerful pack instinct, whereas Episcopalians, despite equal intelligence, eventually turned into lone wolves. Since Episcopalians couldn’t form a pack of their own, their lone talents attached themselves to those with pack instinct. Today, most successful white gentiles just serve Jewish interests because Jews still act as a pack to form a dominant team. The only way this team can be countered is by forming counter-teams, but Jews have used their control of academia and media to indoctrinate white gentiles with the idea that pack-mentality is noble among Jews(and blacks) but downright evil and ‘supremacist’ for whites.

Imagine single beams of light. They are all very nice but unless all those beams converge, there cannot be the super-beam that burns as bright as the sun. Indeed, the Sun is powerful because so much matter converged over time within a single gravitational field to create that great furnace in space. It’s like charcoal. If you have 20 lit charcoals and place them apart, you won’t be able to cook anything because there is no combined heat. To cook a steak, you have to pack the coals together for a real flames that can cook a whole pig(though, to be sure, pigs should be spared for their intelligence). It’s like what Albert Speer pulled off at the 1936 Berlin Olympics where all the beams of light converted to create a super-beam, an artificial sun in the sky.

Jews got the heat because their coals are placed together in a pile. In this pyramid of flames, some coals are placed higher than others, but they all work together to generate the heat for the burnt offering to Jewish Power. In contrast, the only kind of coal-burning that is fashionable among white gentiles is white women having sex with black men to spread ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs.
So, it isn’t enough for White National Liberators to focus so much on metrics of intelligence, creativity, originality, personality traits, or whatever. This is especially because ability and superiority tends to be disloyal to the tribe. If a white guy is good in basketball, he will play with blacks in the NBA because he wants to be with the best. A pretty white cheerleader will not side with race. Since she has something of special value(her looks), she will want to be associated with someone else with special value, and if a Negro beats a white guy in sports, she will go with the Negro because of his athletic superiority. A brilliant Chinese scientist may decide to move to the US and work at MIT because American academic institutions are where the best minds are. And even smart Jews are tempted to forgo Jewish interest IF doing so boosts their chances of being with the best people.

Fortunately for Jews, even when Jews go for total meritocracy, they can be assured of being with lots of fellow Jews since Jews have a decisive advantage in IQ. And even when Jews marry non-Jews, it’s usually the case that the latter decides to raise the kids as Jewish since Jewishness has such prestige in the halls of power. The thing is Jews didn’t become so powerful with merit alone. It wasn’t simply because Jews tend to be smarter, and therefore, there are more smart Jews in high places. It’s because all those Jewish beams of light converged to create the Jewish sun of power. Because Jews know this is the secret to their own power, they discourage it among gentiles. Without their strong sense of tribe and unity, Jewish advantage in ability and intelligence could paradoxically be a liability where Jewish power is concerned. Again, despite higher general Jewish IQ, most Jews are not geniuses or even very smart. Your average Jew has an IQ of 110 to 115, which is good but not outstanding by any stretch of the imagination. And there are Jews with IQ considerably lower than that. Israel has a lot of Sephardic Jews, and their IQ isn’t much above that of Arabs. So, if Jews went by meritocracy alone, they could easily become like Episcopalians in no time. The smart and successful Jews will only watch out for their own individual interests and, being deracinated, prefer to identify with fellow successful people regardless of their race, color, or creed. In time, the top talents among Jews will feel closer to smart Anglos, smart Arabs, smart Chinese, smart Russians, smart Latins, and even smart Iranians. The middling Jews and dumb Jews will have no representation, leadership, guidance, and protection from powerful Jews. Eventually, they will lose heart and confidence while the smart Jews just look out for self-interest like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Notice that Jews never speak up for Anglo-identity, Christian power, or European heritage. Indeed, such are seen as bad or tainted. In contrast, Hillary supported Israel even in its savage beat-down of Gazans, and Joe Biden, though a deracinated piece of turd, calls himself a ‘Zionist’. According to the likes of George Hee-Hawley, white people are evil ‘racists’ or ‘white supremacists’ if they want to preserve their own identity and heritage, but it’s perfectly okay for Jews to not only uphold their own identity, culture, and territory BUT compel even non-Jews like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, John McCain, Donald Trump, and Nikki Haley to go all out in their support of Zionism, indeed even Zionist imperialism over West Bank.

The fact is whites need to be like Jews. Smart, middle, or dumb, it doesn’t matter. If you’re white, you’re part of the family. It’s like a decent member of the family doesn’t disown his brother or sister because he or she isn’t very smart. A race is an extended family. A true nation must be a place for this extended family where every member, from smartest to dumbest, has a sense of belonging. So, even though a white chemist at work must cooperate with chemists of all colors around the world, away from work he must be a white man whose main loyalty is to his race, culture, and nation. And if Jews complain, tell them to stop having their own pack mentality.


Jared Taylor is a perfect gentleman, but gentlemen don’t make history, esp if they don’t have power. Gentlemen can inherit and manage power, but they lack the power of vision to generate the necessary passion for power. Gentlemen stand for moderation, civility, and order, all of which are fine qualities to have in an order, but the forceful will of power was not generated by those qualities to conquer lands or convert souls. Gentlemen are about compromise and negotiation, which are necessary modes in what we call a ‘free society’, but an order is almost never created by compromise but by a compulsive drive to make a vision or dream come true(as long as it has real-world chance of success). Granted, the visionaries can’t only be insistent. While it’s true that Jews realized the dream of Zionism by being insistent, persistent, and zealous, they also knew when to negotiate. Also, Jews had developed many sources of power in finance, media, and government to exert influence over goyim. If Jews had been like lowly Gypsies and just made demands, they would have gotten nowhere.
And it’s also true that Stalin, Hitler, and Mao often played it passive/aggressive. They could put on a nice face, appear moderate or willing to compromise, and be very diplomatic. But even when they were playing ‘nice’, they still had a fire burning within them for the fullest realization of their vision. They could speak softly, but they always carried their hot poker. They could lower to heat to assure rivals and enemies that they favor warmth all around, but they still tended the hot fire within the furnace of power. Jews were passive/aggressive in their push for Zionism, but the passive side always served the aggressive side. Jews were sometimes willing to seem ‘nice’ to look for vulnerabilities on the other side so that, when the time was right, they could drive the stake right through the heart. It’s like a boxer will sometimes move back, throw light jabs, and pretend to go easy... only to find that perfect moment to land the real blows to send the opponent to the canvas. So, Jews weren’t just sparring with their opponents. Even when they seemed to go ‘easy’, they had KO on their minds. And this is a kind of instinct that is alien to Jared Taylor. Raised with southern gentlemanly qualities and patrician instincts, he lacks the power of balls and the instinct to bite-and-tear-off-the-other-balls. He wants to remain above the fray and keep his hands clean. He wants to be dignified, rational, and moderate, even though his views are considered ‘extreme’ by the current Narrative. In contrast, Jews, even though they can seem civil and gentlemanly like Taylor, do have the chimpanzee-an power of balls and instinct to ball-bust other balls. Chimpanzees got big balls because they want to hump as many chimpanzesses as possible. They are truly Portnoic in their lust for domination and fun.

Pondering the balls of a chimp, we better understand the nature of Jewish Power.  Despite Jewish intellect and sophistication, the core emotional thrust of Jews is ultra-aggressive, obsessive, insistent, persistent, and boing-ish. If the gentlemanly Wasp way is to courteously back away when the other says NO, the Chimpan-Jew way is to keep pressing on and on and on. It's like Benjamin Braddock in THE GRADUATE. Sure, it's based on a novel about a Wasp written by a Wasp, but the way Dustin Hoffman played it, he was almost like an ape in heat. Or consider THE HEARTBREAK KID where Charles Grodin's character, despite his seeming passivity, goes full-ape to overcome all obstacles to stick his Portnoic pud into the prime poon of a golden-haired shikse. Jews got what Tony Montana has. Big Balls. So, when dealing with Jews, it's not enough to estimate their brain power or consider the validity of their arguments. One has to ask, "How magnum are the balls of these Jews?"

To better understand the problems with Taylor, imagine him standing naked facing off against a naked Harvey Weinstein. The first thing Taylor will wonder is, "Now, why am I standing here with no clothes on?", and he will look for some clothes. And then, upon noticing the naked Weinstein, Taylor will feel embarrassed for both of them and look for some clothes for Weinstein as well. But Weinstein thinks differently. Instead of the Wasp gentlemanly way which is to shrivel the balls into the size of beans and act civil, the Jew expands his nuts to the size of bowling balls(like in BIG LEBOWSKI) and fills himself with ultra-chutzpah. But it doesn’t end there. Like chimpanzees ferociously attack the balls of rival chimps, punching them, bashing them, biting them, and ripping them off, Weinstein the chimp-souled Jew lunges at Taylor and attacks his balls and tries to bite them off. To know your Jew is to know your chimp. Jews are like Italians and Gypsies with higher IQ. Despite their greater knowledge and credentials, they will stop at nothing to go for the kill and get their prize, and their intense tribalism will spare them from any feelings of guilt or remorse.

Anyway, the world would do well with more gentlemen but ONLY AFTER the power has been established and secured. Also, the game of power has to go beyond reason and minutiae. The Narrative Sweep will blow away verisimilitude in favor of vision.

The once glorious revival of the American South in the American Imagination despite the terrible defeat in the Civil War owed to the Southern control of their own Narrative. The South stuck with the Narrative that white Southerners were the tragic victims of Northern white race-betrayal and aggression. And Southern historians depicted the Reconstruction as rape of the South by carpetbaggers, much like Russians feel that their nation was ravaged by Jewish globalists in the 1990s. Also, Southern Whites depicted blacks as the big threat to white social and moral order. D.W. Griffith’s THE BIRTH OF A NATION had an electric effect on the nation. And GONE WITH THE WIND blew away UNCLE TOM’S CABIN. While Harriet Beecher Stowe won the war, Margaret Mitchell won the peace by ennobling the tragic defeat of the South as a romantic epic. Almost no one reads UNCLE TOM’S CABIN, but GONE WITH THE WIND still has countless fans around the world. Even William Faulkner, though very critical of the South, had great nostalgia for Southern heritage. All of this came crashing down with the Civil Rights Movement and thereafter that not only championed the rights and the counter-narrative of Negroes(which was understandable and justifiable since blacks also had a tragic narrative that had been suppressed by White Southerners) but waged total war on anything that imbued the South with tragedy, nobility, integrity, and beauty. In time, Jews got white Northerners to despise everything about the white south, and Southern elites, having been educated by Jews and Liberals, came to loathe their own heritage. According to the current Narrative, there was NOTHING redeemable about the South. So, if there's any glory to America, it all belongs to the North(mainly because it defeated the South) and Immigrants. But this is, of course, bogus since the North, even more than the South, led the Manifest Destiny that wiped out the Indians. Isn’t ‘genocide’ worse than slavery? Also, didn’t the arrival of all those Immigrants lead to greater westward expansion and more ‘genocide’? Jews may have been escaping from pogroms in Eastern Europe, but they came to a nation created by pogroms against Indians. So, how noble are the Jews? (Furthermore, Jews played a key role in the Southern slave economy.) Now, the American Narrative of Westward Expansion shows that one can have a dual narrative about a nation. One can admire the great white vision of conquering the West and turning what had been a savage wilderness into a great new nation. But one can also acknowledge the tragedy of Indians who got trampled and cast aside by the march of progress. We can honor both the triumph of the cowboys and the tragedy of the Indians. But when it comes to the South, "there is only one side", and this BS from Jews who were heavily involved in communist mass-killing, financial destruction of nations, and Nakba & Wars for Israel in the 20th century and 21st century.

This is why one must KNOW YOUR JEW before doing battle with them. For persistent, insistent, and obsessive Jews, there is no compromise. It’s their way or the highway. Notice how Putin made things very good for Jews despite his move against certain Jewish oligarchs who looted the nation in the 1990s. Many Jews were allowed to remain filthy rich, and the Jewish community in Russia gets extra-protection as anti-Jewish sentiments and actions are severely proscribed. But do Jews show any appreciation? No, the likes of Max Boot the chimpan-Jew wants to get together with other nasty Jews and chew on Putin’s balls all night long.

Jared Taylor is under the delusion that Jews can be negotiated with on grounds of equal partnership. It is a gentlemanly approach, but it is deeply flawed because Jews aren’t interested in equal partnership. They want total domination and control. Jews are pushy and fierce. They want it all. Was the guy in THE HEARTBREAK KID willing to compromise? No, he wanted total ownership of the golden shikse poon. If the father had said, "Okay, you can’t marry and screw my daughter, but she will give one blowjob per month", does anyone think the Jewish guy would have said OK? No way. He wanted the whole nine yards.
There are three reasons why Jews don’t want equal partnership with white goyim. (1) Being smarter, Jews think they have the right to dominate others. (2) Being a minority with far fewer numbers than white gentiles, Jews feel that whites may one day renege on the equal partnership and use their numbers to gain dominance over Jews, as sort of happened in Russia. (3) Jewish appetite for power and control is just insatiable regardless of any other factor. Just like Harvey Weinstein had to grab all those women and just like Anthony Weiner had to keep sending his penis pictures to so many women, Jews can’t help themselves.

So, when people like Taylor offer equal partnership, Jews see no point in negotiating. Also, people like Taylor are now so powerless that they are in no position to negotiate. While all the Zionists who support the violent policies of Israel get to run the media and all the think-tanks, Jared Taylor can’t even keep his Twitter account. And while AIPAC rallies calling on all US politicians to support Israel’s brutal occupation of West Bank are lavishly funded and held at huge stadiums, American Renaissance conferences could barely secure a venue. So, Taylor’s fig leaf to the Jews means NOTHING to the Jews. They see him as a defeated man and are out to silence him totally.
Now, if people like Taylor held the real power in America and if they offered equal partnership to Jews on the premise that Jews must be nice to whites, Jews may take up the offer strategically to bid for time as they keep gaining in power to the point where they can finally dethrone and ‘discredit’ anything associated with whiteness. It’s like Jews in the Old American South arrived at a compromise with the Plantation system, and Jews in Russia pretend to go along with Putin while looking for ways to eventually steer Russia into the pocket of Jewish ownership.

Anyway, Taylor's offer is meaningless because Jews already have the power. Why would they take up on the Taylor Plan when they have nothing to gain from him? What do the likes of Taylor have to offer to Jews who got Wall Street, Ivy Leagues, Hollywood, Las Vegas, Big Media, Deep State, High-Tech, and Biggest Law firms? Now, there is a chance that Jews may have to come to the negotiating table in the future if something really BIG happens. Suppose things get so bad for whites that there are violent upheavals in both the US and EU. Suppose the current ruling elites are toppled from power, and a New White Power emerges to take center stage. In that case, Jews better pray that there might still be some whites who are sympathetic to them.
So, one could argue that Taylor’s Offer to Jews is less about the Now than about the Later when Jews might find themselves in big trouble. Or even if whites do totally lose out to Jews and globalism, Jews may face more dangers from non-whites, especially Muslims in the EU. If indeed the EU becomes heavily Muslim and if these Muslims become ever more violent toward whomever they regard as ‘Zionist’, then Jews better hope that whites will side with them and protect them from violent Muslims and Africans.

Anyway, like it or not, the Jewish elites do have a powerful vision of uniting the whole world under the glob-dome of Political Correctness as virtue-vanity ideology, Pop Culture as the only culture, Homomania as the new religion, US militarism as the sole hammer, and Wall Street finance as the final arbiter of all things. The unholy trinity of Jewish Money, Jungle Boogie, and Justice Junkies. And masses of sheeple addicted to celebrity culture. White females to become meat for Jews & Negroes, and white males to become sappy cucks like CucKen Burns.
Yes, it’s all shallow and crass but nevertheless powerful, enthralling, and mesmerizing because it is so pervasive and relentless in fueling vice, vanity, and (delusion of) virtue as a single combo of ecstasy and rapture, best exemplified by the hysterics of Homomania, the celebrations of which convey the excesses of hedonism, conceits of narcissism, and arrogance of moralism. The vanity of vice is the new virtue.

Of course, it’s all ludicrous, but the power of the electronic media, monopoly of terminology, and fulsome pageantry override the senses that render clear thinking almost impossible for so many people. Because the power of media amplifies images and sounds that have such spellbinding impact on so many people, the effect is sufficient to win over and hold most people... in the way that Christmas lights and celebrations are enough to convince children that Christmas is so wonderful even though they know nothing of the religious foundation of the holiday. It’s like Las Vegas, and its endless cascades of lights. It’s not just the prospect of gambling that draws people there. They feel alive, like a ball inside a pinball machine being bounced around endlessly regardless of rhyme or reason.

To be sure, the very nature of globalist power is its biggest vulnerability. Because it is so false, phony, and degenerate, it can only be kept alive by endless supercharged voltage of fun, frills, and fortune. In Old America prior to the rise of electronic media, many families were isolated and had little, but they found real meaning in the family, community, Church, and patriotism. But all those are gone, so what is there but bogus visions and values? Since bogusness is shallow and stupid, it can only be sold with a lot of glitz and shine. It’s like Bread and Circuses of Ancient Rome. Once the state couldn’t provide them anymore, there was nothing to go on. True value has meaning even when ‘unplugged’. It’s like a genuinely worthy song has value even without all the layered effects of electronica. In contrast, many current hits have very little content without the production values that just add a lot of bells and whistles. It’s like a dish with lots of sauce but hardly any meat. Still, as long as the globalist elites have the juice to keep the mojo flowing, billions of people all around the world will remain captivated by the kumbaya.

Against such power, Taylor’s arguments may be sound and factual but are ultimately ineffective. It’s like facts and data sound boring, insignificant, and irrelevant when uttered between two giant speakers blasting words and music that incite the masses into chants and convulsions.
Rappers yammer nonsensical crap, but why do they have such power over so many people, even those who are well-educated and well-read? It’s because rappers are thunderous and hurl fire and brimstone to the beat. Their way isn’t to argue or discuss a point. They command and demand respect.
The thing is, before humans are creatures of reason, they are emotional and sensual beings, and the reason loses out to the rhythm. Consider the success of the utterly stupid Disney revamping of STAR WARS into yet another franchise. The sheer power of hype makes the myth live.

Whatever his faults, Richard Spencer understands that a vision, however corrupt and tawdry, has to be countered by another vision. This takes boldness and a leap of imagination. Would communism have collapsed in the Soviet Union and neighboring Communist nations if the Capitalist West hadn’t existed? After all, as inefficient and underdeveloped Eastern-European communist nations were, they were still far more advanced than nearly all of the non-white world and the Third World. So, if the US and Western Europe hadn’t existed, many people living under communism would have thought they have the best system in the world... just like the Byzantine Empire, being cut off from developments in Western Europe, thought it had the best of everything in comparison to the nearest neighboring powers. And prior to the challenge posed by the West, the Chinese were confident that they had the best of all worlds. Their own vision of things was enough. It was when the more advanced vision of the West challenged the Chinese vision of civilization that the whole system began to gradually but surely unravel, eventually gaining steam whereupon the nation came to be racked by one revolution after another. Would the people of Romania have stood up to Ceausescu if their only vision of Romania had been the one pushed by the state? Weren’t they inspired by what they heard of the world outside Romania and communism, one of freedom and enterprise and ambition and success? It is the counter-vision that undermines the current-vision.

In understanding this, Spencer is onto something. But if Jared Taylor’s view is too short-sighted and factual, Spencer’s vision is too grandiose and delusional. When the West must struggle to save itself and survive, does it make sense to dream of colonizing Africa once again... or flying off to Mars and stars for interstellar colonies? Maybe such is in the cards centuries from now, but white people today need to fix their vision on matters that are most essential. After all, if the West is lost to the darkies, there won’t be the future of great science and technology. Spencer might argue that whites being a majority is not important, because, after all, Jews are a minority yet have so much power. And Brits ruled all of India with a small imperial caste. But what eventually happened to the Brits in India? They got overwhelmed by sheer numbers and got booted out once nationalism and mass political consciousness got universalized. As for the dominance of Jewish minority elite, it's possible only because Jews have white gentiles to serve them and support them. Could Jews have gained such power if they’d stayed out of white world and set up communities in Africa, Asia, Middle East, and Latin America? Blacks would have just raided and raped them. Asians would have ignored them. Muslims would have severely proscribed their freedom. And Latin Americans would have been too lax and corrupt to provide a system in which Jews could thrive with assurance of Rule of Law and Private Property. It is no accident that Jews gained the most power among white people. So, Jewish power depends on white support. This was the case in South Africa too. Jews grew very rich there because they were protected by the white Anglo-Boer support system. But when blacks took over and the white support system dramatically weakened, Jews found their place in South Africa far less certain, which is why Jews are deeply worried about black and Hindu(who compete with Jewish diamond merchants) condemnation of ‘white monopoly capital’. Given that Jewish supremacy depends so much on the white support system, one would think that Jews wouldn’t be so eager to keep pushing for more invasion-immigration and Diversity that will diminish white power, in which case Jews will have less of a white support system to rely on.
But, the Jewish idea is that Immigration and Diversity should be pushed at least to the extent that white majority power is broken. In other words, Jews want to live in a nation with lots of whites but one in which whites cannot form a majority to block whatever agenda Jews want. Now, shouldn't Jews worry about non-whites working as a new majority against Jewish power? No. Why not? Because non-whites will be too diverse — blacks, Mexicans, Asians, Hindus, Muslims, etc. — to agree on anything and unite into an effective force. Also, even though non-whites will supply the votes(almost entirely for more immigration and more gibs), they will not get to control the agenda since most of them don’t have the means to reach elite positions, and the only ones that do, the Asians, tend to be pretty docile and obedient to the dominant Narrative and Agenda. Non-whites will supply the votes to keep Jewish elites in power, but it will be the Jewish elites who make all the important decisions. And if non-whites get restless, Jews can always use the power of media to direct non-white ire at 'white privilege'.

Anyway, the Vision is the key. Whites must be instilled with a passion so powerful that makes them feel the world is intolerable UNLESS their vision is realized. This vision must essentially be national since white people need to respect the national visions of other peoples as well.
In big things, there must be mutual respect and reciprocity. The notion of one people or nation ruling or controlling the whole world will lead to more disasters. One must have a passionate vision, but one must also have a sense of limits.
Richard Spencer thinks white people have some 'Faustian' destiny to rule, but this is total misreading of history. So much of the world was once easy to conquer because (1) The West was so advanced in arms and technology and (2) the Non-West societies lacked national consciousness. So, when whites conquered a territory and took out its elites, most natives didn't care because their concept of power was something that happened above. They saw themselves as subjects than citizens. So, what did it matter if they were subjects of local power or foreign power? Subjects are meant to obey. So, if foreign imperialists took out local elites, it was the war between the 'gods' that had little to do with most native folks.

That was then, this is now. All the world have gained development in modern technology, and all peoples around the world have national consciousness. India even has nukes. What would happen if the British tried to invade India or China today? Even the lone superpower like the US got badly bogged down in a third-rate power like Iraq.

People need vision, but every vision must have limits. The world is not a STAR WARS movie where people get to play Darth Vader. On the other hand, Taylor's C-3PO-like factualism doesn't quite inspire.