Note: In this section we examine the arguments for both the environmental (or leftist) and genetic (or rightist) viewpoints that comprise the "x" axis of the model discussed in the Introduction, Part 1 of this series. I depict the diagram of the model again below:

The diagram above should also include a "z" axis sloping backwards as in a perspective drawing to create a cube effect, entailing the "altruist/symbiotist" vs "predator/parasite" (or "mutualism" vs. "parasitism" for short) duality of sociobiology.

A recapitulation of my definition of the "environmental vs. genetic" duality from the Introduction section:

Moving over to our "x" axis, "environmental" usually means "leftist." It also has a loose but significant association with "Neo-Jacobinism," "progressivism," "internationalism" (meaning the repudiation of tribal nationalism), "collectivism," "socialism," and to a lessor extent "anarchism" (atomized individuality without tribal loyalties) and "nurturance" (environmental reinforcement without heredity). It takes the view that human behavior is entirely learned, or "nurtured," rather than instinctive. It views people as if they are perfectly equal, interchangeable, programmable units just waiting for the right leaders or ideology to show the way. For communists, the right leader might include some comrade Chairman of the proletarian revolution. For anarcho-libertarians, the "right ideology" might involve Adam Smith's "invisible hand" of the free market, which shows atomized, raceless, de-ethnicized individuals the way to go.

At the other end of this social science duality, the term "genetic" usually means "rightist." This term has a loose but significant association with such terms as "conservative," "nationalist," "traditional," "tribal," "ancestral," "aristocratic," "rugged individualist" (inspired by ones own unique heredity)"meritocracy", "competition," and "nature." Here, people are distinguished by their hereditary uniqueness as individuals as well as their uniqueness as part of a broader kinship group related by blood (followed by race, ethnicity, culture, language, heritage, and religion) that is different from other larger groups.

Rightists typically believe that genetics comprise a highly constraining factor in both the performance and character of specific individuals and groups. In other words, some groups tend to be naturally just dumber, lazier, more inefficient, more authoritarian, more collectivistic, or even more "crooked" than others (or some combination of all of the aforementioned). These traits can be traced back to different evolutionary selective factors, such as the genetic sculpturing influence of frost zone areas of the planet as opposed to tropical areas, the amount of evolutionary time spent in highly urbanized, multi-racial, or over-populated environments, or different reproductive rates of people in different niches in society.

On the positive side, rightists also believe that people with shared ancestry and culture are more likely to deeply understand each other and form more cohesive and productive groups. One finds an emphasis on shared values in a wide variety of organizations, whether or not their leaders happen to be consciously "leftist" or "rightist," ranging from management consultant diagrams with "shared values" in the center, as in the famous McKinsey 7-S framework for organizational success (p. 10, In Search of Excellence) to training methods designed to build teamwork and group pride on sports teams and in the military.

Paradoxically, increased group cohesion can become a vital factor in the defense of individual liberty. As one example, in one of his lectures, libertarian author Dr. Ralph Raico pointed out that there was very little immigration to America between 1700 and the American Revolution, yet the population increased threefold from natural multiplication. The extensive kinship and cultural ties of an overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon Protestant (Nordic) population of the New England colonies provided the grass roots cohesive strength and informal support necessary to resume the Cromwellian side of the English Civil War in America beginning at Lexington and Concord in 1775. I explain this in some detail in my "History Reinterpreted" discussion.

Overview

The question regarding which has the greatest influence over human behavior regarding "genetics" or the "environment" comprises an ongoing debate in the social and natural sciences. Typically the "school solution" is that it is not all of one or the other, but some combination of the two depending on the traits involved and the particular situations in question. Later in this article I will present data from twin studies that show statistical measures regarding how the trade-offs vary with particular mental traits.

Most Americans have been saturated with environmental or learning-based ideology all their lives. Conversely, America's national media have viciously ignored, twisted, or demonized genetic interpretations of reality.

White Americans have been programmed to feel guilt and self-hatred over their "whiteness." They are taught to succumb to the "anti-racist" bullying of well-funded Jewish pressure groups such as the ADL and roll over and play dead before the onslaught of massive Third World illegal immigration. What we need instead of all this self-flagellation is to approach reality in a balanced and responsible way.

I do not need to spend too much time describing environmentalism in this article, since Americans are so familiar with its arguments. Instead, this discussion will be heavily over-weighted towards explaining important suppressed information about the genetic viewpoint. To most Americans the scientific evidence from twin studies that human behavior is approximately half environmental and half genetic for certain traits is already getting pretty radical.

It is worth noting here that science can cause one to get even more radical on the genetic side. The twin studies I cite describe genetic influences compared to baseline behavior within human gene pools. However, if you step back further and compare the human species against other species, over long periods approaching "geological time," everything begins to look "genetic" over the very long run.

Sociobiology: The New Synthesis by Harvard professor Dr. Edward Wilson, has an interesting chart that conceptualizes human learning behavior as simply the short term portion of a long term combination of individual and group "genetic responses" to the evolutionary sculpturing factors of the physical environment. By this interpretation, even the "plasticity" behind "free will" and learning capabilities itself has a genetic base, although in the short run it may convenient to label these things as "environmental."

Figure 7-2 from Sociobiology: The New Synthesis by Dr. Edward O. Wilson. The caption in the book reads: "The full hierarchy of biological responses. Organismic responses are evoked by changes in the environment detectable within a life span, population responses to long-term trends. The hierarchy ascends with an increase in the response time; that is, any given response tends to alter the pattern of the faster responses. Beyond evolutionary responses are replacements of one species by another or an even entire groups of related species by other such groups. The particular response curves shown here are imaginary."

Dr. Wilson's conceptualization depicted above shows the interplay between the physical environment on the one hand, and human individuals and groups on the other hand as repositories of genes that react to the sculpturing effects of the environment.

Here, use of the term "environment" suggests a brutal physical environment such as northern Europe during the Ice Age which killed off people who could not adapt to creating winter survival technology. This is a different use of the word compared to the "learning" and "nurturance" meanings in the "environmental vs. genetic" debate covered in this article.

The group selection process depicted in this chart suggests that tribes are essentially competing gene repositories. Perhaps Benjamin Disraeli, the 19th century Jewish politician and former British Prime Minister, summed it all up best in layman's terms when he once observed, "The racial question is the key to world history…all is race, there is no other truth."

While there could be political correctness individuals within the Harvard sociobiology department who may not care to admit this publicly, I believe that Disraeli was on to something.

In addition to providing deeper background behind this viewpoint, I hope to pleasantly surprise the reader with some fresh insights regarding the environmental viewpoint in this article as well.

Environmentalism

The underlying ideas behind environmentalism are fairly simple. Environmentalists believe that the ability of people to learn and to adapt their personalities, values, and culture is virtually limitless. Through learning, people can learn how to overcome their differences and work together.

According to this view, if we can only just learn to put aside all our racial, ethnic, gender, sexual-orientation, and other innate or ideological differences and learn to work and live together as "equals" right now, everyone can avoid wasting time on conflict and we can get more accomplished. Everyone can supposedly learn to live in peace as brothers and sisters.

Therefore, humans are almost like interchangeable programmable units. Their similarities are vastly greater than their differences. Extreme environmentalists believe that we need to break down the barriers that separate people based upon race, religion, gender, and other "divisive criteria" in order to allegedly build a better world.

Extreme environmentalists often appeal to the altruistic and nurturance side of human nature to bridge human barriers. One method is to appeal to humanitarian instincts. This is a very seductive appeal, since most people want to support humanitarianism.

From an ideological perspective this is a tricky issue, since most genetic theorists also acknowledge the importance of humanitarian or "pro-social" behavior. However, an important distinction between the two opposing viewpoint is that environmentalists see as "humanitarian" almost all situations when people altruistically support other people, regardless of the "genetic distance" between them. In contrast, genetic theorists worry that if the genetic distance starts becoming too great, and the altruistic giving substantially diminishes the genetic fitness of the givers, then this can actually becomes more of a "parasitic" relationship as opposed to a mutually healthy "humanitarian" endeavor.

Another seductive approach used by environmentalists is to link any attempt to distinguish between individuals or racial groups to nasty forms of selfishness and aggression. This is the old "guilt by association" technique, and its mere threat can unfortunately intimidate many people from dealing with the truth. Hence, someone who acknowledges significant genetic differences between groups or individuals in a factual, objective, dispassionate, and academic manner might nevertheless be smeared as a "bigot," "racist," "white supremacist," "hater," "fomenter of unnecessarily divisive criteria," or whatever other label de jeure might intimidate a public already softened up or confused by deceptive liberal national media.

The fallacy behind this environmentalist tactic is that a certain amount of selfishness, discrimination, and aggression may be healthy. If people do not reinvest in their own kind, they will inevitably die out as a distinct people. They will be incapable of banding together to protect their interests from alien encroachment. They will also be incapable of accumulating the wealth necessary to not improve not only their own lot, but also to help other peoples as humanitarians. Lastly, a certain amount of instinctive aggression wisely channeled into such pursuits as scientific exploration does not hurt other peoples, and in fact reflects a healthy will to power found in all healthy animal species.

Perverting the legal system to unfairly skew the debate

The environmental vs. genetics debate has been heavily strong-armed by environmentalists through the use government intervention. Ever since the era of so-called "Civil Rights" legislation beginning in the mid-1960's, the Jewish ADL and other special interest groups have aggressively submitted model legislation proposals on Federal and State levels that "spin-doctor" our laws to give unthinking Americans the misleading impression that it is somehow illegal or immoral to be conscious of racial, ethnic, gender, and other differences. Please see the Rev Ted Pike archive at America First Books for an overview of the deceitful tactics used by groups such as the ADL.

Their approach is very alien to Anglo-Saxon common law traditions which decouple what people think and say from tangible evidence of criminal acts. Anglo-Saxon libertarian traditions view it as very dangerous to have a big brother decide what ideas are correct or incorrect. For starters, it would be impossible to have scientific or parliamentary debate without dissenting opinion. Instead, white libertarian traditions place the burden on each citizen to decide for himself what is factual and reasonable.

Contrary to these traditions, special interest groups have installed so-called "hate crime" laws that link what people say on or before committing a criminal act with forms of penalty enhancement. So, for example, if a white person sitting at a bar says that he does not like certain things about blacks, and then a black walks up to him and they get into a fist fight, a court might give the white man a few extra years of jail time in addition to time directly related to physical assault charges on account of the racial sentiments he expressed. This is would be an instance of hate crime "penalty enhancement."

The penalty enhancement laws give the false appearance that any racially-related thoughts expressed are themselves illegal, or are hence "thought crime." These laws also give the false impression that society needs to penalize the vast numbers of law-abiding people who never commit any criminal acts, but nevertheless express similar ideas regarding race, ethnicity, and whatever else is considered not politically correct.

Even the original "Civil Rights" legislation of the 1960's has created enormous confusion in many subtle and not-so-subtle ways. Federal laws that force racial integration and prevent forms of discrimination regarding housing or employment give most whites the misleading impression that it is somehow illegal, immoral, or unhealthy for whites to want to live among their own kind in solidly white communities with white values. Somehow it is wrong for whites to want to date or marry within their own race. Somehow it is wrong for whites to want to survive and determine their own destiny as a distinct people. All of this is a direct attack on the very basic nationalist principle that the survival of ones own people, race, and indigenous culture should be non-negotiable.

"Affirmative action" legislation has sought to place less competent nonwhites over more qualified whites in top positions. This is more than the theft of opportunity, to the extent that libertarians regard "opportunity" as an important "property right" required for a healthy society to function. It is also more than an attack on basic principles of meritocracy embedded in free enterprise theory. On a broader philosophical level, it is also a direct attack on a very fundamental nationalist principle. This principle states that in order for a people to control their own destiny and survive as a distinct people, they must always insist on having their own kind in charge of the strategic bases of society, to include government, banking, media, the military, and industry.

Yes, it has all been very clever. These "civil rights," affirmative action," and "hate crime" swindles have worked all too well to help intimidate white Americans out of exercising their Constitutional rights. They have thwarted the ability of whites to band together to defend their legitimate genetic interests at a time when they are suffering catastrophic demographic decline in the face of a massive invasion by illegal Third World immigrants.

Last, but not lest, they have thwarted the ability of white Americans to adhere to nationalist principles and challenge the Jewish stranglehold on American finance and national media. This, of course, has been the real reason behind all these laws to begin with. While Jews have promoted the most extremely liberal interpretations of civil rights, racial integration, affirmative action, and hate crime laws for white Americans, they have simultaneously supported kinsmen in Israel who practice the exact opposite behavior towards Palestinians and white slaves. Sauce for the goose never seems to be sauce for the gander.

But it gets even worse than all this. The Bush administration and its Zionist neo-con handlers claim that the U.S. has a neo-Jacobin mission to use the U.S. military to wage aggressive war around the globe to spread "democracy." Part of its ill-defined concept of "democracy," apart from giving more aid to Israel and more profits for corporate cronies, has involved imposing Federal concepts of enforced "equality" on Islamic peoples at gunpoint in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. This has meant running roughshod over distinctions regarding tribe, race, gender, religion, class, and other criteria made within these more traditional societies.

While most Americans may not personally agree with certain distinctions made within alien societies, by acquiescing to gunboat-enforced equality abroad, they encourage more forms of Federal-enforced equality and more loss of liberty at home. I have explained previously, the original concept of liberty in early America meant having as little to do with government as possible, not the neo-Jacobin concept of using government to force utopian social visions on others.

"Environmentalism," "nurturance," and a good form of "leftism"

The term "nurturance" creates another confusing area. We hear in the ongoing debate in psychology regarding which has greater influence on human behavior: "environment" or "genetics," a different phrase used to mean the same thing, namely: "nurture" vs "nature."

In other words, the "environmental" viewpoint is synonymous with the "nurture" viewpoint, and the "genetics" viewpoint is synonymous with the "nature" viewpoint.

The term "nurturance" calls to my mind what sociobiologists call "altruistic sacrifice." As some examples, we might think of parents who make sacrifices that aid the survival of their offspring. We might also think of soldiers who risk their lives to help their comrades in battle. We might also think of people who selflessly give their time for charities, or workers who risk their jobs to unite in protest to gain better working conditions.

This is all wonderful stuff. People are sharing. They are acting selflessly to achieve a common good. They are giving to others with little hope of fully receiving anything back. In our society, we are often conditioned to associate all of this with "leftism," "liberalism," and "environmentalism."

Actually when you look under the hood, one can find an interesting "right wing" connection to all of this wonderful sharing and sacrifice for the common good as well.

When parents sacrifice for their children, this is not completely selfless. Some day the parents will die. From a Darwinian perspective genetic survival is everything. Parents are actually being genetically selfish by investing in offspring who will carry on their genes long after they are dead.

Similarly, soldiers who risk their lives in battle for members of their tribe are actually making a rational sacrifice to optimize the long term genetic interests of their people. Hence, their battlefield deaths, while selfless from an individual perspective, is genetically selfish from a group-tribal perspective. The late great anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith covers all of this in greater detail in his classic works: A New Theory of Evolution and Evolution and Ethics.

When extreme leftists talk about the wonders of "sharing," all too often what they really mean is a parasitic use of altruistic instincts, whereby people can be propagandized to sacrifice themselves for the whims of an exploitive and impersonal state. Or they can be swindled to provide for an alien people at the expense of their own kind. Or they can be conned to risk dying for some abstract ideal without any reasonable hope of tribal genetic reinvestment over the long term. From a genetic viewpoint, these forms of "sharing," "nurturance," and "self-sacrifice" are a swindle.

We need to make a further distinction between "humanitarianism" and parasitic sacrifice. A right wing humanitarian is someone who takes care of his own family and tribal genetic interests first, but then with surplus resources left over, helps alien peoples.

This form of humanitarianism is a very good thing, because it helps to bring peace and understanding between different tribes, races, cultures, and peoples. Modern war is extremely destructive. Peoples from around the world can all mutually benefit from engaging in the fair trade of goods and the exchange of ideas with each other.

It is a good thing when we can take care of our own interests firsts, but then on top of all this we can also be good neighbors with alien peoples and engage in honorable trade and fair dealings. This is a form of leftism that I whole-heartedly support. I interpret this as an important component of the classical liberal philosophy that I espouse elsewhere.

In fact, it is quite ironic that while classical liberalism is considered very right wing and capitalistic, it creates conditions that favor prosperity and sustainable forms of free trade between different peoples. Pro-white racial nationalist versions of classical liberalism actually encourages more positive interchanges between the different peoples of the planet than most leftist philosophies that in actuality promote parasitic sacrifice and forms of racial integration that obliterate genetic interests while generating bitter conflicts.

For readers who want to delve more deeply into this line of thinking further on an academic level, I would recommend Beyondism: Religion from Science and A New Morality From Science: Beyondism by Dr. Raymond Cattell.

The long term track record for extreme environmentalists

A big problem with purely environmental schemes is that in the long run, they have failed miserably in their promises to create wealth or end conflict on our planet. In the long run, extreme environmentalism (or leftism) is usually a disaster.

Forced equality usually means forcing people to engage in promiscuous economic entanglements and associations with people of bad character and deficient talent. This undermines economic efficiency. Forced income redistribution in the name of "equality" also undermines the property rights and other incentives required for rational entrepreneurial calculation. This undermines the growth of genuinely productive enterprises.

In the very long run, societies that maintain freedom of association, property rights, and white rights will prevail economically, technologically, and militarily over societies with genetically similar populations that lose these things in leftist crusades. Americans are headed towards a very hard lesson in this reality as this country plunges deeper into various forms of de facto bankruptcy.

In regard to ending conflict, forcing people into promiscuous entanglements can become analogous to forcing incompatible people into mismatched marriages. This can ultimately lead to more total social conflict down the road through divorce proceedings than if the partners had been more discriminating with their mate selection to begin with. Similarly, forced integration in the former Yugoslavia only compressed the spring of ethnic tension that much further. It created that much more of a violent release upon the collapse of communism.

The short term track record for extreme environmentalists

If we judge "success" by the ability of leftist groups to gain political power and serve their own itnerests, the short term track record (from a long term historical viewpoint) in America has actually been really good. Ever since the War Betweeen the States, America has generally drifted continually further and further to the left. In his book The Age of Uncertainty, the late Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith remarked that many Americans are stunned when they first read The Communist Manifesto and see how many items on Karl Marx's plank have become a reality in America today. In a late 1980's Forbes Magazine interview, Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman added to this that virtually every item on the 1928 Socialist plank is today law and official policy.

Many very well funded and well-connected special interests that exploit leftism have made out like bandits in America. In my discussion of "ponzi politicians" in my centralization vs. decentralization article, I talk about an unvirtuous circle where corrupt politicians agree to support special interests in their legislation if those interests in turn give them money under the table to finance their leftist demagoguery and hand-outs needed to buy more votes and stay in office. It is important to emphasis that a large portion of America's leftist drift has had very little to do with genuine humanitarianism. It conversely has had quite a lot to do with exploiting the neo-Jacobin social order established by King Lincoln, also referred to as " The American Lenin" by certain libertarians, to parasitically draw down the once highly productive White Anglo Saxon Protestant society that created one of the most economically successful countries in the world by the mid-19th century.

Beneficiaries of the current system include pork politicians themselves, crony capitalist corporate welfare recipients, sweat shop owners who hire cheap illegal immigrants, various organized labor leaders, Zionist neo-con warmongors (see The High Priests of War by Michael Colins Piper, carried by America First Books), members of America's "liberal minority coalition" who comprise a large portion of the general public as well as its wealthiest elite (See The New Jerusalem by Michael Collins Pipers, carried by America First books, see also the "liberal minority coalition" concept discussed again later in this article), and irresponsible central bankers required to finance the Neo-Jacobin welfare-warfare global super state that provides blank check support for Israel and wages perpetual war for pertual peace with expansionist fiat money policies (see Secrets of the Federal Reserve by Eustace Mullins, my discussion of Special Privilege in my centralization vs. decentralization article, and the discussion of the reckless fractional reserve banking system in Money, Banking, and the Federal Reserve hosted by the Mises Institute).

As America rides the hell-bound train towards a possible hyperflationary depression and even a fulfillment of Civil War II: The Coming Breakup of America (carried by America First Books), the American Right prays that the Internet will finally elevate it above merely fighting pathetic rear guard action. As recently as the late 1990's there was a joke that American "conservatism" is usually nothing more than whatever constituted aggressive "liberalism" one or two generations before.

The important "time preference" factor

In his Mises Institute lectures, Dr. Hans Herman-Hoppe has observed that a critical difference between environmental (leftist) and genetic (rightist) strategies involves what economists call time preference. In his lectures on Keynesian economics, which he identifies as fundamentally leftist in nature, he noted that leftist economic and political policies usually always have much shorter time horizons than right wing policies. Basically they tend to be more expedient in nature.

As an aside, it is interesting that Dr. Hoppe had to fight a political battle to keep his job as professor at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas when he was bitterly attacked by gay groups for daring to suggest that homosexuals tend to have a shorter (or "higher") time preference compared to straight people, given their vastly higher rate of promiscuity as opposed to the preference by straights for the maintenance of long term heterosexual relationships that create stable families. Also, according to an American Enterprise Institute study published in the early 1990's, homosexuals, along with Jews, blacks, women, and nonwhite minorities in general, tend to vote on average about one standard statistical deviation to the ideological left compared to straight white men in their political preferences.

America's current industrial policy is actually "leftist" in its time preference. It ignores national boundaries or any need to maintain an overwhelmingly white middle class majority with a white culture. Instead, most American companies outsource at the drop of a hat or use illegal alien immigrant labor whenever there is a immediate cost-savings advantage. Furthermore, American managers tend to be much more oriented towards maniupating numbers to achieve short term quarterly profit maximization objectives compared to their Japanese counterparts, who are more likely to pursue advanced automation projects that might require a five to ten year payback period. An important book that underscores this point is In Praise of Hard Industries by Eumonn Fingleton, who argues that manufacturing must be maintained at about a third of GDP to provide sustainable economic growth and a real foundation for the service sector of the economy. Manufacturing in America was at this level as recently at the early 1970's, but since then short-term oriented American managers have very foolishly allowed it to drop below 12% of GDP. Also, financial commentators such as Jamese Puplava and Robert Chapman routinely cover the steady drum beat of short-sighted and crooked manipulation among American business leaders, Wall Street, and central bankers. The deterioration in general long term business and other social ethics is also covered in some detail in America Values Decline (carried by America First Books).

All of this shows a very short term time preference. Yes, it is true that in the short run corporations benefit from cheap labor. However, in the long America will suffer greater costs than it gains from cheap labor from the increased social friction created by the presence of disparate racial and ethnic groups. (Civil War Two: The Coming Breakup of America by Thomas Chittum helps drive this point home). It will also suffer from the loss of innovation created by the shrinkage of the productive white middle class. As I will explain later, whites have unique innovative talents that are innate in character as a result of a unique evolutionary history for hundreds of thousands of years in frost zone environments. In the long run, it is worth paying white people higher wages as a long term investment in the continuation of white genetic interests.

Interestingly enough, American industrialist leaders such as Henry Ford and Andrew Carnegie in the late 1800's and early 20th century consciously promoted industrial reinvestment policies in America that would enable them to steadily pay Americans increasingly higher wages than workers received anywhere else in the world. It was that kind of thinking that once made America great.

Conversely, to the extent that Mexicans and other nonwhites completely take over parts of the U.S. and create graft-ridden, socialist governments similar to their home countries, parts of America will pay in perpetuity by becoming dysfunctional Third World basket cases. The opportunity costs of such a fate relative to what parts of American could have remained as all-white societies literally capable of reaching for the stars are staggering.

If American CEO's had more wisdom, they would realize that in the long run, white nationalists are the best friends they could ever have. This is particularly true so long as white nationalists subscribe to laissez faire, classical liberal principles that genuinely seek to reduce taxes and government intervention. CEO's should could consider supporting groups that openly espouse this position. Given the financial and demographic crises America faces today, yesterday was not soon enough.

In the long run, American corporations will will end up paying lower taxes by supporting pro-white libertarian racial nationalists than by going with the neo-Jacobin "environmental top" down policies of America's Zionist-dominated, de facto single party "Republicrat" administrations, or the unrealistically utopian anti-racial fantasies of various anarcho-libertarians. Taken only by themselves, the "environmental top down" and "environmental bottom up" schools of thought ultimately spell white dispossession and the creation of nonwhite-run socialist states in America, which in turn means the strangulation of the entrepreneurial culture that once made America great. Such strangulation has already taken place in Rhodesia and South Africa, where whites foolishly relinquished control. This pattern will only repeat itself here in America if white corporate leaders do not wake up and start supporting their own long term genetic interests.

"The Key to the Twentieth Century" by Daniel M. Ryan makes some important connections between the rise of centralized states (or "statism") and socialism in the Twentieth Century and increasingly shorter (or "higher") time preferences.

Socialism casts people as opportunists [or as greedy people with short or "high" time preference -editor], who would violate moral standards in order to make a profit if they were free to. This economic amoralism, which socialism imputes to people, also includes hurting others, whether through recklessness or cruelty. In order to contain this dark side, the State needs to prohibit many, if not all, forms of economic activity to keep that dark side of ourselves from being unleashed. This element is contained, whether explicitly or implicitly, in every variant of socialism, including social democracy. The worker is deemed to be a cut above the entrepreneur because working people only earn wages; they are not profit-seekers. Because the workers are good-hearted and somewhat gullible, they need to be protected from a free marketplace through various kinds of social legislation. These include forced-savings plans run by the State, so that any profit which can be had from such plans winds up in the government’s hands. As can be seen from this description, socialism is an answer to the old-Tory categorization of the working class as "feckless by nature," but not a transcendence of it.

More characteristic of the twentieth century is Keynesianism. According to Keynes, the saver is a dead load on the economy; the borrower is what keeps the economy moving. Given a specified interest rate, borrowers have higher time preferences than savers, by definition. Because of the Keynesian mist, we are often accustomed to thinking of entrepreneurs as frenetic deal-cutters who ride tall when on the rise, and often fall on their face when their business outgrows them. At that point, they need to be rescued by a staff of professional managers and accountants. This impression is almost the opposite of the nineteenth-century view of entrepreneurship. A person from that time would remark that the low-time-preference attribute of the typical businessman has clearly been taken over by those managers and accountants. Because twentieth-century culture, especially late twentieth-century culture, has been a high-time-preference one, this insight has been largely lost to us.

This century’s predilection for war is very much part of this phenomenon. As Lew Rockwell observed back in 1997, soldiers tend to be present-centered, and are thus inclined to have a high-time preference. The glamour of war in the mid-twentieth century has helped spread a high-time-preference culture throughout society – during the last decade, it even reached the management circuit, in books such as Tom Peters’ Liberation Management.

Leftist pragmatism

Quite often in the real world, you never make it to the long run if you cannot figure out a way to survive in the short run. In this regard, leftists have a very valid point. The creation of expedient alliances among odd bedfellows can be a very effective way to help pull people out of a jam.

The American Revolution is a good example regarding how leaders of the patriot cause went to the ideological left over time and made enormous ideological concessions in order to survive and win the war, after which they swung back to the right and towards an "America First" policy.

When the war broke out at Lexington and Concord, New Englanders were actually more racially and ethnically homogeneous than their English adversaries. They were mostly descended from hard shell White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Puritan middle class followers of Oliver Cromwell and his Parliamentary Cause from Eastern England. In many ways the fighting started as a continuation of the English Civil War, where the colonists harkened to long historical memories of ancient Saxon common law rights predating what Thomas Jefferson referred to as the "Norman Yoke."

Indigenous legal rights...shared folk traditions...a homogeneous racial, ethnic, and religious community...long historical memories...this is all very right wing stuff. No, dear Virginia, the American cause of liberty did not start with "diversity" and multi-racial, multi-cultural, New World Order internationalist schemes. Quite the opposite, in fact.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence, he personally owned Negro slaves, and wrote elsewhere in the same document about merciless Indian savages. Later, he explicitly stated that blacks are not the equal of whites. Clearly what he really meant was that all Englishmen and their American descendants have equals rights under the ancient Anglo-Saxon common law. However, this lengthier and more accurate statement does not good revolutionary poetry make.

Although the revolutionary rhetoric was clearly shifting leftward, the biggest shift of all came after Congress totally debauched the currency by inflating it to pay for the war. Congress proceeded to accept a French alliance, complete with French funding and French troops fighting alongside the Continental Army.

According to his written statement, this ideological fault shift caused one of America's most effective combat generals to shift sides. Benedict Arnold wondered how Protestant English-speaking libertarians could defend their rights as Englishmen by embracing what he viewed as a French-speaking, authoritarian, imperial enemy of Protestantism. While Arnold's betrayal of West Point for a high sum earned him Patriot hatred for what they viewed as completely unprincipled high treason, the idealism contained within his written statement probably reflected the sentiments of many Tories who fled to Canada.

Although the Franco-American alliance was definitely left wing for its time, it was not completely unprecedented or irrational. A large portion of the American Revolutionary force was made up of Scotch-Irish, and they could remember quite a few historical instances where the Scots accepted aid from the French in their wars with certain British monarchs. In addition, the Enlightenment and Counter Reformation had changed the character of the Catholic Church in French society and its attitude towards Protestantism since the era of the English Civil War. The French government tended to operate independently of the Vatican.

After winning their independence, the American states went back to focusing on their own interests. The U.S. Government repudiated its debt to the French monarchy after it was overthrown. President John Adams renounced America's treaty with the French and refused to provide cannon fodder for Napoleon. To top it off, Americans got the Louisiana Territory from the French on the cheap.

Given that the French monarchy largely bankrupted itself by financing the American cause (and the Seven Years War in Europe that accompanied the American War of Independence), and respected American sovereignty by withdrawing its troops, Americans can hardly resent the French. In fact, I personally believe that the French merit continued warm feelings by Americans in regard to this historical episode. Americans never would have won the battle of Yorktown without the intervention of the French fleet, combined with the assistance of French soldiers and French financial support. All considering, Americans got considerable mileage out of their left wing alliance with France.

However, there remains a much deeper historical question regarding how all this happy leftism may have helped uncork some very dangerous long term leftist viruses. The American Revolution helped inspire the French Revolution. Unfortunately a leftist strain called Jacobinism, combined with conspiratorial manipulation behind the scenes, perverted the original intent of French reformers and led to the tragic deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Frenchmen during the period of the French Revolutionary Terror. The French Revolution by Nesta Webster is a classic expose of what went wrong.

Leftism in America has led to out-of-control demographic changes that now threaten white survival. In the 1860's it led to the installation of a ruthless Jacobin dictatorship under "King Lincoln." Today we struggle under the yoke of an ever expanding neo-Jacobin Federal Government whose full horror has yet to run its course.

Extreme environmentalism as form of thievery

Americans are conditioned to accept as noble many forms of leftism that are in actuality nothing more than sugar-coated forms of stealing. This needs to cleared up before intelligently discussing leftist issues further.

Lying is theft of the truth. Hence, "Black History" lies that falsely attribute accomplishments to Negroes that never took place in an effort to bolster Black self-esteem and feelings of equality is nevertheless theft of historical truth. It is also theft of white prestige. For example, it is a lie that Cleopatra or the leaders of ancient Egypt were Negroes.

Affirmative action is theft of opportunity. It is also theft of meritocracy. Lastly, it is theft of the right of whites to have their own leaders in key positions to help determine their own destiny. Hence, it is also a theft of white sovereignty and other self-determination rights.

"Political correctness" is theft of freedom of speech and freedom of thought.

The assertion that all men are literally equal is theft of their individual and group uniqueness.

Feminism is the theft of a woman's natural role as a mother. To the extent that feminism contributes towards the below ZPB white birth rate, feminism is theft of the white right to biological survival as a people and distinct race.

Marxism invariably means theft of private property rights.

The elimination of borders is theft of nationhood.

Ever expanding neo-Jacobin government invariably means more bureaucracy and more taxes, which means ever more theft of resources from the privately owned, entrepreneurial sector that creates most of the real jobs and real wealth.

Centrally planned socialist economies imply theft of free market pricing mechanisms required to enable complex economies to self-adjust and communicate real world supply and demand information.

The envy and parasitism factors

With so much thievery going on, one might wonder how extreme leftist societies can survive over the long run.

Well, that is really the point. They don't. Most leftist regimes come into power in the first place because of appeals to envy rather than productive values. In order to survive for any extended time period at all, extreme environmentalist societies have tended to parasitically feed off of the conservative societies that preceded them.

I can think of two good historical examples of parasitic feeding involving Communist Russia and Communist China.

The Bolshevik Revolution would have never survived were it not for massive financial assistance from Jewish Wall Street bankers and intermediaries such as Jacob Schiff and Armand Hammer. In addition, Stalinist Russian would never have survived Hitler's onslaught were it not for massive logistical assistance from FDR's Jewish-dominated administration.

In regard to Maoist China, Dr. Murray Rothbard tells a funny story in his Mises Institute lectures about how the Chinese Communist bureaucracy found that they needed to routinely order catalogs from capitalist Hong Kong. The problem that they faced is that the socialist bureaucracy had completely eliminated free market pricing mechanisms. The prices of widgets and end items were often set by bureaucrats. This led to gigantic pricing distortions. In an effort to fix all of this, the bureaucrats decided to start setting prices from Hong Kong catalogs. A joke went around that after the great global proletarian revolution caused everyone to go Communist, they would have to at least let Hong Kong stay capitalist so that they could continue to get the catalogs to find out what things are supposed to cost.

Working towards a brave new opposite world

In the first 1990 issue of the old Conservative Review, Tomislav Sunic wrote the brilliant article "The Fallacy of the Multiethnic State: The Case of Yugoslavia," He asked whether the experience of the former Yugoslavia may portend the future of the State of California and other U.S. multi-racial, multi-cultural experiments. Implicit in the article is the question about the value of a liberal social philosophy that produces the exact opposite results over the long run compared to what it promises.

Please recollect how the Balkan countries were saddled with communism after World War II. Communist ideology exhorted the people to forget about racial and ethnic differences and integrate. It preached that the first priority was to share their wealth with each other, and to integrate themselves with state-run collectives by forfeiting private property rights to the state.

The results of nearly five decades of communism were the exact opposite from what the communists preached. Their approach to sharing wealth destroyed free market pricing mechanisms. It undermined the security of owning private property that is required for rational entrepreneurial calculation The bureaucratic states required to impose equality squeezed out incentives for innovation and initiative. In addition, communist suppression of racial and ethnic differences only added to frustration that would result in greater violence later.

Imagine if instead of "environmental top down" communism, the various ethnic groups that comprise the former Yugoslavia had followed 19th century classical liberal principles after World War II, which I place in the "genetic bottom up" category. These principles were openly pro-white racial nationalist, but at the same time distrusted large government and imperialism as destructive of individual liberty. Classical liberalism , which I like to refer to as "libertarian racial nationalism," promoted an internal focus on education, science, trade, and the development of manufacturing infrastructure as an alternative to war and imperialism, and sought to replace special privilege with meritocracy.

Under such a scenario, there is a chance that the Balkan peoples could have maintained their ethno-racial independence from each other, and yet at the same time could have built up their wealth and established mutually beneficial trade relations with each other. I say this with some confidence, looking at the proven track records of various European countries that followed classical liberal principles in the 19th century. It is likely that the Balkans could have avoided much of the tragic turmoil and ethnic cleansing that followed the collapse of communist "utopia." At a minimum, in view of the messy social problems that have existed in that region for centuries, the Balkan peoples might have at least achieved a better "least bad" solution.


The Genetic Viewpoint


How the genetic viewpoint applies everywhere on both the individual and group level

As previously discussed, environmentalists see people as very flexible learners who simply require education to reorient their culture and values to adapt to their environment and learn to productively work with each other. With the genetic viewpoint, it is the other way around. People have only limited bands of flexibility within which they can change themselves. Otherwise it is more the case that people tend to reorient the environment around themselves to accommodate their instinctive tendencies and level of ability. To use computer jargon, environmentalists tend to think any software will fit any hardware, whereas geneticists try to match the hardware to fit the right software.

Let us consider how someone with the genetic viewpoint might consider the interplay between personality types and libertarian philosophy. Imagine if someone possessing a highly authoritarian, alpha male, "theory `x'" type of personality is placed in an environment completely surrounded by instinctive and professing anarcho-libertarians. We would expect him to subconsciously make the environment more authoritarian in subtle increments, whether justified or not. For example, while he might profess libertarianism to fit in with the crowd, he will defend his libertarian opinions in a dogmatic way, and aggressively seek to marginalize those libertarians who disagree with him. All other things being equal, he will tend to side with certain libertarian leaders not because they necessarily have superior arguments, because they have more forceful personalities, project more confidence, and perhaps provide better "father figures" as well. In the event of a national crises, the level of social stress that is required for him to abandon libertarian solutions and jump into full blown authoritarianism is much less than for instinctive libertarians. To keep a natural authoritarian on the libertarian side of the political fence requires a lot more social reinforcement and hand-holding, almost like trying to help an alcoholic friend steer away from situations where he reaches for the bottle.

A similar point along this line made by genetic theorists is the concept that all adults carry within them an emotional little child. Military units in battle, who supposedly consist of highly trained tough guys, may need the emotional uplift of brave leaders who remains calm under fire to avoid breaking. Societies that have become very corrupt, cynical, and emotionally depressed may require a charismatic leader to fire up peoples' latent idealism and jump start the level of confidence and mutual social trust required to get the proverbial trains running on time again.

Last but not least, genetic theorists believe that a tribe or race consists in essence of an extended family unit. A family unit has very special properties that are both biological and cultural in nature, shaped by long periods of evolution. When one disrupts either the immediate family, or even the more extended tribal or racial family, one creates toxic shock effects that can negatively impact on everything from economic productivity levels to fertility rates.

Anarcho-libertarian theory, which treats adults as rational, autonomous entities that engage in steely-eyed contractual relationships, tends to completely ignore this important dimension of human social behavior.

Heredity and individual cognition errors

In his excellent book Flesh and Machines: How Robots Will Change Us, MIT artificial intelligence lab professor Dr. Rodney Brooks talks about how the human brain reconstructs reality. Reconstruction implies subjectivity, which in turn implies a strong genetic component to the "hardware design."

For example, on page 77, Dr. Brooks talks about how the human eye is poorly designed from a purely engineering viewpoint. "In mammals the cable [of nerves] comes from the rear and punches a hole in the retina only fifteen degrees from the center of the fovea, then spreads out over the surface of the retina. This leads to a blind spot we all have in each of our eyes. When we look in any particular direction with one eye we are completely blind in one spot."

If the human eye and brain operated on a "brute force" basis similar to some robotic vision programs, we would always have an irritating dark blot obstructing our field of vision ahead of us. In fact, our brains fill in the "blot" to create a coherent view. Our brains also assemble a sense of a coherent vision field from rapid point-to-point eye movements that take place as often as three or four times a second. We do not notice a "jump cut" or "swish-pan" effect as our eyes "saccade" very quickly from one point to another, even though our brains disengage and make us "blind" in 60 millisecond increments. In addition, the world is projected against the back of our eyeballs upside down, and our brains convert these images to right side up.

"Seeing" is also an interactive and reconstructive process for simple manipulation tasks. As an example, a mobile robot needs to store a 3-D model of a pencil in its memory banks before it can "see" a pencil lying on a table and know how to tell it apart from the table and pick it up. Many of our recognition capabilities are genetically "hard-wired" in our brains. Human infants recognize and prefer human faces from birth. Men generally do not have to undergo special education training to become aroused at the sight of a beautiful woman.

Dr. Brooks' supervises research teams that build increasingly advanced robots that replicate human cognitive processes, with the degree of complexity advancing roughly in parallel with human maturation stages beginning with infancy. One of his wry observations is that humans tend to overly anthropomorphize fellow humans. That may seem like a nonsensical thing to say, since "anthropomorphize" means "to make human," so how can humans overly attribute human features to fellow humans? What he means by this is that when you study all the elements of neural functioning in humans, ranging from the autonomous nervous system to the elements of cognition and opportunistic behaviors, we tend to assume greater levels of personality coherence and integration in other people than actually exists.

"Ideology" becomes important for humans, because we are often so flooded with massive amounts of different information that we often need to organize and interpret what we are seeing in advance before what we actually see can register with us. This is the basis of what psychologists call "cognitive dissonance" theory. This looks at the inability of people to rapidly change certain views even when exposed to overwhelming evidence. The "genetic" side of this phenomenon involves the way some people, called "innovators" and "early adopters" in Everett Rogers' theory of the diffusion of innovation, have a natural talent for adapting their views much more quickly than the general population.

The human brain allocates processing power according to what helped pass on genes in a stone-age environment. This allocation is very imbalanced compared to space age requirements. For example, in a Neolithic environment, natural selection had everything to do with accurately throwing a spear and running upright over rough terrain, and nothing to do with being able to solve a cube root function in ones head. Interestingly enough, computer scientists claim that the human brain has at least a thousand times more raw processing power than the most powerful supercomputers built to date. However, a huge portion of human processing power is "hard-wired" on a neural level towards recognizing objects and solving complex physical coordination and manipulation problems. From the space age viewpoint, only a ridiculously small portion of this incredible raw processing power can be applied towards accurately solving complex math problems.

One of the implications regarding the way we reconstruct reality in our brains is that we typically think we are being much more logical than we really are. The truth is, when humans go from trying to analyze very simple tasks, such as doing the laundry, to understanding complex and abstract political issues, the error rate in our reasoning climbs dramatically — often without our knowing it. However, even though a lot of things that we say may be gibberish from a purely logical viewpoint, they may still "work" on a social level by projecting confidence, communicating "positive strokes," or other things that might support our social and ultimately genetic survival.

Various forms of self-deception and "fuzzy logic" that may have a genetic "hard-wiring" component in the human brain are not a big secret. In fact, they were explicitly categorized by ancient Greeks and are the topic of college courses in informal logic. The short story "Love is a Fallacy" from the Many Loves of Dobbie Gillis is an often cited and amusing example about how pure logic and social norms can very quickly come into conflict. In this story, first year law student Dobbie Gillis starts dating a girl named Polly Espy and gives her a crash course on Dicto Simplicitir, Hypothesis Contrary to Fact, Hasty Generalization, Ad Misericordiam, Ad Hominem, and other classifications of logical fallacies. The funny part comes after five instructional dates when Polly suddenly demonstrates that she has learned her lessons all too well and starts logically picking apart everything that Dobbie Gillis says.

If environmentalists are correct that humans are malleable, continually self-improving learning machines, humans would not continually commit the same logical errors over and over again.

Contrary to this, the same old worn out, tired out propaganda techniques remain very effective when used over and over again by Madison Avenue and national media. The lies that the Bush administration told Americans to drag the U.S. into Iraq hardly rise to the intellectual level of Dobbie Gillis' second night out with Polly Esby. This is really sad in view of the intellectual resources that the United States should have at its disposal.

The only difference between fallacy classifications addressed in a Philosophy 101 course and the "propaganda techniques" listed in the glossary of the U.S. Army Psychological Operations Manual is that college instructors typically use their knowledge of fallacies to identify errors and find truth, whereas PSYOPS personnel deliberately use them to deceive and manipulate target populations.

From a genetic viewpoint, we can expect human thought patterns continue to fall into ruts identified by logical fallacy categories. From a Darwinian viewpoint, this is because there were other selective factors for our ancestors besides mastering logic courses that were more constraining in terms of passing on their genes.

From my many years as a stockbroker, it has been quite amazing to me to watch how many seemingly highly intelligent people repeatedly make the same very hasty judgments over and over again about companies with their hard earned money that they really do not know anything about. It is interesting to observe how investors frequently think they are in control when in fact they are completely ignorant of important market realities. If nothing else, my experience helped me better appreciate Socrates' wise saying, "If I know anything, it is that I know nothing."

A big part of the emergent field of behavioral economics and behavioral finance involves linking market blunders that otherwise intelligent people keep making to well known logical fallacies, and then walking over to the anthropology and sociobiology departments to try to figure out what it is about human evolution that helped to hardwire all of this in their brains.

The genetic viewpoint from a broad social perspective

Becoming a parent and having additional children is certainly one area where the tire rubber really hits the road on the broader social-genetic issues. I am reminded of the article "The Gene Factor" in the April 13, 1987 U.S. News & World Report, where University of Oklahoma psychologist David Rowe quipped, "Every parent of one child is an environmentalist, and every parent of more than one becomes a geneticist." From this point we can trace in many directions how the genetic viewpoint influences us on a broader political level, even if on only a subconscious level.

For starters, almost everyone practices some form of "eugenics" in their mate selection. "Eugenics" means "relating to or fitted for the production of good offspring." People tend to try to "marry up" and find someone who is at least their equal or superior in terms of intelligence, social standing, appearance, and general "fitness." Even if people profess very liberal political views, they usually avoid some form of "dysgenics" or "negative eugenics." Even among leftists, it is hard to find cases of sane, emotionally stable, intelligent, fit, good-looking people who deliberately seek out ugly, stupid, congenitally diseased people for mates, especially in a social situation where they are forced to hang around and support the offspring as opposed to "sewing wild oats" while on a vacation fling out of town somewhere. In fact, speaking of ways people "vote with their feet," it is very common in America to see wealthy liberals who preach racially integrated schools for working class whites to send their own kids instead to all-white private schools.

Once a person accepts the idea that it is a good idea to "marry up" on a genetic level and have children, this has a lot of interesting philosophical, political, and economic implications. This encourages a thought process that is very different from the environmental viewpoint.

Let's take a hypothetical example. Imagine you are a straight white male. Let's go one better: a WASP with direct lineage to the Mayflower. Your ancestors have bravely fought in all of America's wars. Have paid all their taxes. Have never wound up in jail. Solid citizens all the way. Let us also imagine that you have found and married the girl of your dreams. You are a wage earner, money is tight, and your wife stays on birth control until you can build up some funds so that you can afford to have the baby.

Imagine that you have a co-worker who is of a very different racial and ethnic group. Imagine that you observe that he and his co-tribalists tend to be very crooked, lazy, obnoxious, and treacherous people. Despite all of this, imagine also that because he has "pull" from kindred connections, he suddenly gets promoted over you into a much better-paying job. With his higher income, he is able to start his family, and then come into the office and show off the baby pictures.

Meanwhile, although you work very hard, you feel like you are caught up in a career rut and continue to have problems making ends meet. You discretely send out your resume, but nothing better comes along. If this keep up, you and your wife may never have your family, may never see the baby pictures or the grand child pictures for that matter. You and your wife may wind up Darwinian failures, like the dinosaur. Meanwhile, the crooked, lazy, obnoxious, and treacherous co-worker is a big evolutionary success in your social environment.

This simplified scenario might start a deeper thought process. Why is it that his racial-ethnic group pulls together so effectively so that his people get ahead, whereas nobody in your own group seems to care if you get dealt with unjustly and left behind? Is is because they preserve a sense of identity by maintaining community cultural, social, or religious organizations or an ancient indigenous religion? Is it because they indoctrinate their children at an early age that they are "different" and that all their strength is in their unity? Is it because people in his group who have had successful careers usually always insure that they provide mentorship to younger people trying to start careers, whereas people in your own group can only think about cashing in their chips to retire and play golf and could care less about mentoring the next generation of their own kind? Why such a difference in attitudes when there is so much at stake?

Let us imagine that you try to go public with your story about how the jerk co-worker is getting ahead while you and your wife, despite all your honesty and hard work, are being silently genocided. First you have the problem of producing hard evidence. How do you prove that all the unreturned phone calls or job non-offers were due to anti-white discrimination? Now it begins to sink in that the worst damage in social strife is subtle and leaves few fingerprints, but it is nevertheless very real.

Let us imagine you can produce hard evidence. Now we have the time and expense involved in filling out forms and making complaints. After all this, who says the bureaucrats will do anything except laugh? In their affirmative action manuals, they are in fact told to be on the look out for charges of "reverse discrimination" as a shallow ploy of unenlightened white bigots.

Next, you try media. Chances are you will find that your story does not quite "fit" what they are looking for. After all, only "minorities" are oppressed. All whites are "privileged." Even if you get media attention, you risk becoming viewed as a "misfit" and less employable. Many employers do not want to take the risk that if they hire someone labeled a "white racist" that they will get hit with some kind of harassment law suit by nonwhite activists.

In fact, if a prospective employer thinks he might get hit with a $1 million law suit because of your politics, there is no wage you can settle for that is low enough to look attractive to him. From an "expected value" mathematical analysis perspective, you are still a negative to him even if he pays you zero salary. This blows out of the water the libertarian notion that there is no such thing as unemployment, only people who are unwilling to drop their wage demands low enough.

Obviously when we start talking about government and media, we are talking about something really big. When you do some additional research, you discover that it all gets down to some old hard-knuckled power issues, such as who controls the strategic bases of society. Who controls the media? Who controls most of the wealth? Who controls government and major corporations? Who has the most effective and well financed lobby groups? Who can field the most militant, organized, and effective pressure groups? You begin to discover that in our society where "all men are created equal," that there are folks out there who are vastly more equal in the real world than you and your wife.

In fact, you begin to suspect that your jerk co-worker and his co-tribalists have known well in advance that you and your wife might wake up some day and start thinking thoughts inconvenient to their interests. While you were sleeping, they made sure to mine and booby trap the legal system with "hate speech" laws and "not politically correct" social taboos to make it as hard as possible for you and your group to wake up and finally defend its own natural interests. In movies and in television programming, they made sure that people of your racial group who express resentment appear bigoted, warped, and evil.

Amazing how a single important "genetic" event, namely having children, can have enormous implications in terms of core values, social support systems, and ultimately national politics.

The interplay of culture and genetic selection:

In his book Cosmos, Carl Sagan provided a dramatic example regarding how cultural preferences can dramatically reshape the underlying character of a gene pool if it persists over time. He recounts the Tale of the Heike Crab (pp. 14-15) to explain why this crab, which occurs near the coast of Japan, today has an almost perfect face of a scowling samurai on its shell.

According to Sagan, a clan of samurai called Heike were destroyed in a sea battle in 1185. This gave rise to a legend that their spirit roams the bottom of the ocean. The legend persists to this day in an annual festival staged by Heike fisherman descendants to commemorate the battle.

This legend has influenced the crab harvesting behavior of Heike fishermen descendants through the centuries. When they see a crab with a face that remotely resembles a samurai, they are more likely to throw it back into the ocean and allow it to breed than a crab that has less of a resemblance. Hence, over time, they have increasingly shaped the crab population to bear a more perfect samurai face.

This has dramatic implications in terms of politics and religion. As an example, later I discuss the difference between "natural religion" and a "revealed religion." Imagine if a people who once revered a natural religion that upheld very strong-willed personalities (both male and female) as mythological demigods then switches over to a "revealed" religion that reveres some image of a mild-mannered, pacifistic, hippie-like, messianic guru. Presumably, women will start to put greater energy into seeking hippie guys who remind them of the guru and having babies with them, and will have less tolerance for getting along with very strong and masculine men. Over time we might expect a more effeminate society to develop on both an innate genetic level as well as a cultural level. More on all of this later in my discussion of the "natural religion" concept.

Scientific support for genetic differences

Thanks to the Internet, and the fact that more Americans tend to become open to new ideas as the country falls apart, accumulated scientific research on the role of genetics is making a bigger impact. In fact, even some national media are now following along kicking and screaming.

As one example Dan Seligman’s May 12, 2003 Forbes article: “Professor Rothman Strikes Again,” states, “In The IQ Controversy: The Media and Public Policy (1988), Rothman and Mark Snyderman collected data showing that the press overwhelmingly attributed IQ differences in the population to various cultural artifacts. The authors also surveyed 661 experts — academic psychologists, cognitive scientists, test specialists — who decisively rejected these cultural explanations and collectively stated that some 60% of IQ variance reflected the different genes of the high and low scorers.”

Other experts weigh in higher. Dr. Arthur Jensen in Bias In Mental Testing reports, "Estimates of h² (ie., "broad heritability," which includes all of the genetic variance) for various standardized tests of intelligence vary from about .50 to .90 in different samples and populations, with a central tendency close to .75." (p. 244). In Intelligence and National Achievement, Dr. Raymond Cattell reported, "The accumulating evidence that 60-80% of intelligence should end... [a reluctance by most people to believe that intelligence is substantially inherited]. It is about as heritable as stature. By shifting from a generation with poor nutrition to one very well fed we can get a shift of average stature from about 5 ft. 7 ins. to 5 ft. 9 ins., but you cannot go on doing this."

Some of the best evidence to remove "environmental noise" comes from studies of identical twins who have been separated at birth and raised in different environments. The April 13, 1987 U.S. News & World Report article "The Gene Factor" provided the following examples where the Minnesota Center for Twin and Adoption Research compared hundreds of identical twins against the general population and analyzed statistical variation. The percentages below show how much the traits are determined by heredity:

Extroverts are born, not made

Another interesting percentage worth considering is contained in the 1991 study, by J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, which found a .52 genetic contribution to male homosexuality.

Dr. William M. Fox reports in his book American Values Decline (offered by America First Books) evidence for strong heritability among criminals as well:

...[A] Swedish study involved 1,775 adopted men and women who were born between 1930 and 1949. Of the men who had been born to law-abiding parents and reared in good adoptive homes, only 3 percent had been convicted of a crime. Of those born to law-abiding parents and reared in unfavorable adoptive homes, 7 percent had been convicted. However, of those who had been born to a convicted parent and reared in good adoptive homes, 12 percent had been convicted, and of those born to a convicted parent and reared, in unfavorable adoptive homes, the rate soared to 40 percent!" [from Jerry E. Bishop, "Probing the Cell: Researchers Close in On Some Genetic Bases of Antisocial behavior," The Wall Street Journal, February 12, 1986, page 19.]

What makes discussion of racial issues tricky for many people is the fact that genetic traits in populations tend to manifest themselves as bell-shaped statistical curves. This makes sense, since genetic traits originate with DNA molecules, which in turn are continually replicating. Most DNA will perfectly replicate most of the time, but we can inevitably expect slight errors from mutation and other causes on each side of the norm. These errors decline in frequency the more they deviate from the norm, creating a bell-shaped distribution.

Hence, when we compare groups on a genetic level, we have to compare statistical bell-shaped curves for one group against averages for another. People who try to confuse a genetic issue often use the technique of favorably comparing someone on the right hand side of a bell-shaped curve that characterizes one population group with people in the left hand side of a different bell-shaped population. This can disguise the fact that the first population taken as a whole may be decidedly inferior to the second population group.

The 22 Jan 2006 National Vanguard article "Muliracialists Are Crazy Part 3 carried overlapping IQ graphs that illustrate the differences between blacks and whites. These data are taken from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, Version 1. According to The Bell Curve, by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, these kinds of overall population differences have persisted despite massive resources expended by environmentalists to eradicate them.

The differences between white and black populations involve far more than skin color and IQ test results. There are also significant differences in brain structure. For example, frontal lobe development is correlated with abstract intelligence, and whites have a higher ratio of frontal lobe to anterior lobe area compared to blacks. They also have a larger average brain size, a higher density of cerebral folding, and other anatomical features that correlate with greater intelligence, as noted by such researchers as Dr. Carleton S. Coon, Dr. F. W. Vint, and Dr. C. J. Connoly.

In his book The External Morphology of the Primate Brain, that involved a study of 60 brains of whites and negroes, Dr. Connoly observed:

"Comparing the two large groups of Whites and Negroes, while the variability is large and there is much overlapping, the mean values reveal significant differences. The dimensions correlate well with what we might expect from a knowledge of the cranium in the two races. The Negro brain is on the average relatively longer, narrower, and flatter than the brain of the Whites. The frontal region, as measured by the projectional distance to midpoint of central sulcus, is, relative to the total length of the brain, larger in male Whites than in Negroes, while the parietal is larger in Negroes than in Whites . . . . It can be said that the pattern of the frontal lobes in the White brains of our series is more regular, more uniform than in the Negro brain . . . . The White series is perhaps slightly more fissurated and there is more anastomosing of the sulci . . . . It is a matter of frequencies."

Obviously one can find examples of blacks on the extreme right end of the bell curve who are smarter than most whites. But one needs to compare both curves together to really grasp the significant population differences. The graph shows a vastly greater number of people with IQ's over 120 who are whites who are able to provide intelligent leadership to society. In contrast, the black population is weighed down with a vastly larger number of border-line mentally retarded people.

The graph also explains why intermarrying black and white populations of equal size results in a disaster for any society that wants to remain a technologically advanced First World country. If total population size is kept constant, the number of people with IQ's over 120 drops by 90%.

We can use the bell curve concept to not only compare two different populations, but also get a sense regarding how a particular characteristic might be graduated along a spectrum within a population group. As an example, in his diffusion of innovations theory, Everett M. Rogers suggested that the bell curve (presumably for white people) might be divided as follows: innovators (2.5%), early adopters (13.5%), early majority (34%), late majority (34%) and laggards (16%). Obviously an advanced technological society capable of sustainable innovation, scientific analysis, and rational political institutions needs to maintain relatively higher percentages of the first few categories on an innate genetic level than various stagnant Third World countries.

It is probably accurate to say that certain human populations tend to be unusually rich or skewed in regard to certain traits relative to others. It is also accurate to say that one can usually find exceptions at one end of the bell curve that help prove the "rule" shown by bulges on anther end of the curve. Take for example America's imprisoned criminal population. Let us assume that the overwhelming majority of inmates deserve to be locked away. That curve would probably be heavily skewed towards a much higher percentage of innately criminal individuals than the general population, just as the bell-shaped curve of whites is offset from the black bell-shaped curve in traits favoring intelligence.

Later in my "mutualism vs. parasitism" section I profile the Thugs of India as a criminal population. We might expect such a "criminal rich" population to show gradations of the criminal trait within its own bell curve, much like the diffusion of innovation example. At one end of the curve, we would probably find highly intelligent but incorrigibly criminal people who are totally proud of their evil nature and their ability to maliciously undermine society and fool most of the people most of the time. Moving towards the center of the bell shape, we would find people who are marginally criminal. These people may have criminal tendencies, but they would tend to be more subconscious than conscious. They can lead fairly honest lives if bolstered by the presence of honest people. Lastly, at the far other end of the bell curve, we could expect to find people who are not particularly criminal at all.

Significantly, if an entire prison population group in criminal traits were deported to form an independent, self-sufficient community somewhere, there would probably be relatively fewer honest people in the population compared to malefactors. It would be less likely that there would be enough of a critical mass of honest people to prevent the malefactors from rising to the top. Put another way, it would be more likely, but not guaranteed, that the criminals would seize control of the strategic bases of the society. It would also be more likely that criminals would marginalize honest people, rather than the other way around. All of this, despite the fact that a significant portion of this population might still have some honest people.

Similarly, we can say that a population group rich with people in low intelligence will tend to comprise a fairly inefficient and dysfunctional society, even though one would still be able to find some examples of very bright people in that group. Unfortunately the smart people would find it hard to accomplish very much, because they have to spend too much time babysitting the stupid people who vastly outnumber them. Such a society has a high "genetic load" or drag factor. It will unlikely be very competitive with other societies.

We have repeatedly seen vivid examples of this drag factor everywhere that white rule has vanished in black African countries such as Kenya, the Congo, former Rhodesia, and now South Africa. These countries always deteriorate into brutal, corrupt dictatorships with basket case economies.

One of the effects of affirmative action in America, as well as special privileges for special interests such as he Israel Lobby (caught once again spying on America in the Larry Franklin case), has been to dramatically increase America's load factors of lazy, stupid, and crooked people. They not only drag down economic performance, as reflected in the horrifying trend charts depicted in my Critical Issues section, but worse yet, they have become powerful enough to marginalize and drive out honest and productive people.

A basic model for understanding the evolution of genetic differences

For starters it is critical to understand how different geographic environments (or "environmental stresses") sculpture the distributions of traits in human gene pools in different ways, and how these gene pools can degrade over time. Here I am using "environment" to mean a physical environment such as an Ice Age glacier or a sub-saharan jungle. These physical environments tend to select people in different ways. This use of the word "environment" to mean a geological environment that selects for human genes in a certain way is different from the use of the word "environmental" used at the beginning of this article to mean "learned" or "nurtured" behavior.

In his landmark work Why Civilizations Self-Destruct, Dr. Elmer Pendell explained that human gene pools are subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, just like other animals. This law states that chemical reactions in the universe tend towards greater randomness. This applies to chemical reactions that sustain life processes inside the human cell and replicate DNA. In other words, in the absence of natural selection, animals that reproduce at a zero population growth rate accumulate dysfunctional mutations and other forms of genetic load over time and suffer gradual and continual degradation in their abilities. Because of this deteriorative pressure, Dr. Pendell believed that animal species only achieve bare survival equilibrium with their geological environment. The Second Law of Thermodynamics prevents populations from developing capabilities in excess of the selective pressures of their physical environment.

Dr. Pendell believed that Ice Age environments imposed vastly more severe demands on human problem solving skills than tropical environments. Humans who lacked the ability to create winter survival technology and who also lacked the ability to delay gratification to prepare in the summer for the winters tended to get killed off at a faster rate. This skewed the innate traits of frost zone gene pools towards technological adapativeness.

In contrast, human groups that remained in temperate zones failed to develop this greater technological adapativeness. The Second Law of Thermodynamics kept them in bare equilibrium survival with the lower requirements of their physical environment.

One might see an analogy with the case of the dodo bird. A group of dodos once flew into a particular tropical-zone island where there no ground predators. As dodos established their home on this island, the ones which remained capable of flight had no particular survival advantage over birds incapable of flight. Over time, mutations which inhibited flight spread through the dodo bird population. By the time European sailors discovered the island, no dodos could fly anymore. Non-flight "genetic load" had saturated the dodo population. Sailors could grab dodos off the ground at will, and they quickly became extinct.

In his landmark book My Awakening, Dr. David Duke provides an excellent summary of the selective differences between frost zone and sub-Saharan African conditions (p. 93):

Evolutionary sculpturing of territorial needs and chivalrous instincts:

Dr. Duke provides some extended discussion to explain the evolutionary impact of frost zones that is well worth reading. He notes on page 92:

During most of the last 80,000 years, Europe endured temperatures much colder than today. Modern Europeans emerged about 35,000 years ago and met the crucible of the Wurm glaciation (24,000-10,000 B.C.). Temperatures in Europe and Asia probably averaged around 18 degrees (F) colder than the present.

Throughout history most of the technologically dominant and conquering racial and ethnic groups that migrated southward to the Mesopotamia, eastward to Japan, or westward to the Mediterranean, Central Europe, and even Scandinavia have originally come out of north central Asia and Siberia. They include Nordic and Celtic peoples, Hun, Scythians, Magyars, Turks, Mongols, Goths --it is a very long list. (See for example Early Civilization of the Nordic Peoples by Roger Pearson for examples of migrations). It is true that there have been successful south-to-north invasions, such as the Roman invasion of what is modern day France and Britain, the Muslim invasion of Spain and southern France and Ottoman Turkish invasion of Serbia and Austria, however, when one looks more closely at successful south to north invaders, one typically finds that there is substantial ancestry among their leadership that originally came out of north central Asia. In addition, the invaders have been able to overwhelm peoples further to the north with myriad advantages that were often inherited from civilizations originally created by peoples from the north. For example, the original Patrician class of the Roman Republic was founded by members of the Sabine and Oscian tribes that came from Germany when Germany was once an overwhelmingly Nordic area. In addition, at one point half the Imperial Roman Army consisted of Germans and others who migrated south on an individualized basis rather than as conquering tribes (much like the way today Third World immigrants join the U.S. Army to acquire U.S. citizenship, or bored Nordic farm girls from northern Midwestern states like Minnesota steadily migrate to places like Los Angeles to taste wild, cosmopolitan city life). The Muslim Berbers who invaded Spain benefited from Nordic and Celtic peoples left over from the Roman Empire (and the subsequent invasion of Germanic Vandals) who lived along the North African Coast who were forcefully converted to Islam. In addition, the Berbers have more Indo-European genes than nearby Arab peoples, and Berbers tend to treat their women better --a Nordic trait. Last, but not leaast, the white Christians of Spain were betrayed by Jewish infiltrators who helped organize, direct, and administer the Muslim invasion and occupation, just as Jewish groups today are at the forefront of groups that encourage open borders of America with Third World countries with an ultimate goal of white dispossession and replacement. (When Jews initially migrated to Spain, they showed the same behavior patterns that they have typically demonstrated everywhere else throughout history. As a fiercely tribalistic and collectivistic people ultimately focused on their own empowerment over all other peoples at all costs, they exploit the individualism and social fragmentation and misdirected altruism (often called "pathological altruism") often demonstrated by peoples of the North. (See Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future by Dr. Kevin MacDonald). Jews initially engage in adaptive mimicry of their hosts as they focus on amassing wealth and power, often showing superior artificial charm --schmoozing after all is a Yiddish word-- superficial social liberalism, and superior social-networking and aggressive business practices compared to their hosts. Once they achieve a certain critical mass of wealth and power, the "CIA-type infiltration tactics" dissolve, the mask comes off, and their innate hatred of the gentile hosts that has kept them from assimilating with their hosts everywhere they have gone through the ages comes to the surface, along with other tendancies towards tyranny, monopolization, criminality, subversion, and psychopathic manipulation and cruelty. Please see my discussion of Jewish Criminal Totalitarian Psycopathology in the "Parasitism" section of my Mutualism vs. Parasitism section).

The online thread titled "Is Siberia still a tough guy place?" at quora.com has an interesting contribution by Oleg Kolokolov, a native Russian, that describes some of the ways a very cold climate affects innate temperamental and personality traits.

Siberia basically teaches you to stand harsh environment conditions. Starting from late fall and on it’s slowly becoming colder each day and eventually in mid December you might find yourself standing -40C cold and feel quite alright. You get used to endure this every time you step out of your house. A cold wind blows into your face and you know you have to just bare with that. This builds a certain state of mind. Little kids get used to it. You cannot be very relaxed outside in winter most of the time. And this, I believe unavoidably affects people’s mentality for centuries. You simply don’t have this mind conception if you live in a warm place.

I’ve seen many times how little kids where playing in the snow outside while it was around -40C. Simply because “kids need some fresh air”. They learn how to breath in (via your mouth) and breath out (via your nose - to warm it up). They know that you have to move all the time to warm your self up. They know what a frost bite feels like - we all learned it - when you feel pain coming from outside and your hands or cheeks warm up again. And they all know how to avoid that (do not pull off your gloves, and keep them dry, i.e. remove the ice off them when it appears as you play). And all such basic things make you a stronger person who knows that life is harsh sometimes, and not exactly a picnic all the time.

Also one thing about Siberian climate that also affects the mindset of local people is that every year you see a full “reset” in nature. Unlike it is in Europe for example where you basically only see a slight degradation in nature during winter times, no blooming flowers but everything else remains where it was, you still have your live fences, your ivy on the house walls and your beautiful lawn stays there for centuries. In Russia, and Siberia in particular, you kind of experience the complete destruction of your environment every year. No grass can survive the winter cold (the earth surface gets frozen as deep as 1.5 meters sometimes). All the colors basically vanish you end up with black and white world for a few months. Only fur trees remain as they were and the other trees remain where they were although fully naked. The rest is basically dead. And just before that you see how everything gets washed out with rains and the earth surface slowly turns into a mud (all the grass is only one year old, so it doesn’t have a developed root system to “concrete” the surface all together).

Imagine a Russian peasant that sees every end of year how all his efforts get washed away, everything that was planted, everything around that looked green and developed becomes dead, turns into a mud and eventually gets frozen. You have to start from scratch every year! That leaves a mark in your mind set, no doubt!

 

We see evidence of significant technological adaptiveness and comparatively higher IQs among all races or racial subgroups that have had a significant frost zone sculpturing tenure, including eskimos, Japanese, and Mongols. Conversely, we see a relative lack of technological adapativeness among tropical peoples. Another example besides Negroes are the Piraha Tribe of the Amazon, which has proven completely incapable of learning how to add 1 + 1 despite months of instruction by anthropologists.

Professor J. Philippe Rushton has put together the IQ map provided below that illustrate his article: "Winters Are Good For Your Genes: Lynn Book Finds World Average IQ 90, Declining From North To South."

 

Here is another global IQ map from the article: "Can Nations Have IQs?" by James Thompson, January 25, 2023 of current populations of countries (including non-indigenous peoples):

 

I would like to interject my personal view that the frost zone evolutionary environment likely sculptured temperamental traits in many other areas besides an aptitude for technological problem solving.

It appears that whites in general, and the Nordic branch of Caucasoids in particular, have lived for a longer evolutionary period than other races under extremely dispersed conditions near Ice Age glaciers in relatively small family or tribal units. The key selective factors involved man vs. nature technological innovation themes. Man vs. man guile or artful sociability was probably not a particularly significant factor. In fact, in some ways it probably helped to err on the side of having a high sense of individual territoriality to prevent competitors from stealing ones food in cold winters.

A vivid anecdotal example of this behavior is described at the beginning of a book called Sissu about the Finnish Winter War against the Soviets. According to a folk tale, which was perhaps apocryphal, a Finn heard that someone wanted to build a cabin several miles away. He pulled out his puukku knife to go kill him because he felt the stranger was invading his territory.

In his essay "The History of Freedom in Antiquity," the eminent British 19th century historian Lord Acton commented on how a strong need for personal freedom is very ancient among white people:

According to a famous saying of the most famous authoress of the continent, Liberty is ancient; and it is Despotism that is new. It has been the pride of recent historians to vindicate the truth of that maxim. The heroic age of Greece confirms it, and it is still more conspicuously true of Teutonic Europe. Wherever we can trace the earlier life of the Aryan nations we discover germs which favouring circumstances and assiduous culture might have developed into free societies. They exhibit some sense of common interest in common concerns, little reverence for external authority, and an imperfect sense of the function and supremacy of the state. Where the division of property and of labour is incomplete, there is little division of classes and of power...

In his book Body Language, Julius Fast talks about how people from Northern Europe stand much further apart from each other in their conversations. Interpersonal interactions among Nordic peoples often strike others as being a bit stuffy and distant. As a rule of thumb, as one heads further south in Europe, people stand increasingly closer to each other in conversation, and have more informal protocols. It is not uncommon for Mediterranean fathers to hug and kiss their own sons and kiss other men, which is unheard of in northern countries. Going further south, Julius Fast points out how Arabs stand very close to each other. To deny an Arab your breath is to insult him.

This very different sense of personal territoriality among population groups has political implications. "Human rights" is probably related to an instinctive requirement to preserve significant personal territory before government.

The origin of the cultural and behavioral trait of chivalry is also an important issue. In "The Passing of the Great Race" Madison Grant wrote (page 168).

The Nordics are, all over the world, a race of soldiers, sailors, adventurers and explorers, but above all, of rulers, organizers, and aristocrats in sharp contrast to the essentially peasant and democratic character of the Alpines. The Nordic race is domineering, individualistic, self reliant, and jealous of their personal freedom both in political and religious systems and as a result they are usually Protestants.

Chivalry and knighthood and their still surviving but greatly impaired counterparts are peculiarly Nordic traits and feudalism, class distinctions and race pride among Europeans are mainly traceable for the most part to the north." (p. 228).

The social status of woman varies largely with race, but here religion plays a part. In the Roman Republic and in Ancient Germany women were held in high esteem. In the Nordic Countries of today, women's rights have received much more recognition than among the southern nations with their tradition of Latin culture." (p. 228).

Chivalrous competition is very common among frost zone mammals such as wolves, reindeer, foxes, bears, and bears. One of the greatest threats to chivalry is parasitism. While parasitism is very common in tropical environments, where animals are close enough for parasites to easily hop from host to host, the high degree of animal dispersion in Arctic environments works in the opposite direction.

In chivalrous competition, males will spar to compete for females. They compete just enough to show dominance, but refrain from destroying the loser by drawing blood. This enables the more fit males to disproportionately reproduce, thereby maintaining the strength of the herd. However, by not killing off the weaker males, the herd retains the greater safety of numbers to ward off packs of predators.

Chivalrous government is an anomaly among most human societies. Most human societies around the planet become very pyramidal is they become very large. The people at the top typically become increasingly vicious to fend off any real or perceived competitors.

We can see how chivalrous instincts must be spread among the general population in order for Western Civilization to become viable. Parliamentary debate depends on the ability of individuals to voice their dissent without getting assassinated. The right to face ones accusers in a trial by jury depends upon not being up against vicious mafia groups who ruthlessly kill off all witnesses. Scientific debate requires the ability to advance a new theory that contradicts leading scientists without losing ones job.

In order for competitive free markets and for free enterprise capitalism to remain viable, both the government and the largest corporations must refrain from using their power to viciously squeeze out competitors and rig the markets.

One reason why America is breaking down, incidentally, is the increase in vicious, anti-chivalrous behavior throughout society. We see this in the case of people who lose their jobs for voicing not politically correct opinions. In contrast, back in the early 19th century chivalrous values once made America once of the most admired countries on earth.

Today America has become despised around the world. The High Priests of War by Michael Collins Piper documents how America's foreign policy has been high-jacked by Jewish neo-cons who viciously smear all domestic critics of their influence. Torture, which is very commonly used by Israelis against Palestinians, is now widely used overseas by Americans.

An interesting indicator of America's depravity involves the sad case of Jewish spokesman and national media darling Dr. Alan Dershowitz. He hardly ennobles either the Harvard University faculty or America's Jewish community. He has artfully tried to reduce public repugnance towards the use of torture and has viciously attacked his colleague Dr. Stephen Walt, former Dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, for the report co-authored with Dr. John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago that criticizes the Jewish Lobby's role in American foreign policy.

Critics of Jews have historically viewed them as an an alien racial group instinctively incapable of acting like chivalrous gentlemen. For over two thousand years their evolutionary history has been focused on man vs. man competition where they have been outsiders in highly urbanized environments forced to live by their wits. Critics such as Henry Ford in his International Jew series claim that Jews as a group are more likely to produce a disproportionate number of people who are prone to engage in covert, deceitful, vicious, criminal, Mafia-like behavior. In business they have a greater tendency to act as vicious monopolists. In their view, Jews tend to be incompatible with chivalrous republican government and principled free enterprise competition.

This has some similarities to Ralph Townsend's analysis in Ways That Are Dark about the Chinese (offered by America First Books). To him, it is no accident that the Chinese are often referred to as "The Jews of the East." For well over two thousand years the Chinese have endured conditions of extreme deprivation and overcrowding, in which Darwinian survival depended heavily on artful man vs. man diplomacy, to put it politely. In addition to their considerable business acumen, Townsend claims that the Chinese have an amazing capacity to ingratiate themselves with Americans. They can quote high-minded platitudes of Confucius one moment and then just as easily break their word with Westerners the next. According to Townsend, writing in 1933, the Chinese language has no real equivalent of the word "lie" that carries with it any sense of the moral repugnance that accompanies its usage in the West.

Townsend noted that the Japanese, who have absorbed some Caucasoid genes from the Ainu, have a very different cultural personality that is much closer to Western concepts of personal honor. Townsend observed an interesting paradox that begins with the fact that initially Americans tend to like the Chinese more than the Japanese. The Chinese seem much more affable and gregarious, whereas the Japanese appear more reserved. However, Townsend claimed that after Americans have had enough dealings with both the Chinese and Japanese to begin to understand each group, most Americans start to prefer the Japanese. They discover that they have more in common with the Japanese on the honor issue, and that is more important to them in the long run.

In regard to the comparing the Chinese with Jews, if one compares Ways That Are Dark with Jewish Supremacism by Dr. David Duke, one can see that the Chinese are qualitatively very different from Jewish supremacists in many important ways. Among other things, the Chinese have had their own land base and self-contained civilization for thousands of years. Their religious institutions make it possible for them to find contentment within their own borders without defining themselves relative to other peoples or making it a divine mission to perpetually infiltrate and exert control over other societies under false pretenses.

The origins of advanced civilizations

According to Dr. Elmer Pendell in Why Civilizations Self-Destruct, advanced civilizations began when peoples of the north headed southwards to warmer lands where survival was much easier. Dr. Pendell defined civilization as the sum total of problem-solving improvements made by people over time. Hence, the peoples of the north had excess genetic capacity in terms of intelligence and robustness that could now be invested towards the continuous problem solving processes required to create advanced civilizaations.

However, once in the warmer lands, the peoples of the north were no longer subjected to savage sculpturing factors. Their offspring tended to decline over time in average fitness much like the dodo bird. In addition, the civilizations they created developed niches that allowed people of low ability to reproduce at a faster rate than people of higher ability.

Paradoxically, as the material improvements and monuments of civilizations accumulated over time, giving the external appearance of an increasingly advanced civilization, the underlying genetic quality was steadily deteriorating. Eventually, the ratio of nonproducers to producers increased to the point that bygone civilizations began to stagnate. At this tipping point, they began to lose traction in their ability to anticipate and solve problems. Eventually they became so overwhelmed by their accumulating problems that they went into decline.

At this point let me interject that while I agree with Pendell that dysgenic decay is an important long term underlying factor, I see evidence that many civilizations seem to fall apart well before their underlying gene pools are totally depleted due to the accumulation of genetic load.

I think that there are two extremely important addition reasons to help explain the accelerated decline of various civilizations. One reason is that over time civilizations tend to become more centralized and tyrannical, which degrades their ability to engage in rational innovation and problem-solving on a grass roots level. In cover this process in some depth in my centralization vs. decentralization discussion. Please note my libertarian analysis regarding how centralized government tends to turn into ponzi government, which in turn tends to turn into evil government.

In addition, as societies become more centralized and individuals become less self-sufficient, people with increasingly criminal traits, parasitic modus operandi, and other mental health problems tend to rise to the top and set the tone of society. This also severely degrades the ability of a society to engage in rational grass roots problem solving and innovation. I discuss the "criminal personality" and parasitism in depth in my mutualism vs. parasitism discussion.

There is definitely an unvirtuous circle involved here in which all of these factors viciously feed on each other. Dysgenic decay encourages increasing centralization, because a declining level of overall competence in the overall population makes its more likely that "the masses" will become increasingly less self-sufficient as individual adults and instead assume an increasingly child-like level of dependency on their rulers. They will simultaneously become less capable of heading off various forms of tyranny. Similarly, as a population becomes weaker in terms of its innate character and intelligence, it becomes less capable of resisting criminal exploitation.

Dr. Edward Wilson and Sir Arthur Keith add to Dr. Pendell's basic model

In his book Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Dr. Edward Wilson explains how the selection of certain genetic traits can only be explained in terms of natural selection applied on a group level as opposed to an individual level.

One example includes selection for altruism. This is a trait that motivates an individual to risk his own life or to diminish his own resources for the greater good of his group.

We might imagine the following as an example of altruistic sacrifice. A woman has several children who are in danger of getting mauled by a bear. The mother starts fighting the bear to give her children time to flee, and gets mauled to death. From an evolutionary viewpoint, although her genes are now lost, there is still a net gain of the survival of her children.

As another example, imagine a group of young men who fight to the death to defend their tribe against invaders who might genocide or enslave their people. Their sacrifice is cost effective if it prevents the destruction of the remainder of their gene pool.

In contrast, imagine a group where parents tend to feel no inclination to risk themselves to save their children, or where young men feel no inclination to fight to defend their tribe against attack, enslavement, and possibly even extermination. In this case, this group without any altruistic instincts is more likely to become extinct than one that has altruistic traits. In a world where tribes compete for living space, the group without altruism cannot effectively band together to defend its genetic interests.

Since altruism has a genetic basis, it is vitally important that a people with strong altruistic tendencies focus this behavior first and foremost towards the reproduction of their own genetic type. In this way the altruistic genes survive.

If on the other hand a group carrying a high degree of innate altruism can be tricked into adopting and nurturing alien children, or pursuing economic policies that benefit alien interests before their own kind, then the altruistic group is in fact now suffering from parasitism. An alien group is now enhancing its own genetic fitness at the expense of the altruistic group, in essence "using up" the first group's altruism to promote the survival of alien genes. If this parasitic relationship continues for too long, the altruistic group will become extinct, and altruistic behaviors will die with them.

Sir Arthur Keith's Evolutionary Breeding Unit concept

The late British anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith argued that tribal separation in what he called "Evolutionary Breeding Units" has been very important in the human evolutionary process. Tribal separation allowed beneficial mutations to take hold. Furthermore, tribal separation enabled groups with superior genes to expand at the expense of failed groups. Among other things, it enabled a tribe with altruistic traits to avoid being parasitically used up by a group that lacks these traits. It also rewarded successful groups on a genetic level, analogous to the way successful entrepreneurs must be able to retain earnings in their companies to grow in a competitive free enterprise capitalist system.

Sir Arthur Keith described how competition takes place not only between tribes, but also to promote eugenic as opposed to dysgenic mating on an individualized basis within a tribe. When applied to mating, "eugenic" means mating that promotes offspring who are more fit. "Dysgenic" means mating that produces less fit offspring. As mentioned earlier, humans tend to naturally engage in eugenic practices when they try to find a marital partner who is their equal or better.

One cannot help but wonder if a combination of tribal competition, combined with internal eugenic mating selection inside competing evolutionary breeding units, accounted for the "cranial explosion" that occurred among human ancestors in last three million years. Dr. Edward Wilson's classic work Sociobiology: the New Synthesis provides a vivid example with a graph that plots brain volume (y-axis) against millions of years before present on the x-axis. (Figure 27-1, redrawn from Pilbeam, 1972).

The graph starts with Ramaphithecus punjabicus who had an estimated 310 cc brain volume roughly 14 million years ago. A hypothetical curve showing the brain volume of our ancestors shows a steady gradual rise of less than 20 degrees for the next eleven million years until we get to Australopithecus africanus, with about a 460 cc capacity roughly 3 million years before present. From here the cranial capacity curve sharply accelerates. We see Australopithecus habilis at 600 cc about 2 million years ago, Homo erectus at 1,000 cc about 1 million years ago, and Homo sapiens at around 1,400 cc at present. The curve reaching Homo sapiens is at about a 70 degree upward climb.

After Homo Sapiens depicted on the graph around our present time, we see the line on the chart fall off from a 70 degree climb to a 45 degree climb. Considering the way America and other Western countries are being dumbed down as a consequence of out of control Third World immigration and the habit of the most fit white women having the least children, I think that it would be more accurate to show a negative angle. This would be consistent with Dr. Pendell's observation that civilization tends to create niches that support the reproduction of the less fit at the expense of more productive people, and hence tends to reverse evolution.

The positive evolutionary function of tribalism and racism

In the article "Zoological Subspecies in Man" by Dr. Norman Hall in the October 1960 issue of Mankind Quarterly, Dr. Hall observed that "racism" prevails among all mammalian subspecies in nature. (The term "subspecies" is synonymous in zoological jargon with the term "race").

...Consider, if you will, the results of competition between closely allied subspecies of wild mammals when one penetrates into or is introduced into the range of another. Whether they be mice, moles, or monkeys, one and only one subspecies survives in a given area, because after a few thousand years, ordinarily in a much shorter time, crossbreeding may result in amalgamation, a sort of extinction by dilution. but the more common results are either that they fight and one kills the other, or that as a result of less direct combat, the individuals of one subspecies more often usurp the best food, places best suited for rearing young, and shelters for affording maximum protection from enemies. Therefore the one subspecies thrives, whereas the other subspecies because of lower birth rate and decreased longevity that result from inferior food, inferior nurseries and insufficient shelter, decreases and disappears. The introduced black rat (Rattus rattus rattus) has disappeared from the large areas in North America where competition was furnished by another introduced subspecies, Rattus rattus alexandrinus. So it goes in almost every instance where kinds of mammals so closely related as subspecies of the same species are suddenly thrown into competition over a large area. Indeed, study of the thousands of subspecies of native wild mammals has led to the formulation of the biological law concerning them that: Two subspecies of the same species do not occur in the same geographic area. Of the half dozen or fewer exceptions reported to date, reinvestigation has shown that the two kinds instead were in every instance full species, or two subspecies that lived each in a habitat apart from the other. Thus the rule remains almost or quite without exception and it should give pause to anyone about to advocate the long continued residence together of subspecies of man.

The implication here is very clear. Racism is instinctive in man, just as it is in all other mammals. "Racism" survives as a genetic trait because Evolutionary Breeding Units that have this trait are more likely to dominate, acquire the best territory, and pass on their genes than those that lack racist traits.

According to Dr. Hall, tribalism and racism work so well in nature that they do not even have to be a consciously defined process among mammalian subspecies. Through evolution they become instinctive or "default" behaviors among animals species incapable of consciously viewing the world in ideological terms.

Hence, we do not necessarily require ideology to explain why humans instinctively maintain armies and national borders. They sense a strong need to prevent alien peoples from either conquering or infiltrating their territory and driving their own indigenous population out of existence. Hence, "nationalism" and "national borders" are not some kind of "Grand Illusion," as extreme leftists and certain anarcho-libertarians would have it, but rather a territorial imperative deeply rooted in our genes.

In his book Civil War II: The Coming Breakup of America, Thomas Chittum provides another form of evidence that tribalism and racism are instinctive in humans. He lists 37 European countries, starting with the countries that have the most homogeneous populations. As we go down the list, starting with countries in which 98% of the population consists of one ethnic group, we see that when we reach countries where the most dominant group is no more than 75% of the total population the incidence of instability and civil war increases dramatically. He concludes (p.131), "The lesson is clear: The more mono-ethnic a European nation is, the more likely it is to be peaceful and stable. The more multiethnic a European nation is, the more likely it is to experience tribal civil wars. There is simply no real arguing this brutal fact."

A third argument that tribalism and racism are instinctive is provided by Dr. Lothrop Stoddard in his books such as The Rising Tide of Color and The French Revolution in Santo Domingo. According to Dr. Stoddard, when two dissimilar races interbreed, quite often rather than getting rid of racism, they create a new group that begins to function like a third race. Now instead of one racial conflict between two groups, one has three racial conflicts between three groups. This can create an even bigger social mess.

As one example, when Spaniards first came to the New World, they rarely brought wives from Spain, but instead mated with Indian women and created Mestizos. As Mestizos grew in size and influence over three centuries, it tended to swing back and forth politically between Indian and white interests. The "wars of liberation" that broke out in Latin America against Spanish rule in the early 1800's were essentially race wars in which the Mestizos allied themselves with Indians to oust what was left of the white ruling class. Simon Bolivar, an aristocratic renegade who served as a major leader in the revolts, eventually came to view the Mestizos and Indians as incapable of forming a stable government along classical liberal lines. He proclaimed himself a dictator a couple of years before making plans to retire in Europe.

In The French Revolution in Santo Domingo, Dr. Stoddard tells a sadder story with a similar theme. Santo Domingo, known today as Haiti, was once the most prosperous French plantation society in the New World. The whites imported so many blacks to work their plantations that they became only about10% of Haiti's population. These Frenchmen also managed to sneak in enough dalliances to create a sizeable class of mulattoes over time. Not surprisingly, the mulattoes tended to swing back and forth politically between black and white interests.

The French Revolution created a wave of liberalism that led to the emancipation of the slaves. However, various power struggles led to tragedy. This included the willingness of the British as part of the Napoleonic Wars to supply arms to the blacks to make trouble for the French. The situation deteriorated into an all-out race war where the mulattoes and blacks joined together to kill all the white people. This included savagely killing off totally defenseless white women and children. Then the pure blacks turned on the mulattoes and killed most of them as part of an internal racial purification move.

All of this seemed to take place "naturally" in the early 1800's. Zionist-dominated, liberal national media did not exist yet in America.

Although Haiti was once France's most prosperous colony, today it is the most backward country in the western hemisphere. Where Black Rules White: A Journey Across and About Hayti by Hesketh Prichard, first published in 1900, is a fascinating study of a society that has returned to its genetic baseline. The very primitive way that most blacks function in Haiti is almost surrealistic by Western standards. Consistent with genetic theory, we saw some of this same surrealism resurface among blacks in New Orleans during the Hurricane Katrina disaster.

How genetic distance influences the degree of altruistic and parasitic behavior

One important implication of the instinctive component of racism is that the more similar people are racially, the more likely it is that that they will have an altruistic, mutualistic, or symbiotic relationship. Conversely, the more dissimilar they are, the more likely it is over the long run that the relationship can devolve into something predatory or parasitic.

Of course we are speaking here about statistical probabilities, not certainties. No doubt on an individualized basis, people can meet certain individuals of other races for whom they have tremendous respect and admiration. No doubt there are mixed communities that can learn to get along under certain social conditions.

Despite all of this, there is still a broader social problem that never goes away. It is deeply rooted in our genes. The rule of thumb is that all other things being equal, the greater the genetic distance between peoples who make up a community, the more the community requires massive infusions of liberal propaganda and political "hand-holding" to keep things together, and the more likely it is that severe economic and political stress will break things apart. In other words, highly race-mixed societies tend to be highly "leveraged" societies. As previously mentioned, all it took was the flooding related to Hurricane Katrina in August 2005 for racial chaos to break out in New Orleans and make the city look like Mogadishu. In contrast, racially homogeneous Japanese cities have experienced vastly more devastating earthquakes, and yet have remain relatively free of plundering and other forms of social strife.

America in the late 20th century has become a major historic anomaly by the way its leaders encourage its majority white population to elevate aliens and promulgate their own dispossession. In my section covering "genetic bottom up" interpretations of history, I describe how the Anglo-Saxon Puritans who settled New England and provided a major foundation for the American Revolution were very homogeneous on a racial, ethnic, cultural, political, and religious level. Up until the 1840's, America was overwhelming white and Protestant. Fast forward to today, and we see across America a multi-racial, multi-cultural population held together principally by leftist ideology. America seems to be on some kind of winding down cruise control from remnants of cultural habits and institutions established in the 19th century by a totally different society, while groups like the neo-cons described in High Priests of War or the Jewish elite described in The Dispossessed Majority squeeze every last little drop of viability out of us before the whole bankrupt system implodes.

I must emphasize that in America's power centers, we have not eliminated racism and tribalism. To the contrary, in many ways these things are more virulent today than they have ever been before in American history. I can say from personal experience having lived in New York City for ten years, I saw far more extreme racism among its vast Jewish population — despite the fact that publicly so many Jews pretend to be liberals — than I ever observed growing up in the South and being exposed to Southern white rednecks or serving in the Marine Corps and being exposed to professional militants.

All we have done is merely shifted the "who" and the "how" behind it all. Instead of supporting white racism to acquire living space in North America from Indians, now America's elites focus on helping Zionists accumulate Jewish living space in the Middle East. Americans also provide blank check support to hobble any real or perceived enemies of Israel, to include Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and the next possible target Iran.

American leaders provide unswerving rhetorical support for the strictly segregated, anti-Palestinian apartheid state of Israel. The oppression of Palestinians is cruel and ghastly beyond belief. Palestinian activists and suspects are routinely rounded up and tortured by Israelis. Their leaders are often targets of assassinations. Helpless civilians are often targets of genocidal bombings and machine-gunnings. Many Palestinians are forced to live in tightly controlled, "locked down" communities where their means of making a living has been stolen from them and they can only survive from charitable assistance provided from the outside. The list of abuse goes on, but the point is that in terms of systematic cruelty, the Israelis make Simon Legree in Uncle Toms Cabin look almost mild and amateurish by comparison. By giving blank-check support to Israeli oppression, combined with its commission of such war crimes as spreading aerosolized depleted uranium among hundreds of thousands of helpless Iraqi and Afghanistan civilians, the U.S. Government surrenders whatever moral authority it claimed for waging its war of conquest against Southern states in the 1860's to ostensibly free slaves, although its real objective, of course, was to impose high tariffs.

This is almost like a textbook physics problem where matter and energy are conserved on both sides of a reaction equation. Here, total "racism" has been conserved. It has gone from a diffuse form of racism held by America's white majority in the 19th century to a very concentrated and virulent form of racism held by America's Jewish elite and their liberal minority coalition allies. When we net out the "anti-racism" taught to whites to prevent them from rebelling against Jewish media and financial overlords, and add in racism taught to American troops to kill helpless Arabs, and then combine all this with Jewish and other liberal minority coalition racism, it appears that "total racism" has been "conserved" within our "social system" since the 19th century. Like matter and energy in a physics equation, it has not been destroyed, it has merely been shifted and transformed. This is almost mathematical in nature, not to mention completely Orwellian.

In the long run it would be much healthier for white Americans to deal with their instinctive racism in an open, honest, and decentralized level. We would be better off trying to honestly express our racism within the framework of classical liberal principles rather than continue to deny our instinctive nature as part of the current modern liberal charade.

The Orwellian tactics used by America's Jewish media elite to deal with our instinctive racism simply cannot go on forever. The situation will probably reverse sometime after the coming economic collapse.

How "anti-racist" campaigns create an unsustainable and unstable paradigm

Once one accepts the premise that racism and tribalism have an instinctive basis, this creates an entirely new perspective regarding government-mandated "anti-racist" and "anti-discrimination" campaigns. In fact, anti-racist campaigns remind me of ecological models that show how various trends sew the seeds of their own demise and must inevitably reverse themselves.

As an example, imagine a population of wolves that feeds on a population of reindeer. As the wolves become more successful, their population grows and they begin to experience more competition among themselves. Conversely, the weakest and slowest reindeer get killed off, making it harder to catch the more fit remainder of the herd. Meanwhile, with fewer reindeer around, more grass becomes available for survivors, increasing their chances of survival. As the surviving reindeer get faster, and have more grass to eat, and conversely as the wolves multiply and become increasingly less successful at hunting, we can see how eventually the wolves will reach a point of diminishing returns and the equilibrium balance between wolf and reindeer populations will eventually reverse against the wolves.

Similarly, when a society suffers from massive anti-racist propaganda, the groups that quietly retain their racism have a huge survival advantage and grow at the expense of anti-racist idealists. This is because people who can function as a group generally have an advantage over atomized individuals. In addition, since the dominant groups' defenses against alien infiltration have been anesthetized, more aliens can now flood into the country. This will ultimately cause increasing racial strife and racial consciousness as well.

At some point the growing power and abrasiveness of the covert groups and alien infiltrators will become so great that atomized, anti-racist white Americans will finally figure out that they have been duped. The cynical elites that originally promoted the anti-racist campaigns hope that by the time white Americans finally wake up, they will have been reduced to an impotent minority, and will then feel forced to accept their dispossessed status with passive resignation.

We saw how decades of ethnic suppression under communism in the former Yugoslavia helped produce a genocidal reaction after communist collapse. Therefore, because anti-racist campaigns tend to produce in the long run the exact opposite of their stated purpose, there is always have a whiff of politically expedient snake oil to them. Wilmot Robertson underscores this point in The Dispossessed Majority when he observes that the biggest self-styled anti-racists in American society, namely the Jewish elite that controls the liberal minority coalition, are in fact the biggest racists of all.

This why I believe that in the long run it is healthier for individuals and society to deal with their own instinctive racism out in the open. It may not be particularly pleasant to certain people, but handled in this way people are more likely to function on an even keel and figure out ways to productively coexist rather than go to extremes.

The "genetic interests" concept

Genetic distance between peoples can be quantified scientifically. The article "Ethnic Genetic Interests" by Michael Rienzi in the Feb 2003 issue of American Renaissance reviews Dr. Frank Salter's landmark work "Estimating Ethnic Genetic Interests: Is it Adaptive to Resist Replacement Migration?" This article is well worth reading in its entirety. In the name of brevity, I will provide some of the particularly important excerpts.

Mr. Rienzi starts by commenting that so-called "mainstream" discussions about increased crime and other impacts of Third World immigration miss the ultimate consequences, namely the impact on the genetic continuity of America's declining white population:

From an evolutionary standpoint "fitness" means "reproductive fitness," or the propagation of distinctive genes from one generation to the next. Living organisms can be seen as the vehicles by which this propagation occurs. Thus, as Dr. Salter explains, adaptive behavior "maintains or increases the frequency of one's distinctive genes in the population." Family or kin share many of the same distinctive genes, so as a person's fitness is increased by the survival and reproduction of his kin.

Increasing shared "genetic interests" within ones own population increases the chances that people will work together beneficially on a political and economic level. Decreasing ones genetic interests for any reason has the opposite effect, that is, this path increases the risks of alien strife and usurpation described by Dr. Norman Hall in Zoological Subspecies in Man, by Wilmot Robertson in The Dispossessed Majority, or by Thomas Chittum in Civil War II.

Scientists can take the genetic data from works such as Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza's 1994 book The History and Geography of Human Genes and calculate the extent of damage alien immigration does to the genetic interests of the indigenous population. The amount of genetic change can be calculated as the equivalent number of children not born to an indigenous person.

According to Dr. Salter, because Danes are similar to Englishmen, an influx of 10,000 Danes would have an impact on changing an indigenous English population by "not having" 167 children. In contrast, genetically distant people create vastly more damage. The arrival of 10,000 Bantus is the equivalent of 10,854 lost children.

Mr Rienzi observes that, "While plunging birthrates may be genetically damaging for European-derived peoples, their replacement by genetically alien immigrants is much worse. A falling birthrate reduces the population but does not transform it genetically, and a future increase in birthrates can always make up for the loss. Once immigrants have established themselves in a native territory their genes are a permanent addition. From the standpoint of genetic ethnic interests, the idea that `immigration makes up for low native birthrates' is pathological."

The following chart, taken from the aforementioned History and Geography of Human Genes, helps to show on a pictorial level the genetic distances that scientists have determined on a quantitative level. Kevin Strom notes in his article "Multiracialists Must Be Crazy" that:

"The picture painted is not one of panmixia, but of races evolving away from each other, away from the average or center, becoming more diverse in the true sense of the word, more different. This, too, is in accord with both common-sense observation and the laws of evolution, which posit racial divergence and separation as one of the very engines of Life itself."

The moral basis of "in-kind behavior"

One of the many lies fed to white Americans by their controlled national media is the notion that once they accept concepts involving genetic distance and kindred loyalty, that all of a sudden they will be at grave risk of turning into evil, totalitarian Nazi demons who want to go around slaughtering, enslaving, or oppressing alien peoples. Therefore, ideological leftism is the only way to go.

Actually one can argue that almost the exact opposite is true, namely that being an anti-racist leftist can be far more deadly in the long run for humanity than acting as an open pro-white racial nationalist who is respectful of other peoples. In fact, one might even argue that a white person must become a pro-white racial nationalist in order make humanitarianism sustainable into the future.

For starters, I already mentioned in the introduction to this series that the body count under "genetic bottom up" classical liberal (or libertarian racial nationalist) leaders such as Thomas Jefferson and William Gladstone are utterly miniscule compared to card-carrying leftist "environmental top down" leaders such as Mao Tse Tung, Lenin, and Pol Pot. Libertarian racial nationalists who appreciate the uniqueness of race, heritage, and culture for their own kind are more likely to respect these characteristics in others, compared to leftists who view all of mankind as infinitely re-programmable, interchangeable, and ultimately highly expendable masses.

We see evidence that societies following classical liberal principles can be amazingly peaceful and benign. This is reflected in the old crack that the Scandinavian countries have been blessed with "boring histories" in the last few centuries. Once the classical liberal focus on science, technology, and industry starts to pay off with rising living standards, people start cutting back on having large families and creating population pressures that encourage territorial conflicts. In addition, their desire to trade goods created by their growing industry creates another incentive to be nice towards other countries. In fact, these societies give more per capita in humanitarian aid than any other societies on this planet.

Conversely, Third World countries that can least afford to have large families are the ones who are always producing children at a faster rate than their growth in wealth. They are also the most likely to embrace and suffer from de facto forms of authoritarian Marxist Socialism. Given the vastly superior historical track record demonstrated by racially conscious, all-white First World countries who have embraced classical liberal principles, one might wonder what kind of perverse mentality would have the chutzpah to attack them for their "racism."

Secondly, when anti-racists attack racial nationalist societies, they fail to solve the altruistic reinvestment problem. After all, we know that altruism has a genetic basis, and that different races have different aptitudes for technological innovativeness, individual initiative, decentralized institutions, and humanitarianism.

People who are innately charitable, talented, and productive have to be able to perpetuate their own genetic characteristics biologically so that people of their own kind will still still be around generations into the future to be able to help other peoples. In other words, people who want to be unselfish and help other peoples in this world still have to practice a minimum amount of selfishness in order to perpetuate their own biological makeup. Otherwise, not only their own being, but also the altruistic traits that come from their being, will become extinct. The golden goose that lays the golden eggs will be dead. Put another way, one often has to be able to pull himself out of a pit before he is able to reach down and help others out.

One can hence see how misdirected kindness might in fact be the greatest cruelty in the long run. Imagine for example a father with five children who are all very bright and capable. Imagine also that an illegal alien family with a long history of mental retardation and criminal activity moves next door. The father is so anxious to appear to be a "do gooder" and "anti-racist" that he invites the kids of the neighbor to come over to his house to eat any food that his wife prepares first. He forces his own children to stand by and watch, often while they are starving, as the neighbor's kids always help themselves to every meal first. The "do gooder" father even pays for the education of the neighbor's kids. To top it off, he even tries to set them up with the right connections in business and offers to capitalize their business endeavors. Long before this, he boots his own children out of the house on to the street. In fact, he completely disinherits them before they become teenagers as part of a "tough love" approach.

Imagine that the net result of all this misdirected "do gooderism" is that two of the father's children get beaten and stabbed to death in the streets, and the other three wind up in dead-end jobs working for malicious supervisors who envy their talents as "privileged white people" and prevent them from getting ahead. Consequently, they have problems making ends meet in order to have children. In contrast, the neighbor's children manage to get degrees from professors who look the other way to avoid appearing "racist." However, once in the business world, they continually make incompetent decisions that waste resources. Nevertheless, as "minorities" they are able to fall back on government jobs with juicy salaries that allow them to have big families.

I think that the average person would recoil at such a scenario, and view this "do gooder" father as a very cruel, perverse, and misguided man. On a genetic level, his misguided sense of altruism has helped to genocide his own family line while propagating a dysfunctional alien line. The net result to society has been an increase in nonproductive and alien people over productive individuals.

Yet why would this be so very different from the affirmative action programs which deny jobs to qualified whites whose ancestors created America's institutions in the 19th century, and instead award jobs to aliens? Why is this less cruel than the CEO's of major U.S. firms, who have enjoyed all the benefits of growing up on white taxpayer money in an all-white society in the 1950's and 1960's, who were educated at white-built and white-run institutions, but who now have an investment preference for building factories in Asia and could care less if American manufacturing infrastructure collapses and fellow whites in America go unemployed?

Jared Taylor, the editor of American Renaissance, summarized the current situation very succinctly in his Feb 2003 edition:

We are the only race with governments that officially and deliberately ignore the call of racial kinship. No other race welcomes strangers into its homelands and then grants them preferences over the children of natives. No other race subsidizes alien underclasses and then blames itself for the fecklessness, incompetence and violence of these underclasses. No other face measures virtue by how many advantages it can offer to people as biologically unlike itself as possible, or by how loudly and persistently it can heap scorn on its own history, traditions, and ancestors. Members of no other race routinely adopt children of other races.

Political, moral, and religious systems that acknowledge genetic realities

As mentioned previously, 19th century classical liberalism, which I place in the "genetic bottom up" category, was an ideological formula that enabled people to keep their own ethno-racial house in order without threatening or oppressing others. This was the formula that America was founded on.

19th century classical liberals tended to be openly pro-white racial nationalists. Thomas Jefferson was a prime example. As he grew older, he became increasingly right wing. At one point he wrote a letter stating that he thought peoples from northern Europe were better suited to his idea of self-restrained republicanism than masses from southern Europe. Although Jefferson sought to phase out slavery (while owning more than 200 Negroes), he also clearly called for racial separation between whites and blacks, stating:

"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free; nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion have drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degree, as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be ...filled up by free White laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up."

Please note that only the first line up to the semicolon, namely "Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free" appears on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C.. This demonstrates the same thoroughly dishonest editing of history that also characterizes the portrayals of "King Lincoln," FDR, and other great centralizers in Washington, D.C.

Incidentally, other American Founding Fathers were outspoken white racial nationalists. This means, of course, that they staunchly upheld the right of white people to live in their own white communities in accordance with white values and to have a government that favors white survival and a white destiny, as opposed to allowing themselves to be invaded, molested, and dominated by alien peoples. Although overlooked by many political correctness historians today, this was a key ingredient behind 19th century concepts of American exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny.

As three examples, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin were openly critical of Jews. Benjamin Franklin even tried to insert language in the U.S. Constitution to keep Jews out of the country. George Washington commented: "They (the Jews) work more effectively against us, than the enemy's armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in ... It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pests to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America."

Incidentally, the racialist views of Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin fit the pattern of the time. Up until the mid-1960's, U.S. immigration was mostly restricted to whites. The Illinois Constitution approved in 1848 prohibited further immigration of people of color into what is now the self-styled "Land of Lincoln." The Oregon Constitution of 1857 contained language that prohibited free Negroes from living in the state.

Along with Great Britain, the Scandinavian countries were also hotbeds of classical liberal thought. They too had a certain racial consciousness. For example, the Norwegian Constitution of 1814 specifically prohibited Jews and Jesuits and members of monkish orders from entering the country.

William Gladstone, an example of a late 19th century British classical liberal, was also an unabashed pro-white racialist just like Thomas Jefferson and other American Founding Fathers. He was publicly outspoken in his criticism of alien groups such as Turks and Jews, and had little affection for his political arch-rival, the Jewish Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. One example is this extract from The Congress of Berlin, British Imperialism, and the Emergence of World War I by Carl K. Savich:

Following the April Uprising in 1876, 12,000-15,000 Bulgarian Orthodox Christians were massacred, men, women, and children, by Muslim irregulars in the Turkish forces, basi-bazouks who engaged in "an orgy of destruction, pillage, rape and enslavement." American journalist Januarius A. MacGahan and Eugene Schuyler, a member of the American legation in Istanbul, toured the region in Bulgaria and reported on the atrocities. MacGahan wrote eyewitness news reports for the Liberal newspaper Daily News which created strong anti-Turkish public sentiment in Britain. Gladstone attacked Benjamin Disraeli's pro-Ottoman Empire policy, "referring to Disraeli, he told a friend that the Jews had always been against Christians." The Ottoman Turks were referred to as the "great anti-human species of humanity" who had violated "the purity of matron, of maiden and of child." Gladstone stated: "There is not a criminal in a European gaol, there is not a cannibal in the South Sea islands whose indignation would not arise and overboil at that which had been done." Disraeli continued, however, to pursue a pro-Turkish, pro-Muslim foreign policy as a bulwark against Russian influence and expansion. Disraeli perceived the crisis in strictly imperialist terms. As Robert Blake noted, "Disraeli preferred the Turks to their Christian subjects."

Indeed, those were the days when classical liberal leaders of Western countries were reluctant to give away their countries for cheap or lay down naked before their racial enemies.

Classical liberals also believed in promoting "bottom up" grass roots sovereignty among white people. They felt that left unchecked government tends to become a "top down" tyranny.

One of the quickest paths to tyranny involves war. This gives the state many excuses to increase centralization and suppress civil liberties. James Madison explained:

Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.

War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honours and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.

The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manner and of morals, engendered in both.

No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

Classical liberals believed in meritocracy rather than special privilege, which they felt gave unfair advantages in the accumulation of wealth and power that could lead to tyranny.

Classical liberals also promoted an internal focus on science, manufacturing, and technology. This not only provided a pathway to prosperity, but also enabled the citizenry to create wealth through industry and trade as an alternative to trying to conquer wealth through war. Thomas Jefferson himself showed devotion to these values through his lifelong interest in scientific discovery and his efforts to found the University of Virginia.

Last, but not least, classical liberals favored free trade. However, they did not believe in sacrificing strategic industries or domestic industry in general. They took the attitude that economic progress could be mutual between nations, provided that they played by sportsmanlike, chivalrous rules. They were more interested in creating mutually beneficial trade relations to exchange industrial products than engaging in imperial maneuvering that could lead to disastrous conflict.

The paradox of "international nationalism"

The concept that charity must first begin at home does not imply complete selfishness, but rather it can simply be a prerequisite for healthy sharing once everyone has put their own house in order. Technological and industrial advancements developed by one white nation can be shared with other white nations, as well as the rest of the world, in a mutually beneficial way. If strong pro-white nationalism were to exist other countries such as Ireland, Norway, France, Germany, Poland, and Russia, this could ultimately be good for white Americans as a source of inspiration. These other countries could provide alternative areas of white stability and competing examples of white liberty and prosperity that might help deter the further advance towards tyranny here in America. So long as white nationalists around the world can maintain relatively decentralized and chivalrous institutions, they can help to prevent international stresses that might encourage forms of destructive imperialism that lead to disastrous wars.

Incidentally, the French National Front political party has produced an excellent 2 min 34 sec musical video (click here) that artistically communicates the concept that nationalist revival in France can be good for nationalism everywhere else.

"Natural" religion, law, and ethics

An important concept in right wing political theory is the idea that societies tend to function over the long haul within a certain band of innate temperamental traits. These traits form an anchor point regarding its customs and traditions, to include its "natural law," and its "natural religion." Obviously something as specific the names of particular deities or particular legal procedures are cultural artifacts and are not specifically encoded in ones genes. However, the general style or attitude of law, religion, and folklore may very definitely reflect a genetically-based cultural personality.

As one example, a legal system that consists of relatively simple and logically consistent principles that apply to people across all strata of society, and which is tries cases according to evidence, facts, and logic, reflects a very different cultural personality and innate mentality than, say, a Talmudic legal system that consists of endless piles of convoluted and arbitrary regulations that can be reinterpreted to ensnare virtually anyone displeasing to people in power.

We can see innate mentalities at play in the character of various world religions. As an example, in his classic work The Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans, Dr. Hans Gunther discussed how ancient Nordic/Germanic peoples found spirituality in an orderly Cosmos that one could approach through individual initiative in a calm and logical manner. He contrasted this with certain exotic Asian religions that emphasize finding spirituality before a disorderly cosmos by achieving states of altered consciousness and spirit possession induced by shamen.

In the first case, religious themes involving logical consistency, individual initiative, and mechanical understanding of the material world may reflect genetic sculpturing under dispersed conditions in a frost zone environment that put a premium upon innovation and technological adaptiveness for survival. They may reflect an intuitive, internally directed, independent, logic-driven personality.

In the second case, religious themes involving spirit possession, distrust of reason, and emphasizing supernatural intervention may reflect mentalities that have evolved from environments where genetic survival depended on the ability to simultaneously ingratiate, deceive, supplicate, and submit to human competitors within an authoritarian environment. Psychologists often classify personalities oriented towards immediate gratification and towards sensing how to administer the right social strokes at the right moment in social situations as "externally directed" and "reactive" personalities.

People who are at home with deception tend to have fractured personalities. They may be attracted to monotheism as a focal point to help hold together their fractured nature and keep their bad and often contradictory instincts under control, somewhat analogous to the way many criminals may require an authoritarian prison environment to avoid further mischief. They may revel in creating endless religious rules and regulations that give an appearance of authority and a sense of structure and security. Simultaneously, being innately crooked, they also revel in their ability to reinterpret and manipulate religious rules to suit their selfish interests at will, much like the Pharisees in the New Testament.

Genetic theory suggests that when a conqueror tries to impose an alien religion, culture, or form of government on a society, over time this society will tend to adapt these things to fit its indigenous personality. As one example, Christianity became highly decentralized both in terms of church government and by splintering into various denominations among Nordic peoples following the Protestant Reformation, whereas it remained relatively more authoritarian, centralized, and dogmatic among Alpine and Mediterranean peoples elsewhere in Europe.

Therefore, wise long term statesmanship tries to work within the context of a people's instinctive traits and cultural personality. If political leaders try to socially reengineer people into some one-size-fits-all creed, they risk creating major social stresses and dislocations. In other words, since different societies have unique innate traits, and different social and political institutions emanate from those traits, there is no "one size fits all" religious or political ideology that fits all societies.

It is fine for societies to borrow what they might admire from an alien culture and adapt it to their own frame work, but it is predatory for one group to impose its social and political institutions on another group by force. This is one reason why the current neo-con agenda to use the American military to impose "democracy" on Middle Eastern countries is so unwise and inconsistent with early American classical liberal principles.

Applying scientific principles to morality and religion

Two landmark works that attempt to relate genetic principles to morality and religion are A New Religion From Science: Beyondism (1972) and Beyondism, Religion From Science (1987) by Dr. Raymond Cattell. Basically these works take the viewpoint that genetics comprise an underlying "profit" and "loss" statement in human affairs. Just as a business must earn a profit to survive and grow, so too must a society engage in eugenic practices to remain strong and viable. Conversely, just as a business that runs red ink for too long will go out of business, societies that engage in net dysgenic practices for too long will inevitably fall by the wayside or be taken over by others that maintain eugenic policies. This is an iron law of nature, and nothing can change this.

Through Dr. Cattell's scientific lens we can look at various contemporary philosophies in a different light. Take, for example the Playboy Philosophy and radical feminism which devalue if not reject the role of creating a stable marriage and having children. Modern industrialized societies already suffer from a serious dysgenic problem where people of lower intelligence tend to have more children than people of higher intelligence. To the extent that these philosophies pour fuel on the fire of these problems, they are negative. Perhaps "trial before purchase" in dating can be a rational strategy if it does not consume to much of ones prime child-bearing years and helps one find a better long term mate, but permanent "trail before purchase" with no children is clearly a parasite philosophy from the genetic viewpoint, in which enjoyment of sexuality is completely stripped away from its reproductive purpose.

In many respects Dr. Cattell performed in the late 20th century what Friedrich Nietzsche tried to accomplish a century earlier. Nietzsche tried to reconcile Darwinian theory with contemporary moral and ethical systems and understand the differences. Dr. Cattell drew from more recent findings in the social and natural sciences in an effort to move at least a quantum step ahead of Nietzsche on a scientific level.

From a scientific viewpoint, "religion" is based upon subjective, genetically-based feelings much like the sex drive, except it motivates a somewhat different form of pro-social behavior. Whereas our genetically-based predisposition towards eroticism motivates reproductive behavior, our religious emotions motivate altruistic, mutually-supporting group behavior and the will to live. In other words, tribes whose members feel a strong genetically-based emotional predisposition toward religiosity will be more likely to have members who are willing to put up with the sacrifices involved in becoming good parents and making the self-sacrifices necessary to engage in teamwork in time of war.

It should be obvious that tribes capable of teamwork will tend to displace and spread their genes at the expense of other tribes who cannot unite and cooperate in the face of encroachments. It should also be obvious that since religiosity has a genetic basis, the character of religious feeling can be altered through mutation and race-mixing.

Not surprisingly, many people who take the genetic approach tend to gravitate towards tribal, indigenous ancestral religions that are based upon longstanding traditions or the ancient "religious common law" of their own people. Conversely, they tend to become quickly disenchanted with "revealed" universalistic religions that advocate a "one size fits all" plan for morality and personal salvation.

The "natural" religion concept compared to a "revealed" religion

The "natural religion" concept is fairly simple. Over time, a tribe will tend to accumulate folklore, to include heroic tales that acquire mythic meanings with retelling over generations. Part of their mythic meaning will interface with intuitive associations that involve natural phenomenon and ultimately address questions of ultimate meaning. For example it is a no-brainer in many cultures that "winter" intuitively signifies "death" and "spring" or the winter solstice signifies rebirth. Similarly, the "moon" tends to have a feminine association because lunar cycles resemble menstrual cycles, and the moon tends to be noticed at night and hence has a more "romantic" or "dreamy" association.

An example of an intuitive approach that explains many primeval associations in the Nordic tradition is Leaves of Yggdrasil by Freya Aswynn, a former Wiccan who became an Odinist. In contrast, Dr. Marvin Harris, an anthropologist at the University of Florida, has used a functionalist approach to try to explain the social logic behind the evolution of such religious practices as sacred cows and witchcraft in his books Cannibals and Kings and Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches.

Significantly, with a "natural religion" it is often easy to remain an agnostic, atheist, pragmatist, rationalist, or scientist. One does not need to take any of the folk mythology literally. One can think of ones natural religion as "truth in poetry" that helps to inform ones religious instincts. One might believe that maintaining an ancestral folk mythology is healthy to support a sense of group cohesion and continuity. It may be a least bad alternative compared to embracing a dogmatic, intolerant, alien, universalistic religion. For certain individuals who reject mainstream Christianity and become agnostics or atheists, it may also be a better alternative compared to embracing some form of social liberalism that betrays the genetic interests of ones own people.

Many ancient Greek and Roman writers fit this model. They scrupulously avoided any mention of supernatural intervention in their scientific, historical, and political writings, yet were respectful of their own people's religious mythologies. Many ancient Indo-European religionists were also played down the development of complex theologies, taking the attitude that there is enough natural joy and awe through living in harmony with nature that there was no need to try to explain the unexplainable.

Chinese Confucianism is also another example of a natural religion, because it evolved out of the ethos of a people. Interestingly enough, it does not demand a belief in supernatural intervention. In North America, we have also seen efforts by various tribes such as the Sioux (or Lakota) to revitalize the Sun Dance and other indigenous religious ceremonies in an effort to restore tribal cohesion and spirituality.

The Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans by Dr. Hans Gunther argues that many early Americans such as Thomas Jefferson embraced "natural religion" by becoming deists. They only accepted an approach to religion fully consistent with natural law. Dr. Gunther felt that Thomas Jefferson's religious views fit the general pattern that characterized Greeks of the heroic era and other ancient Indo-Europeans.

In contrast to a natural religion which emanates from the indigenous religious "common law" and folk traditions of ones own people, a "revealed" religion typically emanates from some guru or messianic figure. This new revelation is frequently universalistic in nature. Quite often it is attractive to people in multi-cultural or urbanized societies who have become alienated from their tribal and ancestral heritage and who need to frequently interact with alien peoples on an economic level. In addition, "revealed" religions often remove people from nature, much as they are removed in an urban environment.

We need to bear in mind that when "revealed" religions start adding intricate rituals, religious scriptures, a priest class, social programs, a church bureaucracy, mandatory tithing, and other props or practices that reinforce a sense of legitimacy, we begin to revisit many of the same issues I discussed in my "top down" vs. "bottom up" section. As church bureaucracies grow in size and become more centralized, they begin to parallel the arrogance and dysfunctionality of government bureaucracies.

"Revealed" religionists often feel that if only they can just keep piling coercion, self-deception, and "appearances" high enough, they may eventually create a self-reinforcing and self-sustaining system of illusion, much like the way the pork politicians can ultimately create a politically dominant position for themselves by continually growing the props of government.

Religion as an important component of the genetic viewpoint

Religion and kinship ties can comprise vital factors in the cause of preserving liberty. For example, Kevin Phillips makes the case in The Cousins' Wars that strongly held religious values played a key role in defining sides in the English Civil War, American War of Independence, and even the War Between the States. In a very serious political contest, religion helps answer the question about who is willing to risk their lives to prevail. All other things being equal, this is often the deciding factor.

During the English Civil War, the side of Oliver Cromwell and the Parliamentary forces was principally led and manned by Puritans from eastern England. These people were heavily middle class in their values and sensibilities. They came from a part of England that had seen the initial Anglo-Saxon invasion and later saw the heaviest Norwegian and Danish incursions during the Viking era. Hence, they were considered the most Nordic/blond part of England. They comprised the ancestors of most of the colonists who settled New England and later formed the Minutemen who drove British Regulars off North Bridge at Concord in 1775. One might say that at the inception of the American Revolution, New England was a homogeneous de facto Nordic-Protestant ethnostate.

Today religion for white Americans is often more a source of confusion than coherence. Most Americans today are influenced by extremely liberal forms of Christianity that preach multi-racialism and multiculturalism. Christian Zionists even preach showing that one should show greater loyalty to Jews in Israel than fellow Americans.

Many liberal Christian churches have also covered up pedophilia, which hardly encourages white boys to grow up into responsible family men. (Please note article "Cost of Clergy Sex Abuse Now Exceeds $1.5 billion).

Many Christian churches have also espoused the "theology of liberation" in support of Marxist guerillas in places like Latin America and Africa. Many liberal Christian Churches supported the takeover by black Marxists of South Africa and Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia). As a consequence, in the former Rhodesia a black dictatorship has expropriated white farmlands and has driven most whites out of the country. In South Africa, white farmers are getting killed off as the black Marxist government looks the other way. The South African economy is now experiencing the same disintegration into a basket case that the former Rhodesia has experienced ahead of it.

The demise of South Africa and the former Rhodesia under black rule is part of a very long historical pattern, going back to the black takeover of Haiti, and even earlier. This is documented in books such as The French Revolution in Santo Domingo by Dr. Lothrop Stoddard and Black Rules White: A Journey Across and About Hayti by Hesketh Prichard. In all cases, the governments and economies involved have all deteriorated into a much more primitive and savage state. We have also seen this here in America in black-run cities such as Detroit and Washington, D.C.

Despite all of this, many liberal Christian Churches continue to support illegal alien immigrants against white Americans within America's borders. These Third World immigrants have physically replaced over thirty million Americans in the last few decades and are sending welfare costs through the roof. White Americans are already losing over 20% of their population each generation with their below ZPG birth rate. Massive Third World immigration only adds to this anti-white genocide. Liberal Christian Churches add insult to this injury by encouraging whites to yield to nonwhites everywhere and even support the invaders with their tax dollars. By working against the genetic interests of white Americans, many liberal Christian Churches for all intents and purposes serve as enemy alien propagandists.

Admittedly there are some important complexities behind the scenes involved in liberal Christian white racial treason. For example, an article in the former Spotlight (now reincarnated as The American Free Press) discussed how the CIA and Mossad worked behind the scenes within the U.S. embassy in South Africa to support the South African Communist Party and other black entities hostile towards white rule, while sabotaging white patriotic South Africans behind the scenes. There is even circumstantial evidence that Zionist agents murdered Dr. H. F.Verwoerd who preached an effective form of self-sufficient white nationalism, whereby whites would create homogeneous white enclaves where white farmers and other business owners would kick the bad habit of surrounding themselves with nonwhite employees. We also know that America's Zionist-dominated media and Jewish pressure groups worked hard to demonize white South Africans and overturn white rule in both Rhodesia and South Africa. They also got legislation through Congress to boycott South Africa.

This is part of a longstanding pattern where Jewish-controlled media in both America and Europe have pushed hard ever since World War II to promote open borders for white countries. They have also pushed hard for white de-colonization and retreat from empire for European powers everywhere in the Third World. We also know that at various points in history, Zionists have both infiltrated and bought off parts of both the Catholic Church and Protestant Churches. There is evidence that they have even perverted translations of the Bible to foster a pro-Zionist sentiment. As an example, please see Reverend Ted Pike's Feb 28, 2006 interview with Daryl Bradford Smith about how Zionists perverted the Scofield Bible, first published in 1909.

Because Christianity has a leftist, universalistic philosophical structure, it is hard for many Christian leaders to take a stand against sophisticated pressure groups trying to push them further to the left into multi-racialism and multi-culturalism.

How Americans confuse the "right wing" with fundamentalist Christianity and "leftism" with agnosticism

Just as most Americans seem to have serious problems distinguishing between corrupt and traditional forms of Christianity, they have even more problems distinguishing between traditional and highly corrupted forms of paganism or natural religion. Most Americans are incapable of distinguishing between an authentic ancestral folk religion that preserves ethnic homogeneity and continuity on the one hand, and various forms of selfish and permissive libertinism, leftist secular humanism, or superstition on the other hand.

In fact, there once was an indigenous Indo-European religion held by the ancestors of most whites, much like there was once a proto-Indo European language that later branched out into Sanskrit, the Romance Languages, the Slavic Languages, and the Germanic languages. Similarly, the proto-Indo European religion branched out into Asatru in the north, Druidism in the west, the early Greco-Roman religion in the south, and early Hinduism in the south.

The Religious Attitudes of the Indo Europeans by Dr. Hans F. K. Gunther is an important work that examines the philosophical structure of these early religions. Dr. Gunther argued that the tendency of Indo-Europeans to understand the world in a relatively rationalistic manner, that is, to attune to "the [mathematical and orderly] music of the spheres" does in itself constitute a religious impulse. Hence, we should not confuse the philosophical structure of early Indo-European religion with various New Age cults that might try to make superstitious use of some of its symbols, to include runic lore.

Adding to religious confusion in America today, many Americans equate the "right wing" in America with Christian fundamentalism, and atheism with the radical left. This is very simplistic and misleading. A substantial portion of America's intelligentsia, both on the left and right, has found the Christian religion to be unbelievable ever since the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment. This transformation took place sometime between the arrival of Cromwellian Puritans in New England to the formation of groups of Enlightenment Deists prior to the American Revolution. This latter group placed the scientific method, free inquiry, academic freedom, and separation between church and state first before any fundamentalist Christian doctrines.

Of course Puritanism has not gone away either. It has simply been born again in new Christian fundamentalist denominations, to include virulent new Christian Zionist strains. In his March 21, 2006 Democracy Now! interview, Kevin Phillips, author of American Theocracy claims that 45% of American Christians believe in Armageddon.

Some other works that highlight the grip that Christian Zionists have on Americans include Sydney Schanberg's Village Voice articles "The Widening Crusade" and "Turning Point: George Bush's Holy War Threatens Our Presidency -and Perhaps the Future of Our Nation," Sydney Blumenthal's Guardian article "The Religious Warrior of Abu Ghraib" about General Boykin, and Dr. David Duke's article "Woman Evangelist Says She is More Loyal to the Israeli State than to America."

These kinds of groups can become so overshadowing in national media that I think it is important to spend some time explaining how there exist substantial numbers of hard core American nationalists who have a totally different religious world view. This world view is more in line with the natural religion concept and the genetic world view. Any Christians out to "save America" today through evangelistic strong arm methods are more likely to antagonize and create resentment among these kinds of thinking individuals than accomplish any real public good. It behooves any Christians interested in creating a common patriotic front to understand how these fellow nationalists think.

A good starting point is America's own Tom Paine, author of Common Sense that helped ignite the American Revolution. He explained his reasons for disenchantment with Christianity in The Age of Reason. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were two other well known nationalists of this era who were also agnostics/deists. They were familiar with the works of Voltaire and other European Enlightenment free thinkers. They also had some of their own heretical ideas. As one prime example, Thomas Jefferson went through the four gospels, stripped out all the supernatural events, and then consolidated the stories into The Jefferson Bible. A thorough rationalist and deist, Jefferson felt that the supernatural tales obfuscated the true teachings of Christ. After clearing away this obfuscation, he was able to find some ethical teachings that he could agree with.

Criticism of Christianity by nationalist thinkers moved forward a quantum leap with the advent of Darwinism in the mid-1800's and the Scopes Monkey Trial in Dayton, Tennessee in the 1920's. Higher Criticism theology, combined with research into antiquities and archeology, picked the Bible apart further. Two good examples from this era are The Bible Handbook: For Freethinkers and Inquiring Christians by G.W. Foote and W.P. Ball published in 1900, which lists contradictions and absurdities in the Bible, and Ingersollia: Gems of Thought from the Lecture, Speeches, and Conversations of Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, published in 1882. A preface to a compilation of Col Ingersoll's lectures describes his views and values as "those of the Agnostic school of thought as exemplified by Hume and Kent with a mingling of the philosophy Berkley...Col. Ingersoll departed this life with the same convictions that he held all through his career, both as soldier and citizen, a true patriot, a lover of home, mourned by all who knew him..."

Speaking of the late 1800's, we cannot overlook the publication of Friedrich Nietzsche's The Anti-Christ in 1892. This helped to advance a philosophically anti-Christian strain of nationalism. When Nietzsche compared Darwinism with Christianity, he concluded that Christian philosophy is so leftist and universalistic that it does more harm than good to society by inverting or transvaluating healthy instinctive values. He believed that the ancient pagan Greek religion comprised a much more natural and healthy religion for society. He charged that Saul of Tarsus (the Apostle Paul) deliberately spread Christianity throughout the Roman Empire in order to turn it on its head. Nietzsche believed that Saul may have sought revenge for the Roman destruction of Jerusalem during the Jewish War. Later a Jewish writer, Eli Ravage, embellished Nietzsche's theory with his articles "A Real Case Against the Jews" and "Commissary to the Gentiles" published in the January and February 1928 issues of The Century Magazine respectively.

Nietzsche was certainly not unknown among American nationalists. H.L. Mencken, a guiding light of the American Old Right in the early 20th century, translated Nietzsche and published The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche in 1908. Simmering in the background, we also see works such as Which Way Western Man? by the former American Christian minister William Gayley Simpson who continued Nietzsche's frontal assault on Christianity. Equally scathing works were produced by the late Dr. Revilo P. Oliver, a professor of classics and former co-founder of the John Birch Society. Last, but not least, one must also mention the brilliant works of the late Dr. William Pierce, a former physicist, who founded the Cosmotheist Church.

A number of writers and historians have claimed that the leftist, mystical aspects of Christianity has gone so far as to weaken converted populations. They challenge the assertion made by many Christian conservatives in America today that American institutions and morality are ultimately based on "Judeo-Christianity." They believe that the reality has actually been more of the reverse.

This is especially true given that the term "Judeo-Christianity" is itself a highly suspect intellectual construct. The "Judeo" part of this phrase gives Zionists a psychological leverage point in their efforts to high-jack Christian Americans to blindly support their schemes.

Let us start with some famous writers who have made cultural arguments without necessarily implying a genetic change. Nicolo Machiavelli wrote that pagan Romans of the early Roman Republican period were more hardy and virtuous than the Christian version that came later. Salvian the Priest saw more virtue among pagan northern European barbarians than among his fellow Christianized Romans. Edward Gibbon stated in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire that Christianity weakened Rome before outside invaders. James Michener observed in Rascals in Paradise that blackbirders (slavers) of the Pacific in the 19th century usually picked on Christianized native populations first, because they tended to put up less resistance and became more docile slaves than pagans. According to a number of writers, Christianity had to transition from being a mystical, universalistic religion into a militant, nationalist ideology before Spanish Christians could stand up to Moorish invaders, Russian Christians could withstand the Mongols, and Balkan Christians would successfully resist the Turks.

One example of an American right winger who has openly charged Christianity with causing genetic damage is the aforementioned late Dr. Revilo Oliver, who discussed Christian homosexuality, the dysgenic effects of the Crusades, and the negative effects of Christian celibacy among priests.

Today one can find even more intellectual body blows to Christian dogma, if only one knows where to look. For example, a number of major Christian churches sponsored a "Jesus seminar" of leading scholars in the early 1990's who concluded that at least 80% of the Gospels is fiction. In addition, American free thinkers have become even more aggressive, such as American Atheist leader Madelyn Murray O'Hair who planned to write a book before her untimely death demonstrating that the story of Christ is total fiction. Last, but not least, additional archeological evidence and scholarship now challenge the historicity of major segments of the Old Testament, to include the stay of Israelites in Egypt, the Kingdom of David, and the Book of Esther.

In fact, one begins to wonder after reading Asimov's Guide to the Bible and Philip R. Davies' In Search of Ancient Israel whether ancient Jews were ever anything other than a highly organized, urbanized, quasi-underworld, and professional minority whose real center of gravity lay in Babylonia, not Palestine. One might also wonder if they ever departed from a pattern of creating satellite syndicate operations to dominate Middle Eastern water holes and various urbanized areas of the ancient world.

The Biblical stories suggesting glorious and self-sufficient kingdoms in Palestine, a servile tenure in Egypt, and various bucolic and pastoral settings are so contrary to this other pattern, to include even the psychological pattern of the Babylonian Talmud, that one might wonder if much of the Old Testament was deliberately created as disinformation. The Israeli dissident writer Uri Avnery wrote in "Israel's Provocations: The Method in the Madness" that:

. . .most Israeli archaeologists have always been the loyal foot-soldiers of the official propaganda. Since the emergence of modern Zionism, they have been engaged in a desperate endeavor to "find" archaeological evidence for the historical truth of the stories of the Old Testament. Until now, they have gone empty-handed: there exists no archaeological proof for the exodus from Egypt, the conquest of Canaan, and the kingdoms of Saul, David, and Solomon. But in their eagerness to prove the unprovable (because in the opinion of the vast majority of archaeologists and historians outside Israel – and also some in Israel – the Old Testament stories are but sacred myths), the archaeologists have destroyed many strata of other periods.

Even the site of the Dome of the Rock Mosque that many Zionists would like to level in order to make way for the Third Temple is subject to doubt. Unfortunately the Dome of Rock happens to be the third holiest shrine in Islam, and destroying it to make way for more Zionist real estate development is likely to spill even more rivers of blood in the Middle East — and cost ever more American treasure to support their schemes.

John Tiffany wrote The Myth of the Wailing Wall for the March/April 2006 issue of the Barnes Review:

Neither the Dome of the Rock near the center of the Haram esh-Sharif in Jerusalem, nor the Al Aqsa Mosque occupying the southern side of the Haram (nor any area within the four walls of that haram, or sanctuary) was, in reality, the true spot in Jerusalem where the historic temples of ancient Israel were located. Biblical and literary accounts dogmatically place the site of tall the temples over the Gihon Spring just north of the ancient City of David (Zion) and on the southeastern ridge of Jerusalem. All the present antagonists fighting in Jerusalem over the "temple site" (who are out to turn their bombs and guns into plowshares) are warring over (and for) the wrong place.

Some Christian reactions

I must point out that not all American Christians support Zionist schemes to destroy Muslim holy sites. Nor do they necessarily support Jewish media propaganda in favor of nonwhite Marxist guerillas, open borders, pedophiles, or Zionist Christians.

One good example is Dr. David Duke, who offers some Christian common sense to offset Zionist madness. In his landmark work My Awakening, Dr. Duke explains why his Christian beliefs are completely compatible with white racial nationalism. He feels that the Bible has been misinterpreted and perverted to suit an alien, anti-American, Jewish supremacist agenda. He also explains why he does not view himself as white supremacist, but rather as someone who supports self-determination for all peoples around the world. He also explains why he respects the indigenous Indo-European religions of Europeans as well as the indigenous religions of other peoples. A chapter in his book even covers the vital contribution to science, culture, ethics, and religious philosophy made by pagan Greeks of the pre-Christian heroic and classical eras.

Another good example of a real American and a genuinely patriotic Christian nationalist is the Reverend Ted Pike at truthtellers.org. At his web site he identifies Zionist neo-con warmongers and war criminals who are waging a determined domestic campaign to strip Americans of their civil liberties.

Last, but not least, Col Donn de Grand Pre is a Christian who has written an excellent series consisting of The Vipers Venom and The Rattler's Revenge (incorporating an earlier work Barbarians Inside the Gates). These books expose international Zionism and provide a hard-headed assessment of America's real enemies as well as a good overview regarding how we got into the mess we face today. In fact, this series received praise from Michael Collins Piper in a book review he wrote for the American Free Press.

Reconciling Christianity and the Natural Religion Approach

I personally hold to the view that "the more things change, the more they stay the same," consistent with a conservative, genetically-oriented viewpoint. Furthermore, all religious and political ideologies can be perverted and corrupted. Indeed, there exist perverted and corrupt forms of paganism just like there exist perverted and corrupted forms of Christianity. I believe strongly that Christians and natural religion adherents should keep open minds and learn from the best that each side has to offer rather than scream and throw knives at each other. This is particularly important as we try to find a spiritual path that aids the survival of America's declining white population rather than one that remains the dupe of international Zionism.

I believe strongly that the very sublime and dignified services held in many Protestant and Catholic Churches are time-tested role models worthy of emulation. If I were to try to revitalize a natural religious approach, I would try to keep everything just about the same in terms of the general style and structure of the religious services currently used by Christians, and merely make some changes in the symbols.

We would, however, definitely change the content of the sermons. For starters, no more of this hand-wringing white guilt, white self-hatred, Zionist bootlick stuff going on in my natural religion church!

Incidentally, such an approach just might serve some liberal Christian churches just right. There is considerable evidence that the early Christian churches in Europe played the same game in reverse in terms the clever way they co-opted prevailing pagan customs and services. Many of our current traditions such as All Saints Day (Halloween), Christmas, and Easter have some strong pagan roots.

What I would definitely discourage are "Hollywood pagan" approaches that are deliberately intended to be "far out," "shocking," or a license to be outrageous. There are certain self-styled, so-called pagan groups that use "religious services" as an excuse to throw hippie costume or toga parties, revitalize superstitious spell-casting or fortune-telling activities, engage in promiscuous orgies, drunkenness, and public nudity, or indulge in other practices which leave most conservative American family people stone cold. Like I said, paganism can be perverted by selfish, immature, exhibitionist, or criminal people to have some very degenerate, if not evil forms just like Christianity. However, just because some folks abuse paganism does not mean that all pagans are part of some kind of global Satanic conspiracy in service of a Luciferian Anti-Christ.

To put things in better perspective, I believe that the every day behavior of many ancient pagan Greeks of the heroic era and pagan Norseman up through the Viking era was really not very much different than the Puritans, Calvinists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, or other American Christians on the frontier who came later. In fact, in terms of their basic values and philosophical structure, to include the emphasis on valor, exploration, self-improvement, self-restraint, and individual responsibility, the ancient Greek epics and old Norse sagas are very similar to American pioneer and cowboy stories. This should not be a big surprise, since racially they were essentially the same people.

I would also like to observe that white Americans can find more than enough spiritual causes on American soil worthy of their energies without having to go overseas to destroy mosques and genocide Arabs and do other nasty things for Israel and Big Oil. Let me provide a good example.

In 1997 Stephen McNallen, head of the Asatru Folk Assembly based in Nevada City, CA, sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (Incidentally, I signed the paperwork for his group at Federal Court in Portland, Oregon). He claimed that there was strong evidence that 9,000 year old bones found along the banks of the Columbia River near Kennewick, Washington were of European origin. Hence, indigenous Indo-European religious rites would be more appropriate to perform over the remains than, say, native American religious rites.

The American Asatruar were concerned that certain Native Americans were trying to misuse the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act to take exclusive custody of the bones, bury them, and thereby prevent scientists from studying them. These Indians may have been concerned that the existence of whites in North American 9,000 years ago might upset political correctness interpretations of their special victimhood status. In fact, Paiute Indian legends tell about tall, reddish-haired, white skinned people who their ancestors wiped out long ago. Among other things, physical evidence of ancient anti-white genocide might undermine the white guilt that entitles Indian tribes to continue benefiting from lucrative gambling franchise privileges which in turn enables them to make cash contributions to whatever political party is in power that controls the Army Corps of Engineers.

The Army Corps of Engineers went to outrageous lengths to pander to the Indians by bulldozing over the Kennewick Man site along the Columbia River. It also looked the other way when visiting Indian groups pilfered portions of the Kennewick Man skeleton. In contrast to these twisted politics, American Asatruar simply wanted to allow scientists full access to study the bones. They also demanded that Army Corps of Engineers show some basic consideration for their indigenous Indo-European religious and cultural concerns.

The natural dishonesty of "other kind first" political, moral, and religious ideologies

In his classic work The Dispossessed Majority, Wilmot Robertson talked about the important concept of "liberal minority coalition politics." From my own experience this is a game that everyone tends to play, even if only on a subconscious level. However, it can become dangerous if very powerful and well funded groups play it in a very aggressive and systematic way. This has been in fact the case for over the last one hundred years in America. Liberal minority coalition politics have succeeded in turning traditional American values on their head.

Earlier I discussed evidence for instinctive tribalism and racism. I discussed Thomas Chittum's analysis in Civil War II about how countries tend to become unstable, even to the point of fissioning apart, once a majority starts to decline to less than around 75% of the population. The implications should be clear. Generally speaking, it is never a lot of fun under any circumstances to be a member of a minority. A minority always implies a threat, no matter how subtle or benign, to the genetic interests of the majority. Minorities always live under a shadow of suspicion and condescension. They are always most likely to be "last hired, first fired."

The article "Why Nations Fight" from the January 1991 issue of American Renaissance summed it up well: "Men fight [wars] because there is nothing more horrible than cultural and national obliteration." Obliterated peoples and cultures by definition are forced to live as minorities.

The natural response of most people when they find themselves in the role of a minority is to play by the ancient formula: "Be publicly left wing towards people outside your tribal group to put them at ease and keep them off guard, and be privately right wing among people within your own group to maintain your strength and cohesion."

Most of the time this game is played on an individualized and fairly benign and subconscious level. It usually does not rise above the polite "white lies" level that most people normally tell to smooth social relations.

Sir Winston Churchill once burlesqued the consequences of not telling white lies when he responded to a lady who criticized him for becoming drunk at a party by saying, "Yes, but by tomorrow morning I will become very sober, whereas you Madam, will remain very ugly."

However, when well funded, highly organized, and cleverly crafted into aggressive disinformational propaganda, this natural two-faced approach can become about as benign as a coiled cobra in the grass. Winston Churchill once explained a particularly virulent version of this game in his famous article: "Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People" for the Illustrated Sunday Herald in 1920.

One might interpret the title of Churchill's article as follows: "Bolshevism for the gentiles, Zionism for the Jews."

Let me highlight what this really means: "Bolshevism — ie. extremely vicious authoritarian leftism — for the gentiles, and Zionism — ie. extremely aggressive authoritarian right wing tribalism — for the Jews.

There are no spontaneous white lies involved here. Absolutely nothing innocent at all. This is pure hard ball to the point of pure criminal subversion and all-out open warfare.

Leftist politics cannot only help minorities anaesthetize a potentially hostile majority, but they also enable them to combine with other minorities to increase the size and effectiveness of their leftist coalition. When played aggressively, minorities may even try to flood a country with other minorities, on the theory that once everyone in the country becomes a minority, their own relative position will improve.

Aggressively playing the liberal-minority coalition game can be very dangerous. Once everyone becomes a minority, it is possible that a country will break apart into civil war, as prophesied in Thomas Chittum's Civil War II: The Coming Break-up of America. Also, if a majority wakes up and starts to militantly defend its vital genetic interests, there is no telling what retaliatory measures it might take.

Because of these risks, most minorities around the world tend to cool it. They intermarry among their own kind rather than threaten males of the majority by wooing their women. They try to make themselves useful to the majority by serving in its military and providing a willing part of its labor force. They also try to keep their business and social dealings ethical. Otherwise, they tend to keep to themselves and in no way try to disturb the culture of the dominant majority or change the host country's demographics or institutions.

There are minorities in countries ranging from Syria to Switzerland who have played by these kinds of rules who have been able to coexist for over a thousand years. It is not always a lot of fun. Most of the time it involves a lot of extra work and forbearance compared to belonging to a majority. However, long term peaceful coexistence is possible under certain circumstances if both the majority and minority are genuinely mutually respectful and are willing to work at maintaining harmonious relationships.

America as a tragic victim of aggressive liberal minority coalition politics

America is unique. With the exception of Bolshevik Russia, I do not know of any country in history where the liberal minority coalition game has been played with such virulence, deception, and aggressiveness. There are a number of important historical reasons behind this anomaly.

First, the original meaning of the "melting pot" concept has been perverted into meaning a multi-racial free-for-all. Although "melting pot" sounds left wing on the surface, the original concept actually had a right wing interpretation.

Most of the original white immigrants in America up until the 1840's were Protestants. This was in an era in which Protestant usually meant "Nordic."

According to The Dispossessed Majority (p. 42), "In 1790, the year of the first Federal Census, the national origins of American whites and their percentage of the total white population were estimated as follows: British (77), German (7.4), Irish (4.4), Dutch (3.3), French (1.9), Canadian (1.6), Belgian (1.5), Swiss (0.9), Scandinavian (0.9), other (1.1)."

Over the prior two thousand years, Nordics had formed majority populations in most northern European countries. This included the Netherlands, northern France, northern Germany, England, much of Scotland, parts of Ireland, and all of Scandinavia. Fifteen hundred years earlier, most of their ancestors spoke the same language and had a very similar culture.

Throughout the Middle Ages national boundaries, class structures, and dialects started to arise which artificially divided the old Nordic and Celtic tribes that once spread across northern and central Europe. Those distinctions remained very much in force back in the Old Country, but once immigrants arrived in America, most of them evaporated. The average immigrant male in the early 19th century did not care very much if a pretty ash-blond girl who caught his eye happened to trace her ancestry to Scotland as opposed to England, the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, or France.

Americans started resolving in their bedrooms what the old countries were still fighting out on their borders. The old melting pot of the early 1800's in America was basically a de facto Nordic and Celtic folk gathering.

This had both its good and bad points. The good side is that they overcame a lot of highly artificial Old World class and territorial boundaries. The bad side is that they began to slip in their ability to draw the line to defend their genetic interests against the encroachments of aliens. They also slipped in their ability to focus upon a specific ethnic heritage that could become a rallying point for effective grass roots racial defensive action.

Sad to say, but the so-called "right wing" in America has basically been a slipping, rear guard, delaying action for over one hundred and fifty years. Today's "conservatism" is usually nothing more than the liberalism of one or two generations ago. As America slips ever further to the left on racial, genetic, and ethnic issues, and no one really knows where or how to apply the brakes.

The Nordic percentage of the U.S. population has been in steady decline ever since the War Between the States, so from the standpoint of preserving their own genetic interests, Nordics in America have paid dearly for their inability to explicitly nail down, institutionalize, and defend a racial nationalist identity. If Thomas Chittum is correct in Civil War II, their final reward for failing to draw firm limits or raise their voices to effectively protest their diminishing status will be to participate in hyperinflationary ruin and racial chaos along with everyone else.

Today, America's controlled media interprets "melting pot" in an opposite manner compared to the early 19th century concept of a Nordic and Celtic folk ingathering. Now "melting pot" implies keeping our borders open to almost all Third World peoples from around the world. It means maximizing the genetic distances within the U.S. population. It means pushing the limits the ability of our institutions to hold everything together with leftist ideology and government payola.

"Melting Pot" also means some kind of ideological license for greedy business operators in America to take in Third World immigrants or employ whatever cheap alien labor they can find anywhere in the world regardless of the long term economic damage they do to American.

The White Anglo-Saxon Protestant "anchor" of the early 1800's has also completely changed its meaning. The term "Protestant" used to have an anti-authoritarian and pro-Nordic racial meaning. However, since the 19th century, Protestant churches have heavily proselytized all over the world. They have also moved far to the left of their 19th century racial views.

Today "Protestant" might mean black Marxists in South Africa. It can mean Christian Zionists here in America who would prefer to die for Jewish-Israeli interests rather than risk anything for American interests first. It definitely does not mean what it originally meant on a racial level. Most Protestant churches today would probably denounce the old Nordic association as "racist."

A second important factor behind the vicious character of America's liberal-minority coalition politics involves the fact that ever since the War Between the States, the U.S. Government has immersed itself in neo-Jacobin ideology. This ideology puts expansion of liberal empire before any need to maintain a limited republic or its founding race. Neo-Jacobinism also puts the ability of government to force social change ahead of individual rights and white genetic interests.

A perfect example of anti-white, neo-Jacobin U.S. Government behavior took place during the so-called Reconstruction era in the South lasting from 1865 to 1876.

For many years Radical Republicans prevented Southern whites from voting. Enfranchised former black slaves ran the legislatures. According to "The Shame of Reconstruction" (p. 170) of The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard Tabloid, Northern abolitionist James S. Pike once called South Carolina's Reconstruction legislature "The most ignorant democracy that mankind ever saw," and "a wonder and shame to modern civilization." Only 22 of 94 Black members could read.

In many places, Southern whites were terrorized by all-Negro Union occupation troops. This resulted in pitched battles, such as the Battle of Liberty Place in September 1874 when an insurgent White League routed a mostly black police force in New Orleans. President Grant intervened against the whites by sending in Federal troops. (Ibid, p. 173, "Reconstruction II: The Whites Fight Back").

Michael Collins Piper's article "Franklin J. Moses: Reconstruction's Most Infamous Scalawag" that appeared in the September/October 2003 of The Barnes Review provides another good illustration regarding how utterly depraved and oppressive the neo-Jacobin Reconstruction leadership became.

One might call this liberal-minority coalition politics at the end of a bayonet. It was not enough that the South had lost half its wealth during the War Between the States, or that one out of four Southern white males had become a casualty, a higher per capita casualty rate than France suffered during World War I.

A third major factor in America's vicious liberal-minority coalition politics started with the Jewish takeover of many strategic bases of American society early in the 20th century. This has been well documented in Wilmot Robertson's The Dispossessed Majority and Michael Collins Piper's The New Jerusalem. This trend gained major traction with the influx of millions of Jews into America in the late 1800's. This was followed by their takeover of major media and their key role in setting up and running its America's central bank in 1913. The International Jew by Henry Ford documents the Jewish takeover of Hollywood and major U.S. newspapers in the early 20th century. Ford also covers how the Balfour Declaration reflects the way America got dragged into World War I. The High Priests of War by Michael Collins Piper shows how the pattern of Jewish control repeated itself with America's invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin is one of the best books I have ever read about the origins of the largely Jewish-owned Federal Reserve Banking System.

Jewish organizations have provided most of the leadership and funding behind major pro-liberal minority coalition organizations such as the NAACP, ACLU, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Communist party in the 20th century. With only about 3% of the U.S. population, Jews control over one third of America's wealth and provide over 50% of the funding behind the Democratic Party, which has evolved into America's premiere liberal-minority coalition party. The Jewish ADL was a key sponsor behind the 1965 immigration reform bill that opened America up to massive Third World immigration, and has been a key agent to harass any pro-white movements.

Last, but not least, Jews have been a key factor in the expansion of the U.S. Government as a neo-Jacobin welfare-warfare global super state. Neo-Jacobinism provides the perfect ideological formula, and the Federal Reserve Banking System fiat money creation capabilities provide the perfect indirect taxation method, to support America's seemingly unlimited military and economic support for Israel without any strings attached.

It would be impossible for the U.S. government to provide even a small fraction of its current support for Israel if it adhered to 19th century classical liberal principles. Pro-white nationalism tends to resent Zionist domination of American power centers. It also avoids foreign entanglements, preaches limited government, favors a gold and silver standard in the place of a central bank, and focuses upon the development of internal industry rather than upon imperialism as a path to wealth.

While it is true that all of these things would be really great for America, as was proven by the historical track record of the 19th century, none of these things would be good for Israel. Therefore, America is forbidden from recapturing the classical liberal agenda. Judging from the behavior of the Bush Administration, one might conclude that in the final analysis Israel's needs must always come first, and Americans must always serve Jews.

Last, but not least, a fourth major factor behind America's vicious liberal-minority coalition politics has involved the rise of progressivism. This turned the concept of universal suffrage into a political religion and directly supported the rise of the "Neo-Jacobin Welfare-Warfare Global Super State" that libertarians are always complaining about. One of its net results has been a massive redistribution of political and economic resources from whites to nonwhites and aliens. This contrasts with the original U.S. Constitution, which restricted the right to vote to white male citizens with property.

Leftism, Jews, women, and minorities

Earlier in this article I mentioned a study that appeared in the early 1990's in the American Enterprise magazine which found that women, homosexuals, Jews, hispanics, blacks, and other so-called "minorities" to white males tend on average to vote about one standard deviation to the ideological left of straight white males. One standard deviation is a huge statistical difference, equivalent to a 15 point difference on an IQ test.

Also quite interesting was an article that appeared in Forbes a few years ago, which reported the impact of the enfranchisement of women voters in various states at different times in the late 1800's. It showed graphs that depicted the cost of state government. During the time period leading up to the enfranchisement of women where only men could vote, the cost lines ran sideways. Beginning around the time that women got the vote in each state, the cost lines started moving upwards. Presumably "government" was beginning to spend more on social services and became more of a "nanny state" after women started casting ballots.

I am reminded of one of the basic principles of Right Wing 101, namely that as a group grows in power, it tends to reshape the world around it to share its fundamental characteristics. As women gain power in government, "government" tends to get "wetter" and grow "boobs." Devvy Kidd's scathing article "Nancy Pelosi and Her Brassiere Brigade" provides some concrete examples of the feminization of government. And speaking of brassieres, according to interpretor Clay Jenkinson of the Thomas Jefferson Hour, the sage of Monticello once remarked that what women have that fills their brassieres is a pretty good clue as to their primary function in life.

Of course there can be offsetting factors that favor enfranchising women even though they may tend to be more instinctively altruistic and empathetic as a group. There is also strong evidence that women vary from men in fundamental neural structure and cognitive processing as a consequence of different hormal influences on fetal brain development. Despite these significant biological differences, Nordic women tended to be more empowered in old Norse society than in most other societies of that era. Then again, everyone, both male and female, tended to be fairly individualistic relative to most other societies of that era. Hence, enfranchising women can imply respect for individualistic traits held by both men and women rather than Marxism.

No doubt there have been exceptional women in a wide variety of cultures throughout history. After all, who can forget the quip by Israel's David Ben Gurion that Golda Meir was "the only man in the Cabinet?"

That having been said, there could be an interesting cyclical irony to all of this. In Civil War II, Thomas Chittum talks about how today we see armed gangs of nonwhites springing up like mushrooms everywhere in our multi-racial, multi-cultural society. Most of these gangs consist of recent Third World immigrant males, and many derive their income from the drug trade and other forms of organized crime. Many of them are now better armed than local police.

If the U.S. Government ultimately implodes like the old Soviet government into a spiral of corruption and an hyperinflationary blowout, and furthermore if the U.S. economy tanks into depression, we may see white males form their own version of armed gangs and militias everywhere. History might then rhyme with early pioneer days. Political power among whites may quickly decentralize away from our neo-Jacobin central government and back firmly into the hands of local organizations of males with guns. Most of the liberal multi-racial, multi-cultural indoctrination of the 20th century may start to evaporate as quickly as communism disappeared in the former Yugoslavia.

Even "successful" interracial relations have hidden costs and distort normal social relations

Nonwhite vs. white violence is routinely covered among rightist sources. Idaho attorney Edgar Steele claims in his article "Do the Math" that blacks commit about fifty times more violent crimes per capita in America compared to whites. According to Dept of Justice statistics, in the "murder by strangers" category, blacks murder three to five times as many people as whites. When you peruse news listings at rightist sites such as national vanguard or national alliance news, one not only learns about horrendous anti-white violence that goes both unreported and under-reported by national media, but also about how the rapidly increasing nonwhite presence is escalating welfare and other social costs. All of this is in turn accelerating America's trajectory into total bankruptcy.

America's controlled national media also routinely covers racial violence, but from a totally different perspective. A good example of the general pattern of distortion that persists to this present day was documented in "TV's Killer Businessmen" that appeared in the Dec 23, 1991 Forbes by Peter Brimelow, author of Alien Nation and originator of the anti-illegal immigration web site VDare.com web site. He discussed the media content analysis studies of Dr. Robert Lichter and his wife Dr. Linda Lichter.

This year the Lichters have again collaborated with Rothman to produce Watching America: What Television Tells Us About Our Lives (Prentice Hall, 1991). Again, a poll of key television writers, producers and executives revealed a tightly homogeneous group of highly educated, secularized urbanites. (They were also virtually all white males, over half Jewish). Again their political attitudes were sharply to the left of Americans generally but strikingly similar to the rest of the New Class...

...it is perhaps unsurprising that whereas FBI statistics indicate that about half of America's murders are committed by blacks, in TV-land the proportion is around 3%. Instead, 90% of TV murderers are white, with seven out of ten from "a generic northern European background..."

The biggest costs are usually the hidden ones

There is a whole other dimension of social costs related to increasing genetic distances within a society that greatly reduce America's social and economic efficiency. Please recollect the Right Wing 101 rule I have mentioned previously, namely that over the long run, the shorter the genetic distances within a society, the more likely people are to act towards each other in an altruistic and mutualist manner. Conversely, the greater the genetic distances, the more likely it becomes that people will act towards each other in a predatory or parasitic manner. The latter is true even if done on a very subtle, passive-aggressive level that leaves few fingerprints and involves opportunity costs rather than actual costs.

I would argue that the highly intangible costs created by increasing genetic distances within a society are in fact the greatest costs of all. They are far greater than the aforementioned direct costs involving violence and social service payments.

I classify these highly intangible costs in two broad categories:

• Hidden forms of social strife, fraud, and exploitation that thrive amidst competing cultural
  standards and genetic interests. These costs include the theft of intangible "social capital" and the infliction of invisible opportunity costs.
• Distortion of productive social standards and informational feedback systems. This is analogous to the way socialism distorts pricing mechanisms and degrades economic efficiency by eliminating free markets, except here we are usually talking about government social intervention and monopoly media influence involving social norms rather than purely economic issues.

Hidden exploitation amidst competing standards

The Roman writer Tacitus once observed that "Where the state is most corrupt, the laws are most multiplied."

He made this comment while observing Imperial Rome, which by his time had become very multiracial and multicultural. In contrast, during the early Roman Republic period, the society had been relatively homogeneous on a racial and cultural level.

The concept of "republican virtue" was taken very seriously during the early Roman Republican era. This concept meant that citizens had to be capable of restraining themselves and acting honorably on a highly decentralized, personal level to prevent any need for massive authoritarian police power intervention by the government. Tom Paine summed it up well in Common Sense. He stated that "when republican virtue fails, slavery ensues."

Despite this wisdom, by the time of the Imperial Roman era of Tacitus, the concept of "republican virtue" had become a joke. However, the centralization of police power in Imperial Rome was no solution either. After all, as the British classical liberal historian Lord Acton so famously observed, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

A major problem with law-making in all societies is that laws tend to be least effective at the level where they are needed the most. This is at the very top policy-making level.

This is the level where increased genetic distance hurts the most, even if it takes place within the relatively genteel world of corporate boardrooms, mansions, and country clubs.

There are two major reasons for this. First, at this level there are usually fewer checks and balances on the most powerful people in society compared to common folk. Secondly, as people acquire higher levels of authority, they usually deal with increasingly complex issues, and it becomes increasingly harder to prove malfeasance and self-dealing.

As an example, it is much harder to prove that a CEO of a major corporation is adding tens of millions of dollars in debt to his corporation to create a bigger cash till to pay himself an extra million dollars a year in salary than it is to prosecute a bank robber who waves a gun and runs off with $10,000 cash in a grab bag.

Similarly, it is much harder to prove that a medical doctor is ordering too many lab tests to soak Medicare than it is to prove that some punk sold some drugs on the street.

It is also much harder to prove that a major Wall Street firm is pumping and dumping the stock of a phony company to enrich insiders than it is to prove that a gang member assaulted a little old lady on a subway.

Significantly, the overall damage to society done by the aforementioned crooked CEO, the crooked medical doctor, and the crooked Wall Street firm is vastly greater than the damage done to society by the bank robber, street punk, and gang member. Worse yet, almost all of the damage created by the first group can remain relatively hidden in social statistics. The first group has numerous seemingly plausible smokescreens for their behavior. They can buy off the professional services of expert commentators such as consultants, statisticians, economists, and journalists. Clever intellectual prostitutes can easily spin-doctor malfeasance to look like Mom, Home, Apple Pie, and the Flag before the general public.

Here are some sample alibis that enable top "leaders" to get away with horrendous crimes.

Sample charge: You are adding massive debt to a company to create a bigger cash till to pay a bigger salary to oneself while dumping a riskier capital structure on shareholders.
Sample response: Naw, just revising the company's capital structure to help it run leaner and meaner, so that equity capital can more efficiently be deployed elsewhere in the economy.

Incidentally, this is one of many alibis used by convicted stock swindler Mike Milken as he rewarded himself with billions of dollars. America's controlled national media passed his hype along to the public with a straight face.

Sample charge: You are ordering lots of extra, unnecessary lab tests and medical procedures to goose your clinic's cash flow.
Sample response: Naw, how could you say such a thing about a hard-working medical doctor? We all know that human life is too precious to take chances. We all know that we have to guard against unknown pathogenic threats. We also know we have to be extra safe to guard against spurious medical malpractice claims.

Sample charge: Your company looks phony, like you are using it as a facade to pump and dump stock on unwitting investors.
Sample response: Naw, we are merely pursuing a long range "high concept" business plan. There is nothing wrong with the fact that it may take five to ten years to start generating cash flow. We all know that there has to be the freedom in our economy to swing for the fences with risky business ventures in order to maintain a viable, entrepreneurial economy.

Good luck proving in a court of law that any these types of alibis are phony. It may take you many years, piles of documents, and high legal expenses just to present your case against the bad guys. Meanwhile, the bad guys have already walked away with millions of dollars. Worse yet, they may use part of their loot to hire slick defense lawyers, who may create delays or counterattack with nuisance litigation designed to bankrupt you.

Unfortunately the sum total of cleverly concealed fraudulent behavior throughout American society has played a major role in creating the terrible economic graphs I show in my Critical Issues section. All of this could lead to catastrophic economic and political dislocations. This in turn can lead to tens of millions of personal tragedies across America. The ultimate damage to our society will be much greater than anything that shows up on standard police crime blotters.

In a healthy, racially homogeneous society, rules for moral behavior do not need to be very complicated

The late libertarian Presidential candidate Harry Browne pointed out that at root, most Anglo-Saxon common law was based on three simple principles.

a) Do what you say you are going to do (contract law)
b) Do not harm my person or my property (tort and criminal law)
c) Do not trespass against me or my property unless you obtain my permission first

When in doubt, one can generally apply the Golden Rule, that is, treat others the way you would like to be treated yourself.

Harry Brown pointed out that these simple rules should be adequate to guide most people in most situations throughout life. However, he noted that is true that serious conflicts will inevitably arise. However, he argued that even here private citizens can satisfactorily resolve their problems without the intervention of police, a court system, or other expensive state-operated entities.

According to Browne, the next step up should be arbitration. This simply involves having both sides to a dispute agree to present their case before a third party, whose ruling becomes binding. The third party can be anyone they trust from any walk of life. It does not have to be a lawyer or judge.

Why does the government oppose Harry Browne's refreshing perspective?

Unfortunately Americans are being conditioned today by national media and the Bush administration to believe that we need more Federal oversight through the so-called Department of Homeland Security, more curtailment of civil liberties through the so-called Patriot Act, and more surveillance by its police agencies.

Unfortunately too many Americans are completely ignorant regarding libertarian alternatives. They passively accept police state options spoon fed to them by corrupt and irresponsible leaders. The police state then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because too many people simply do not know any better.

Unfortunately there are also underlying social and racial dimensions that also help create the police state as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Too many Americans are ignorant about these underlying dynamics as well.

Racial demographic change and the emerging police state

Historically, racially homogeneous, ethnically conscious northern European societies have tended to have very low crime rates. Historically, they have tended to decentralize police power among the citizenry through various traditions.

A few examples out of a very long list include private gun ownership (stops crimes before they take place), trial by jury (a check against judicial tyranny), jury nullification (jury can nullify application of laws that defy common sense), posse comitatus (prevents police from turning into a military occupation force), habeas corpus (prevents arbitrary detention by state authorities), and the doctrine of citizen's arrest and Sheriff's posse under English Common Law (common citizens can voluntarily work closely with the police to the point of becoming almost interchangeable with them).

As I mentioned in my centralized vs. decentralized discussion, American pioneer communities were amazingly self-sufficient and decentralized by contemporary standards. In fact, some academic studies suggest that the real crime rate was vastly lower in frontier communities than suggested by movies or popular fiction. (see, for example Anderson, Terry and Hill, P.J., “An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: the not so Wild, Wild West,” Journal of Libertarian Studies Vol. 3, No. 1, 1979, pp. 9–29.) Of course I am talking here about ethnically homogeneous, northern European-descended pioneer settlements with a wide variety of trades and geared towards farming, industry, and raising families, and not thin little exploitation saloon towns loaded with gambling tables, liquor, and prostitutes specifically geared to to accommodate bachelor miners or cowboys at the end of cattle drives. Common sense alone tells you that the latter situations were trouble waiting to happen.

In broad outline, let me explain how social and demographic changes can encourage the evolution of the police state.

First, greedy business owners get a quick boost to profits by importing low cost labor consisting of alien peoples. Bought politicians get nice under-the-table bribes from either the businessmen or immigrants themselves to relax the immigration rules. The greedy business owners and bought politicians grab their money and run.

On the back end, America is left with more social strife and alienation as the genetic and cultural distances within the population widen. The controlled national media pumps out ever more leftist integration propaganda to try to hold everything together. This in turn further alienates the core white population from any sense of indigenous cultural values that promote honor, industry, and genuine community defense.

The aliens themselves vastly increase crime, such as the fifty times higher rates for certain violent crimes committed by blacks compared to whites discussed by Attorney Edgar Steele, or the leadership of organized crime in America by Jews as documented by Michael Collins Piper in Final Judgment and many other sources.

With greater alien influence, the crime rate and level of social instability rises. Then, as a cosmetic response to these deeper underlying social problems, we get more government oversight. More police. More surveillance. Ultimately we get a police state. And ultimately everyone suffers.

But it gets even worse than all of this. The ultimate end game of the police state is that the people at the top of centralized power become very corrupt and tyrannical.

It should be no wonder that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Extreme centralization is itself a criminal act which appeals to a criminal mentality. It steals from the common people their civil liberties and their political right to exert grass roots popular sovereignty.

Normally in a healthy society honest citizens and the police work hand in hand to solve crimes and arrest and punish the bad guys. In the corrupt police state, honest citizens become terrified of initiating any contact with the police whatsoever. People even become afraid to report crimes or present evidence for fear that they will get put on the radar screens of corrupt authorities. Then they might get subjected to petty rules are applied in a Talmudic manner designed to unjustly frame and imprison them.

As one example, Alexander Solzhenitsyn pointed out in The Gulag Archipelago that in the Stalinist era, no one in their right mind would ever dream of walking into a KGB station to simply inquire about an official interpretation of rules and regulations or ask about the Constitution of the Soviet Union.

Everything gets so politicized and fearful in a police state that even honest cops who just want to do straight police work suffer along with everyone else. Policemen are forced to overlook serious crimes, tamper with evidence, and do other dirty things to please their bosses.

Once a person understands libertarian alternatives, and in addition understands underlying racial, ethnic, and cultural causal factors behind crime, all of this really paints the policies of the Bush Administration in a very different light.

Please recollect that the Feds called in private paramilitary forces such as Blackwater, Inc. to kick in doors and collect privately owned firearms during the Katrina disaster in August-Sept 2005 in New Orleans. It is bad enough that the Feds have used "private contractors" to "rendition" and torture prisoners overseas in an effort to circumvent U.S. laws. Now part of all that moral rot is coming home to roost on home turf.

The Bush administration ignores massive illegal Third World immigration and evidence of Mossad complicity in staging 9-11, and then turns around and militarizes our police forces. It also destroys our civil liberties through the Patriot Act and whatever else it thinks it can get away with.

This whole notion that somehow we are going to solve our crime problems simply by arming our local policeman with bullet proof vests, automatic weapons, and other military gear, and in addition we must give them the authority to closely monitor and arrest common citizens at will — all of this is unbelievably childish. It is also part of an overall pattern that suggests that America's paranoid ruling elite is secretly at war with the rest of the population, and that our local policemen are simply being used as pawns in a much bigger and darker game.

Racial nationalist principles and public morality

In the final analysis, if the people at the top do not share anything in common on a racial and cultural level with other people in society, no amount of laws, no political ideology, no authoritarian structures, and no amount of surveillance will prevent them from working their mischief. No amount of liberal rhetoric will adequately motivate the people at the top to self-police themselves out of cutting corners at the expense of everyone else.

This brings us back to a fundamental tenant of racial nationalism and Right Wing 101. Nothing beats having people of your own racial and ethnic group in charge of the strategic bases of society, such as government, media, banking, the military, and major corporations.

Among other things, people with similar bloodlines tend to have a vastly greater sense of caretakership towards the rest of society. This is analogous to the way they tend to care more deeply about the welfare of their own children. They are more likely to practice the vital principle that charity must begin at home in their political and economic policies. They are also more likely to promote long term forms of investment in advanced automation and industry that require sacrifice in the short run, but pay enormous dividends in the long run in terms of increased national wealth and self-sufficiency. Last but not least, when the people in charge genuinely work for the people rather than against them, messy social problems have a way of going from being unsolvable to at last becoming containable or solvable.

There is an important racial nationalist flip side to all of this. If we assume that racism is instinctive, we can also assume that everyone subconsciously keeps score. This includes most liberals and other leftists. Therefore we have to ask questions about people who try to break these basic racial rules of human nature.

Not surprisingly, here in America it is very common to see a gigantic discrepancy between what liberals say and what they do as evidence of the concept that everyone is subconsciously a racist and keeps score.

Whereas liberals commonly beat their chests and call for more racial integration in schools and in the work place, we see totally different behavior once they acquire some wealth and the time comes to send their own children to school. It seems like they just cannot get their own kids in mostly all-white private schools fast enough. Nor can they keep their hands off nice-looking homes in tony white neighborhoods. Nor do they studiously avoid acquiring blond trophy wives.

In the grand scheme of things, these liberals are no more honest than thieves and embezzlers. Such crooks want to steal other people's money whenever it suits their needs. However, when it comes time to spend their loot, they demand honestly rendered goods and services for every dollar they exchange. They never want anyone to steal from them, although it is always OK for them to steal from others.

Similarly liberals want to undermine the racial and cultural integrity of an all-white society through racial integration to score immediate political points and secure expedient economic advantages. At the same time they want to enjoy all the benefits that come from preserving a homogeneous white society in control of its own destiny.

The price of hypocrisy

In a multiracial, multicultural society, people who do not want to buck the system have to condition themselves to publicly turn a blind eye whenever aliens grab their wealth, take their women, and subvert their culture.

Given that from a genetic viewpoint, ones genetic assets, and hence ones womenfolk, are the most precious asset of all, we have to ask what kind of intellectual, emotional, and spiritual price all of this exacts from white Americans on both a conscious and subconscious level.

What does it do to someone morally and spiritually to have to tolerate interracial marriage, affirmative action, and massive illegal Third World immigration? How does it pervert the sensibilities of our military personnel to be ordered to the Middle East to strong-arm Arabs, inhale depleted uranium, and ultimately die to serve the interests of the High Priests of War and their beloved state of Israel?

The punchline

When people desensitize themselves regarding genetic survival issues — which in the long run are the most vital issues of all — why would they necessarily continue to act honorably regarding any other issues?

Quite often the level of moral behavior in one part of a person's life spills over into the ethical standards shown elsewhere. The level of discipline and focus in one area is reflected in other areas.

An extreme military example of this concept was voiced by Marine Colonel Lewis B. Puller in the Korean War when asked why he asked infantrymen to continue shaving in subzero weather at the Chosin Reservoir while engaged in combat surrounded by Red Chinese soldiers. His response: "If they look like Marines, they fight like Marines."

Another interesting example was dramatized in the movie The Bounty (1984). After Captain William Bligh's ship landed in Tahiti, his crew experienced very relaxed discipline complete with an idyllic setting and Tahitian mistresses for five months. Only a few weeks into the voyage back to England, as Bligh reasserted his authority, most of his crew mutinied with dreams of recapturing the island lifestyle.

Most societies do not run hot and cold very well. If you do not care about the biological destruction through integration and miscegenation of your own racial-ethnic group, why would you necessarily care that much about enforcing accounting standards in business? For that matter, why would you really care about preventing corporate insiders from exploiting their positions to grab excessive salaries and stock options? Why would you care that much about other economic or political issues, such as restraining arrogant bureaucracy, reinvesting in domestic manufacturing infrastructure, or preserving civil liberties? Why not just let everything slip while you just look out for number one, and the public be damned?

Expressed differently, how can those people who become "successful" by leading a timid, fractured existence within the context of the multi-racial, multi-cultural society ever really be anything except alienated, rudderless, and morally degenerate individuals?

How too much "sugar" in a multiracial society can be just as deadly as too much "vinegar"

Many white racial nationalist organizations in America routinely cover incidents of racial conflict. The usual staples include violent incidents where blacks and Mexicans assault whites. They also include high level crimes, such as organized crime and espionage acts against America, where Jews have always provide strong leadership.

To a point, this is all well and good. To stay well-informed, we definitely need to know about patterns of nonwhite aggression against whites. We definitely need to document and report all of this.

However, on a broader level, a crucial underlying reality remains unaddressed. And that is the fact that initially, many blacks, Mexicans, Jews, and other aliens have gained entry into America not because they are perceived as being threatening, but because they appear to provide wonderful solutions to certain people's problems.

Nonwhites know this, too. Quite a few of them are very good at playing up to this. In fact, they really know how to seduce us by acting cute and wonderful and telling us exactly what we want to hear.

This is what I call the "front end" problem. The violence, espionage, organized crime, and other racially-based conflicts are on the "back end."

It is amazing how many American racial nationalist groups always talk about the back end, but never really address the front end.

The "wonderful" danger

Back in the old days, when farmers created their own preserves, they could typically arrest the growth of bacteria by adding either too much vinegar or too much sugar. Both are toxic to bacteria.

Increasing the amount of multi-racialism and multiculturalism in a society tends to create an interesting distortion effect where every day human interactions begin to show a kind of "bar-bell" distribution of both too much "sugar" and too much "vinegar" at the same time.

Ever since World War II, in both Europe and America, we have repeatedly seen how a rise in multiracialism and multiculturalism has been accompanied with dramatic increases in various forms of overt crime. That is analogous to too much vinegar. But even more devastating than all of this are the instances of too much sugar.

The "too much sugar" phenomenon tends to fall into two different categories. The first I call "Uncle Tomism" (or "Love-bombing"). This game is usually played by nonwhites.

The second game is called "Gracchitism." I have borrowed this term from Wilmot Robertson's classic The Dispossessed Majority. I like to call it "The Man Who Would Be King" syndrome. Either way, this social game involves what anthropologists call "bigmanship." It is a hubris-filled game that inspires whites to act as "sugar daddies" for Uncle Toms.

"Uncle Tomism" and "love-bombing"

Many readers are probably familiar with the scale of cultural interaction used by many social scientists. Typically when a certain ethnic group first comes in contact with an alien culture, they tend to react to the outside culture somewhere along a scale between two opposing extremes. At one extreme they may show self-abnegation and embrace the alien culture without hesitation. At the other extreme they may violently reject the alien culture and may even seek to genocide the alien people.

a) Self-abnegation.
b) Integration.
c) Accommodation.
d) Segregation.
e) Genocide

An "Uncle Tom" is obviously someone on the self-abnegation end of the scale. He despises his own indigenous culture and seeks to suppress it. Conversely, he accepts the alien culture lock, stock, and barrel, even to the point of being servile, fawning, self-deprecating, and obsequious.

I picked up the term "love-bombing" from a conscious recruitment tactic used by "Moonies." These are followers of Reverend Sung Mung Moon, head of the Unification Church, who promote interracial marriage between Caucasians and Asians. While evangelizing on the streets, the Moonie "love-bomber" walks up to a stranger and initiates a conversation. During the talk, the Moonie looks at the stranger with big doggy eyes, to communicate unqualified fondness and acceptance of the stranger.

I read about this tactic long ago and have no idea whether certain Moonies are still using it. However, this tactic was once very effective for recruiting certain types of white people.

As the next step, the Moonies would try to get "love bombed" recruits to attend social retreats. At these controlled gatherings, the recruits were subjected to intensive indoctrination and peer pressure to remold their belief systems.

If all of this is beginning to sound like a sophisticated brainwashing operation, I invite the reader to consider "Dark Side of the Moon" by Bob Fitrakis that discusses a Congressional investigation into Moonie ties to the South Korean CIA and various illicit activities.

"Uncle Tomism" and "love bombing" are tactics that relatively powerless peoples, to include illegal alien immigrants, can use to get their foot in the door and seduce their hosts. One might argue that the doggy eyes are far more dangerous to white Americans than acts of nonwhite violence. This is a form of conquest by servile seduction.

Deep down inside, many people who engage in these tactics often hate themselves for having to debase themselves. Sometime after they finally gain a reasonably self-sufficient beachhead, they may later lash out to compensate for the humiliations they had to endure while they were weak.

I might add that people who do not hate themselves for this debasement may have an even worse problem, to the extent that their talent for playing a double game may be indicative of the fractured criminal personality that I will discuss in my mutualism vs. parasitism section.

"Building" America one alien bootlick at a time

In the final analysis, it is not healthy for a society to have employers who are motivated to hire alien peoples because they like the way aliens lick their boots and tell them what they want to hear. Nor is it healthy for employers to seek aliens who gladly allow themselves to get chiseled down to the bone on wages and benefits. There is just too much greed, exploitation, self-abasement, and dishonesty going on here.

In the long run it is far better to have people in charge with the attitudes that Henry Ford expressed in My Life and Work (offered through America First Books) . In this work, Ford explains how he tried to lead his industry in terms of increasing wages. In fact, he unilaterally offered his nonunion workers twice the average automobile industry wage. He also tried to find ways to make the work environment more interesting to help employees become more innovative and self-reliant in mind and spirit.

Ford also knew that leaders of industry such as himself had to help American society on a broader level. Ford consciously sought to add to America's industrial infrastructure. Ford also worked to improve charitable organizations.

Ford knew that ultimately it is all about creating a positive work environment that incentivize hardworking and innovative white people to steadily increase the amount of advanced automation and productive capacity here in America. Innovative people developing better machines and procedures has always been the mainstay of the continuing automation revolution, as I explain in greater detail in my robot series.

As a group, the tens of millions of Third World peoples who have physically replaced white Americans in the last few decades are mostly economic deadwood. This is true despite the fact that they consume considerable welfare expenditures and occupy lots of well-paying government jobs. They do not have the resourcefulness and innovativeness once found in the old white middle class that they are displacing. They don't produce anywhere near as many pleasant surprises. They are not as good at starting the equivalent of automobile and computer companies with things they create in their garages.

Even when America accepts highly skilled nonwhite professional people as citizens, to include alien scientists and technicians, this poses many other types of dangers as well.

While it is true that quite a few highly skilled alien professionals can make many purely economic contributions to America, it is also true that they tend to support liberal minority coalition politics that subvert white genetic interests. They are more likely to engage in the hidden forms of exploitation that I have discussed previously that leave no fingerprints. They also serve as sentry posts to advise co-tribalists on how to game the American system to their advantage. This advice includes exploiting breaches in our immigration policies to bring more of their people to America and expand their power base.

While foreign skilled professionals who immigrate to America may superficially appear to be more assimilated than Third World proletarians, in many ways they are vastly more dangerous.

What the Japanese have known all along

It is important to note that despite their aging and demographically declining population, the Japanese still refuse to allow alien immigration into Japan on any level. Japanese leaders encourage their people to keep picking up after themselves rather than rely on any growing alien servant class. They are also investing massively in robot systems to serve as household servants.

Incidentally, the requirement to economically pick up after oneself rather than rely on alien labor is a key point promoted by most serious racial nationalists around the world who promote national self-sufficiency and self-determination.

Speaking of the Japanese leadership, it is amazing how racial nationalist patriots get treated differently depending on whether or not their societies have already been deeply infiltrated.

If one still has a fairly homogeneous society, and alien populations still remain outside ones own national borders, one is typically called a patriot for advocating ethno-racial homogeneity, self-determination, and self-sufficiency.

However, once large numbers of aliens get inside your country and get their hands on the levers of media and government power, things get very messy and nasty fairly quickly

For merely advocating self-defensive racial separatism and self-determination, an American patriot can easily find himself being misrepresented as a supremacist and apartheid-practitioner. To add insult to injury, all the opprobrium gets dumped on nationalists who advocate hard-headed approaches to contain festering social problems, rather than upon the irresponsible liberals who let the rats in the barn to begin with.

Japanese leaders are not about to sell out control of their racial and ethnic destiny to alien immigration subversion in any incremental fashion. They are wise and honorable people in this regard.

This is true despite the fact that there are literally hundreds of millions of impoverished people spread between Asia, Africa, and South America who would be more than willing to come to Japan and prostrate themselves, lick anyone's boots, and do literally anything get work.

In contrast to Japanese racial nationalist honor, America's degenerate leaders have absolutely no loyalty whatsoever. None.

In addition to driving this country into complete bankruptcy, our Zionist rulers and their gentile collaborators are not only steering America towards tragic multi-racial chaos, but they also have the criminal chutzpah to send our troops to the Middle East to inhale depleted uranium dust while genociding Arabs in order to help secure a kosher-pure future for the exclusively Jewish state of Israel and lucrative concessions for the Bush Administration's corporate cronies.

The reign of the "sugar-daddies"

Another aspect of the "too much sugar" category are people who I call "sugar daddies." They thrive on living in a multi-racial, multi-cultural world based on "leveraged" forms of social power in which Uncle Toms and love-bombers look up to them. They thrive on what anthropologists call "bigmanship" and the "redistributor chief" syndrome.

Sugar daddies are very detached from any solid, interlocking support on equal terms with people of their own race and ethnic group. Instead, they rely on the use of money and the manipulation of prestigious titles and symbols in order to secure their position in society and feel like they are big stuff.

Two interesting variations of this behavior include "Gracchitism" and what I call the "The Man Who Would Be King" syndrome. In his classic work The Dispossessed Majority, Wilmot Robertson outlines Gracchitism (p. 101):

...The name is derived from the Gracchi, two brothers who, although belonging to one of the great patrician families of Rome, could not feed their soaring ambition sufficiently by remaining in the orbit of their own aristocratic caste. Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus found that in times of stress in a relatively tolerant republic, a descent of one or two steps in the social ladder was equivalent to an ascent of several steps in the political ladder. Accordingly, they become the standard bearers of revolution and agrarian revolt and were adulated by the plebeians. The Gracchi's political strategy was by no means limited to stirring up class against class, peasant against landlord, exploited against exploiter. The patricians, the descendants of Italic invaders, differed racially from the plebs, the offspring of earlier and later immigrants. The Gracchite's appeal, consequently, was directed to oppressed races as well as to oppressed classes.

In a multiracial state the well-born, ambitious member of a dominant race is constantly tempted to take the Gracchite path to power. It is harder for the patrician to win the respect of the patrician than to win the respect of the plebeian. It is also much easier to give money away than to earn it; to relax discipline than to enforce it; to be a hero to one's valet than to ones mirror.

The Gracchite actively supports alien genetic interests against those of his own people in order to win political support from the aliens. He is essentially a high class race traitor.

In contrast to this is a relatively benign species of Gracchitism that I term "The Man Who Would Be King" syndrome. I have borrowed this title from the Rudyard Kipling novel and Hollywood movie by the same name. Incidentally, I think the movie, which stars Sean Connery and Michael Caine, is a terrific action-adventure flick.

In this case, while the white person might actively assist nonwhites, there is no evidence that he actively seeks to support them at the expense of his own people. In fact, on the surface his humanitarian efforts might appear highly commendable. However, he does show the fatal weakness of overwhelming hubris and blindness to racial realities. He is all too willing to completely detach himself from any form of effective white mutual support and put himself at the mercy of aliens, somewhat analogous to the way a group of troops in time of war might advance too far inside enemy territory beyond meaningful flank protection and air cover.

The movie "The Man Who Would Be King" depicts two former British soldiers in the 19th century who search for a lost tribe in Afghanistan reputed to hold gold left by Alexander the Great. Before they leave on their expedition, a British scholar advises them to wear amulets bearing an ancient design. When they finally find this lost tribe, the tribesman take note of the amulets. A combination of the ornaments' Alexandrian design, as well as the fortuitous outcome of a battle where one of the soldiers survives an arrow attack without showing any injury, causes the natives to believe that the two soldiers really are immortal gods entitled to the gold.

However, the soldier who survived the arrow attack becomes so enthralled with his ability to act like a wonderfully noble and wise king before the tribesmen that he tries to permanently install himself in power rather than pack up the gold and leave with his compatriot while he still has the chance. Although he has nothing in common with the natives on a racial, ethnic, or cultural level, he thinks he can establish legitimacy by showing leadership competence. What he fails to suspect is that no matter how noble or wonderful he may be as their new ruler, the natives might still try to test him once again to see if he can shed blood. If he fails the test, he and his companion become toast.

And of course testing is exactly what takes place in a climatic moment of the film. The two soldiers quickly discover how extremely "leveraged" their position has become amidst the alien people.

An important variation of the "Man Who Would Be King" syndrome was illustrated in the superb novel Bonfire of the Vanities by American author Tom Wolfe. It is about a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) bond trader named Sherman McCoy who lives in New York City. He and his Wall Street colleagues make huge incomes, live in very upscale housing, enjoy the most expensive luxuries, and call themselves "Masters of the Universe."

Unlike the "Man Who Would Be King" characters, McCoy does not actively go in search of an alien people to work with. Instead, McCoy's hubris comes from failing to recognize how an effective support base of fellow whites has rotted out from under him. Meanwhile alien peoples and the alien values that they represent have quietly enveloped McCoy's world like an anaconda, leaving McCoy in an extremely "leveraged" social situation without knowing it.

Roger Ebert created an excellent review of the Hollywood version of this story, but perhaps the hardest hitting commentary about the underlying novel was written by the late Dr. William Pierce for the April-May 1988 issue of National Vanguard magazine:

...McCoy lives in an artificial world, a world separated by a wall of money from the encroaching jungle all around. His parents are living reminders of an earlier day, when the jungle existed only in patches here and there, and White people did not have to have scads of money to keep the animals at bay. But the jungle has grown mightily since then, and its denizens have multiplied and become much bolder...

One night, however, McCoy gets a close up glimpse of the jungle. While driving his mistress back from the airport he makes a wrong turn and becomes lost in the Bronx. He evades a Black mugging attempt, and the experience, though it shakes him badly at the time, only strengthens his belief in his superiority: he fought the jungle with his bare hands and he won! He is truly a Master of the Universe in every way!

But the jungle is much more dangerous than McCoy realizes: its really threatening denizens are not the Blacks and Puerto Ricans who form the bulk of its population, but the Jews who control them and are able to move back and forth from their world to McCoy's at will...Even at the book's end, when the Jews and their minions have ganged up on him and pulled him into the jungle for good, there is no indication that McCoy is any wiser about their ways...

The preceding sentence notwithstanding, Wolfe's tale is not one of classic Jewish conspiracy. His Jews act in concert, for the most part — although there is one Jewish judge who refuses to go along — because it serves their immediate personal interests to do so. They do enjoy pulling a WASP down, but there are no formal meetings of the Learned Elders in the synagogue to plot strategy.

Nor is it primarily a cautionary tale about the dangers of the jungle. It is really a morality play about the White man and what he has done to himself: about his dangerous delusions, his dangerous lack of contact with the real world, his dangerous loss of virtue and manhood. Sherman McCoy stands for the leadership stratum of his race in the closing years of the 20th century. He is all the eager White business executives and entrepreneurs, the ambitious White educators and publicists, who have cast all other considerations aside in their single-minded scramble for status and wealth; who, having suppressed every vestige of racial consciousness, have allied themselves with Jews as readily as with men of their own blood whenever there was an advantage to it; who have ignored the encroachments of the jungle so long as they perceived no personal threat from it, and even abetted them when there was a personal gain involved; who have become so well adapted to plutocracy that they have forgotten the virtues becoming an aristocrat — virtues such as self-discipline, toughness, bravery, a sense of personal honor; and who nevertheless maintain the dangerous vanity that they are aristocrats — Masters of the Universe — and still are in control of their world.

As an update to the Bonfire of Vanities, I would refer readers to my Critical Issues section. Many Americans believe that the interior explosions reported by both firemen and policemen account for why the two World Trade Center towers were able to collapse at free-fall speed rather than take the much longer amount of time required for each floor to "pancake" its way downward onto lower floors. They point to the Mossad agents arrested by the FBI as evidence that the Mossad helped to orchestrate the attack, in a similar treacherous pattern as the Lavon Affair, JFK assassination, and assault on the U.S.S. Liberty. And by the way, the strong evidence that the Pentagon was hit by some kind of remotely navigated aircraft does not sound like something orchestrated by the local Micky Mouse Club either.

Critics of the Government version of 9-11 also point out that Jewish landlord Larry Silverstein acknowledged on television that he gave orders to "pull" World Trade Center Tower 7 on the same day that the Twin Towers collapsed, despite the fact that the building showed no signs of external damage except for a few smallish and mysterious fires visible through a few windows on some lower floors. To "pull" means to set off controlled demolitions to collapse the entire building.

World Trade Center 7 experienced a very professionally-executed collapse following Silverstein's order. Yet setting up controlled demolitions inside World Trade Center Tower 7 to pull off such a smooth collapse would normally take many days, if not weeks. Why would anyone just happen to set up demolitions days before 9-11? Why the sense of urgency to collapse the building? .

At least three thousand Americans died on 11 Sept 2001. If suspicions prove correct, then here we see a real life case where quite a few WASPs in high finance got literally pulled down to their deaths by a very real Jewish conspiracy in New York City. If such is the case, then The Bonfire of Vanities served as an astute fictional wake up call for vastly darker realities to come.

I might add that tens, if not hundreds of thousands of American military personnel are also getting scammed into early deaths from the effects of aerosolized depleted uranium on account of being ordered to wage aggressive war for Israel in the Middle East. Tens of thousands have already been killed or maimed for life. Thousands of New Yorkers have serious lung ailments from the fine dust generated by the World Trade Center Towers collapse, and perhaps hundreds of people present at the Pentagon strike site are now suffering from breathing depleted uranium dust left over from what was probably a weaponized military drone that hit the building. (This is contrary to the government story that claim it was a Boeing 757. Please see the Mike Piper interview of Sam Danner on RBN Live, 10 July 2006).

What is missing is a common sense perspective

Humanitarian aid and "bigmanship" to help alien peoples can be a wonderful thing, but there are clear exceptions.

Humanitarianism towards aliens is wrong when one cannot first reverse a seriously deteriorating social situation among ones own people.

Humanitarianism towards aliens is fine — except when one is blinded by hubris. Except when one becomes estranged from a genuine racial and ethnic power base among ones own kind.

"Other kind first" humanitarianism is at best a perversion. As mentioned earlier, an important principle of racial nationalism is that charity must begin at home if charity is to become sustainable over the long run.

In fact, one can take this argument a step further. Throughout history, people generally consider it right, proper, and normal to openly stand up for the survival of ones own race and ethnic group, and to openly identify and criticize enemies of ones own people. In America we have an anomaly where most whites are scared to openly stand up for white racial survival for fear of being called "racists." They are even more scared to publicly criticize Jews for fear of being called "anti-Semites" and other labels.

Why passing the racial buck is a risky form of social "leverage"

When one fails to openly stand up for ones own people, one is really borrowing against the future. One is leveraging oneself in a social situation with very little protection on the downside, analogous to a stock speculator who goes way out on margin.

You are also passing the buck to other whites by allowing a problem to fester and grow, just like a corrupt cop who allows bank robbers to get away with their crimes. This creates the danger that the bank robbers can become even more organized and sophisticated, buying off politicians and forming ever more dangerous mafia organizations.

Lastly, failing to take a stand in racial self-defense is typically a sign of cowardice and servility.

Now it is true that on a tactical level it sometimes pays to quietly and patiently wait out a bad situation, such as the way Germany waited out the occupation of East Germany by Communists until the Soviet Union collapsed. But generally this is the exception. This strategy definitely did not work for whites in the former Rhodesia or South Africa. In fact, it only poured fuel on the fire of white dispossession.

The general rule is that as a white person, if you fail to openly defend your genetic interests and take care of your own kind first, your efforts to show bigmanship to nonwhites will be interpreted by nonwhites as cowardice and appeasement rather than nobility. Eventually it will be construed by fellow whites as a form of treason as well.

You are a fool if you think the strategy of perpetual appeasement can keep you in control forever and this "other kind first" policy will never blow back in your face.

Last, but not least, when one examines the advantages new technologies such as Internet communication, and then examines the rapidly deteriorating economic and social conditions in North America and Europe, one might wonder if there ever again will be a better window of opportunity for beleaguered whites to take decisive action.

Summary

In the final analysis, I think that the genetic viewpoint helps to show multi-racialism and multiculturalism for what these things really are. Rather than constituting some kind of moral imperative, or some kind of inevitable utopian future for all mankind, they merely constitute one particular social strategy with its own set of pros and cons. They are highly "leveraged" social strategies at that.

As previously mentioned, bringing alien groups into ones country in order to augment ones labor force reminds me of the stock speculator who goes way out on margin, or the corporation that takes on a lot of debt. Leveraged strategies help stock speculators and businesses make faster gains if trends go in the right direction. However, if there is an unforeseen downturn, the stock speculator can get wiped out, and the corporation can go bankrupt and even get taken over by banks.

Similarly, countries that take in cheap alien labor may be able to enjoy significant short term advantages. The cheap labor may give a near term boost to corporate profits, and may allow certain companies to add manpower more quickly to grow faster.

However, on the back end, as the aliens acquire citizenship rights and build power positions in the society, the host population loses degrees of control over its own destiny. If for example there is a severe economic downturn after a country becomes filled with alien groups, the whole society might come apart at the seams like the former Yugoslavia and completely erase whatever material gains were initially achieved by importing them.

One can graph the rising risk of social distress with alien immigration in the same manner that finance professors graph the rising risk of financial distress when corporations take on more debt with their efficient capital structure models.

At the beginning of this series I mentioned that no particular perspective has all the answers, and I think that a wise policy seeks a balance. By the same token, I make no secret that I believe that if a white society has to become over-weighted in any particular area, I prefer the "genetic bottom up" libertarian racial nationalist approach.

This reflects a compromise position to balance both racial and business concerns.

One the racial side it seeks to maintain demographic control to preserve racial and cultural homogeneity and avoid alienation and social instability.

On the business side it tries to avoid the central planning, higher taxation, and regulatory controls that might inhibit entrepreneurship associated with authoritarian forms of nationalism.

It has some similar goals as anarcho-libertarianism, such as the development of industry and commerce through foreign trade and grass roots entrepreneurship. It also seeks the establishment of a decentralized money and banking system. However, it also seeks to prevent the loss of strategic industries and to prevent out of control alien immigration.

In regard to these latter two issues, most anarcho-libertarians in America show willful blindness. However, it is possible to convert an anarcho-libertarian into a libertarian racial nationalist if you can
only convince him that national interests and genetic interests also have importance along with personal property interests.

A major question with racial nationalism is where one draws the line between the in-group and out-group. On the one hand, we hear attitudes such as, "All Americans are immigrants, and there should be no such thing as a `hyphenated American;' we should all be just `Americans.'" On the other hand, one also hears increasing talk about how America is "balkanizing" and new immigrant groups are creating white flight and marginalizing other groups.

Obviously if one does not draw the line somewhere, one will wind up with so many different groups that the country will come apart at the seams as Thomas Chittum predicts in Civil War II. Saying "All Americans are immigrants, and there should be no such thing as a `hyphenated American;' we should all be just `Americans.'" may sound nice and sweet, but that is not how many Americans are going to feel once the economy completely breaks down, corruption and political suppression spreads further, and the U.S. government suffers major humiliations like the former Soviet government.

It is also true that North America consisted of warring tribes before whites showed up, and furthermore whites warred against these indigenous tribes in the 19th century. In addition, Nordics experienced a de facto Nordic folk ingathering among different Northern European nationalities in the 1800's. In the 20th century the Jewish Lobby has aggressively promoted Israeli interests over America's (see my Critical Issues section) while encouraging white loss of identity and disunity through control of mass media. One might conclude from all of this that from a longer term historical perspective, various forms of tribal consciousness and even warfare — to include psycho-political warfare — has come closer to characterizing the real "American experience."

I personally do not have the "right answer" regarding how much of white society should be a certain percentage Catholic or Protestant or Odinist or Nordic or Celtic or Alpine or Mediterranean or whatever. Nor is it part of my libertarian philosophy to come up with any specific answer. I would prefer to decentralize government — to include the repeal of all government -mandated social reengineering programs — and let people vote with their own feet. My hunch is that after the coming economic crises, North America will eventually sort itself out into many different countries similar to Europe, with many different types of societies. Some will probably be hybrids of different white stocks and mixtures of different cultures. Some will probably try to purposely recapture a Nordic or Celtic or some other white racial and cultural ethnostate. We may eventually evolve to have dozens of countries with a little bit of everything for folks to gravitate towards to suit their own personal tastes. This is a vision that is in fact very similar to Dr. Hans Herman Hoppe's anarcho libertarian vision in Democracy: The God That Failed. And in the long run this just might not be such a bad thing.

While I may not have the exact "right answer," I think that people nevertheless must come up with some kind of answer they are willing to fight for. Let me explain.

Back in the 1800's white people in America tended to live in naturally homogeneous communities by default. Quite often they did not need to define what they wanted. In a very decentralized world, many things naturally took care of themselves.

In contrast, today we live in a very competitive, globalized world, where people from all over the world want anything good that you have got going for yourself, ranging from your standard of living to blond women as trophy wives. Economic power has increasingly shifted to the nonwhite world, and nonwhites increasingly have the ability to come and take whatever they want — and shove you aside in the process.

Therefore, if you do not know what you want, and are unable to consciously define it and work for it, there is a good chance that over the long run you will lose it. If you are a white person and you do not want to live in an environment where you are dominated and marginalized by aliens, then you must consciously and explicitly support white racial nationalism and start organizing for a white future.

If you do not openly ask for a white society with white values and a white future, no one will give it to you. In fact, quite to the contrary.

 

Update References:

2017-08-04 The Five Laws of Behavioral Genetics by JayMan • August 4, 2017

The time has come for a review post on the laws of behavioral genetics. I will talk about why these laws are laws and why they are important. Eventually, this will be merged into my Behavioral Genetics Page, but for now, I will start with this primer.

The five laws of behavioral genetics are:

1. All human behavioral traits are heritable
2. The effect of being raised in the same family is smaller than the effect of the genes.
3. A substantial portion of the variation in complex human behavioral traits is not accounted for by the effects of genes or families.
4. A typical human behavioral trait is associated with very many genetic variants, each of which accounts for a very small percentage of the behavioral variability.
5. All phenotypic relationships are to some degree genetically mediated or confounded.

All are simple. All can be said in one sentence. Yet all are incredibly profound and terribly underappreciated in today’s society.,,

 

 

 

2013-05-16 Map shows world's 'most racist' countries (and the answers may surprise you), by Hugo Gye, dailymail.co.uk. [Editor's Note: It is quite ironic that the Western countries which are excoriated by controlled mainstream media as being the most "racist" are in fact the least racist on a global scale. Zionists in control of mainstream media who condemn white gentiles for "racism" typically support one of the most racist states in the world, namely the anti-Palestinian apartheid state of Israel. Once again, this is simply a continuation of a very ancient PSYOP formula, namely to be publicly left wing towards people outside ones own tribe to make them drop their defenses so that they become easier to infiltrate and exploit while simultaneously being privately right wing among members of ones of tribe to maximize its group solidarity, strength, and competitive adantage.]

Britain is one of the most racially tolerant countries on the planet, a survey claims.

The global social attitudes study claims that the most racially intolerant populations are all in the developing world, with Jordan and India in the top five.

By contrast, the study of 80 countries over three decades found Western countries were most accepting of other cultures with Britain, the U.S., Canada and Australia more tolerant than anywhere else.

Racism: This map shows the nations of the world where people have the most and least tolerant attitudes

The data came from the World Value Survey, which measured the social attitudes of people in different countries, as reported by the Washington Post.

The survey asked individuals what types of people they would refuse to live next to, and counted how many chose the option 'people of a different race' as a percentage for each country.

Researchers have suggested that societies where more people do not want neighbours from other races can be considered less racially tolerant.

The country with the highest proportion of 'intolerant' people who wanted neighbours similar to them was Jordan, where 51.4 per cent of the population would refuse to live next to someone of a different race.

Next was India with 43.5 per cent.

Racist views are strikingly rare in the U.S., according to the survey, which claims that only 3.8 per cent of residents are reluctant to have a neighbour of another race.

Other English-speaking countries once part of the British Empire shared the same tolerant attitude - fewer than five per cent of Britons, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders showed signs of racism.

People in the UK are also tolerant of other differences such as speaking a foreign language or practising an alternative religion - for example, fewer than two per cent of Britons would object to having neighbours of a different faith to them.

Similarly, fewer than one in 20 people in most South American countries admitted harbouring prejudice against other races.

The Middle East, which is currently dealing with large numbers of low-skilled immigrants from south Asia, seems to be a hotbed of racial tension, however.

Europe is remarkably split - the west of the continent is generally more tolerant than the east, but France is a striking outlier with 22.7 per cent of the French rejecting neighbourhood diversity.

Some have pointed out problems in the survey data, claiming that because the polls span a long period of time they are an unreliable guide to current attitudes.

However, a more serious flaw could be the fact that in most Western countries racism is so taboo than many people will hide their intolerant views and lie to the questioners.

Max Fisher of the Washington Post suggested that maybe 'Americans are conditioned by their education and media to keep these sorts of racial preferences private, i.e. to lie about them on surveys, in a way that Indians might not be'.

2011-03-05 This Time We're Taking The Whole Planet With Us by Chris Hedges, rense.com

2010-06-07 King Tut's DNA is Western European

Despite the refusal of the Secretary General of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities, Zahi Hawass, to release any DNA results which might indicate the racial ancestry of Pharaoh Tutankhamen, the leaked results reveal that King Tut’s DNA is a 99.6 percent match with Western European Y chromosomes.

The DNA test results were inadvertently revealed on a Discovery Channel TV documentary filmed with Hawass’s permission — but it seems as if the Egyptian failed to spot the giveaway part of the documentary which revealed the test results.

Hawass previously announced that he would not release the racial DNA results of Egyptian mummies — obviously because he feared the consequences of such a revelation.

On the Discovery Channel broadcast, which can be seen on the Discovery Channel website here, or if they pull it, on YouTube here, at approximately 1:53 into the video, the camera pans over a printout of DNA test results from King Tut...

...By entering all the STR data inadvertently shown on the Discovery video, a 99.6 percent fit with the R1b haplogroup is revealed.

The significance is, of course, that R1b is the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Europe reaching its highest concentrations in Ireland, Scotland, western England and the European Atlantic seaboard — in other words, European through and through.

 

 

 

Part Four : ....Mutualism vs. Parasitism

Back to Part One:......... Overview

Back to Part Two: ..........Centralization vs. Decentralization

Flag carried by the 3rd Maryland Regiment at the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781

© America First Books
America First Books offers many viewpoints that are not necessarily its own in order to provide additional perspectives.