Lawrence Auster, American Renaissance, February 2003
Underlying everything we have heard at this conference [American Renaissance conference of May 28-30] are two bedrock truths about race and race relations that go against everything we have been taught. The first truth is that there are significant differences in average intelligence between different populations, and that such gaps in intelligence cannot be closed by any known human means.
The second truth is that not all groups are equally assimilable to each other, in the sense of the ability to come to share a common outlook, identity and way of being. The greater the historical and racial differences between two peoples, and the greater the numbers involved, the harder assimilation is going to be, and the more likely it becomes that conflict between such different peoples will be permanent.
Today’s liberal and conservative orthodoxies hold the opposite beliefs—first, that all racial groups are equal in inherent abilities, and second, that all racial groups in the world, no matter how different, are at bottom basically alike and equally assimilable into American culture.
The first belief, in the equality of abilities, leads to the notion that any actual differences in achievement between races must be due to discrimination, which is to be overcome by preferential racial quotas. The second belief, that everyone in the world is equally assimilable, has led to an immigration policy based on what are in effect racial quotas applied to the entire world. The continuing influx of over a million immigrants per year, 90 percent of them non-Europeans, combined with higher nonwhite birth rates, is steadily turning America into a multiracial, nonwhite country—a “mirror” of the entire world.
A good way to understand the impact of massive nonwhite immigration on American society is to compare it to the impact of preferential minority admissions in the university. As Dinesh D’Souza has described it in Illiberal Education, universities admit underqualified minority students, while assuring them that they are perfectly well qualified. When these students find themselves having academic difficulties, they blame “institutional racism,” then they blame the curriculum itself, which they say is culturally alien to them.
The administration, not wanting to admit the truth, eagerly agrees with the minority activists that racism is at work. In effect, the administration makes the entire university community, especially the white students and the faculty, the scapegoat for a racial inequality that was created by the administration itself when it admitted unqualified minorities. The school then sets up coercive “anti-racist” programs and speech codes aimed at whites, and adopts multicultural curricula and intellectual standards that conform to minority cultures and “learning styles.” When white students protest these things, the minorities, in D’Souza’s words, “conclude that they have discovered the latent bigotry for which they have been searching.”
In sum, the result of admitting large numbers of unqualified minorities into a university is that whites start to be demonized as racist and are systematically silenced, while their civilizational heritage is attacked as unrepresentative and illegitimate and begins to be systematically dismantled.
Now if all these things happen when you admit large numbers of nonwhite students into a predominantly white school, what happens when you admit massive numbers of nonwhite immigrants into a predominantly white society? The very same things. The failure of the nonwhite population to fit into the society is blamed on the society itself, rather than on the fact that they were admitted in the first place. The white majority starts to be demonized as racist and is systematically silenced, while its civilization is attacked as unrepresentative and begins to be systematically dismantled. The great irony is that the admission of nonwhites is supposed to prove that the society is nonracist and egalitarian, yet the more nonwhites are admitted, the more racist and unequal the society seems.
Impact on American Life
While the “delegitimizing” impact of unassimilable immigrants can be seen in many areas of American life, in no other field is it more obvious than in the arts. Cultural institutions in cities with large third-world populations are rapidly abandoning the Western high culture tradition in favor of third-world folk cultures. According to music critic Edward Rothstein writing in the New Republic,
“[S]trikingly in a city like New York, [classical music culture] is largely a racially stratified culture as well: there are almost no black or immigrant faces (aside from Asians) to be seen in concert halls. . . . My neighborhood arts organization, like many others around the country, has been unsuccessful in marketing Western art music to the new racial and international communities in the area. So instead they’ve begun presenting the folk musics of immigrant and black cultures.”
The same applies to the theater. “The reason that Broadway appeals less to New Yorkers these days,” writes theater critic Thomas Disch, “isn’t just that Broadway has changed: so have New Yorkers. . . . [A] glance around the lobby at any Broadway show reveals who isn’t there: any of the city’s readily identifiable minorities—blacks, Hispanics, Asians. . . .”
Theatrical companies have tried to address the problem by introducing multiracial casts into Western plays, but have been disturbed to find that the audiences for such multiracial productions are still almost exclusively white. Evidently, third-worlders are simply not attracted to Western theater, even when it has lots of nonwhites in the cast. Since changing the cast doesn’t work, the only solution will be to give up the plays themselves. The irony is that these problems, are not seen as the result of nonwhites’ lack of interest in Western culture, and therefore as proof of their non-assimilability; rather, Western culture itself is blamed for not appealing to nonwhites.
Artistic images of American history are also coming under attack. Rush Limbaugh recently noted that the state of Oregon, after commissioning a beautiful bronze statue of a 19th century pioneer family, had rejected the completed statue because the image of a white pioneer family was considered “racist” and “noninclusive.” While Rush was unusually upset about this incident, it didn’t seem to occur to him that it had anything to do with demographic change—i.e., that it is our society’s increasingly nonwhite character that is making any “all-white” image seem unrepresentative and therefore illegitimate.
In 1993 there was an angry protest by black and Hispanic students at the University of Massachusetts who wanted the school to dump its official symbol, the Minuteman. The image of a “white man carrying a gun,” they charged, was racist. For the time being the school has resisted this demand. But for how long? As the university’s white population continues to decline, can we expect the Chinese and Pakistani students and administrators of the future to care enough about the image of the Minuteman to defend it against intimidating black and Hispanic protesters? Who will preserve the symbols of our Anglo-European national heritage after whites are gone?
Indeed, who will defend that heritage even now, while whites are still the majority? On Long Island this past Spring, a school production of Peter Pan was canceled at the last minute, after six weeks of rehearsals, because the town’s American Indian minority felt that the play’s portrayal of Indians (which, remember, is simply a childlike fantasy taking place in Never-Never Land) was insulting to them. So, to accommodate multiracial America, this classic play that we all remember with fondness from our childhood is to be proscribed. The most significant thing about the incident was that no one in the town, including the parents whose children had their play taken away from them, seriously protested this outrage.
In an even more horrifying example of white surrender, an elite private school in New England was considering hiring a well-known multicultural curriculum consultant when it was discovered that the consultant—a Caribbean-born black woman based in Toronto—had admitted in a published interview that her approach would make white children feel intimidated and guilty. After some discussion, the school’s board of trustees went ahead and hired her anyway.
These are examples of what is happening to our entire country and culture. As America becomes more and more nonwhite, everything we think of as the American culture and identity will be either censored, squeezed out or transformed into something else.
The response of establishment conservatives to these concerns is to say that such problems are created not by immigrants but by alienated white elites, as well as by the general moral decay of our society. “It is true that radical and liberal elites in education, government, and media appear to be doing everything they can to destroy whatever is left of traditional America, and they might well be doing so even if there were no immigrants at all.” But we must understand that even if there were no “cultural revolution” going on in this country, the kind of massive demographic change we are experiencing as a result of immigration would still be enough, by itself, to destabilize and ultimately destroy our culture.
The list of horrors proving this point goes on and on: the dominance of Latin American mores and language in southern Florida; the transformation of southern California into an outpost of the third world; multiracial juries unable to reach verdicts because jury members don’t share any common understanding of reality; the exodus of hundreds of thousands of whites from immigrant-intensive areas every year; the booming population of Southeast Asian refugees that will make a town like Wassau, Wisconsin (which was 99 percent white 15 years ago) a Hmong-majority city in a generation; the Santeria animal sacrifice cult from the Caribbean; Muslim extremism and terrorism; expanding Chinese and other foreign-based criminal networks; the takeover by Dominican drug-dealers of upper Manhattan, where Dominicans marched with huge banners denouncing “500 Years of Genocide” after a Dominican drug dealer was killed by a police officer in self-defense.
These and many other disorders are occurring not because of cultural radicalism or affirmative action or middle-class moral decay. They are happening as the direct result of revolutionary changes in this country’s ethnic and racial make-up.
The Weapon of “Race-neutrality”
What is it that prevents whites from protesting their own demographic and cultural dispossession? The most common explanation is that people fear being called racist. That is true, and it’s not just political correctness. Deep in the American mind is the ideal of America as a country where advancement is open to anyone, where “it doesn’t matter who your parents were.” The fatal problem with that formula is that it can work only within certain limits—when you’re speaking of individuals sharing a basic commonality. If you apply it en masse to radically diverse populations, it becomes absurd and dangerous. The ideal of “race-neutrality,” applied to incommensurable groups, turns out to be not race-neutral at all, but becomes a weapon used by one race to dispossess the other.
I came across a remarkable example of this in the coverage of the South African election. Amidst all the media’s joyous talk about a “nonracial” or “multiracial” democracy being born, Newsweek came out with a sensational cover with bold letters crying “Black Power!” So deep is the doublethink in which we live today, that I wonder if more than a handful of people noticed the gross contradiction of celebrating black power in what was supposed to be a “nonracial” election. But of course it’s not a contradiction at all: What “nonracial” really means is that it is whites who are supposed to be indifferent to race, in order to help nonwhites advance their racial interests.
This same double standard and delusion works across the board. For example, the belief that all the peoples of the world are equal in intellectual abilities is thought to be a race-neutral or “nonracial” idea, since it is saying that race doesn’t matter. But since the races are not equal in average abilities, this “nonracial” belief in equality turns out to be completely racial. It holds that blacks have far greater abilities than they in fact have, and invariably blames white racism for actual black inequalitiy. It is therefore the duty of whites, until the end of time, to exhaust their wealth and spiritual energy in a hopeless effort to make blacks collectively equal to themselves. The “nonracial” belief in equality thus turns out to be a kind of black racialist mythology.
Similarly, our immigration policy, which is thought to be race-neutral, is in fact turning America into a nonwhite country, dispossessing white America and its culture. Yet it is considered “racist” to oppose this policy, and “nonracist” to support it.
Ultimately the pursuit of race-blindness (in anything more than a legal and procedural sense), leads to complete incoherence. Columnist Jon Carroll of the San Francisco Examiner once complained about the fact that we are supposed to respect everyone’s differences, while at the same time we’re supposed to treat everyone equally—which requires us not to notice differences at all. Carroll continues:
“One is required to deny the evidence of one’s senses. I perceive that African American men are different from Caucasian men are different from Asian women are different from (what?) Ethiopian Jews. Can we compare these differences? No, we cannot. We may say for the record that these differences are beautiful, equally beautiful, precisely geometrically equally beautiful, but that’s it.”
And if we do begin to compare these differences, Carroll says, that leads us right back to value judgments about racial differences, which immediately devolve into “racism.”
Paralyzed by these contradictions, as well he should be, Carroll concludes: “I think intermarriage may be the only way out. . . . Of course, we’d lose a lot of interesting specific cultures that way. . . .” What he means, of course, is that we’d lose a lot of interesting races that way, including our own.
Along the same lines, but with far more enthusiasm, Morton Kondracke in the New Republic wondered how America could overcome its racial inequalities, and concluded that racial intermarriage is the only solution: “It would be a lot easier if each of us were related to someone of another color and if, eventually, we were all one color. In America, this can happen.” Racial intermarriage is even more aggressively championed by Ben Wattenberg, who sees it as the path to universal salvation.
I want to make the meaning of all this very clear. Modern liberalism told us that racial differences don’t matter, and on the basis of that belief, liberals then set about turning America into a multiracial, integrated, race-blind society. But now that very effort has created so much race consciousness, race conflict and race inequality, that the same liberals have concluded that the only way to overcome those problems is to merge all the races into one. The same people who have always denounced as an extremist lunatic anyone who warned about “the racial dilution of white America,” are now proposing, not just the dilution of white America, but its complete elimination. Race-blind ideology has led directly to the most race-conscious—and indeed genocidal—proposal in the history of the world.
This is the insanity that results from uncritically accepting the idea that race doesn’t matter. And the moral paralysis of whites in the face of immigration comes from the terror or distaste that they feel at saying that race does matter. There is also whites’ inability to face the fact that they are a civilizationally distinct group—comprising only 15 percent of the world’s population—that is demographically threatened by the rest of the world’s desire to live in the uniquely attractive societies that whites have created.
If whites continue to be open to nonwhites, as their race-blind moralism tells them they must, their societies will cease to exist; but if they exclude or disengage from nonwhites, that will require them to be “harsh,” “unkind,” “mean-spirited.” It will require them to say that they care about the survival of their race vis-a-vis other races. To the contemporary white person, such an idea is utterly evil and unacceptable. But the funny thing is, there is really nothing evil or horrible about it at all. It turns out to be the most reasonable and commonsensical thing in the world. It’s the current race-blind ideology that is insane.
So before we recoil in horror or embarrassment from speaking explicitly about race, let us remember that America’s current politics is already a race-conscious politics, only it’s a politics based on lies about race. It’s a politics directed against whites and their civilization. And it pretends that it’s not about race at all, but that it’s race-neutral and universal. So instead of today’s race-conscious politics, which is based on lies about race, let us have a race-conscious politics based on truths about race.
These truths include the following propositions:
o Long-term harmonious relations between a racial majority and racial minorities are possible only when the minorities do not exceed a certain percentage of the population.
o While individuals of different races living in the same society can get along on a basis of equality and mutual recognition, entire races, living in the same society, cannot.
o In the right circumstances, individuals or small groups of one people can be assimilated into a host culture of a different people, but there are limits to such assimilation. Certainly if the entire people associated with the host culture is displaced or swamped by a different people, the host culture will also disappear. Even smaller shifts in numbers can be enough to delegitimize the host culture and produce chronic cultural conflict.
o Therefore, the culture, identity and traditions of white America and Western civilization cannot survive in any community or institution that becomes multiracial or white-minority.
o Because of the greater attractiveness, prosperity and openness of white Western societies, nonwhites will keep moving into them as long as they can. Therefore white America can survive demographically and culturally only if it recognizes itself as a threatened ethnoculture; if it ceases or drastically reduces, on a national scale, all non-European immigration; and if it assures, on a local scale, communities where its own institutions may survive.
o The large and enduring differences in average intelligence between blacks and whites mean, first, that blacks on their own can never be expected to maintain a modern, democratic, civilized society; and second, that blacks can never be expected to achieve collective economic equality and other kinds of parity with whites. The forced attempt to achieve such collective equality, through affirmative action and through endless attacks on white racism as the supposed cause of existing inequalities, can only break down all the institutions and standards of society and lead to race warfare.
o There are therefore only two sane options for black-white relations in this country. Either blacks accept the above facts; accept a society where white Western standards of law, behavior and intellectual life are dominant and where advancement will be open for blacks only on an individual, not a collective basis; accept their status as an ethnic minority and be grateful to be living in a white society where they have goods and opportunities undreamed of in a black society; or else, if blacks are not willing to accept these things, then to avoid race warfare there must be peaceful separation between the races.
These propositions have nothing to do with any notions of race-hatred of the other, or of race-worship of one’s own. White people are just as sinful and imperfect as any other people. Unlike ideologies such as Afrocentrism and Nazism, which are based on the deification of one’s own people and the demonization of others, this new politics is based on a Christian recognition of our human limitations, namely that we do not possess the godlike power to create a perfect world where everyone is equal, and where differences don’t matter. If there is any arrogance to be seen today, it is in our current immigration and affirmative action policies, which are among the greatest examples of hubris in the history of the world.
The irony is that whites are terrified that non-whites will hate them and even start a race war if whites stand up for themselves, while the truth is that many nonwhites will begin for the first time to respect whites. Currently minorities don’t respect whites because whites have defined themselves ideologically as nothing while, in personal terms, they still try to protect their self-interest. Whites thus seem both weak and hypocritical and therefore despicable, and nonwhites just keep moving into the vacuum left by white surrender. But when whites begin to assert their own civilizational and racial identity and their desire to preserve it, not in a hateful way but in a calm, intelligent and firm way, then nonwhites will begin to see whites, not as the “oppressors” of left-liberal demonology, but as human beings who have the same basic interests and concerns for their people and culture that the minorities have for theirs.
At bottom, all we are doing is making an appeal to justice. The injustice and unacceptability of the current double standard will become obvious to any person of good will once it is pointed out. And that is why the principles I’ve described need to be at the center of an anti-multiculturalist, pro-Western civilization politics in this country. In my view, given current demographic realities, any conservative politics that lacks these principles cannot be a serious politics.
In Deuteronomy, Chapter 28, God pronounces the curse that will fall on the people of Israel if they fail to follow God’s law:
“Your sons and your daughters shall be given to another people, while your eyes look on and fail with longing for them all the day; and it shall not be in the power of your hand to prevent it. A nation which you have not known shall eat up the fruit of your ground and of all your labors; and you shall be only oppressed and crushed continually; so that you shall be driven mad by the sight which your eyes shall see.”
Unless America wakes up to the threat of demographic and cultural dispossession, and finds the will to resist it, the curse pronounced in Deuteronomy awaits us all.
This is an abbreviated version of the talk Mr. Auster delivered at the AR conference in Atlanta. His complete remarks—as well as those of the other speakers—are available on both audio and video tape. Please address inquiries to: Renaissance Audio-Visual, 272 Hope Street, Marietta, GA 30064 AR
Original article
(Posted on May 9, 2008)
Comments
Absolutely excellent article. It’s right on.
But, unfortunately, it reveals just exactly what many of us already know, and that is our country is no longer our country, and the chances of it existing in its present form into the future are slim to none.
Posted by Ranger at 7:52 PM on May 9
the white liberals that voted for obama and contributed to his campaign, should send their children and grandchildren to live among black majorities. that will straighten them up. a black man as president will have his finger on the nuclear button and can kill billions of people. at least think of your children and grandchildren and do not vote for obama. vote for clinton. if she cannot stop obama, vote for campaign. signed, a caring american
Posted by at 9:54 PM on May 9
“country is no longer our country” – This land was never yours to begin with so I really wouldn’t worry about that.
I should make an appearance at your conference. If I thought it would do a lick of good I might just request plenary time; not that I’d get it. Hey any time people start talking about first truth and second truth you start to think religion and not science, which is good because these claims are definitely not scientific. The whole article and the underlying argument is produced for one purpose. That purpose is to legitimize the barring of entire racial groups from social participation and access to global resources. The logic starts with this premise and builds up from there. Its hogwash.
Posted by Inkpaduta at 9:56 PM on May 9
“This land was never yours to begin with so I really wouldn’t worry about that.”
Here we go again. The typical “this was never the white man’s land, but I as a non-white want to live here and take advantage of what the white man built” attitude. This argument was old 30 years ago. Keep on believing in the pipedream that America will be better-off with a non-white majority.
Posted by at 11:35 PM on May 9
First we lost the cultural revolution. Now we’re losing the demographic revolution.
The most prominent theory as to why the ‘elites’ are working to dispossess whites across the globe is that it’s part of their plan to turn us into them, communists. Another theory is that it’s part of their plan to divide us so they can rule at the top. My theory is that the plan is to eliminate races altogether, having us all share the same DNA, making humanity nearly a single race. But I don’t really believe that theory either. I know I’d rather have us all be the same race than there be several different races, with the white race being burdened the most. Or even severally burdened while being hated by the other races.
In truth it looks like we’re all destined to be the black race. But what of us whites until this wonderful time comes about? Perhaps Time will do a story on it. About what whites can do to make the transition easier for non-whites.
Posted by last white person here at 11:53 PM on May 9
The recommendation of solving the racial problem because of
so many third world immigrants, and because of their birth
rates, and that the white majority has allowed their country
to become majority non white in a matter of time. That the
problem can be solved through intermarriage, and interbreeding
among the races to create a new majority race. This ignores
studies that there is racial differences, and you can look at
Brazil, and Mexico, that interbreeding of the races lowers
the quality of civilization, and the results that you will
have a population of less creative people, and more lower
intelligent, and violent people. If this nation survives,
it will have to operate just like a prison, with no
constitutional protection, and freedom. There is no middle
class in a third world nation. There is only the very wealthy,
mostly whites whom avoided interbreeding. And, the very
poor whom are non whites starving, and treated as slaves.
The lost of the White Man, will only make the conditions
of the third world worse, and there will be no escape from
the third world, for it will be worldwide.
Posted by at 12:29 AM on May 10
The article is brilliant. Anyone who says there is such a thing as “race neutrality”, with all this implies, is highly deluded or trying to delude other people into believing it.
Posted by Bobby at 3:39 AM on May 10
“This land was never yours to begin with so I really wouldn’t worry about that.”
If your point is that immigration is good, then mentioning native Americans doesn’t exactly help your case.
Posted by Aaron at 4:25 AM on May 10
Auster’s speech is rational, balanced, realistic and fair.
It is the kind of statement that might convince enlightened whites who are, frankly, repelled with good reason by much of the gloating, rancor, and nastiness of “racialist” discourse.
But as usual, there is something missing from the puzzle:
Why have so many whites (in Europe as well) have come to despise and denigrate the greatest achievements of their own culture and civilization: modern science, literature and philosophy, European classical music and the other arts, rational jurisprudence & modern government?
Due to various factors (in short: natural selection has been largely eliminated but not replaced with a scientific substitute, i.e, eugenics), the white race is in decline, and low–grade or intellectually mediocre types are in the ascendancy, while the numbers of highly gifted individuals – those who made European civilization great – are in demographic decline.
I am American, & I live in Germany. The social system here is laudable in many respects, but Germany’s dirty little secret is that it encourages low–grade Germans to reproduce faster than gifted ones. (Given low birth rates, any German births are welcome.)
For obvious reasons (WWII), eugenics is an absolute taboo here, although all educated German’s are aware of the problem.
Importing gifted Asians to the US or Europe is not the solution, nor is rasiing birth rates in the US or Europe – unless the emphasis is on rates of intelligent individuals.
So Auster’s excellent statement is missing something:
A frank recognition of the decline in the quality of white individuals.
Is this why so many whites are eager to accept falling standards? Are they unable to keep up themselves?
Why so many whites are satisfied with substituting simple folk cultures (which have their own value, of course) for the grand achievements of European literature and music?
It is hard work and requires much intellegence to digest, maintain, & perpetuate the greatness of European civilization.
Even sans immigration: Are we whites really up to the task?
Posted by elitist at 5:52 AM on May 10
“The whole article and the underlying argument is produced for one purpose. That purpose is to legitimize the barring of entire racial groups from social participation and access to global resources.”
First one side and then the other. Is this like a ‘pro’ and ‘con’ thing here? Are you two just arguing about access to white women and I’m to dumb to know it?
Posted by Mathias at 9:37 AM on May 10
The whole racial policies are based on Marxism, and communism.
They are doom to failure. Affirmative action is communism, when
a non qualified non white is hired, over a well qualified white.
We can see this everywhere in the decline of services, such as
keeping the lights on in south Africa. We will see it when our
cities will not have basic utilities such as lights, and power.
And ample supply of foods cannot get to the stores. This will
result in riots, and the government reacting in Marshall law
in taking everybody’s freedom away, and seizing the guns from
law abiding citizens, so they cam also become victims.
The mystery is why white america seen have accepted this decline,
and acceptance of collective guilt. It was a gradual process lead
by the government, and the mass media, through propaganda that
is repeated over, and over again. It becomes part of the psychic,
in which resistance is destroyed. We just accept the lies, without any critical thinking. Those whom do not, are punished, and purged. This is happening in the churches, the schools,
and the Universities., and on the job.
The eventual in game, is two separate societies, the very wealthy, and the very poor. nothing in between.
Posted by at 11:02 AM on May 10
This land was never really yours to begin with so I wouldn’t worry about that - Inkpaduta.
Wrong again, Ink. If the American Indians accepted some beads from the White man for Manhattan and so on, then it was a DEAL. You are probably one of the simpletons who believe that the natives were smoking peace pipes and enjoying a placid existence until Europeans arrived, when in fact they were barbaric, primitive head-scalpers who were incessantly engaged in tribal warfare, perhaps uniting as one people only when the Whites threatened their idea of tranquility. This nation is indeed OURS; the White man’s. We bought it, fought for it, won it, and developed it, whether you’d care to acknowledge it or not. The USA in all its (former) glory is a WHITE country, and if/when we White people lose it, it will crumble. Not only will its Superpower status dissolve but so will every other aspect of its (formerly great) society.
Posted by at 11:17 AM on May 10
Elitist hit the nail on the head. Whites have abandoned their own cultural heritage. How many whites have the slightest familiarity with the intellectual achievements that distinquish Western Civ. Rather what we have are the white masses addicted to TV, NASCAR, sports and talk shows. Its a short series of steps from general white ignorance, to white trash, to wigger, to black gangsta rap.
Posted by at 12:44 PM on May 10
I wonder if anyone ever told liberals any of these stories? “the goose that laid the golden egg” or, “the straw that broke the camels back”.
Posted by The Old Sage at 12:58 PM on May 10
“[S]trikingly in a city like New York, [classical music culture] is largely a racially stratified culture as well: there are almost no black or immigrant faces (aside from Asians) to be seen in concert halls…Edward Rothstein
There have been fifty years of artistic outreach programs for blacks and still most blacks show little interest in opera, theater, classical music, or most of the other fine arts. There have been countless programs for teaching violin, cello, etc. in black communities. The results have been under-whelming. While a few blacks have become well known classical artists, their numbers seem to be dwindling. I don’t know how many times symphony orchestras have tried to get blacks or Latinos interested in classical music because “minorities are out future.” Well, if that is the case than most of these arts are doomed to a slow and painful extinction in America.
Posted by Sardonicus at 2:13 PM on May 10
“…That purpose is to legitimize the barring of entire racial groups from social participation and access to global resources..”
Can you provide even one current, concrete example of your premise as to how ‘entire racial groups’ are being barred from social participation? Exactly which global resources have American Whites denied access to American non-Whites?
If anything, American Whites have been (and are being) denied social participation by the government they created. Can you name ONE White group that the government allows to advocate for White interests (akin to race-based hispanic and black groups such as La Raza and NAACP that are open proponents for THEIR people)?
AA, enforced and sanctioned by the government, favors unqualified non-Whites over Whites in the job market, college selections and scholarships. How do you figure that is ‘barring
entire racial groups from social participation’— when it is obviously White participation that is ‘barred‘?
Which White-based advocacy group comes to Whites’ defense when non-Whites are allowed to spew invectives at Whites with complete impunity?
http://www.amren.com/antiwht.htm
Where’s the White Sharpton or Jackson screaming ‘racism’, organizing marches and demanding justice when Whites are viciously attacked and brutalized by blacks?
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/05/the_knoxville_h.php
http://www.amren.com/ar/2002/08/index.html#cover
Who were the White advocates demanding fairness for the falsely accused Duke Lacrosse players?
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/04/duke_race_and_r.php
Any such White advocacy group (or individual) is axiomatically labeled as a Hate Group comprised of Nazis and Klansmen plotting the rise of the Fourth Reich.
Yes, I hope you do get your ‘plenary time’ at the next AR conference to present your half-baked ideas. I’d love to see you take on Jared Taylor or Stephen Weber.
How do you think Jared Taylor would be received at a LaRaza or NACCP conference? Would he make it out alive?
Bon
Posted by BonBon at 3:31 PM on May 10
This whole painful situation would be mute if racial differences
was accepted. There are many studies and conclusive evidence to
prove genetic, and racial differences. There will never be a
racial neutral society. Such society has never existed, nor
will ever exist. In American, the Marxist concept of affirmative
action is being used to denied qualifie whites to increase
the number of non whites whom are mostly unqualified. Our
society will lack the qualified people to smoothly run
society. The daily running of a city, and town in supplying
the basic needs of water, electricity, and disposal of sewage
will become problems. The infrastructure will decay such as
abandoned buildings, repair on bridges, and roads.
Today, because of our Hugh war machine, and welfare state,
we have to borrow money from the Asian countries to pay for
the running the government. When these Asian countries close
the door in buying our deprecating US dollars. That is when
the real trouble begins. This is when we will pay the price
of the a multicultural society, and the immigration act of
1965. Whites whom are multiculturalist are usually insane,
and are psychopath’s, for their policies lead to the destruction
of civilization.
Posted by at 6:52 PM on May 10
Its heartbreaking to read this essay. What it describes is so true..the forced suicide of the worlds most remarkable political achievement the USA.
Posted by at 10:04 PM on May 10
“[S]trikingly in a city like New York, [classical music culture] is largely a racially stratified culture as well: there are almost no black or immigrant faces (aside from Asians) to be seen in concert halls….
Edward Rothstein
There have been fifty years of artistic outreach programs for blacks, and still most blacks show little interest in opera, theater, classical music, or most of the other fine arts. There have been countless programs for teaching violin, cello, etc. in black communities. The results have been under-whelming.
Posted by Sardonicus
————————————————————————
I do personally know of one case. He goes to plays, concerts. He appreciates opera. He knows Italian , German, French — perhaps even Russian. He is “black”! He is totally out of phase with his surrounding “culture”. He is, of course, “gay”. His family lives on 116th St. in Harlem and is totally baffled by him, this odd hatchling who is so unlike the rest. They are just typical Harlem people. How did he emerge from out of this nest? He and they live in two different worlds. How do you explain this?
Posted by at 12:45 AM on May 11
“Can you provide even one current, concrete example of your premise as to how ‘entire racial groups’ are being barred from social participation?”
The argument was built for that singular purpose. These are talking points for people in this online community it doesn’t reflect reality. If you really want to learn more about social, political, and economic stratification in the U.S. and around the globe, and the forces that perpetuate these systems I would recommend Harold Kerbo’s book “Social Stratification.” It is one of my favorite books that I read in undergrad. This is truly a difficult topic because of multiple variables all interplaying all at once. Kerbo’s book contains a lot of important concepts that are well evidenced. It might also be interesting to learn how the World Trade Organization arrives at trade negotiations.
“Any such White advocacy group (or individual) is axiomatically labeled as a Hate Group comprised of Nazis and Klansmen plotting the rise of the Fourth Reich.”
Well, I gotta be honest it kinda feels like the fourth Reich in here. The majority of posts seem like they have gone beyond advocacy into full blown hate group. As I’ve stated a year or more ago, how come if your goal is to preserve White culture (which you can get plenty of support for) do you spend 99% of your time bashing other groups? That’s all you can accomplish and you can’t even do that well because you’re too extreme to leverage external support.
I’d love to see you take on Jared Taylor or Stephen Weber.
Well, I am still a young growing as a person and a professional. I do not suppose that I would be able to out argue a room full of hostile people, some of whom are experienced in debate. I guess I continue to post because: 1. its relaxing and; 2. I would like to see you all move forward in a more productive way. I am not asking you to do something that I don’t do myself. I spend 100% of my professional carrier working on addressing some of the very issues you all bring up within communities of color. I guess I don’t need to list our faults since you have them all mapped out
Posted by Inkpaduta at 1:08 AM on May 11
“Due to various factors (in short: natural selection has been largely eliminated but not replaced with a scientific substitute, i.e, eugenics), the white race is in decline, and low–grade or intellectually mediocre types are in the ascendancy, while the numbers of highly gifted individuals – those who made European civilization great – are in demographic decline.”
Posted by elitist at 5:52 AM on May 10
This is a fabulous post! You have touched on an issue that is very rarely dealt with here — that is, the dramatic and even startling decline WITHIN the White community ITSELF. I think this issue is second to none in its importance for the future of the West, although sometimes it would appear otherwise because most people seem rather reluctant to talk about it.
I can provide a little anecdote that helps to illustrate this idea. I remember a few semesters ago I found some old yearbooks in the libary at my University from the 1930’s/1940’s. Before I came across these books, I was already fairly knowledgeable about that period of our history, but I wasn’t really aware of what things were like at the AVERAGE level, because I wasn’t there. Seeing these yearbooks finally made me realize the magnitude of the decline, even at the level of the average individual.
After I looked over hundreds of photographs, I was literally ASTONISHED at the stark differences in average appearance between the older generation of students from the 1930’s/1940’s and the generation today. Without a doubt, the older generation was, on average, much better looking (i.e. facial symmetry), more intelligent looking, better dressed, more self-confident, etc. Obviously it was somewhat difficult to tell in certain cases given that these photographs were ‘black and white’, but I would also be willing to bet that blue eyes/light hair was present at a higher frequency when compared with the White community today.
All of the males were wearing neatly pressed suits, and the females were wearing skirts and most of them had their hair carefully designed in a special style (of course, they don’t encourage this today, because it would be “SEXIST”!). It was a very different picture from what I see today, with the average moron wearing ‘baggy shorts’ and backward baseball caps. In practically EVERY category, the older generation was superior — and believe me, the differences were not small, they were VERY considerable. Perhaps some people would object by saying that you can’t draw any significant conclusions based on these “superficial characteristics” — but that objection is wrong. You CAN draw meaningful conclusions. The outward appearance of a race/people is often a VERY good indication of that race’s cultural/intellectual level. It is especially revealing when it involves the same race being compared with itself at different periods of its history. We have definitely suffered greatly from dysgenic breeding in the United States recently, and the consequences have been enormous. Until this issue is dealt with, no progress will ever really be made in the West.
Posted by Historama at 1:32 AM on May 11
“What “nonracial” really means is that it is whites who are supposed to be indifferent to race, in order to help nonwhites advance their racial interests.”
That’s funny because I’ve noticed that Bill “Open Borders” Gates seems to be doing pretty well for himself.
According to this Forbes list, he’s not the only honky who has been advancing his interests: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/54/richlist07_The-400-Richest-Americans_Rank.html
But we shouldn’t pay any attention to these people, it’s really the minority activists and liberal professors that we have to look out for.
Posted by Smash The Multicultural Illusion! at 2:53 AM on May 11
“You are probably one of the simpletons who believe that the natives were smoking peace pipes and enjoying a placid existence until Europeans arrived, when in fact they were barbaric, primitive head-scalpers who were incessantly engaged in tribal warfare…”
Posted by at 11:17 AM on May 10
Your response to Inkpaduta is close to the mark, but when responding to all the Inkpadutas out there, it needs to be noted that when we speak of America, we are referring to the nation state not the continent. Yes there were other people on this giant land mass called North America before Europeans came (Homo sapiens have been moving back and forth about the globe for centuries upon centuries), but that does not make them “Native Americans” of the nation state of America.
The United States of America is a political and cultural construct, (created as a legal construct upon paper and materialized in the physical struggle of the Revolution) which has only existed since 1787. THERE WAS NO AMERICA BEFORE 1787.
America, the nation state, was created by the descendants of European Colonists.
The Genesis of America was at the hands of White Men. Non-Whites had absolutely no part what-so-ever in the creation of America. NONE!
The laws, customs, language and civilization of America, from its very first moment of existence in 1787, were exclusively European, which is to say EXCLUSIVELY WHITE.
Indians claiming to be “Native Americans” because their ancestors resided on the same physical territory America now resides on, is about as logical as Indians claiming to be co-founders of Microsoft since their people once resided on the land where Microsoft’s corporate headquarters are now located…
Posted by ELDIR at 6:59 AM on May 11
I was amazed to see a documentary on Channel 4 (UK) called ‘The Difference’ covering all racial differences including physical ability and intelligence. I was even more amazed to discover the documentary was first aired in 1999. It can be view on Channel 4 On Demand. Someone needs to upload this to youtube.
Posted by Eugene at 8:21 AM on May 11
Whites will go down in history as the only race that polices the thoughts and actions of its own members to the point where we can’t act collectively in our own interests. To do so invites the charges of “hate” and “racism” from other whites probably more so than from other races.
Multiculturalism will result and has resulted in less safety and freedom and has otherwise had the opposite effect from its stated theoretical benefits of peace, plenty and goodwill between different races. It has become the unofficial state religion of most Western nations. Only non-whites have the privilege of being able to deviate from party line dogma. Whites risk the loss of career, reputation, family and friends.
Posted by at 4:52 PM on May 11
Very well put. NOW WHAT DO WE DO?
Posted by Douglas at 5:53 PM on May 11
“After I looked over hundreds of photographs, I was literally ASTONISHED at the stark differences in average appearance between the older generation of students from the 1930’s/1940’s and the generation today. Without a doubt, the older generation was, on average, much better looking (i.e. facial symmetry), more intelligent looking, better dressed, more self-confident, etc. Obviously it was somewhat difficult to tell in certain cases given that these photographs were ‘black and white’, but I would also be willing to bet that blue eyes/light hair was present at a higher frequency when compared with the White community today.”
My young adult life was spent in the early 80s and about four years ago it hit me that people don’t look the same as they used to. I couldn’t quite put my finger on the problem. In my memory there were alot more blondes and redheads then than now. People were in better shape and their facial features were more distinct. People nowadays are trending towards a more homogenous look with darker hair and eyes. I thought maybe it was from increased European inter-ethnic breeding. At one time I could clearly discern who was German or Italian or Irish. Not so much anymore. I’ve also noticed that people of Scandanavian descent in the US seem to be a “dirtier” copy of their European counterparts.
Posted by at 6:51 PM on May 11
“What “nonracial” really means is that it is whites who are supposed to be indifferent to race, in order to help nonwhites advance their … racial interests.”
- - -
That’s funny because I’ve noticed that Bill “Open Borders” Gates seems to be doing pretty well for himself. According to this Forbes list, he’s not the only honky who has been advancing his interests….
posted by Smash
——————————
The point that you’re trying to make is specious because the person you mention is a self-seeking opportunist who, as an INDIVIDUAL, is feathering his nest AT THE EXPENSE OF ALL THE REST OF US, collectively.
Personal interests are not to be confused with “racial interests”. And race traitors who recognize no values other than money are indifferent to racial interests.
Posted by voter at 8:35 PM on May 11
One thing we need to remember when criticizing multiculturalism is that the “leftists” who created it and the people who defend it think exclusively in “social terms.” And, they even have a name for it, it’s called “having a social conscience.”
One thing we need to remember while reading this article is that Lawrence Auster is only thinking in “biological terms.” In fact, we also have a name for this, it’s called “being racially conscious.”
Both ways of thinking are WRONG. They are both forms of mental paralysis.
Another example: The “left-wing” vs. “right-wing” political paradigm.
No. What we really need when criticizing multiculturalism (or anything for that matter) is a biosocial consciousness.
Posted by Smash The Multicultural Illusion! at 10:28 PM on May 11
“In my memory there were alot more blondes and redheads then than now. People were in better shape and their facial features were more distinct. People nowadays are trending towards a more homogenous look with darker hair and eyes.”
EXACTLY! In general they looked much more healthy on average. Obesity was practically non-existent, and all of their facial features were indeed much more distinct and sharp when compared with people today. That’s one reason why they immediately gave the impression of being more confident and intelligent. Without a doubt, light hair was much more common, but like I said it was somewhat difficult to tell because the photos weren’t in color. Oftentimes black and white photos can be misleading for those with light hair, because occasionally light brown comes through as being darker than it is in reality.
Moreover, the differences in appearance between the sexes was very revealing also. The females looked much different from what we see today on average — in general, their facial structure and skin texture seemed much ‘softer’ and therefore more feminine. They gave off the impression of being more agreeable and ladylike. The males, in general, seemed much more self-confident and geared towards leadership and command. In short, they looked like the sort of people who are ready to talk control and become active contributors to society. This is much different from the eternal adolescents that are being popped out of colleges today. Again, on the whole, the experience was really shocking and even horrifying in some ways.
“I thought maybe it was from increased European inter-ethnic breeding. At one time I could clearly discern who was German or Italian or Irish. Not so much anymore.”
Hmmm.. I’m not sure about that. Interbreeding between European stocks in America has been going on since the outset. I think it’s probably two things: (1) the growing degree of difference between the groups, and (2) the lower quality individuals outbreeding the higher quality ACROSS THE BOARD.
I doubt that most of the people I looked at were wholly Irish or wholly German, although a few of them probably were. But, I am almost certain that EVERY one of them was of wholly or at least overwhelmingly Northern European descent. Based on our American experience thus far, I think that the mixing of various Northern European stocks results in blends that are very harmonious. Plus, the American emphasis on performance and ability helped to ensure that the BEST from each of these stocks contributed to the emerging gene pool. Now, the degree of difference in the so-called “White community” is MUCH larger than it was before. In fact, I suspect that a huge percentage of those who are nominally considered “White” today wouldn’t even have been classified as such 60-70 years ago. And, our culture has made it fashionable for the worst to propagate and the best to remain childless. Put these two destructive things together and you get what we have today, a gigantic mess…
Posted by Historama at 10:29 PM on May 11
“…These are talking points for people in this online community; it doesn’t reflect reality…”
It doesn’t reflect reality? Then what’s the point of debating an issue that ‘doesn’t reflect reality?’
You didn’t answer my queries: Why are all racial/ethnic groups allowed to openly advocate for their members except Whites?
And:
How are Whites preventing non-Whites from ‘social participation’ and barring them from ‘access to world resources?’
http://www.vdare.com/macdonald/080327_muller.htm
Why are non-Whites able to spew invective at Whites with impunity, yet ANY hint of racial speech from Whites, no matter how banal, is instantly labeled Hate Speech and puts the speaker at grave risk of losing his career and pension.
Ask Don Imus, Trent Lott, Jimmy the Greek and Fuzzy Zoeller if you don’t believe me—did you read the anti-White Hate Speech link that I posted above?
“…I do not suppose that I would be able to out argue a room full of hostile people, some of whom are experienced in debate…”
Nonsense.
Have you listened to any of Jared Taylor’s debates? Two are posted on the main page—here are the transcripts:
http://www.amren.com/features/gutierrez/transcript.htm
http://www.amren.com/interviews/wisetaylor.htm
I have NEVER known Jared to be anything but civil in the face of extreme, utter hostility—did you know Jared, on a number of occasions, has been personally attacked and physically prevented from speaking?
Here is his experience in Halifax:
“…On Jan. 16, before Mr. Taylor could even be introduced, 20 or 30 demonstrators filed into the room, and began shouting and beating on pots and pans. This went on for perhaps 20 minutes until a group of perhaps six men surrounded Mr. Taylor at the podium and, linking arms, forced him from the room. Demonstrators also destroyed copies of American Renaissance that Mr. Taylor had prepared for distribution….”
http://www.amren.com/ar/2007/02/dalhousie.html
Just which side is hostile?
Those who disagree with us insist we must be silenced into submission—or face violence, which our dissenters believe is justified. Free Speech for them, of course, not for us—and THEY get to define what is and isn’t Free Speech. Sounds like the Fourth Reich to me.
“…Well, I gotta be honest it kinda feels like the fourth Reich in here. The majority of posts seem like they have gone beyond advocacy into full blown hate group….”
The majority of us here are White Nationalists, not White supremacists pining for a Rise of the Fourth Reich. We wish to advocate for our people AS IS ALLOWED FOR EVERY OTHER RACIAL/ETHNIC GROUP.
Explain to us what is wrong with that?
We want to be left alone. We are tired of accusations of ‘racist’ hurled constantly at us. We are tired of losing jobs, slots in college and scholarships to those who are less qualified than we are and didn’t work as hard. We are tired of being passed over for promotions, by those less qualified, because of anti-White AA.
We are tired of a K-12 (and college) curriculum that teaches our children that WE Whites are the scourge of the earth—that our hard-earned, hard-won money must be re-distributed to those who didn’t earn it. And if we don’t accept backwards, disease-ridden. un-skilled, un-educated Third Worlders into our communities we are called ‘racists’, ‘haters’, ‘xenophobes’—and worse.
If we Whites are so hateful of non-Whites, why are they CONSTANTLY doing everything possible to move into our communities? Why can they not create nice communities of their own for their own people? Why would they want to work in the businesses WE created if we are so racist and hateful?
I’d think non-Whites would do everything in their power to keep as far away from us as possible—and scorn everything we have created—modern technology, modern medicine, functioning financial institutions, an entire nation of laws.
I must say this in your favor Inkpaduta : You are civil. I posted once on what I thought was a neutral political thread and the webmeister published my e-mail address, even though the site clearly stated that it would not. Needless to say, my in-box was FILLED with hate-spewing letters calling me every vile name possible—many started with MF.
I would also add this: I hope you continue to post—I hope you dispute anything you think is wrong. You stated: “I don’t need to list our faults since you have them all mapped out.” Go ahead—prove us wrong.
Remember: We do not take kindly to ad hominem arguments, or name-calling and you must back up everything you write with well-cited, Hard Facts. Otherwise, expect to be attacked mercilessly—your ideas, that is.
Maybe we can help YOU move forward in a productive way.
Bon
Posted by BonBon at 11:12 PM on May 11
“After I looked over hundreds of photographs, I was literally ASTONISHED at the stark differences in average appearance between the older generation of students from the 1930’s/1940’s and the generation today. Without a doubt, the older generation was, on average, much better looking (i.e. facial symmetry), more intelligent looking, better dressed, more self-confident, etc. ”
— — — — — — —
The above is so true! I have seen photos on the walls, taken of former university classes going back into the 30s and 20s, and perhaps even before. The one most immediately noticeable thing is that there were virtually no blacks in view. But furthermore, people wore neat clothes, they washed their faces and combed their hair. Doubtless any of today’s filthy, slovenly bums (called students) would have been thrown off campus. There were strict standards of appearance and behavior then. I doubt they had to be enforced; they were just understood. It was not a matter of campus rules but of the regnant culture. And though I couldn’t hear those old photos talking, I’m sure that filthy speech was absolutely taboo on campus as well.
There were high intellectual standards too. My grandparents’ old HIGH SCHOOL books, which my parents still kept — Botany, Latin, History, Math and Literature — would make any of today’s COLLEGE level books look like child’s play. Courses weren’t watered down then, nor standards lowered to accommodate the less gifted, and there was no notion that learning should be “fun” or that education was for ethnic boosting or to make students “feel good about themselves”.
A couple of decades ago, I went back to take a refresher course. I was astonished to see how things had changed. Not only at the great number of “minority” faces, perhaps a preponderance, but especially at the lax standards of behavior. Students interrupted the professor any time they wanted; they argued and contradicted him; they chatted among themselves. They even got up and walked in and out of the room whenever they wanted. They would munch on snack food and would even take out a sandwich and start eating when they felt like it! I never saw anything like that before. This behavior was inevitable with the new type of people that had been so heavily recruited.
Looking at those old books and old photos — anything from before WW2 — is a revelation as to how far we’ve fallen. Does no one else see it but us? Is it taboo even to notice or mention?
I recently read a quote from a novel, a remark made to a wastrel playboy: “You are standing on dead men’s legs.” We as a nation are standing on dead men’s legs! We are the ungrateful beneficiaries of past wars fought, of inventions and discoveries that we did not make, of backbreaking toil and sacrifice that we did not do. Like wastrel heirs, we are living off these inherited benefits, squandering them irresponsibly, but it cannot last.
Posted by browser at 11:18 PM on May 11
People were generally more attractive and healthier before the 20th century because they were a product of two parents with the same ethnicity. The diet was a factor also because it was natural - fruits, vegetables, meat and grains. There were beautiful colors like red hair, blond hair, blue eyes, green eyes. Whenever I see these nice colors today, I can’t help but stare in awe. They stand out in a sea of brown people.
Posted by at 9:44 AM on May 12
He is, of course, “gay”. His family lives on 116th St. in Harlem and is totally baffled by him, this odd hatchling who is so unlike the rest. They are just typical Harlem people. How did he emerge from out of this nest? He and they live in two different worlds. How do you explain this?
I think you have explained it without my help. Your black classical music lover is a sport an oddity. I would also be a liar if I said there hasn’t been a strong gay presence in American classical music.
Posted by Sardonicus at 12:39 PM on May 12
“My grandparents’ old HIGH SCHOOL books, which my parents still kept — Botany, Latin, History, Math and Literature — would make any of today’s COLLEGE level books look like child’s play…”
Education today seems to be about creating good morals. This is accomplished two ways. The first is by having large numbers of young people hoping and believing they will have a better future all during the years their life habits are being formed, thereby reducing the odds they will resort to crime or overly selfish behavior, after all, good things are going to be coming later. Secondly, education provides a means with which to advance those who are the least psuedo-intellectual among us and more able to restrain their selfish desires, and to a lessor extent ‘education’ advances to positions of authority those who are more intelligent. This goes against our natural tendancy to advance those who are stronger or better looking or more intimidating, better connected or even more unscupulous.
One could argue that it’s all about morals today but the only moral imperative being taught is to disparage whites and that non-whites must be respected. One could also look at the results and say we don’t have a more just society. For good or for bad we no longer look up to and emulate our betters.
Posted by at 2:14 PM on May 12
“There were strict standards of appearance and behavior then. I doubt they had to be enforced; they were just understood. It was not a matter of campus rules but of the regnant culture. And though I couldn’t hear those old photos talking, I’m sure that filthy speech was absolutely taboo on campus as well.”
Yep, this is very true. In fact, this is pretty much how pre-WWII was kept together at all levels — that is, more by intuition rather than force. For one thing, this was because they all shared a deeply entrenched set of cultural expectations amongst each from the start. After all, it wasn’t like you had to put it on a ballot that English was the accepted language! Also, people were just more independent and driven towards self-reliance — too much interference by authorities was looked down upon. Today’s generation is different; they need the government to change their diapers and do their thinking for them.
Moreover, I would say that one of the most fascinating things about the situation was the great extent to which those cultural expectations were engrained and present at virtually every level. I brought sex differences as just one example. It was very easy to tell from the photographs I saw that the sexes were raised in fundamentally ways. The females just seemed to be much more delicate and ethereal. Compared with the females from this earlier period, I would describe females today as being more mannish, more brutish, and more rough on average. Whereas, on the other hand, the males from this earlier period were more masculine. I can bet that there was none of the indecision and wimpiness that we see from most White “males” today.
“Looking at those old books and old photos — anything from before WW2 — is a revelation as to how far we’ve fallen. Does no one else see it but us? Is it taboo even to notice or mention?”
These are wonderful questions. They are questions that I hope EVERY Amrener thinks about very deeply, because in many ways that are essential to understanding our current situation. It’s very hard to pin down a completely satifactory answer, but I’ll do my best to shed as much light on the issue as I can.
To support your initial statement — Yes, seeing the older generation is indeed a powerful revelation, especially for those of us who are naturally suspicious of our present state to begin with. Like I said earlier, seeing these yearbooks was an alarming experience, and it really gave me a much better sense of the magnitude of the decline. I had seen lots of films from the era, but these photographs gave me an in-depth look at the situation on the average, prosaic level of the culture at that time.
Do others see it besides us? Hard to say. From my limited experience, I would say that, unfortunately, the clear majority of people today do NOT really notice the difference. This is definitely a sad fact, but remember people today just aren’t as inquisitive and critically-minded as they were before. This is EXACTLY what our ‘elite’ wants — a docile, easily manageable herd-like population that won’t ask any pesky questions or put up any resistance. Of course, this is only true for the mass, there are certainly a considerable number of INDIVIDUALS who do notice it. For these people, the reason that most of them still remain silent even though they are aware has to do with the enormous pressures applied by our current culture on those who dissent from ‘the cult’ (as Mr. Jared Taylor has called it). What exacerbate things even more is the fact that oftentimes these brighter individuals think that they have no outlet to express their dissent whatsoever. In short, they are without a ‘support community’. Maybe this will change in the future.
Regarding your second question, I would say this: Yes, in a way, it IS almost taboo to even mention it. Right away, this should strike nearly everyone, not just Amreners and other pro-Western sympathizers but even average people, as being very odd. What other people on EARTH is so reticent about their own history? It is essentially unprecedented in the entire history of humankind that a nation has come to practically despise their own past in such a short period of time. Remember, we are talking only about the 1920’s-1940’s — this is within LIVING memory of some people. This should alarm anyone, because in the vast majority of cases it is evidence of foul play.
And in this instance it most certainly is. The reason that mentioning the drastic decline of the White community is taboo is actually pretty simple: At that time, our basic approach to our culture and national life was basically incompatible with the sort of ‘worldview’ that our elite want to foist down on us today. Indeed, our whole approach to life itself back then is considered ‘offensive’ today. After all, back then, we didn’t think that ‘Blacks’ were our intellectual equals, and we weren’t afraid to say so. We didn’t pretend that males and females were identical, and this was reflected in our cultural expectations and social structure. We didn’t want to be displaced by alien peoples in the name of ‘diversity’. We believed that we were perfectly capable of managing our own affairs, and we didn’t tolerate other groups trying to push us around. In short, everything about us then is regarded as repulsive today by our ‘educated class’.
It has been the basic trend of our whole society since the end of WWII to move AWAY from these past attributes and to move toward egalitarianism and homogenization at every level. If you mention pre-WWII society in any sort of approving way, this is equivalent to approving of all of these other things associated with our society at that time that our ‘educated class’ finds so repellent. So, the next question is, why the move in this direction? And, perhaps more importantly, WHO is benefitting from the move?
Posted by Historama at 2:58 PM on May 12
To Hirostama and browser:
I’m attending a college. And even though I have never looked at the pictures of my college (would be interesting to do) from the 30s and 40s, I agree that the way many students are dressed today is just embarrassing. As you mentioned, most of the times it’s shorts, baseball caps and some kind worn-out T-Shirt that is in fashion. In colder days it’s a pullover with the name of the university or the state (which is boring).
But worser than their dress style is their behavior in dorms, particularly for freshmen. You won’t notice any difference between them and small children. They yell senseless stuff for no reason at 2 o’clock in the morning on the floors. The bathrooms are puked on weekends on a regular basis. The more the student is a troublemaker and the more repulsive his behavior, the more he attracts girls, who apparently have nothing more in interest than fun and drugs. It’s sickening. But at least it’s safe for one in general as long as he doesn’t lead himself astray.
Posted by Ziwtra at 5:47 PM on May 12
Two times while flying to visit my brother in Minnesota (I’m from southern California), I sat next to an Ethiopian and another time a Somali. When “breakfast” was being passed out they got the industry’s version of “Egg McMuffin.” Both times they erupted: “This has pork on it!” I should’ve said: “hey can I have it; I just love ham!” I said nothing however but asked where each had come from.
Posted by at 8:34 PM on May 12
Historama:
You don’t need to look at photographs just look at the older generation 60+. Look at their faces, their bone structure, and body type. Look past their age now and compare them with someone in their 20s. It’s striking in some cases.
Posted by at 9:10 PM on May 12
What is to be done? Hand wringing will not help. What concrete, achieveable steps will?
Posted by why at 1:39 AM on May 13
“People were generally more attractive and healthier before the 20th century because they were a product of two parents with the same ethnicity.”
Posted by at 9:44 AM on May 12
Hmmm.. Sorry, but I’m just not convinced by this, and I’ve yet to see any real proof that this attractiveness is because most of them were “uni-ethnic”. As mentioned before, I would guarantee that a substantial percentage of the people I saw were probably “multi-ethnic”, if you simply mean crosses between various Northern European national stocks. Mixing of various European stocks has been occurring since our inception here in the States, and it was never an issue until we started to permit cultural influences that are clearly dysgenic in nature. Alexander Hamilton was “multi-ethnic” (French/Scottish) — he, along with so many other individuals I’ve seen, doesn’t strike me at all as a “disharmonious combination” (as Madison Grant once put it). Just because two individuals are from the same ‘ethnic background’ doesn’t guarantee that they will produce harmonious offspring. Ethnicity is NOT primarily a racial concept, at all.
The fundamental reason why they looked better was because they were RACIALLY healthier altogether. In fact, at one time, America clearly had a distinct advantage over Europe, because through our selective immigration policy we had managed to extract the most valuable racial elements from various European countries and fuse them together under our culture that put an extreme emphasis on performance and ability above all. As long as one was unmistakeably White, ethnic background was seen as secondary when compared to actual performance in the real world. Americans were far less impressed with ‘names’ and titles than they were with ABILITY, and the end result was a steady progress in racial health up until these principles were abandoned after WWII…
Posted by Historama at 4:34 PM on May 13
I sat next to an Ethiopian and another time a Somali. When “breakfast” was being [served], both times they erupted: “This has pork on it!
———-
Africans do not bathe! When he complained about the smell of your breakfast, you should have complained about the smell from HIM.
I have sat on planes next to them, or near them, and it was agony … far worse than the smell of your pork McMuffin.
Posted by none at 12:39 AM on May 14
“Hmmm.. Sorry, but I’m just not convinced by this, and I’ve yet to see any real proof that this attractiveness is because most of them were “uni-ethnic”.”
Posted by Historama at 4:34 PM on May 13
The characteristics of what makes people physically attractive is symmetry and saturated color. That doesn’t happen when you’re mixing colors and features. When blondes and red heads mix with Mediteraneans and other races they produce a few beauties but most are average and not as attractive as their parents. Obama is a great example: the average black man or white man is more attractive than him.
Posted by Suzanne at 6:42 AM on May 14
