Thursday, February 25, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
The Most Dangerous Animal....
"We used to wonder where war lived, what it was that made it so vile. And now we realize that we know where it lives, that it is inside ourselves"
-Albert Camus, Notebooks, VOL. 3, Entry For September 7, 1939
I have become fascinated by war and the ability that we have as a species to firmly occupy opposing psychological states - at the same time! Humanity is capable of seemingly limitless compassion, but also absolute, devastating violence. It was armed with this curiosity that I began to study war more intently - the blood and guts, twitching bodies, screaming terror and reeking stench of it--not the clean, sterile, whitewashed version of it so popularly portrayed in Hollywood blockbusters - and that self-education continues in earnest with the following book recommendation.
In The Most Dangerous Animal: Human Nature and the Origins of War, David Livingstone Smith sets out to connect the strings of history, to the mountains of biological evidence in support of the idea that "war is nature", and attempts to illustrate just how it is that war is not separate from, but rather an integral part of our evolutionary development. The language is clear, the evidence is presented professionally and the tone is matter-of-fact - this is a book for the casual laymen interested in understanding the evolution of war and how it relates to the development of the human animal. But it is also a book for the academic elite who may be looking for a fresh and truly fantastic organization of known field work, as well as some intriguing theoretical ideas about the subject of war by Mr. Smith himself.
At the very least, what Mr. Smith has offered is a robust explanatory theory of the undoubtedly human penchant for bloodshed and our paradoxical aversion to it. Throughout the book, Mr. Smith gives very detailed accounts of the savagery and brutality that humans have inflicted upon one another throughout our bellicose existence. It is fascinating, and at times heart-wrenching, to read about these events "straight from the horses mouth".
Also of note, is the VERY extensive and VERY excellent bibliography. The bibliography alone is worth the purchase in my opinion.
A couple of reviews for Mr. Smith's book, one of which comes from a man that many of you will probably be intimately familiar with:
"This is the most important post-9/11 analysis of war and it comes none too soon, as hundreds are daily dying and commentators continue to ask why. David Livingstone Smith has provided a cogent answer to the deeper why question of war; not why Iraq? or why Afghanistan? or why Darfur?, but why war at all? Smith's answer - that war is buried deep in our evolutionary past - will be controversial, but his case is irrefutable. We have seen the enemy in the mirror, and until we gather the courage to accept our true nature, men will fight and people will die. Every politician should read this book before deciding on war."
- Michael Shermer
"Here is the unvarnished tale of human gangs, driven by built-in survival mechanisms and an uncanny ability for self-deception, romping through history--raiding, pillaging, terrorizing, waging wars, and committing large-scale atrocities in the name of abstract gods, holy lands, master races, and political systems. David Smith’s rapid-fire account of our uniquely lethal nature makes a mockery of our dreams for peace. We could always try, though, but seeing ourselves as we truly are is a necessary first step. This book shows us how."
- Anouar Majid, author of FREEDOM AND ORTHODOXY: Postcolonial Islam in a Polycentric World
"Deftly combining concepts and analytical skills from traditional philosophy with an impressive grasp of contemporary science in several disciplines, Smith has produced a unique work that is at once chilling, invigorating, enlightening, and ultimately hopeful. Believing that truth is the best medicine, I recommend for every thinking person a full dose of this fiercely argued and deeply insightful book."
- Dale Peterson, author of Jane Goodall, The Deluge and the Ark, and co-author of Demonic Males
In closing, I am by no means a master-reviewer, but I cannot recommend this book enough.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
I Love New York
I've been on a writing craze of late, in preparation for a new project and here's my latest output.
You can find this poem and a larger selection of my work over at my other blog which is dedicated solely to poetry; http://wwwtheveil.blogspot.com/
GWC
empty beer cans rattle-
dreams get wasted-
torn Levi's like street couture-
shoes rebel against feet; shuffle
amongst the shit-
old bones piled in piss-
eyes distant, bulging and hollow; bloody
gum grin like those cats at Loews-
smiling at the bottom of a bottle-
illuminated by barrel light;
personification-
New York at night
© GWC 2010
You can find this poem and a larger selection of my work over at my other blog which is dedicated solely to poetry; http://wwwtheveil.blogspot.com/
GWC
empty beer cans rattle-
dreams get wasted-
torn Levi's like street couture-
shoes rebel against feet; shuffle
amongst the shit-
old bones piled in piss-
eyes distant, bulging and hollow; bloody
gum grin like those cats at Loews-
smiling at the bottom of a bottle-
illuminated by barrel light;
personification-
New York at night
© GWC 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Rosedale
I originally wrote this poem back in mid-2009, but recently changed it quite a bit with the intent to distribute to various resources for possible publication. I'm pleased with how it turned out.
GWC
there was a time
when my fingers
caressed
her blushing face-
she is a memory
out of phase
no longer visited
on the street
corners crept back in-
now she walks
another beat,
but they don't share
Rosedale moments-
those dirty hippie sheets,
or the wrinkled dollar bills laughing
from the corner table;
cheap perfume
mixing with motel-sweat-
we were just two beaten souls
searching for a diamond
gaze,
and behind those nicotine curtains
we found our place
© GWC 2010
GWC
there was a time
when my fingers
caressed
her blushing face-
she is a memory
out of phase
no longer visited
on the street
corners crept back in-
now she walks
another beat,
but they don't share
Rosedale moments-
those dirty hippie sheets,
or the wrinkled dollar bills laughing
from the corner table;
cheap perfume
mixing with motel-sweat-
we were just two beaten souls
searching for a diamond
gaze,
and behind those nicotine curtains
we found our place
© GWC 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Geert Wilder's Trial Opener
This is what it's all about folks:
And this is why he's on trial; FITNA:
In short, let it be said here and now that freedom of speech CANNOT and MUST not be silenced. May the fire of courage forever warm your heart, to stand firm in the face of tyrants and murderous savages who wish to end your right to freedom!
And this is why he's on trial; FITNA:
In short, let it be said here and now that freedom of speech CANNOT and MUST not be silenced. May the fire of courage forever warm your heart, to stand firm in the face of tyrants and murderous savages who wish to end your right to freedom!
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Race Realism
This is an older article but relevant to what I wish to cover in this blog.
By Ian Jobling • 12/26/06
The culture of the age that we live in is founded on a lie: racial egalitarianism. It is an article of faith among the elites that govern the West that the races are the same in abilities and temperament, and that it is only racial bias in the present or in the past that prevents all races from performing at the same level.
This dogma has been conventional wisdom among the Western elites since 1950, when the United Nations published its “Statement on Race,” which declared: “[T]here is no proof that the groups of mankind differ in their intelligence or temperament. The scientific evidence indicates that the range of mental capacities in all ethnic groups is the same…. [G]enetic differences are not of importance in determining the social and cultural differences between different groups of Homo sapiens.” Link, p. 102.
In the succeeding years, this dogma has filtered downwards from the elites and entrenched itself to such an extent that it is dangerous for any Westerner to contradict it.
The heart of race realism is recognizing this lie for what it is. Both the findings of the best scholars and simple common sense force us to recognize that the races are inherently different. But holding onto the truth is a hard duty, as it means refusing the dominant ideology of our culture, which constantly tries to persuade us that racial equality would be achieved if only people, and especially whites, were less racist.
The idea that the races are innately different flies in the face of the conventional wisdom that is promulgated by the mass media and many experts. It may seem odd that I am trying to persuade people to renounce the conventional wisdom. Last week, in criticizing the conspiracy theories of David Duke, I argued that conventional wisdom ought to be trusted in almost all cases. The reasonable person should reject it, I said, only where the evidence against it was overwhelming. Any challenge to conventional wisdom had to meet three stringent criteria:
1)There must a respected school in the relevant community of experts that thinks the conventional wisdom is wrong.
2)The community of experts and other shapers of opinion must have a powerful motive for not recognizing the truth.
3)Facts of which we can be absolutely certain contradict the conventional wisdom.
Very few challenges to conventional wisdom meet these criteria, but the challenge of race realism to racial egalitarianism does. Studies of the black-white gap in intelligence prove beyond any doubt that the race realist perspective is correct.
The school of researchers that argues for the biological basis of racial intelligence differences, among whom are psychologists Arthur Jensen, J. P. Rushton, and Richard Lynn, have solid academic credentials and publish in peer-reviewed psychological journals, and their work is respected even by those who disagree with them. Furthermore, in 1988, a survey of experts in intelligence and its measurement found that a full 53 percent believed that the black-white difference in IQ was partially genetic in origin. The same study found the news media consistently overestimated the percentage of IQ experts holding egalitarian views. There can be little doubt there still exists today at least a significant school of experts that hold race realist views.
The reason why this school exists is simply that the evidence for race realism is so powerful. Hundreds of studies have been conducted on black-white differences in IQ, and wherever blacks are in the world, they score substantially below the white mean of 100 on IQ tests. In reviewing the literature on black intelligence in Race Differences in Intelligence, Richard Lynn found that 57 studies of the IQ of blacks in Africa conducted between 1955 and 1994 consistently showed that they had a mean IQ of around 671. Fourteen studies between 1986 and 2002 of blacks in the Caribbean and Latin America found a mean IQ of 712. Thirty-one studies of American blacks between 1918 and 1998 found a mean IQ of 853. Twenty-nine studies conducted in Britain and the Netherlands between 1966 and 2002 found a mean black IQ of 85 there as well4. In Israel, two studies of Ethiopian immigrants who are Jewish by religion but racially black showed they had a mean IQ of 655.
Second, despite all the efforts made in the US to achieve parity among the races, the IQ gap has not gone away. Indeed, it has remained approximately the same for nearly a century. In 1917, the first large scale IQ tests in America found about a 17-point difference between the scores of the races; the most recent studies show the difference is about the same6. The equalization of spending on black and white education, government educational programs for the poor, diversity training, and all the rest of it simply has had no discernible effect on the racial IQ gap.
This in itself is powerful evidence that the black-white IQ difference is rooted in biology. However, there is much more evidence of this. First, psychologists know intelligence is a highly heritable (i.e., genetically determined) trait. The heritability of IQ is as great as 80 percent, meaning it is primarily determined by genetic background7. The more related people are, the greater the similarity in IQ scores. The IQ’s of identical twins have a correlation of 0.86, whereas those of fraternal twins have a much weaker correlation of 0.6. However, after they have grown to be adults, there is no correlation whatsoever between the IQ’s of unrelated children who are reared in the same household8. Given the strong heritability of IQ, it is exceptionally unlikely that such a large difference as that between mean black and white IQ has no genetic component.
Some of the most powerful evidence of the biological origin of racial differences in intelligence comes from trans-racial adoption studies. For example, a 1992 study examining the IQ’s of adopted white and black 17-year-olds raised in upper-middle-class white families found that despite their similar environment, the adopted children with two biological white parents had a mean IQ of 106, whereas the adoptees with two black biological parents had a mean IQ of 899.
There is no doubt that IQ tests do measure intelligence. In fact, a person’s IQ is the strongest predictor of how well he will perform in school and whether he will get a well-paying, high-status job10.
In light of evidence like this, none of the cultural explanations of racial differences in intelligence and educational achievement are even remotely plausible. Some object that IQ tests are not a good measure of intelligence because they are culturally biased. But the racial IQ difference appears even on reaction-time IQ tests, in which subjects must respond as quickly as possible to a simple visual stimulus, such as a flashing light or a change in color in a dot on a screen11. It is difficult to see how such tests could be culturally biased.
Nor do arguments that blacks score lower on tests because of socio-economic deficits hold water. If class background explains differences in IQ scores, why do blacks raised in upper-middle-class white families score so much lower on IQ tests than whites from the same background? Moreover, black high-schoolers from affluent backgrounds regularly score lower than whites from poor households on SAT tests, which are a good measure of intelligence12.
Do the shapers of public opinion have a motive to deny racial differences in intelligence? Very much so. In fact, they have several different reasons for denying racial difference, which will be the subject of future writings on this website. As one example, Western elites hold racist doctrines responsible for the rise of Nazism and the genocide it brought about. The elites think the key to preventing such atrocities in the future is to discredit the idea of racial differences. The Nazi genocide was very much on the minds of the writers of the UNESCO statement on race quoted earlier, which contains this passage:
The myth “race” has created an enormous amount of human and social damage. In recent years it has taken a heavy toll in human lives and caused untold suffering. It still prevents the normal development of millions of human beings and deprives civilization of the effective co-operation of productive minds. Link, p. 101.
There was thus a clear ethical and political agenda behind the UNESCO statement that gave its framers and subsequent generations of Western elites the motive to portray the evidence in a biased manner.
The work of race realist scholars proves that our culture ignores not only innate intelligence differences, but a principle of the utmost importance in explaining human behavior. If the popular media sweep such well-documented findings under the carpet, who knows what else they have swept there too? Once one has realized that innate racial differences exist, one begins to suspect a whole hidden reality beneath the surface of things that explains phenomena that are so mysterious to the talking heads on the news programs. To be a race realist is to constantly sense this monster in the depths.
http://whiteamerica.us/index.php/Articles/Articles/what_is_race_realism/
By Ian Jobling • 12/26/06
The culture of the age that we live in is founded on a lie: racial egalitarianism. It is an article of faith among the elites that govern the West that the races are the same in abilities and temperament, and that it is only racial bias in the present or in the past that prevents all races from performing at the same level.
This dogma has been conventional wisdom among the Western elites since 1950, when the United Nations published its “Statement on Race,” which declared: “[T]here is no proof that the groups of mankind differ in their intelligence or temperament. The scientific evidence indicates that the range of mental capacities in all ethnic groups is the same…. [G]enetic differences are not of importance in determining the social and cultural differences between different groups of Homo sapiens.” Link, p. 102.
In the succeeding years, this dogma has filtered downwards from the elites and entrenched itself to such an extent that it is dangerous for any Westerner to contradict it.
The heart of race realism is recognizing this lie for what it is. Both the findings of the best scholars and simple common sense force us to recognize that the races are inherently different. But holding onto the truth is a hard duty, as it means refusing the dominant ideology of our culture, which constantly tries to persuade us that racial equality would be achieved if only people, and especially whites, were less racist.
The idea that the races are innately different flies in the face of the conventional wisdom that is promulgated by the mass media and many experts. It may seem odd that I am trying to persuade people to renounce the conventional wisdom. Last week, in criticizing the conspiracy theories of David Duke, I argued that conventional wisdom ought to be trusted in almost all cases. The reasonable person should reject it, I said, only where the evidence against it was overwhelming. Any challenge to conventional wisdom had to meet three stringent criteria:
1)There must a respected school in the relevant community of experts that thinks the conventional wisdom is wrong.
2)The community of experts and other shapers of opinion must have a powerful motive for not recognizing the truth.
3)Facts of which we can be absolutely certain contradict the conventional wisdom.
Very few challenges to conventional wisdom meet these criteria, but the challenge of race realism to racial egalitarianism does. Studies of the black-white gap in intelligence prove beyond any doubt that the race realist perspective is correct.
The school of researchers that argues for the biological basis of racial intelligence differences, among whom are psychologists Arthur Jensen, J. P. Rushton, and Richard Lynn, have solid academic credentials and publish in peer-reviewed psychological journals, and their work is respected even by those who disagree with them. Furthermore, in 1988, a survey of experts in intelligence and its measurement found that a full 53 percent believed that the black-white difference in IQ was partially genetic in origin. The same study found the news media consistently overestimated the percentage of IQ experts holding egalitarian views. There can be little doubt there still exists today at least a significant school of experts that hold race realist views.
The reason why this school exists is simply that the evidence for race realism is so powerful. Hundreds of studies have been conducted on black-white differences in IQ, and wherever blacks are in the world, they score substantially below the white mean of 100 on IQ tests. In reviewing the literature on black intelligence in Race Differences in Intelligence, Richard Lynn found that 57 studies of the IQ of blacks in Africa conducted between 1955 and 1994 consistently showed that they had a mean IQ of around 671. Fourteen studies between 1986 and 2002 of blacks in the Caribbean and Latin America found a mean IQ of 712. Thirty-one studies of American blacks between 1918 and 1998 found a mean IQ of 853. Twenty-nine studies conducted in Britain and the Netherlands between 1966 and 2002 found a mean black IQ of 85 there as well4. In Israel, two studies of Ethiopian immigrants who are Jewish by religion but racially black showed they had a mean IQ of 655.
Second, despite all the efforts made in the US to achieve parity among the races, the IQ gap has not gone away. Indeed, it has remained approximately the same for nearly a century. In 1917, the first large scale IQ tests in America found about a 17-point difference between the scores of the races; the most recent studies show the difference is about the same6. The equalization of spending on black and white education, government educational programs for the poor, diversity training, and all the rest of it simply has had no discernible effect on the racial IQ gap.
This in itself is powerful evidence that the black-white IQ difference is rooted in biology. However, there is much more evidence of this. First, psychologists know intelligence is a highly heritable (i.e., genetically determined) trait. The heritability of IQ is as great as 80 percent, meaning it is primarily determined by genetic background7. The more related people are, the greater the similarity in IQ scores. The IQ’s of identical twins have a correlation of 0.86, whereas those of fraternal twins have a much weaker correlation of 0.6. However, after they have grown to be adults, there is no correlation whatsoever between the IQ’s of unrelated children who are reared in the same household8. Given the strong heritability of IQ, it is exceptionally unlikely that such a large difference as that between mean black and white IQ has no genetic component.
Some of the most powerful evidence of the biological origin of racial differences in intelligence comes from trans-racial adoption studies. For example, a 1992 study examining the IQ’s of adopted white and black 17-year-olds raised in upper-middle-class white families found that despite their similar environment, the adopted children with two biological white parents had a mean IQ of 106, whereas the adoptees with two black biological parents had a mean IQ of 899.
There is no doubt that IQ tests do measure intelligence. In fact, a person’s IQ is the strongest predictor of how well he will perform in school and whether he will get a well-paying, high-status job10.
In light of evidence like this, none of the cultural explanations of racial differences in intelligence and educational achievement are even remotely plausible. Some object that IQ tests are not a good measure of intelligence because they are culturally biased. But the racial IQ difference appears even on reaction-time IQ tests, in which subjects must respond as quickly as possible to a simple visual stimulus, such as a flashing light or a change in color in a dot on a screen11. It is difficult to see how such tests could be culturally biased.
Nor do arguments that blacks score lower on tests because of socio-economic deficits hold water. If class background explains differences in IQ scores, why do blacks raised in upper-middle-class white families score so much lower on IQ tests than whites from the same background? Moreover, black high-schoolers from affluent backgrounds regularly score lower than whites from poor households on SAT tests, which are a good measure of intelligence12.
Do the shapers of public opinion have a motive to deny racial differences in intelligence? Very much so. In fact, they have several different reasons for denying racial difference, which will be the subject of future writings on this website. As one example, Western elites hold racist doctrines responsible for the rise of Nazism and the genocide it brought about. The elites think the key to preventing such atrocities in the future is to discredit the idea of racial differences. The Nazi genocide was very much on the minds of the writers of the UNESCO statement on race quoted earlier, which contains this passage:
The myth “race” has created an enormous amount of human and social damage. In recent years it has taken a heavy toll in human lives and caused untold suffering. It still prevents the normal development of millions of human beings and deprives civilization of the effective co-operation of productive minds. Link, p. 101.
There was thus a clear ethical and political agenda behind the UNESCO statement that gave its framers and subsequent generations of Western elites the motive to portray the evidence in a biased manner.
The work of race realist scholars proves that our culture ignores not only innate intelligence differences, but a principle of the utmost importance in explaining human behavior. If the popular media sweep such well-documented findings under the carpet, who knows what else they have swept there too? Once one has realized that innate racial differences exist, one begins to suspect a whole hidden reality beneath the surface of things that explains phenomena that are so mysterious to the talking heads on the news programs. To be a race realist is to constantly sense this monster in the depths.
http://whiteamerica.us/index.php/Articles/Articles/what_is_race_realism/
The Axis Of Perdition
For me, ritual requires a large dose of atmosphere. Without atmosphere, a ritual quickly becomes dull and I exit my ritual chamber feeling unfulfilled. That's why for the most part, I never perform any ritual without musical accompaniment.
The Axis of Perdition create just the right blend of ambiance and raw hatred often associated with black metal/dark ambient hybrids. Naturally, I find this style of music is more suitable for a destruction ritual, but your mileage may vary.
The Axis of Perdition create just the right blend of ambiance and raw hatred often associated with black metal/dark ambient hybrids. Naturally, I find this style of music is more suitable for a destruction ritual, but your mileage may vary.
Monday, February 8, 2010
It Never Ends!
From The Sunday Times
February 7, 2010
Africagate: top British scientist says UN panel is losing credibility
A LEADING British government scientist has warned the United Nations’ climate panel to tackle its blunders or lose all credibility.
Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the environment ministry, who chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to 2002, was speaking after more potential inaccuracies emerged in the IPCC’s 2007 benchmark report on global warming.
The most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.
This weekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC’s climate impacts team, told The Sunday Times that he could find nothing in the report to support the claim. The revelation follows the IPCC’s retraction of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by 2035, dubbed 'Glaciergate' by commentators.
The African claims could be even more embarrassing for the IPCC because they appear not only in its report on climate change impacts but, unlike the glaciers claim, are also repeated in its Synthesis Report.
This report is the IPCC’s most politically sensitive publication, distilling its most important science into a form accessible to politicians and policy makers. Its lead authors include Pachauri himself.
In it he wrote: “By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%. Agricultural production, including access to food, in many African countries is projected to be severely compromised.” The same claims have since been cited in speeches to world leaders by Pachauri and Ban.
Speaking at the 2008 global climate talks in Poznan, Poland, Pachauri said: “In some countries of Africa, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by 50% by 2020.” In a speech last July, Ban said: “Yields from rain-fed agriculture could fall by half in some African countries over the next 10 years.”
Speaking this weekend, Field said: “I was not an author on the Synthesis Report but on reading it I cannot find support for the statement about African crop yield declines.”
Watson said such claims should be based on hard evidence. “Any such projection should be based on peer-reviewed literature from computer modelling of how agricultural yields would respond to climate change. I can see no such data supporting the IPCC report,” he said.
The claims in the Synthesis Report go back to the IPCC’s report on the global impacts of climate change. It warns that all Africa faces a long-term threat from farmland turning to desert and then says of north Africa, “additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-20 period, and reductions in crop growth period (Agoumi, 2003)”.
“Agoumi” refers to a 2003 policy paper written for the International Institute for Sustainable Development, a Canadian think tank. The paper was not peer-reviewed.
Its author was Professor Ali Agoumi, a Moroccan climate expert who looked at the potential impacts of climate change on Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria. His report refers to the risk of “deficient yields from rain-based agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000–20 period”.
These claims refer to other reports prepared by civil servants in each of the three countries as submissions to the UN. These do not appear to have been peer-reviewed either.
The IPCC is also facing criticism over its reports on how sea level rise might affect Holland. Dutch ministers have demanded that it correct a claim that more than half of the Netherlands lies below sea level when, in reality, it is about a quarter.
The errors seem likely to bring about change at the IPCC. Field said: “The IPCC needs to investigate a more sophisticated approach for dealing with emerging errors.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece
February 7, 2010
Africagate: top British scientist says UN panel is losing credibility
A LEADING British government scientist has warned the United Nations’ climate panel to tackle its blunders or lose all credibility.
Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the environment ministry, who chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to 2002, was speaking after more potential inaccuracies emerged in the IPCC’s 2007 benchmark report on global warming.
The most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.
This weekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC’s climate impacts team, told The Sunday Times that he could find nothing in the report to support the claim. The revelation follows the IPCC’s retraction of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by 2035, dubbed 'Glaciergate' by commentators.
The African claims could be even more embarrassing for the IPCC because they appear not only in its report on climate change impacts but, unlike the glaciers claim, are also repeated in its Synthesis Report.
This report is the IPCC’s most politically sensitive publication, distilling its most important science into a form accessible to politicians and policy makers. Its lead authors include Pachauri himself.
In it he wrote: “By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%. Agricultural production, including access to food, in many African countries is projected to be severely compromised.” The same claims have since been cited in speeches to world leaders by Pachauri and Ban.
Speaking at the 2008 global climate talks in Poznan, Poland, Pachauri said: “In some countries of Africa, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by 50% by 2020.” In a speech last July, Ban said: “Yields from rain-fed agriculture could fall by half in some African countries over the next 10 years.”
Speaking this weekend, Field said: “I was not an author on the Synthesis Report but on reading it I cannot find support for the statement about African crop yield declines.”
Watson said such claims should be based on hard evidence. “Any such projection should be based on peer-reviewed literature from computer modelling of how agricultural yields would respond to climate change. I can see no such data supporting the IPCC report,” he said.
The claims in the Synthesis Report go back to the IPCC’s report on the global impacts of climate change. It warns that all Africa faces a long-term threat from farmland turning to desert and then says of north Africa, “additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-20 period, and reductions in crop growth period (Agoumi, 2003)”.
“Agoumi” refers to a 2003 policy paper written for the International Institute for Sustainable Development, a Canadian think tank. The paper was not peer-reviewed.
Its author was Professor Ali Agoumi, a Moroccan climate expert who looked at the potential impacts of climate change on Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria. His report refers to the risk of “deficient yields from rain-based agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000–20 period”.
These claims refer to other reports prepared by civil servants in each of the three countries as submissions to the UN. These do not appear to have been peer-reviewed either.
The IPCC is also facing criticism over its reports on how sea level rise might affect Holland. Dutch ministers have demanded that it correct a claim that more than half of the Netherlands lies below sea level when, in reality, it is about a quarter.
The errors seem likely to bring about change at the IPCC. Field said: “The IPCC needs to investigate a more sophisticated approach for dealing with emerging errors.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Penn & Teller: Patriotism
To avoid drawing a line that I cannot cross, let me stress from the outset that I am speaking as a patriot of American ideals, not the borders within which I find myself. Any seeming 'bordercentrism' is only by extension of the fact that I do happen to live in America. With that said....
I've been asked before to define my sense of patriotism, above are two videos by two of my favorite commentators - the intellectual magicians and comedy duo Penn & Teller, and the astute thinker known as The Southern Avenger. Both videos express elements of thought that I strongly resonate with, with only a couple of disagreements, so small that they don't even bare mentioning.
For me, it's simple, there is no philosophical obfuscation here, no collection of ambiguities to wade through. By the fortune of my birth, I am American; land of law, freedom and the right to succeed. These things which are granted me by the very same fortune of my birth. They are dear to me and shape the 'has been', as well as the 'is to be' of my life. Without such freedom, it is reasonable to say that I would not be writing this at all. I almost certainly would not be extolling the virtues of freedom in Pyongyang, North Korea for instance.
As articulated in the above videos, these rights are mine and inherently attached to who I am. These rights are limited only insofar as rational and acceptable laws should limit them. There is great beauty to be found in a sea of opinions freely expressed with no fear of reprisal from a totalitarian government, nefarious death squad, et al. Knowledge available to anyone, about anything, with the greatest of ease and only reasonable restrictions. These are the type and kind of freedoms that I love and would sorely miss should I no longer have them.
It is often pointed out by many of my associates that I am not what I do (an idea immortalized in Stanley Kubrick's Fight Club), or where I live is not of importance to who I am. I disagree slightly, by degree. The borders that surround me do not make me, but the ideals found within those borders, definitely do. The ideals championed by The United States of America are minority ideals, they are in no way popular or emulated worldwide. If I did not toil under the banner of these standards, how could I begin to say that I would be the same person I am today, without feeling like a liar or just a little naive? Freedom and oppression necessarily shape people differently - I think that this is a truism, almost embarrassing to mention.
All of these freedoms and rights form a distinct American culture, and it is known as "The American Way"; "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" baby. I argue that culture is to a man, what a foundation is to a house. The cultural freedom and rights that I am afforded, while not uniquely American, are so devastatingly unpopular that finding them elsewhere in order to compile a list, would I suspect, be a very short list indeed. No, I don't think I would be the same man writing this from a hotel room in Tehran, and I almost certainly would not be a patriot.
But, since I do live in a nation that upholds these basic truths to be self-evident, I have the right to be a patriot - and I am one.
GWC
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Principles Of The Pro-White Movement
This is not a Klu Klux Klan membership pamphlet; this is not an endorsement of Neo-Nazi activities, such as mixing unnecessary violence and illegal activities - this is simply an appreciation of white culture, the acceptance of reality and a growing disdain for forced multiculturalism (affirmative action comes to mind). This is, however, an endorsement of racial autonomy. Label me a racist if it makes you feel better.
When did it become a crime?; and who judged it a moral deficiency to prefer association with members of one's own race?
Anyway, while I find a few of the statements questionable, whether from ignorance or incredulity - the science behind IQ differences and how much IQ actually matters, some of the statistics mentioned without recourse to references etc. - the meat of the article is sound.
GWC
By Ian Jobling
The state of the white race in the West confronts us with a horror unprecedented in the annals of human history. Demographers predict whites will be a minority in the United States in 40 years and in Western Europe shortly after. Since the West condones interracial breeding, there is a serious prospect that the white race as we know it will disappear in the next two or three centuries.
An even more urgent threat is that whites will lose political control over their ancestral homelands and be put at the mercy of alien races who are unfriendly to our people.
Because culture is rooted in biology, the subjugation or extinction of the white race may well mean the death of Western culture and its fundamental ideals of individualism, pluralism, tolerance, and the rule of law. If the white West is not preserved, it is quite possible that what we today call the Third World will become the whole world, and the light of humanity and progress will be extinguished.
This prospect, while fearsome enough, does not express the full horror of our plight. What gives the situation of whites its uniquely dreadful and grotesque cast is that it is taboo for us to voice any desire for our continued existence. Our current cultural establishment labels “racism” and “hatred” any word of complaint that whites may breathe about their impending subjugation and obliteration. These labels are a slander wicked almost beyond imagining. Indeed, the hatred is on the side of the people who express indifference towards or even eagerness for the destruction of a people.
The pro-white movement is committed to the preservation of the white race and its unique culture. Pro-whites, as the movement’s adherents call themselves, frankly admit that they prefer their own people to others and see no evil in doing so. Pro-whites resemble the Jewish activists who attempted to awake a callous and bigoted world to the prospect of the Holocaust during the Nazi period or Spartans trying to preserve their society from Persian rule.
In furtherance of our goal of racial preservation, the pro-white movement will spread awareness of the threats to the white race and the reasons for preserving it. We will seek to overcome the slanders against our race and our movement that have made it disreputable for whites to defend themselves against extinction. Finally, we will do all in our power to restore to America a government that respects the white race and promotes its interests.
Why Preserve White Societies?
White societies are worth preserving not merely because of the inherent value of ethnic autonomy, but also because of the precious uniqueness of Western culture, which only whites have succeeded in creating.
Scholars have found that Western culture is distinguished by preference for the rule of law, individualism, pluralism, and tolerance. Also, whites have a uniquely powerful urge to discover the objective truth about the world. This urge has led the West far more than other cultures to defend the individual exercise of reason from suppression by state and ecclesiastical authorities. Additionally, the Western taste for the truth has created a culture uniquely capable of self-criticism and innovation in science, technology, philosophy, and the arts.
The unique attributes of Western culture are due in part to whites’ relatively high intelligence and providence, or ability to defer gratification for greater future rewards.
Without the white race, it is quite likely that people would still be living pre-modern despotisms like the ancient Persian or Chinese empires, since more or less all of the technological, scientific, philosophical, and political innovations that led to modernity were accomplished by whites.
Cultural differences among the races are almost certainly in part due to biological differences. Psychologists have found that the black-white IQ gap, the most intensively studied racial difference, is certainly genetic in origin. It is the consensus among behavior geneticists that personality traits are about 50 percent heritable, so it stands to reason that other racial differences have some biological basis as well.
The influx of non-whites into America erodes our culture. Unintelligent and improvident populations like blacks and Hispanics, through high rates of crime and other forms of social irresponsibility, threaten a peaceful, prosperous society. Not only do these populations act as a drag on the white population, but they tend to corrupt our nation by lowering standards. Indeed, the current mortgage crisis and concomitant stock market collapse are in part due to minority activism to lower home lending standards.
Irresponsible populations have other negative effects on America’s economy. They mean higher taxes for welfare and prisons and a strained social infrastructure. The influx of poorly achieving and crime-prone Hispanics into the schools has caused white flight into an ever-shrinking number of decent school districts. Consequently, housing prices in good neighborhoods soar, and whites go deep into debt in order to provide a future for their children.
Furthermore, non-white groups are a threat to the culture of freedom that white societies have established. Non-whites do not seem to possess the broad-minded tolerance of free expression that is fundamental to Western culture.
Finally, the research of Harvard professor Robert Putnam has demonstrated that diversity destroys trust. In an empirical study of communities, Putnam concluded:
people living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down,’ that is, to pull in like a turtle… [They tend to] withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.
As commentator Ilana Mercer put it, “Greater diversity equals more misery.”
The inherent value of racial autonomy, the preciousness of Western civilization, the distrust and misery bred by racial diversity, and its negative economic impact—together these form a compelling justification for preserving white societies.
Leukophobia
Despite the fact that whites invented the critique of ethnocentrism, contemporary common wisdom has it that whites are the only “racist” race and that all other peoples are noble savages who have been cruelly exploited by us. The pro-white movement dubs the bias against the white race “leukophobia,” or fear and loathing of whites. The counterpart of leukophobia is “chromophilia,” or unwarranted idealization of non-whites.
Leukophobia causes our society not only to exaggerate examples of white egotism and destructiveness, but actually to fabricate white racism hoaxes. Leukophobia is an accepted, mainstream racial hatred, so pervasive that it seems like common sense. Leukophobia has so far been successful in discrediting anyone who has tried to preserve and defend the white race.
Leukophobia creates an inverted world in which the blame for racism falls on the race that has done most—indeed, far too much—to end it. Whites invented the concept of human rights in the name of which the oppression of ethnicities can be criticized. Whites were the first to abolish slavery. American whites have even gone to the extreme of making non-whites a privileged class through affirmative action in order to bring out about racial equality.
White America has discussed several examples of leukophobia and chromophilia. For example, American history textbooks, in the words of Diane Ravitch, display “a barely concealed rage against people of European ancestry.” The textbooks lay heavy emphasis on slavery, racial subjugation, and war crimes perpetrated by whites, while ignoring or whitewashing similar, or worse, practices perpetrated by other peoples. The myth that Americans frequently committed atrocities against Asians during the Vietnam War is another example of anti-white bias in our understanding of history.
Leukophobia even causes the news media to fabricate instances of white racial hatred. The Duke rape and Jena 6 cases are recent examples.
Leukophobia takes its most blatant form among non-whites, large minorities or even majorities of whom fantasize that whites are conspiring to undermine them. The beliefs of Jeremiah Wright are not marginal among blacks. One quarter of blacks think that whites invented AIDS as a means of racial genocide, and 50 percent think that the CIA and FBI have flooded black neighborhoods with guns and drugs so that they will harm one another. Mexican-Americans share similar beliefs about whites.
Even as the shapers of opinion exaggerate and even fabricate instances white racial hatred, examples of non-white racial hatred are ignored. Thus, when whites are even suspected of committing crimes of racial hatred, as in the Duke rape and Jena 6 cases, there is massive press coverage. But proven crimes of racial hatred committed by minorities receive little coverage.
Similarly, the shapers of public opinion suppress awareness of non-white misbehavior, or even more despicably, blame it on whites. Such is the purpose of the myth of racial profiling, which illegitimately pins the blame for high non-white incarceration rates on white police officers and judges.
The Causes of Leukophobia
Leukophobia has many different causes. Among them are minority egotism, which makes whites a scapegoat for minorities’ social dysfunction, and the horrific forms that white ethnocentrism has taken in the past, such as the Hitler regime, American slavery, the Klan, and the neo-Nazis.
Carrying on the dismal tradition of American white supremacism, most pro-whites today believe our current racial dispossession is due to Jewish influence on the West, if not actual Jewish conspiracies against whites. However, these tired lies conceal the real dynamics of white dispossession, which has been inflicted by white Gentiles on themselves. While it is true that Jews have been inclined towards highly liberal—that is, leukophobic—beliefs, nevertheless more than 90 percent of white racial liberals are Gentiles. Moreover, that Jewish leukophobia could thrive in America suggests that it was a mere extension of something in our national character. For these reasons, the pro-white movement repudiates anti-Semitism and will resolutely oppose the obsession with Jews that poisons and discredits our cause.
The primary reason for the ascendancy of leukophobia is diversity snobbery. Various currents in 19th and 20th century thought made tolerance and openness to diversity the virtues that we most esteem. This attitude is particularly prevalent among the wealthy and powerful in America. Leukophobia originated with intellectuals in the early 20th century, spread to college students in the 1960s and to the professional class in the 1970s, and dominates all of the American elite today. While tolerance and openness are great virtues, they turn into vices when taken to destructive extremes.
Diversity snobbery is rooted in the aspiration to show oneself more tolerant and open than others. Diversity snobs slander today’s white majority or the “racist” America of the past so that their own superior virtues can shine more brightly by comparison.
A particularly obnoxious example of the slanders to which diversity snobbery gives rise is the elites’ assertion that America’s immigration reform movement is rooted in “ugliness” and “hatred,” to use the New York Times’ terms or “bitterness,” to use Barack Obama’s. The white working and middle class support the immigration reform movement because they are on the front lines of the demographic transition currently taking place in America. It is they who are suffering from the importation of unintelligent, crime-prone populations into the US. It is they who have to send their children to school with aspiring gangsters. All that the immigration reformers are asking for is enforcement of our current immigration laws. It is monstrous to describe the white majority’s concern for its way of life as “hatred.”
Another manifestation of diversity snobbery is the completely unfounded belief that greater racial diversity leads to greater creativity. In fact, the relatively homogeneous and white racialist culture of early 20th century America produced an explosion of creativity that dwarfs the achievements of the post-Civil Rights era. Think of the extraordinary transformation that took place in America between the end of the 19th century—the age of horse-drawn carts, vaudeville, and typhoid epidemics—and 1950, the age of Pan Am, CBS, and penicillin. All of this was accomplished by us white-bread Americans without any help or other enrichment from Somalis, Guatemalans, or Koreans. It is unlikely that the diverse America of the future will be able to match our ancestors’ record of achievement.
Discrimination and Segregation
The term “civil rights” as it is currently used in America is an Orwellian abomination that actually designates a restriction of rights. The right to racial discrimination, including segregation in housing and schools, is founded on the principle of free association, a right that is normally respected and protected by the law. The pro-white movement supports the extension of this principle to all associations.
In many contexts, it is perfectly legal for Americans to form racially exclusive associations, and there are tens of thousands of them: the National Association of Black Journalists, the National Association of Hispanic Nurses, the National Association of Asian-American Professionals are examples.
If racially exclusive professional groups are legal, there is no reason why racially exclusive neighborhoods should not be. If we can have the National Association of Black Journalists, why is it illegal for a group of white neighbors form an association that declares their neighborhood will be all white? Why is it illegal for white parents to decide to establish a racially exclusive school? There is no foundation in the Constitution for such inconsistencies in laws governing associations, nor can moral arguments justify depriving Americans of a fundamental right.
Consider what would happen if a judge told the National Association of Black Journalists that it could no longer exist because it excludes people on the basis of race. Imagine the outcry! The group’s members would regard this as a tyrannical violation of their rights. Pro-whites think the same of all anti-discrimination laws.
Goals of the Pro-White Movement
The pro-white movement will attempt to preserve the white race in America through lawful activism. The following will be our primary goals and activities:
Improving our movement’s image: The pro-white movement should stand in the public mind for all that is best in the Western tradition, not what is worst. We should make ourselves the representatives of the humane and civilized ideals of the West, not its undeniable history of oppression and atrocities. The public should associate pro-whites with Galileo, John Locke, and Thomas Edison, not with Hitler and the Klan.
Lobbying for accurate portrayals of white history and culture: The ugly stereotypes that attach to the pro-white movement are only an extreme version of the ones that tarnish the image of the white race as a whole. We want the world to see whites not as the only “racist” race but as the torchbearers of compassion and accomplishment.
Lobbying for the dissemination of accurate information on race: Journalists, academics, and other molders of public opinion should be honest about racial differences and diversity’s true effects on America. They should also stop slandering whites in order to bolster the leukophobic myth.
Restoring Americans’ right to free association: People have a natural right to form racially exclusive associations, just as Hispanic nurses and black journalists do. To this end, we support the restoration of Americans’ right to racial discrimination in living arrangements and other aspects of life. If whites want to form racially segregated neighborhoods and schools, it is their right to do so.
Ending mass immigration: America should stop importing non-white peoples who erode the Western values on which this nation was founded.
An end to minority preferences: Preferences for minorities in education and hiring discriminate against the race that founded and built America. Affirmative action also places power in the hands of people who are alien to our white culture and way of life. Minority preferences should be ended.
A Shocking Self-Respect
The pro-white viewpoint may seem shockingly radical. However, we ask you to read our words carefully and consider our ideas seriously. Are these the ravings of madmen, or reasonable conclusions from plausible premises? If our viewpoint is shocking, it is not because we are unreasonable, but because our society is. We ask the white race to show some self-respect, but whites are so used to thinking of themselves as the world’s only racist race that they have forgotten what self-respect is.
Ask yourself whether diversity has really been as enriching as you were told it would be. Hasn’t it rather meant the insecurity and loneliness of alien neighborhoods, shocking insults directed against your culture by minority demagogues, the increasingly crippling expense of living in a decent school district, and a gnawing suspicion that the world has gone wrong?
White men and women, remember that you are the heirs of the race that brought man out of the darkness of despotism and ignorance into the light of freedom and knowledge. See the hosts of your ancestors beseeching you not to let their hard-won civilization perish. Tremble before the prospect of your descendants under alien rule and of a world without blond hair. Join our cause and declare to the world that the white race will not go quietly into the night!
http://whiteamerica.us/index.php/articles/articles/principles_of_the_pro_white_movement/
When did it become a crime?; and who judged it a moral deficiency to prefer association with members of one's own race?
Anyway, while I find a few of the statements questionable, whether from ignorance or incredulity - the science behind IQ differences and how much IQ actually matters, some of the statistics mentioned without recourse to references etc. - the meat of the article is sound.
GWC
By Ian Jobling
The state of the white race in the West confronts us with a horror unprecedented in the annals of human history. Demographers predict whites will be a minority in the United States in 40 years and in Western Europe shortly after. Since the West condones interracial breeding, there is a serious prospect that the white race as we know it will disappear in the next two or three centuries.
An even more urgent threat is that whites will lose political control over their ancestral homelands and be put at the mercy of alien races who are unfriendly to our people.
Because culture is rooted in biology, the subjugation or extinction of the white race may well mean the death of Western culture and its fundamental ideals of individualism, pluralism, tolerance, and the rule of law. If the white West is not preserved, it is quite possible that what we today call the Third World will become the whole world, and the light of humanity and progress will be extinguished.
This prospect, while fearsome enough, does not express the full horror of our plight. What gives the situation of whites its uniquely dreadful and grotesque cast is that it is taboo for us to voice any desire for our continued existence. Our current cultural establishment labels “racism” and “hatred” any word of complaint that whites may breathe about their impending subjugation and obliteration. These labels are a slander wicked almost beyond imagining. Indeed, the hatred is on the side of the people who express indifference towards or even eagerness for the destruction of a people.
The pro-white movement is committed to the preservation of the white race and its unique culture. Pro-whites, as the movement’s adherents call themselves, frankly admit that they prefer their own people to others and see no evil in doing so. Pro-whites resemble the Jewish activists who attempted to awake a callous and bigoted world to the prospect of the Holocaust during the Nazi period or Spartans trying to preserve their society from Persian rule.
In furtherance of our goal of racial preservation, the pro-white movement will spread awareness of the threats to the white race and the reasons for preserving it. We will seek to overcome the slanders against our race and our movement that have made it disreputable for whites to defend themselves against extinction. Finally, we will do all in our power to restore to America a government that respects the white race and promotes its interests.
Why Preserve White Societies?
White societies are worth preserving not merely because of the inherent value of ethnic autonomy, but also because of the precious uniqueness of Western culture, which only whites have succeeded in creating.
Scholars have found that Western culture is distinguished by preference for the rule of law, individualism, pluralism, and tolerance. Also, whites have a uniquely powerful urge to discover the objective truth about the world. This urge has led the West far more than other cultures to defend the individual exercise of reason from suppression by state and ecclesiastical authorities. Additionally, the Western taste for the truth has created a culture uniquely capable of self-criticism and innovation in science, technology, philosophy, and the arts.
The unique attributes of Western culture are due in part to whites’ relatively high intelligence and providence, or ability to defer gratification for greater future rewards.
Without the white race, it is quite likely that people would still be living pre-modern despotisms like the ancient Persian or Chinese empires, since more or less all of the technological, scientific, philosophical, and political innovations that led to modernity were accomplished by whites.
Cultural differences among the races are almost certainly in part due to biological differences. Psychologists have found that the black-white IQ gap, the most intensively studied racial difference, is certainly genetic in origin. It is the consensus among behavior geneticists that personality traits are about 50 percent heritable, so it stands to reason that other racial differences have some biological basis as well.
The influx of non-whites into America erodes our culture. Unintelligent and improvident populations like blacks and Hispanics, through high rates of crime and other forms of social irresponsibility, threaten a peaceful, prosperous society. Not only do these populations act as a drag on the white population, but they tend to corrupt our nation by lowering standards. Indeed, the current mortgage crisis and concomitant stock market collapse are in part due to minority activism to lower home lending standards.
Irresponsible populations have other negative effects on America’s economy. They mean higher taxes for welfare and prisons and a strained social infrastructure. The influx of poorly achieving and crime-prone Hispanics into the schools has caused white flight into an ever-shrinking number of decent school districts. Consequently, housing prices in good neighborhoods soar, and whites go deep into debt in order to provide a future for their children.
Furthermore, non-white groups are a threat to the culture of freedom that white societies have established. Non-whites do not seem to possess the broad-minded tolerance of free expression that is fundamental to Western culture.
Finally, the research of Harvard professor Robert Putnam has demonstrated that diversity destroys trust. In an empirical study of communities, Putnam concluded:
people living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down,’ that is, to pull in like a turtle… [They tend to] withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.
As commentator Ilana Mercer put it, “Greater diversity equals more misery.”
The inherent value of racial autonomy, the preciousness of Western civilization, the distrust and misery bred by racial diversity, and its negative economic impact—together these form a compelling justification for preserving white societies.
Leukophobia
Despite the fact that whites invented the critique of ethnocentrism, contemporary common wisdom has it that whites are the only “racist” race and that all other peoples are noble savages who have been cruelly exploited by us. The pro-white movement dubs the bias against the white race “leukophobia,” or fear and loathing of whites. The counterpart of leukophobia is “chromophilia,” or unwarranted idealization of non-whites.
Leukophobia causes our society not only to exaggerate examples of white egotism and destructiveness, but actually to fabricate white racism hoaxes. Leukophobia is an accepted, mainstream racial hatred, so pervasive that it seems like common sense. Leukophobia has so far been successful in discrediting anyone who has tried to preserve and defend the white race.
Leukophobia creates an inverted world in which the blame for racism falls on the race that has done most—indeed, far too much—to end it. Whites invented the concept of human rights in the name of which the oppression of ethnicities can be criticized. Whites were the first to abolish slavery. American whites have even gone to the extreme of making non-whites a privileged class through affirmative action in order to bring out about racial equality.
White America has discussed several examples of leukophobia and chromophilia. For example, American history textbooks, in the words of Diane Ravitch, display “a barely concealed rage against people of European ancestry.” The textbooks lay heavy emphasis on slavery, racial subjugation, and war crimes perpetrated by whites, while ignoring or whitewashing similar, or worse, practices perpetrated by other peoples. The myth that Americans frequently committed atrocities against Asians during the Vietnam War is another example of anti-white bias in our understanding of history.
Leukophobia even causes the news media to fabricate instances of white racial hatred. The Duke rape and Jena 6 cases are recent examples.
Leukophobia takes its most blatant form among non-whites, large minorities or even majorities of whom fantasize that whites are conspiring to undermine them. The beliefs of Jeremiah Wright are not marginal among blacks. One quarter of blacks think that whites invented AIDS as a means of racial genocide, and 50 percent think that the CIA and FBI have flooded black neighborhoods with guns and drugs so that they will harm one another. Mexican-Americans share similar beliefs about whites.
Even as the shapers of opinion exaggerate and even fabricate instances white racial hatred, examples of non-white racial hatred are ignored. Thus, when whites are even suspected of committing crimes of racial hatred, as in the Duke rape and Jena 6 cases, there is massive press coverage. But proven crimes of racial hatred committed by minorities receive little coverage.
Similarly, the shapers of public opinion suppress awareness of non-white misbehavior, or even more despicably, blame it on whites. Such is the purpose of the myth of racial profiling, which illegitimately pins the blame for high non-white incarceration rates on white police officers and judges.
The Causes of Leukophobia
Leukophobia has many different causes. Among them are minority egotism, which makes whites a scapegoat for minorities’ social dysfunction, and the horrific forms that white ethnocentrism has taken in the past, such as the Hitler regime, American slavery, the Klan, and the neo-Nazis.
Carrying on the dismal tradition of American white supremacism, most pro-whites today believe our current racial dispossession is due to Jewish influence on the West, if not actual Jewish conspiracies against whites. However, these tired lies conceal the real dynamics of white dispossession, which has been inflicted by white Gentiles on themselves. While it is true that Jews have been inclined towards highly liberal—that is, leukophobic—beliefs, nevertheless more than 90 percent of white racial liberals are Gentiles. Moreover, that Jewish leukophobia could thrive in America suggests that it was a mere extension of something in our national character. For these reasons, the pro-white movement repudiates anti-Semitism and will resolutely oppose the obsession with Jews that poisons and discredits our cause.
The primary reason for the ascendancy of leukophobia is diversity snobbery. Various currents in 19th and 20th century thought made tolerance and openness to diversity the virtues that we most esteem. This attitude is particularly prevalent among the wealthy and powerful in America. Leukophobia originated with intellectuals in the early 20th century, spread to college students in the 1960s and to the professional class in the 1970s, and dominates all of the American elite today. While tolerance and openness are great virtues, they turn into vices when taken to destructive extremes.
Diversity snobbery is rooted in the aspiration to show oneself more tolerant and open than others. Diversity snobs slander today’s white majority or the “racist” America of the past so that their own superior virtues can shine more brightly by comparison.
A particularly obnoxious example of the slanders to which diversity snobbery gives rise is the elites’ assertion that America’s immigration reform movement is rooted in “ugliness” and “hatred,” to use the New York Times’ terms or “bitterness,” to use Barack Obama’s. The white working and middle class support the immigration reform movement because they are on the front lines of the demographic transition currently taking place in America. It is they who are suffering from the importation of unintelligent, crime-prone populations into the US. It is they who have to send their children to school with aspiring gangsters. All that the immigration reformers are asking for is enforcement of our current immigration laws. It is monstrous to describe the white majority’s concern for its way of life as “hatred.”
Another manifestation of diversity snobbery is the completely unfounded belief that greater racial diversity leads to greater creativity. In fact, the relatively homogeneous and white racialist culture of early 20th century America produced an explosion of creativity that dwarfs the achievements of the post-Civil Rights era. Think of the extraordinary transformation that took place in America between the end of the 19th century—the age of horse-drawn carts, vaudeville, and typhoid epidemics—and 1950, the age of Pan Am, CBS, and penicillin. All of this was accomplished by us white-bread Americans without any help or other enrichment from Somalis, Guatemalans, or Koreans. It is unlikely that the diverse America of the future will be able to match our ancestors’ record of achievement.
Discrimination and Segregation
The term “civil rights” as it is currently used in America is an Orwellian abomination that actually designates a restriction of rights. The right to racial discrimination, including segregation in housing and schools, is founded on the principle of free association, a right that is normally respected and protected by the law. The pro-white movement supports the extension of this principle to all associations.
In many contexts, it is perfectly legal for Americans to form racially exclusive associations, and there are tens of thousands of them: the National Association of Black Journalists, the National Association of Hispanic Nurses, the National Association of Asian-American Professionals are examples.
If racially exclusive professional groups are legal, there is no reason why racially exclusive neighborhoods should not be. If we can have the National Association of Black Journalists, why is it illegal for a group of white neighbors form an association that declares their neighborhood will be all white? Why is it illegal for white parents to decide to establish a racially exclusive school? There is no foundation in the Constitution for such inconsistencies in laws governing associations, nor can moral arguments justify depriving Americans of a fundamental right.
Consider what would happen if a judge told the National Association of Black Journalists that it could no longer exist because it excludes people on the basis of race. Imagine the outcry! The group’s members would regard this as a tyrannical violation of their rights. Pro-whites think the same of all anti-discrimination laws.
Goals of the Pro-White Movement
The pro-white movement will attempt to preserve the white race in America through lawful activism. The following will be our primary goals and activities:
Improving our movement’s image: The pro-white movement should stand in the public mind for all that is best in the Western tradition, not what is worst. We should make ourselves the representatives of the humane and civilized ideals of the West, not its undeniable history of oppression and atrocities. The public should associate pro-whites with Galileo, John Locke, and Thomas Edison, not with Hitler and the Klan.
Lobbying for accurate portrayals of white history and culture: The ugly stereotypes that attach to the pro-white movement are only an extreme version of the ones that tarnish the image of the white race as a whole. We want the world to see whites not as the only “racist” race but as the torchbearers of compassion and accomplishment.
Lobbying for the dissemination of accurate information on race: Journalists, academics, and other molders of public opinion should be honest about racial differences and diversity’s true effects on America. They should also stop slandering whites in order to bolster the leukophobic myth.
Restoring Americans’ right to free association: People have a natural right to form racially exclusive associations, just as Hispanic nurses and black journalists do. To this end, we support the restoration of Americans’ right to racial discrimination in living arrangements and other aspects of life. If whites want to form racially segregated neighborhoods and schools, it is their right to do so.
Ending mass immigration: America should stop importing non-white peoples who erode the Western values on which this nation was founded.
An end to minority preferences: Preferences for minorities in education and hiring discriminate against the race that founded and built America. Affirmative action also places power in the hands of people who are alien to our white culture and way of life. Minority preferences should be ended.
A Shocking Self-Respect
The pro-white viewpoint may seem shockingly radical. However, we ask you to read our words carefully and consider our ideas seriously. Are these the ravings of madmen, or reasonable conclusions from plausible premises? If our viewpoint is shocking, it is not because we are unreasonable, but because our society is. We ask the white race to show some self-respect, but whites are so used to thinking of themselves as the world’s only racist race that they have forgotten what self-respect is.
Ask yourself whether diversity has really been as enriching as you were told it would be. Hasn’t it rather meant the insecurity and loneliness of alien neighborhoods, shocking insults directed against your culture by minority demagogues, the increasingly crippling expense of living in a decent school district, and a gnawing suspicion that the world has gone wrong?
White men and women, remember that you are the heirs of the race that brought man out of the darkness of despotism and ignorance into the light of freedom and knowledge. See the hosts of your ancestors beseeching you not to let their hard-won civilization perish. Tremble before the prospect of your descendants under alien rule and of a world without blond hair. Join our cause and declare to the world that the white race will not go quietly into the night!
http://whiteamerica.us/index.php/articles/articles/principles_of_the_pro_white_movement/
Friday, February 5, 2010
Texas Hippie Coalition
Lately, I've been enjoying a lot of what I call "Southern Swamp Metal" and Texas Hippie Coalition is currently reigning supreme; for the record, I fucking hate hippies. Totally divorcing the politics of musicians from the music that they create seems to be the only sensible approach to enjoying music in the first place.
Anyway, with that being said, I was a fan of "Dimebag" Darrell; his easy grace with the guitar was beautiful and the crushing riffs that he churned out were brutal, yet defined perfection. Hate his drug abuse, excessive drinking and general lifestyle choices up until his death - but goddamn it, that mother fucker could pick the guitar.
Texas Hippie Coalition bring a little of that Pantera-era Dimebag sludge, or more affectionately, some down home "Southern Swamp Metal". Enjoy.
Anyway, with that being said, I was a fan of "Dimebag" Darrell; his easy grace with the guitar was beautiful and the crushing riffs that he churned out were brutal, yet defined perfection. Hate his drug abuse, excessive drinking and general lifestyle choices up until his death - but goddamn it, that mother fucker could pick the guitar.
Texas Hippie Coalition bring a little of that Pantera-era Dimebag sludge, or more affectionately, some down home "Southern Swamp Metal". Enjoy.
Writing Matters - Or Why You'll Never Be Taken Seriously
I spend a fair amount of my time online - whether it's participating on forums or indulging in some harmless, if unproductive banter in chat rooms - and I've discovered that there is a memetic trend to write like shit; and be proud of it. It's a social demarcation line, more than likely linked to general intelligence; I'm certain that given the proper treatment, a scientific study could be conducted to verify this hypothesis. This wretched behavior is so prevalent and so obnoxious, it's even developed slogans - you've probably seen some of them, "Lol"; "Brb"; "Wtf"; etc.. What the fuck indeed.
There seems to be a general line of reasoning in defense of terrible and barely discernible communication skills. Apparently, the internet is not a place that you should be judged based on your writing skills, or in this case, the outrageous lack of.
I find this defense to be quite despicable and unbelievably naive.
Let's consider for a moment entering the workforce and what respectable employers look for in a prospective employee. It's a safe assumption that upstanding employers - I'm not going to consider fly-by-night assholes in this treatment of the issue - will require a few things of you; being well groomed (clean shaven, well trimmed hair, lack of facial piercings or tattoos and specifically no snot strings streaming down your face); being well dressed (clothes that actually fit your form, clothes that lack offensive imagery and or writing); being well spoken (sorry kids, Ebonics probably won't go over very well for jobs that pay over minimum wage). However, all of that aside, one of the most important factors that any employer will look at, is how well you write - the application is more than just a sheet of paper to list facts, it's also a resource for employers to determine general levels of intelligence; PC culture won't allow them to out-and-out say this, but you can bet your fucking ass that they do - and if you write like a mongoloid monkey, your application is likely going to take a fast trip to the trash bin.
Remember that the internet is an open circuit that anyone with an agenda to discover anything about you, easily can. We're in the age of Google my illiterate friends, and for every "r u realy worring about my grammer" complaint you spew forth, the Google eyeball will see it and retain it forever.
That's just one reason to shape up your writing skills.
Here's another. Forums, chat rooms etc., are places that the written language is a major form of communication, so there is a strong responsibility to at least be semi-literate, lest nobody understand a word you're saying. This is where the respect issue comes into play. I firmly believe that if you're communicating with me via the written language, you should at least have enough respect for me, as I do for you, to at the very least communicate your ideas legibly, whether your ideas make sense or not is a different issue entirely. It really is a respect issue, it's as simple as that. There are three groups that abuse this principle - those that really aren't able to communicate intelligently, those that are simply too lazy and those that don't write in or speak the native language of whomever it is they are communicating with - one group can be excused begrudgingly, the other group is downright contemptible and the last group is excused completely. It's you lazy fucking pricks that I find most deplorable. For example, it's not complicated or time consuming to add the extra "y" and "o" in "u". Determine which group you fall in, and adjust your dealings with me accordingly.
Fail to do that, and you can be certain that I will treat you as disrespectfully as you have treated me.
GWC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)