Update of December 13: I just changed the title of this post from ‘João Almeriz de Lima (1978-2019)’ to ‘Internet hoaxer’. It has been confirmed that John Martínez (the name ‘João’ is the invention of a hoaxer) is alive. It means that a week ago I wrote the following post under the illusion that Martínez was dead; which is why I din’t intend to dox him (dead persons cannot be ‘doxxed’):
This article is a postscript to ‘Extermination I’: a piece from 17 September 2014 that received 76 comments (incidentally, I have since renamed my book from Exterminio to ¿Me Ayudarás?). This postscript will only be understandable to those who have read that long 2014 post or are familiar with the intense debate it ensued. I write the present postscript for those who are interested in an update on that surreal anecdote.
* * *
On the London bus, those red double-deckers, very crowded and full of non-whites I remarked to the Brazilian that I had seen several bi-racial couples in the great British city that day of my arrival: something that shocked me. Smiling, he told me that it was punishment for what the British had done to the Germans in the Second World War. More than once, and on one occasion rather vehemently, the Brazilian who claimed to fight for the fourteen words told me that he was the last in his biological line; that he would never, ever father a child.
But oh surprise: the recent German translation in the German section of this site, of an old article by the Brazilian, prompted another Brazilian to comment on this site (see the discussion threads here and here). Originally, the first Brazilian introduced himself as ‘John Martinez’, the name used in the recent German translation. But according to the second Brazilian, his real name was João Augusto Almeriz de Lima, who was born on April 24, 1978 in the city of Niterói (near Rio de Janeiro) and died in the same city on November 22, 2019. He only discovered his real name after João passed away two years ago due to pancreatic cancer.
I have no way of corroborating the story of this second Brazilian, who says he met João at least eight times in Brazil, which is why I put a question mark in the subtitle of this post. If true, João (I’ll call him that from now on) was a liar.
As we saw in my 2014 post ‘Extermination I’, what annoyed me the most about João was that for more than half an hour he left me on a subway station without any warning whatsoever, even though I hadn’t slept on the plane. The bastard went to buy beers and even drank them while I was obfuscated, confused and sleepless in a hostile environment. No Aryan would have treated a comrade like that but João was a pardo (product of the three Brazilian races), phenotypically almost a mulatto I’d say. As I confessed in the comments section seven years ago (syntax revised):
The fatal mistake I made before the trip, and this is a lesson for everyone who meets people online, is that I completely ignored that he belonged to another social class. A mistake, of course: because I had to meet him personally to disabuse myself of this idealised vision. Later in my trip I met real gentlemen at the BNP and the London Forum, real old-fashioned gentlemen, as well as Arthur Kemp, the young commenter Joseph Walsh and Jez Turner. My mistake was precisely confusing the Brazilian with someone like any of them. It’s not about money. My family can live comfortably but since I rebelled decades ago I was left penniless. It’s about kindness, courtesy, chivalry—virtues that genocidal Nazis had towards other Germans even in the grimmest jobs. In other words, as I’m perfectly aware of the type of lumpen to which the Brazilian belongs, if I had known him before I’d have treated him quite differently.
But the thing is: as an over 80% White guy who knows both the White and the non-White psyches, I can assure you that I for one have many inherited personality traits which are clearly non-White and which demand constant surveillance on my part to keep them under control… My point is: do you guys really want to run the risk of injecting some Black and other non-White genomes into the White gene pool of a future White Homeland without knowing exactly how it will play out in the long run in terms of behaviour, intelligence, etc., from those affected by it? As I said before, I don’ have a dog in this fight for the reasons I mentioned above. But looking at this question from a purely objective and cold perspective, I don’t think it’s a good idea having in mind what is at stake. Remember, once you miscegenate your blood, there’s no turning away from what you did.
So true. And later in that very thread João added:
I’m an honest believer in the one-drop rule, albeit to my own personal detriment. The fact is that I’m too racially aware not to notice, much to my chagrin, disturbing Black / Indian / Mestizo personality traits in myself: traits that demand, from my part, eternal surveillance in order to be properly suppressed or controlled. Believe me, guys, a partially non-White person will always and inevitably have some (literally) dark corners in his soul. For this reason, I think it would be desirable for a future White Homeland to make it mandatory that would-be citizens are required to produce a DNA test attesting his / her 100% purely White genome. A verifiable White DNA must be the only acceptable passport for such a nation. And in the case of any possible non-White pioneers like me being admitted into its borders, they should have a different, non-citizen legal status and, above all, sterilization should be made absolutely mandatory.
Indeed. But according to what his compatriot said recently in the comments section of this site, João impregnated a white woman and now his mongrel kid lives in London. João wasn’t sterilized in Cuckold Island precisely because of the British sins during and after WW2!
Just for visitors to see the dark corner (*) of the mongrel soul, take a look at a brilliant post on Portuguese miscegenation with blacks about which João commented on in 2013 that I included in the 1st edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour.
__________
(*) ‘Dark corner’ not in the sense of what he wrote in that year, which is incredibly insightful, but what he did next: father a son.
Wikipedia has the problem that many of its editors and administrators are either white traitors to the West or Jews like those of deMause’s journal. Although some scholars contribute to editing it, there is always an anti-westerner who censures the passages opposing the anti-white zeitgeist. For example, regarding the articles on infanticide I edited in 2008, a couple of Australian administrators from the English Wikipedia abused their powers. Not only did they eliminate most of the section on Australia within the article “Infanticide.” They went so far as to erase, from that online encyclopedia, an entire article that another editor had started. This last article focused on expanding the subject of the infanticide committed by aboriginal Australians. (Part of what was censored by Wikipedia is covered in this chapter, in the section on Australia.) Almost a decade later I learned that, since the 1970s, it has been a common practice in that continent to censor studies on infanticide, insofar as the aborigines have been idealized. Rewriting the history of the natives by vaporizing, in Stalin’s style, part of the collective memory of a nation misinforms visitors to the encyclopedia. But not all Wikipedia editors have behaved like that pair of administrators, so zealous in idealizing the natives in their country. In the archived Wikipedia talk page of Psychohistory, Loren Cobb said:
In my view, the psychohistory of Lloyd deMause is indeed a notable approach to history, in the sense in which Wikipedia uses the term “notability.” I am not personally involved in psychohistory—I am a mathematical sociologist—but here are some thoughts for your consideration.
Psychohistory as put forth by deMause and his many followers attempts to explain the pattern of changes in the incidence of child abuse in history. This is a perfectly respectable and non-fringe domain of scientific research. They argue that the incidence was much higher in the past, and that there has been an irregular history of improvement. This is a hypothesis that could just as easily have been framed by an epidemiologist as a psychologist. DeMause proposes a theory that society has gone through a series of stages in its treatment and discipline of children.
Again, this is well within the bounds of social science. None of these questions are pseudoscientific. Even the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, a bastion of scientific epidemiology, is interested in these kinds of hypotheses.1
I exchanged a few e-mails with Cobb, who like me is very critical of the psychoanalytic tail in deMausean legacy, and his position piqued my interest.
This chapter summarizes the data collected in the first exhaustive study on infanticide: a book by Larry Milner, Hardness of Heart, published in the last year of the 20th century. That so many researchers have produced astronomical figures on the extent of infanticide moves me to think that Milner’s initiative to devote ten years of his life researching the topic should be undertaken by others. Only then can we be sure if such large numbers are accurate.
Joseph Birdsell believes in infanticide rates of 15-50 percent of the total number of births in prehistoric times.2 Laila Williamson estimated a lower rate ranging from 15-20 percent.3 Both believe that high rates of infanticide persisted until the development of agriculture.4 Some comparative anthropologists have estimated that 50 percent of female newborn babies were killed by their parents in the Paleolithic.5 These figures appear over and over in the research of other scholars.
Paleolithic and Neolithic
Decapitated skeletons of hominid children have been found with evidence of cannibalism. Neanderthal man performed ritual sacrifices of children. As shown in the bas-reliefs of a Laussel cave, a menstruating goddess is appeased only by the sacrifice of infants.6
Marvin Harris, the creator of the anthropological movement called cultural materialism, estimated that in the Stone Age up to 23-50 percent of newborns were put to death. However, Harris conceived a rational explanation. In his book Cannibals and Kings: Origins of Cultures, published in 1977, he says that the goal was to preserve the population growth to 0.001 percent. This explanation of more “civilized” cavemen than us has not been taken seriously among other scholars. But the renowned geneticist James Neel surpasses him. Through a retroactive model to study the customs of contemporary Yanomami Indians he estimated that in prehistoric times the infanticidal rate was 15-20 percent. However, Neel wrote: “I find it increasingly difficult to see in the recent reproductive history of the civilized world a greater respect for the quality of human existence than was manifested by our remote ‘primitive’ ancestors.” Ark would have scoffed at this claim. The fact that Neel published such praise for the infanticidal cavemen in Science,7 one of the most prestigious scientific journals, shows the levels of psychogenic regression that we suffer in our times.
Ancient World
As we have seen, the sacrifice of children was much more common in the Ancient World than in present times. Three thousand bones of young children, with evidence of sacrificial rituals, have been found in Sardinia. Infants were offered to the Babylonian goddess Ishtar. Pelasgians offered a sacrifice of every tenth child during difficult times. Syrians sacrificed children to Jupiter and Juno. Many remains of children have been found in Gezer excavations with signs of sacrifice. Child skeletons with the marks of sacrifice have been found also in Egypt dating 950-720 B.C. In Carthage “[child] sacrifice in the ancient world reached its infamous zenith.”8 Besides the Carthaginians, other Phoenicians, and the Canaanites, Moabites and Sepharvites offered their first-born as a sacrifice to their gods.
Carthage. Charred bones of thousands of infants have been found in Carthaginian archaeological sites in modern times. One such area harbored as many as 20,000 burial urns. It is estimated that child sacrifice was practiced for centuries in the region. Plutarch (ca. 46-120 AD) mentions the practice, as do Tertullian, Orosius, Diodorus Siculus and Philo. The Hebrew Bible also mentions what appears to be child sacrifice practiced at a place called the Tophet (from the Hebrew taph or toph, to burn) by the Canaanites, ancestors of the Carthaginians, and by some Israelites. Writing in the 3rd century B.C., Kleitarchos, one of the historians of Alexander the Great, described that the infants rolled into the flaming pit. Diodorus Siculus wrote that babies were roasted to death inside the burning pit of the god Baal Hamon, a bronze statue.9
Greece and Rome. In the Persian mythology of Zoroastrianism, at birth some children are devoured by their parents: a fable reminiscent of Cronus. Rhea hid Zeus and presented a stone wrapped in strips, which Cronus took as a swaddled baby and ate it. Cronus represents the archaic Hellas.
The historical Greeks considered barbarous the practice of adult and child sacrifice.10 It is interesting to note how conquerors like Alexander are diminished under the new psychohistorical perspective. If we give credence to the assertion that Thebes, the largest city in the region of Boeotia, had lower rates of exposure than other Greek cities, its destruction by Alexander was a fatal blow to the advanced psychoclass in Greece. A few centuries later, between 150 and 50 B.C. an Alexandrian Jew wrote Wisdom of Solomon, which contains a diatribe against the Canaanites whom he calls perpetrators of “ruthless murders of their children.” (Note how the biblical classics, the 16th-century chroniclers, and the 19th-century anthropologists wield value judgments, something banned in an academy under the shadow of Franz Boas.)
In The Histories Polybius was already complaining in the 2nd century B.C. that parents severely inhibited reproduction, and by the 1st century there were several thinkers who spoke out against the exposure of babies. Epictetus wondered “A sheep does not abandon its own offspring, nor a wolf; and yet does a man abandon his?” In the Preface we saw that in the same century Philo was the first philosopher to speak out against exposure.11
“The greatest respect is owed to a child,” wrote Juvenal, born in 55 AD. His contemporary Josephus, a Romanized Jew, also condemned exposure. And in Heroides, an elegiac poem that he wrote before his exile, Ovid asked, “What did the child commit, in so few hours of life?” However, two centuries after Augustus, in times of Constantine Rome struggled with a decreased population due to exposure. The legend of Romulus and Remus is also revealing: two brothers had been exposed to die but a she-wolf saved them. Romulus forced the Romans to bring up all males and the first female and forbade killing them after a certain age. As Rhea saving his son Zeus, this legend portrays the psychogenic landmark of classical culture compared with other cultures of the Ancient World. But even so, exposure was practiced. A letter from a Roman citizen to his wife, dating from 1 B.C., demonstrates the casual nature with which infanticide was often viewed:
Know that I am still in Alexandria. […] I ask and beg you to take good care of our baby son, and as soon as I received payment I shall send it up to you. If you are delivered, if it is a boy, keep it, if a girl, discard it.12
In some periods of Roman history it was traditional for a newborn to be brought to the pater familias, the family patriarch, who would then decide whether the child was to be kept and raised, or left to death by exposure. The Twelve Tablets of Roman law obliged him to put to death a child that was visibly deformed. Infanticide became a capital offense in Roman law in 374 AD but offenders were rarely if ever prosecuted.13
Hebrew people. Although the Bible says many Hebrews sacrificed their children to pagan gods, Judaism prohibits infanticide (I will approach the subject of the recent studies on the Israelites in the last chapter). Tacitus recorded that the Jews “regard it as a crime to kill any late-born children.”14 Josephus, whose works give an important insight into first-century Judaism, wrote that God “forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward.”15
Pagan European tribes. John Boswell believed that in ancient Germanic tribes unwanted children were exposed, usually in the forest. “It was the custom of the pagans that if they wanted to kill a son or daughter, they would be killed before they had been given any food.”16 In the most influential archeological book of the 19th century, Prehistoric Times, John Lubbock invented the terms Paleolithic and Neolithic. He described that burnt bones indicated the practice of child sacrifice in pagan Britain.17
The Christian Era
Something goes completely unnoticed for the modern mind. In a world plagued by sacrifices like the Old World, the innocent son has to die ordered by his father: a well-known practice. It is impossible to understand the psychoclass that gave rise to Christianity by overlooking this reality converted into a powerful symbol. This is true despite, as I have stated in the previous pages, that forms of upbringing should have suffered, in general terms, a regression throughout the Middle Ages. The Teachings of the Apostles or Didache said: “You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.”18The Epistle of Barnabas stated an identical command.19 So widely accepted was this teaching in Christendom that apologists Tertullian, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Justin Martyr and Lactantius also maintained that exposing a baby to death was a wicked act. In 318 AD Constantine considered infanticide a crime but reinstated the practice of selling one’s own children. The West took its time to consider criminal the late forms of infanticide. The author of the Codex Theodosianus complained in 322 AD:
We have learned that in provinces where there are shortages of food and lack of livelihood, parents are selling or pledging their children. Such an ignominious act is repugnant to our customs.
Towards 340 AD Lactantius argued that strangling newborns was sinful. Already within the historical period known as Christendom, infanticide was not officially banned in Roman criminal law until 374 AD when Valentinian I mandated to rear all children (exposing babies, especially girls, was still common). However, both exposure and child abandonment continued in Europe.
Middle Ages. The practice was so entrenched, as well as the sale of children, that it had been futile to decree the abolition of such customs. Until 500 AD it could not be said that a baby’s life was secure. The Council of Constantinople declared that infanticide was a homicide, and in 589 AD the Third Council of Toledo took measures against the Spanish custom of killing their own children.20 Whereas theologians and clerics preached to spare their lives, newborn abandonment continued as registered in both the literature record and in legal documents.21 More archaic forms of infanticide, such as sacrifice, were practiced by the Gauls, Celts and the Irish. “They would kill their piteous wretched offspring with much wailing and peril, to pour their blood around Crom Cruaich,” a deity of pre-Christian Ireland.22 Unlike other European regions, in the Middle Ages the German mother had the right to expose the newborn.23 In Gotland, Sweden, children were also sacrificed.24 According to William Langer, exposure in the Middle Ages “was practiced on a gigantic scale with absolute impunity, noticed by writers with most frigid indifference.”25 By the end of the 12th century, notes Richard Trexler, Roman women threw their newborns into the Tiber River even in daylight.26 In Russia, peasants sacrificed their sons and daughters to the pagan god Perun. Some residents of rural areas got rid of their babies by throwing them to the hogs. In Medieval Russia secular laws did not deal with what, for the church, was a crime.27 The Svans killed the newborn females by filling their mouths with hot ashes. In Kamchatka, babies were killed and thrown to wild dogs.28
The darkness of Europe would begin to fade in the 12th century. As explained above, the “little Renaissance” of that century reminds me the famous series of Kenneth Clark, the first of its kind that showed us the personal view of an intellectual in a television series. Other cultures would be arrested in their ways of treatment of women and children.
China and Japan. The American explorer George Kennan noted that among the Koryaks, a Mongoloid people of north-eastern Siberia, infanticide was still common in the 19th century. One of the twins was always sacrificed.29 Since the 17th century Jesuit missionaries had found thousands of babies, mostly women, abandoned on the streets of China. Marco Polo, the famed explorer, saw newborns exposed in Manzi.30 China’s society promoted gendercide. The philosopher Han Fei Tzu, a member of the ruling aristocracy of the 3rd century B.C., who developed a school of law, wrote: “As to children, a father and mother when they produce a boy congratulate one another, but when they produce a girl they put it to death.”31 Among the Hakka people, and in Yunnan, Anhwei, Szechwan, Jiangxi and Fukien a method of killing the baby was to put her into a bucket of cold water, which was called “baby water.” 32 Even before feudal Japan infanticide was performed. The common slang for infanticide was mabiki which means to pull plants from an overcrowded garden. It has been estimated that 40 percent of newborn babies were killed in Kyushu.33 A typical method in Japan was smothering through wet paper on the baby’s mouth and nose.34Mabiki persisted in the 19th and early 20th centuries.35
India and Pakistan. Female infanticide of newborn girls was systematic in feudatory Rajputs in India. According to Firishta (approx. 1560-1620), as soon as a female child was born she was holding “in one hand, and a knife in the other, that any person who wanted a wife might take her now, otherwise she was immediately put to death.”36 The practice of female infanticide was also common among the inhabitants of Kutch, Kehtri, Nagar, Gujarat, Miazed, Kalowries and also among the Sind in Pakistan.37 It was not uncommon that parents threw a child to the crocodiles in the Ganges River as a sacrificial offering. The British colonists were unable to outlaw the custom until the beginnings of the 19th century.38
Arabia and Islam. Female infanticide was common all over Arabia during pre-Islamic Arabia, especially by burying alive the newborn female.39 Later it would be explicitly prohibited by the Koran: “And do not kill your children for fear of poverty; We give them sustenance and yourselves too; Surely to kill them is a great wrong.”40 However, in spite of this emergent psychoclass, if compared with their infanticidal neighbors of the Arabian peninsula, the forms of childcare and the treatment of women in Islam would be stagnant for centuries.
Tribes
Infanticide in tribal societies was, and in some tribes still is, more frequent than infanticide in both Western and Eastern civilizations.
Africa. In this continent newborns were killed because of fear that they were an evil omen or because they were considered unlucky. Twins were usually put to death in Arebo; as well as by the Nama Hottentots of South West Africa; in the Lake Victoria Nyanza region; by the Tswana in Portuguese East Africa; among the Ilso and Ibo people of Nigeria; and by the !Kung Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert.41 The Kikuyu, Kenya’s most populous ethnic group, practiced ritual killing of twins.42 Lucien Lévy-Brühl noted that, as a result of fearing a drought, if a baby was born feet first in British East Africa, she or he was smothered.43 The Tswana people did the same since they feared the newborn would bring ill fortune to the parents.44 Similarly, William Sumner noted that the Vadshagga killed children whose upper incisors came first.45 If a mother died in childbirth among the Ibo people of Nigeria, the newborn was buried alive. It suffered a similar fate if the father died.46 In The Child in Primitive Society, Nathan Miller wrote in the 1920s that among the Kuni tribe every mother had killed at least one of her children.47 Child sacrifice was practiced as late as 1929 in Zimbabwe, where a daughter of the tribal chief used to be sacrificed as a petition of rain.48
Oceania and the Pacific Islands. Infanticide among the autochthon people in the Oceania islands is widespread. In some areas of the Fiji islands up to 50 percent of newborn infants were killed.49 In the 19th-century Ugi, in the Solomon Islands almost 75 percent of the indigenous children had been brought from adjoining tribes due to the high incidence rate of infanticide, a unique feature of these tribal societies.50 In another Solomon island, San Cristóbal, the firstborn was considered ahubweu and often buried alive.51 As a rationale for their behavior, some parents in British New Guinea complained: “Girls […] don’t become warriors, and they don’t stay to look for us in our old age.”52
Australia. According to Bronislaw Malinowski, who wrote a book on indigenous Australians in the early 1960s, “infanticide is practiced among all Australian natives.”53 The practice has been reported in Tasmania, Western Australia, Central Australia, South Australia, in the Northern Territory, Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. Anthropologist Géza Róheim wrote:
When the Yumu, Pindupi, Ngali, or Nambutji were hungry, they ate small children with neither ceremonial nor animistic motives. Among the southern tribes, the Matuntara, Mularatara, or Pitjentara, every second child was eaten in the belief that the strength of the first child would be doubled by such a procedure.54
Family units usually consisted of three children. Brough Smyth, a 19th century researcher, estimated that in Victoria about 30 percent of the births resulted in infanticide.55 Mildred Dickeman concurs that the figure is accurate in other Australia tribes as a result of a surplus of the birthrate.56 Cannibalism was observed in Victoria at the beginning of the 20th century. The Wotjo tribe, as well as the tribes of the lower Murray River, sometimes killed a newborn to feed an older sibling.57 Thomas Robert Malthus said that, in the New South Wales region when the mother died sucking infants were buried alive with her.58 In the Darling River region, infanticide was practiced “by a blow on the back of the head, by strangling with a rope, or chocking with sand.”59 In Queensland a tribal woman only could have children after the age of thirty. Otherwise babies would be killed.60 The Australian Aranda tribes in the Northern Territory used the method of choking the newborn with coal, sand or kill her with a stick.61 According to James George Frazer, in the Beltana tribes in South Australia it was customary to kill the first-born.62 Twins were always killed by the Arrernte in central Australia.63 In the Luritcha tribe occasional cannibalism of young children occurred.64 Aram Yengoyan calculated that, in Western Australia, the Pitjandjara people killed 19 percent of their newborns.65 In the 19th century the native Tasmanians were exterminated by the colonists, who regarded them as a degenerate race. Richard H. Davies (fl. 1830s-1887), a brother of Archdeacon Davies, wrote that Tasmanian “females have been known to desert their infants for the sake of suckling the puppies,” which were later used for hunting.66 Like other tribal Australians, when the mother died the child was buried as well.67
Polynesia. In ancient Polynesian societies infanticide was fairly common.68 Families were supposed to rear no more than two children. Writing about the natives Raymond Firth noted: “If another child is born, it is buried in the earth and covered with stones.”69 In Hawaii infanticide was a socially sanctioned practice before the Christian missions.70 Infanticidal methods included strangling the children or, more frequently, burying them alive.71 Infanticide was quite intense in Tahiti.72 Methods included suffocation, neck breaking and strangulation.73
North America. Infanticide and child sacrifice was practiced in the New World at times when in Western Europe it had been largely abandoned. There is no agreement about the actual estimates of the frequency of newborn female infanticide in the Eskimo population. Carmel Schrire mentions diverse studies ranging from 15-50 percent to 80 percent.74 Polar Eskimos killed the child by throwing him or her into the sea.75 There is even a legend in Eskimo folklore, “The Unwanted Child,” where a mother throws her child into the fjord. The Yukon and the Mahlemuit tribes of Alaska exposed the female newborns by stuffing their mouths with grass before leaving them to die.76 In Arctic Canada the Eskimos exposed their babies on the ice and left them to die.77 Female Eskimo infanticide disappeared in the 1930s and 1940s after contact with the Western cultures of the South.78 The Handbook of North American Indians reports infanticide and cannibalism among the Dene Indians and those of the Mackenzie Mountains.79 In the Eastern Shoshone there was a scarcity of Indian women as a result of female infanticide.80 For the Maidu Native Americans in the United States twins were so dangerous that they not only killed them, but the mother as well.81 In the region known today as southern Texas, the Mariame Indians practiced infanticide of females on a large scale. Wives had to be obtained from neighboring groups.82
South American tribes. Although data of infanticides among the indigenous people in South America is not as abundant as data from North America, the estimates seem to be similar. The Tapirapé indigenous people of Brazil allowed no more than three children per woman, and no more than two had to be of the same sex. If the rule was broken infanticide was practiced.83 The people in the Bororo tribe killed all the newborns that did not appear healthy enough. Infanticide is also documented in the case of the Korubo people in the Amazon.84
While Capacocha sacrifice was practiced in the Peruvian large cities, child sacrifice in the pre-Columbian tribes of the region is less documented. However, even today studies on the Aymara Indians reveal high incidences of mortality among the newborn, especially female deaths, suggesting infanticide.85 Infanticide among the Chaco in Paraguay was estimated as high as 50 percent of all newborns in that tribe, who were usually buried.86 The infanticidal custom had such roots among the Ayoreo in Bolivia and Paraguay that it persisted until the late 20th century.87
Conclusion
As can be gathered from the above data, it is possible to support psychohistory’s cornerstone, the idea of an infanticidal psychoclass, with sources other than those used by deMause. The main criticism of historian Julie Hofmann Kemp to the deMausean model has, therefore, been solved.
References
1 Loren Cobb signs under a penname in Wikipedia. His post appeared in the talk page of Psychohistory (03:41, April 3, 2008).
2 Birdsell, Joseph, B. (1986), “Some predictions for the Pleistocene based on equilibrium systems among recent hunter-gatherers,” in Richard Lee and Irven DeVore, Man the Hunter, Aldine Publishing Co., p. 239.
3 Williamson, Laila (1978), “Infanticide: an anthropological analysis,” in Kohl, Marvin, Infanticide and the Value of Life, New York: Prometheus Books, pp. 61-75.
4 Milner, Larry S. (2000). Hardness of Heart / Hardness of Life: The Stain of Human Infanticide. Lanham/New York/Oxford: University Press of America, p. 19.
5 Hoffer, Peter, N.E.H. Hull (1981). Murdering Mothers: Infanticide in England and America, 1558-1803. New York University Press, p. 3.
6 Simons, E. L. (1989). “Human origins.” Science, 245: p. 1344.
7 Neel, James. (1970). “Lessons from a ‘primitive’ people.” Science, 1: p. 816.
8 Milner: Hardness of Heart (op. cit.) p. 324.
9 Brown, Shelby (1991). Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice and Sacrificial Monuments in their Mediterranean Context. Sheffield Academic Press, pp. 22s. See also: Stager, Lawrence, Samuel R. Wolff (1984). “Child sacrifice at Carthage—religious rite or population control?” Biblical Archaeology Review 10: pp. 31-51.
10 Hughes, Dennis D. (1991). Human Sacrifice in Ancient Greece. Routledge, p. 187.
11 Philo (1950). The Special Laws. Harvard University Press, Vol. VII, pp. 117s, 551, 549.
12 Naphtali, Lewis, ed. (1985), “Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 744,” Life in Egypt Under Roman Rule, Oxford University Press, p. 54.
13 Radville, Samuel X. (1974), “A history of child abuse and infanticide,” in Steinmetz, Suzanne K. and Murray A. Strauss, Violence in the Family, New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., pp. 173-179.
14 Tacitus (1931). The Histories. London: William Heinemann, Vol. II, p. 183.
15 Josephus (1976). The Works of Flavius Josephus, “Against Apion.” Cambridge: Harvard University Press, II.25, p. 597.
16 John Boswell (1988). The Kindness of Strangers. New York: Vintage Books, p. 211.
17 Lubbock, John (1865). Pre-historic Times, as Illustrated by Ancient Remains, and the Manners and Customs of Modern Savages. London: Williams and Norgate, p. 176.
18 Robinson, J. Armitage (translator) (1920), “Didache,” Barnabas, Hermar and the Didache, Vol. D.ii.2c, New York: The MacMillan Co., p. 112.
19 Ibid., Epistle of Barnabas, xix. 5d.
20 Radbill, Samuel X. (1974), “A history of child abuse and infanticide,” in Steinmetz, Suzanne K. and Murray A. Straus, Violence in the Family, New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., pp. 173-179.
21 John Boswell (1984). “Exposition and oblation: the abandonment of children and the ancient and medieval family.” American Historical Review 89: pp. 10-33.
22 Dorson, Richard (1968). Peasant Customs and Savage Myths: Selections from the British Folklorists. University of Chicago Press, p. 351.
23 Westrup, C.W. (1944). Introduction to Roman Law. Oxford University Press, p. 249.
24 Turville-Petre, Gabriel (1964). Myth and Religion of the North: The Religion of Ancient Scandinavia. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, p. 253.
25 Langer, William L. (1974). “Infanticide: a historical survey.” History of Childhood Quarterly, 1, pp. 353-366.
26 Trexler, Richard (1973). “Infanticide in Florence: new sources and first results.” History of Childhood Quarterly, 1: p. 99.
27 Ransel, David (1988). Mothers of Misery. Princeton University Press, pp. 10-12.
28 McLennan: Studies in Ancient History (op. cit.), pp. 105s.
29 Kennan, George (1986 [originally published in 1871]). Tent Life in Siberia. New York: Gibbs Smith.
30 Polo, Marco (1965). The Travels. Middlesex: Penguin Books, p. 174.
31 Yu-Lan, Fung (1952). A History of Chinese Philosophy. Princeton University Press, p. 327.
32 Yao, Esther S. Lee (1983). Chinese Women: Past and Present. Mesquite: Ide House, p. 75.
33 Kushe, Helga and Peter Singer (1985). Should the Baby Live? Oxford University Press, p. 106.
34 Shiono, Hiroshi and Atoyo Maya, Noriko Tabata, Masataka Fujiwara, Junich Azumi and Mashahiko Morita (1986). “Medico-legal aspects of infanticide in Hokkaido District, Japan.” American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, 7: p. 104.
35 Vaux, Kenneth (1989). Birth Ethics. New York: Crossroad, p. 12.
36 Westermarck, Edward (1968). A Short History of Marriage. New York: Humanities Press, Vol. III, p. 162.
37 Panigrahi, Lalita (1972). British Social Policy and Female Infanticide in India. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, p. 18.
38 Davies, Nigel (1981). Human Sacrifice. New York: William Morrow & Co, p. 18.
39 Milner: Hardness of Heart, (op. cit.), p. 59. See also: Smith, William Robertson (1903). Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia. London: Adam & Charles Block, p. 293.
40 The Koran, XVII:31. See also LXXXI:8-9, XVI:60-62, XVII:42 and XLII:48.
41 Milner: Hardness of Heart (op. cit.) pp. 160s.
42 LeVine, Sarah and Robert LeVine (1981), “Child abuse and neglect in Sub-Saharan Africa,” in Korbin, Jill, Child Abuse and Neglect, Berkeley: University of California Press, p. 39.
43 Lévy-Brühl, Lucien (1923). Primitive Mentality. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., p. 150.
44 Schapera, I.A. (1955). A Handbook of Tswana Law and Custom. Oxford University Press, p. 261.
45 Sumner, William (1956 [originally published in 1906). Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals. Oxford University Press, p. 274.
46 Basden, G.T. (1996). Niger Ibos. New York: Barnes & Noble, pp. 180-184, 262s.
47 Miller, Nathan (1928). The Child in Primitive Society. New York: Bretano’s, p. 37.
48 Davies: Human Sacrifice (op. cit.), p. 143.
49 McLennan, J.F. (1886). Studies in Ancient History, The Second Series. New York: MacMillan & Co., Ltd., pp. 90s.
50 Guppy, H.B. (1887). The Solomon Islands and Their Natives. London: Swan Sonnenschein, p. 42.
51 Frazer, J.G. (1935). The Golden Bough. New York: MacMillan Co., pp. 332s.
52 Langness, L.L. (1984), “Child abuse and cultural values: the case of New Guinea,” in Korbin, Jill, Child Abuse and Neglect: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, Berkeley: University of California Press, p. 15.
53 Malinowski, Bronislaw (1963). The Family Among the Australian Aborigines. New York: Scocken Books, p. 235.
54 Róheim, Géza (1962). “The Western tribes of Central Australia: childhood.” The Psychoanalytic Study of Society, 2: p. 200.
55 Smyth, Brough (1878). The Aborigines of Australia. London: John Ferres, p. 52.
56 Dickeman, Mildred (1975). “Demographic consequences of infanticide in man.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 6: p. 121.
57 Howitt, A.W. (1904). The Native Tribes of South-East Australia. MacMillan & Co., Ltd., pp. 749s.
58 Malthus, Thomas Robert (1963). On Population. New York: The Modern Library, I.III, p. 170.
59 Bonney, Frederic (1884). “On some customs of the aborigines of the River Darling.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 13: p. 125.
60 Cowlishaw, Gillian (1978). “Infanticide in aboriginal Australia.” Oceania, 48: p. 267.
61 Murdock, G.P. (1971). Our Primitive Contemporaries. New York: Macmillan, p. 34.
62 Frazer, James George (1963). The Dying God. New York: Macmillan, p. 180.
63 Murdock: Our Primitive Contemporaries (op. cit.), p. 34.
64 Spencer, Baldwin, F.J. Gillen (1904). The Northern Tribes of Central Australia. London: MacMillan & Co., p. 475.
65 Yengoyan, Aram (1972). “Biological and demographic components in aboriginal Australian socio-economic organization.” Oceania, 43: p. 88.
66 Roth, H. Ling (1899). The Aborigines of Tasmania. Halifax: King & Sons, pp. 162s.
67 Murdock: Our Primitive Contemporaries (op. cit.), p. 7.
68 Ritchie, Jane and James Ritchie (1979). Growing Up in Polynesia. Sydney: George Allen & Unwin, p. 39.
69 Firth, Raymond (1983). Primitive Polynesian Economy. London: Routledge, p. 44.
70 Dibble, Sheldon (1839). History and General Views of the Sandwich Islands Mission. New York: Taylor & Dodd, p. 123.
71 Handy, E.S. and Mary Kawena Pukui (1958). The Polynesian Family System in Ka-’U, Hawaii. New Plymouth, New Zealand: Avery Press, p. 327.
72 Ritchie: Growing Up in Polynesia (op. cit.), p. 189.
73 Oliver, Douglas (1974). Ancient Tahitan Society. Honolulu: University Press of Hawii, Vol. I, p. 425.
74 Schrire, Carmel and William Lee Steiger (1974). “A matter of life and death: an investigation into the practice of female infanticide in the Artic.” Man: The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Society, 9: p. 162.
75 Fridtjof, Nansen (1894). Eskimo Life. London: Longmans, Green & Co., p. 152.
76 Garber, Clark (1947). “Eskimo Infanticide.” Scientific monthly, 64: p. 98.
77 Langer: “Infanticide: a historical survey” (op. cit.), p. 354.
78 Balikci, Asen (1984), “Netslik,” in Damas, David, Handbook of North American Indians (Arctic), Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution, p. 427.
79 Savishinsky, Joel and Hiroko Sue Hara (1981), “Hare,” in Helm, June, Handbook of North American Indians (Subarctic). Smithsonian Institution, p. 322. See also: Gillespie, Beryl (1981), “Mountain Indians,” in Helm, June, Handbook of North American Indians (Subarctic). Smithsonian Institution, p. 331.
80 Shimkin, Demitri, B. (1986), “Eastern Shoshone,” in D’Azevedo, Warren L., Handbook of North American Indians (Great Basin). Smithsonian Institution, p. 330.
81 Riddell, Francis (1978), “Maidu and Konkow,” in Heizer, Robert F., Handbook of North American Indians (California). Smithsonian Institution, p. 381.
82 Campbell, T.N. (1983), “Coahuitlecans and their neighbors,” in Ortiz, Alonso, Handbook of North American Indians (Southwest). Smithsonian Institution, p. 352.
83 Johnson, Orna (1981), “The socioeconomic context of child abuse and neglect in native South America,” in Korbin, Jill, Child Abuse and Neglect, Berkeley: University of California Press, p. 63.
84 Cotlow, Lewis (1971). The Twilight of the Primitive. New York: Macmillan, p. 65.
85 de Meer, Kees, Roland Bergman and John S. Kushner (1993). “Socio-cultural determinations of child mortality in Southern Peru: including some methodological considerations.” Social Science and Medicine, 36: pp. 323, 328.
86 Hastings, James (1955). Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. NY: Scribner’s Sons, Vol. I, p. 6.
87 Bugos, Paul E. and Lorraine M. McCarthy (1984), “Ayoreo infanticide: a case study,” in Hausfater, Glenn and Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, Infanticide, Comparative and Evolutionary Perspectives, New York: Aldine, p. 510.
___________
The objective of Day of Wrath is to present to the racialist community my philosophy of The Four Words on how to eliminate all unnecessary suffering. If life allows, next time I will reproduce the penultimate chapter. Day of Wrath will be available again in printed form.
Below, today’s comment by Martínez on “Schweitzer’s niglets.” What today’s whites, the worst generation ever in Western history are doing to themselves could be termed “genetic communism”: sharing your precious genes with the colored. Martínez wrote:
One of your most insightful texts up to now, Chechar, thank you.
Its timing was particularly appropriate now that black-run Detroit is trying—unsuccessfully—to go officially bankrupt so it can keep on rolling a debt worth many billions of dollars (link).
Significantly, the last article linked by you is by Mr. Parrott (here), a self-entitled “Christian” White nationalist. Like I have pointed out several times before on this blog, it is well beyond me to understand how such a thing is possible. “Hey, nigger, you’re my brother in Christ and all that stuff, but could you please take your damn pickaninnies and your damn she-monkey-wife and leave my White society forever?”
As far as the discussion on miscigenation that began on this thread is concerned, my own view on the subject is as follows:
My father’s grandfather on his mother’s side was Black. Besides, one of my grandmother’s grandmother on my mother side was Indian. Needless to say, I’m neither White nor I see myself as one. But having at least two brain cells to rub together (to borrow Mr. Covington’s expression) I can see the net result of racial intermixing for what it is: the most tragical human experiment people could engage in. I challenge everybody who disagrees with this judgment to visit the most miscegenated and most Negro / Indian heavily-populated states in Brazil and try to live there as the natives do for at least a year and see if they can leave these places with the same views on race they had when they arrived.
These people are not real human beings. They are humanoids at best and simple animals at worst.
It’s not just that they are physically repulsive. It’s that their intelligence, their morals, their behavior as a whole is simply too different from what you expect from a minimally civilized White man. And it’s not a matter of education or income either. Give them good schools and they will destroy them, give them money and they will promptly squander it in an extravagant way or another.
Having in mind that miscigenation is a self-reinforcing phenomenon, the only way to prevent it is to take an Alcoholics Anonymous approach about it. The AA people attitude to alcohol, as everybody knows is “avoid the first drink.” The only way to stop having drinking problems is not to drink and the only way not to drink is not to drink at all, to completely abstain from drinking. That is to say, as far as preventing race mixing is concerned, the one-drop rule is the only rule that really works: only pure Whites are Whites. If you open a single exception, where the hell do you draw the line? If being White ceases to be a biological concept and becomes an honorary title (“I’m mostly White and I’m pro-White, so I deserve to be counted as White”) you’ll go down a very dangerous conceptual slippery slope with no clear benefits for the White nationalist movement and for the real White population by and large.
Tough and sad as it may sound coming from a self-defined non-White as I am, there should be no non-Whites living in any future White Homeland. Zero.
The survival of the White race should be placed above all personal considerations and interests. Any other stand on the subject cannot be taken seriously.
I’m not naive. The overwhelming majority of Whites are stupid assholes who don’t give a fuck to anything beyond their own petty personal interests and who consider White nationalism the summation of Evil itself. But the Western civilization is rooted in the European gene pool and you cannot have the former without the latter. And if to preserve the latter you have to go to great lengths, including the cruelty of keeping out of a future White Homeland partially White people who are even smarter or more racially aware than most Whites living there (people like me, for example), then be it.
_______________
My two cents:
Like Martínez I live in Latin America and can see every day that what he says is the purest truth here down the South. However, in my humble opinion people like Martínez are worth a million of deracinated whites of this worst of all generations ever! I would not forbid people like him in the first, revolutionary generation of the new ethnostate. Once the racial war is over it will be relatively easy for a mixed couple to adopt an orphaned pure white kid who lost his parents during the war. It is just that simple…
I am increasingly concerned about the coming currency crash. If I don’t convince my family to allow me sell the real estate at market price, I am screwed. The collapse may happen this year or the next one…
How is life going on in Brazil by the way?
Chechar
Sunday, July 14
Hi Chechar,
Well, things in Brazil are beginning to unravel. I don’t know if you are following the news on the media, but there have been many protests all over the country in the past weeks—as usual, in cases like this organized and instigated by the far Left. The reason for this is that inflation is back and the current communist government (in power for ten years now) is beginning to lose control over it. I think it’s the beginning of the end.
But for the moment, things are still ok despite of these problems. I can’t possibly complain about my material life, except for the fact that, like you, I have to live surrounded by folks who disgust me. The good news is that I’m going to Europe in early February, next year.
John
Sunday, July 14
The big step however will be to manage to move to bucolic England. After the dollar hyperinflates big cities will be unsafe to say the least. It would be ideal to work in a farm or something but yes: the arriving place must be Londri.
Changing subjects, is there anyone in Brazil in jail for saying things racists? Just curious…
Chechar
Sunday, July 14
There must be people being legally prosecuted for racism in Brazil, but I wouldn’t be able to recall any particular cases.
You see, since almost everybody here is brown/black and since the school system and the media have been so successful in indoctrinating the stupid masses about the inexistence of race, the country’s legal anti-racist apparatus sort of becomes obsolete in the face of the voluntary anti-racism of the populace.
I think this is what some commentators call “the São Paulo effect”: when the effects of miscigenation and its attending dysgenic consequences are so deep and pervasive that people don’t need to be thought-patrolled anymore because they have become so stupid that even if they got in touch with undesirable ideas (such as racism) they would be too stupid to digest and process them anyway.
This is a nation of brain-dead half-niggers and mestizos. There’s nothing to be done about it.
John
Sunday, July 14
And I guess that whites are as stupid and racially deracinated as they are here in Mexico?
Chechar
Monday, July 15
If not more so. 🙂
Brazil has a population of around 185 million people, of whom something between 10-15 percent are pure Whites. It means that there are more Whites in Brazil than in the whole of the Scandinavian countries combined. Just think.
But these Whites have long sold out to the current Antifa world order. They want to keep a low profile, get a job and have a good time. That is to say, they’re like the rest of Whites everywhere. Unfortunately, the future of Whites in Brazil is simply to be absorbed by the ocean of non-Whites surrounding them.
Take this guy for example [John adds a Facebook link]. He used to be my best friend when I was a kid. He is not a pure White because he has some Indian blood on his mother side. But to make things infinitely worse, what did he do? He married this niggress [pic in the Facebook page] and has had little half-black children with her. I hadn’t seen the guy in many years until I found him on Facebook, but having seen that he had married this she-monkey, I refused to contact the guy.
But his case is the general rule in Brazil. Most Whites will marry, date or have children with non-Whites and they see no problem with that, which means that this place has literally no future because it is the minority of Whites who keep things running here. As Whites disappear, there will be no elite to fly the plane—and the plane, being flown by apes, will eventually crash, just like it is currently happening in South Africa.
But fortunately, when it happens, I will have been long away from this shithole.
John
Monday July 15
Fascinating. Removing the obvious stuff (your friend’s link, etc) what about publishing these emails in WDH?
Chechar
Monday July 15
That’s fine with me. You know, there’s a saying here: Brazil is the country of the future. In a sinister way, Brazil is the country of the future.
The pervasive miscigenation that is the signature of the country’s social fabric will become the sad lot of every single White country in the West until the end of this century, with predictable consequences.
Non-Whites will absorb Whites in the First World, just like they have done in Brazil. São Paulo once was a European metropolis grafted in South America. Rio de Janeiro once was a European metropolis grafted in South America. Now they’re just sprawling slums teeming with blacks/mestizos surrounding urban areas inhabited by middle-class Whites living in constant fear of being robbed, raped, kidnapped or murdered.
And the same thing will eventually happen to places like Los Angeles, London, Paris and other (still) First World metropolises. They’ll become huge ungovernable slums, just like São Paulo and Rio.
This will be the Brazilian Century. You can call it Brave, Brazilian New World.
Today The Drudge Report linked this article about the fifth day in a row of “youths” in Stockholm burning the city.
If you guys have any delusions about regular Whites watching appalling events like these (or, for that matter, the beheading of a British soldier by a repellent Black Muslim in London two days ago), and awakening to the racial dimension of the trouble mass immigration has put them in, you just have to read the comment section of this article to be disabused. Even when the commenters agree that there may be something wrong with “youths” supposedly protesting against perceived social injustices by destroying public and private property at random, they just can’t see the larger pattern of non-Whites terrorizing the White majority—in Stockholm, in London, in Paris—year after year, after year.
This commenter is particularly illustrating of what I’m trying to point at—more specifically, check this specific comment of hers. Here you have a chick who is obviously a Mestiza of whatever ethnic background (Pakistani? Indian?) lecturing European Whites about their moral obligation of feeding, housing, educating and providing jobs to non-white immigrants and their offspring, in the absence of which the said immigrants and their offspring are entitled to burn their cities to ashes.
How could these European societies have gone so low as to allow this surreal situation to become possible? Whatever the answer, one thing is certain in my mind after seeing the popular reaction at these events: trying to save these White societies as a whole is a mission doomed to failure, not only due to the level of moral decadence that the bulk of the public has sunk to, but also due to the pace of miscegenation of the native populations with the non-white immigrants. Whites with non-White relatives are an ever increasingly growing number of people and these folks will never support a White Nationalist movement in their countries. Never. The moronic Mestiza whose comments I linked above very probably has British relatives and they no doubt support her “right” to spit these obnoxious views on the British press.
The point I’m trying to make is this: the cause of White Nationalism is such a hopeless one given the disconnect between the White public at large and our views (which they see as abhorrent and despicable) that, maybe, the most feasible strategy would be to try and save a number of Whites that is just enough not to let the race go extinct; and then proceed to get a Lebensraum somewhere by whatever means. When a huge fire ravages through your house, you don’t try to save everything, just what is really indispensable.
Let’s be honest to ourselves: racially-conscious Whites are by a long shot the most far sighted individuals of their societies. I know that. You guys know that to. But I just don’t believe it is realistic to expect the average white to achieve this level of consciousness.
Historically speaking, Whites hardly ever have seen themselves as Whites proper—but rather as British, French, Germans or simply as Christians. It is true that a number of Germans during the Third Reich and, until a recent past, a number of Americans while in contact with Blacks and Indians did see themselves as Whites proper, but the question is: how long did this racial consciousness last? And if all it takes to root out this racial awareness from their minds is some amount of politically-correct propaganda, then the notion of a solid White, racially conscious nation is a hopeless one indeed—it’s like to consider building a castle on a sandbank.
As a Brazilian, I know where today’s White nations are headed to. Something like 15% of Brazil’s population is pure White, which makes up something like 30 million people. The problem is, the overwhelming majority of these people has non-White friends; has a relative married to a non-White, has married a non-White and/or has himself/herself non-White children. That is to say, the overwhelming majority of these folks are forever lost to the White Nationalist cause—and this will be your situation pretty soon.
In such a depressing scenario, maybe the lesser evil would be to try and close ranks among ourselves instead of trying to save people who do not want to be saved.
Pessimist as I may sound, there is an ultimately successful precedent for our cause: the kikes and their founding of modern Israel. If they have managed to get their own land, Whites can do the same—especially if we give up the naive notion that all Whites deserve to be saved from wholesale miscegenation and the world chaos that will ensue from it. In my humble opinion the Jewish State should be put side by side with works like Mein Kampf as road map for the White Nationalist movement.
__________
Chechar’s note: For articles explaining the meaning of the “Pod” metaphor in the title, just click on the category “Body-snatched pods” below. One of these articles, “Dies Irae,” pretty much summarizes my feelings about mankind in general and whites in particular. It’s probably the most inflammatory piece that has been written in the whole pro-white blogosphere.
Half a year ago the admin of a Catholic, counter-Jihad website in Spain commented in this blog.
Mexico’s backwardness has been the result of its governments after independence, which has been mostly in the hands of whites. Its historical demise is due to the fact that the whites are not breeding, as it is the case, unfortunately, of so many white nationalists.
I quote this friend because his Catholic views reflect exactly the ideology that ruined this part of the American continent: blaming the few whites in charge of a nation consisting of a sea of brown people and sparing the Catholic, Universal ethics that caused the non-white population explosion in the first place.
Arthur Kemp’s March of the Titans is a comprehensive book about the odyssey of the white race, presently available only in printed format. After a long transcontinental research Kemp concludes that colonization is only successful when the colonizers ensure that they demographically replace the native population. “Anything less than that will cause the colonial experiment to fail.” Kemp demonstrates his thesis not only through the paradigm of his native Rhodesia, but of every other geographical entity that had been conquered by whites in the last millennia only to be re-conquered by the natives after overwhelming the white conquerors demographically.
William Pierce had reached identical conclusions in Who We Are: ethnic cleansing is the only way to succeed, and, as he hinted in other texts, to do that we must abandon Christian meta-ethics altogether.
Over the boards I’ve said it many times and will say it again: Pace my Christian friends, the price to save the West is to give up Christian axiology, and its secular offshoots, that presently are infecting our minds and our sense of decency.
* * *
Excerpted from the 22nd article of William Pierce’s “Who We Are: a Series of Articles on the History of the White Race”:
The native Amerinds found by the Spaniards in the West Indies were, like those of the mainland, of Mongoloid derivation, being the descendants of Mongoloid peoples who had begun crossing the Bering Strait from Siberia to North America some 12,000 years ago and had then gradually propagated throughout the empty North and South American continents and the adjacent islands.
Since the Spaniards’ entire purpose in the New World was economic exploitation, not the propagation of their own race, they did not deliberately liquidate the native population. In some areas, however, that was the inadvertent effect of the Spanish conquest. The Indians were not constitutionally suited to the unremitting slave labor in the gold and silver mines and on the sugar plantations which was forced on them by their new masters, and they died like flies under the Spanish yoke.
An enormous toll was also taken by smallpox, a disease endemic among the Europeans but one to which the Amerinds, isolated as they had been for thousands of years, had no natural immunity. It virtually depopulated the Caribbean islands and then wreaked havoc among the mainland Indians. (The Indian revenge was syphilis, a New World disease entirely new to the Europeans—at least, in the new and virulent form in which it existed among the Amerinds.)
Beginning of the Black Tide
Because of the inadequacy of the Indians as a local labor force, the Spaniards almost immediately began importing Negro slaves from West Africa. The latter belong to a race ideally suited to the plantation labor of that era. The Blacks were first used in the West Indies, then on the Brazilian mainland. Approximately a million of them were imported in the period 1550-1650, and by the latter date they had completely replaced the Amerind natives as a slave labor force on the Caribbean islands.
(Spanish-English translation of the painting footnote: Spaniard, Mestizo, Indian)
Approximately 150,000 Spaniards and Portuguese had migrated to the New World by the middle of the 17th century, and natural increase had raised their number to about 400,000. They ruled over about 9,000,000 Indians—and a growing population of mestizos (Indian-White mixed breeds), Blacks, mulattos, and Indian-Black mixed breeds. Only on the island of Cuba was there anything approaching a truly White Spanish or Portuguese community.
Northerners Arrive
From the beginning of the 17th century, however, Northern Europeans—English, French, and Dutch—began seriously contesting the Iberians’ claims on the New World. By 1650 nearly 50,000 English (and a few thousand French and Dutch) immigrants were settled on Caribbean land wrested away from the Spaniards, and another 50,000 had landed in North America.
In sharp contrast to the Spanish and Portuguese colonists, the great bulk of the Northern Europeans came to the New World not to exploit non-White labor and make money, but to settle and work the land themselves, in all-White communities. Thus, colonialism acquired two quite distinct meanings in the 17th and 18th centuries: a strictly economic meaning, which applied to all the Southern European and some of the Northern European colonies; and a racial meaning, which applied almost exclusively to the colonies of the Northerners.
The Pollution of the South
Today the only countries in South America which are substantially White are Uruguay (nearly 100 per cent), Argentina (between 80 and 90 per cent), and Chile (approximately 50 per cent).
Women and Plows
Most of the Northern Europeans who came to the New World had quite different motives than did the Spanish and Portuguese. Most of the latter came only to make money, and relatively few brought their women with them; from the beginning miscegenation was common in the areas controlled by the Iberians.
The Northerners, on the other hand, came for the land and the opportunity for a new life on a new frontier. They brought their women and their plows with them, and for the most part, they did their own labor. They saw in the Indians no opportunity for economic exploitation, but only a danger to their families. Until missionaries began making Christians of the Indians and taking their side against the Whites, the latter just pushed them aside, took their land, and formed all-White communities of farmers, craftsmen, and tradesmen, as they had in Europe.
Madison Grant’s The Passing of the Great Race, published in 1916, is a classic in race studies. Below, a few excerpts from the chapter, “The European Races in Colonies” (no ellipsis added):
For reasons already set forth there are few communities outside of Europe of pure European blood. The racial destiny of Mexico and of the islands and coasts of the Spanish Main is clear. The white man is being rapidly bred out by Negroes on the islands and by Indians on the mainland. It is quite evident that the West Indies, the coast region of our Gulf States, perhaps, also the black belt of the lower Mississippi Valley must be abandoned to Negroes. This transformation is already complete in Haiti and is going rapidly forward in Cuba and Jamaica. Mexico and the northern part of South America must also be given over to native Indians with an ever thinning veneer of white culture of the “Latin” type.
In Venezuela the pure whites number about one per cent of the whole population, the balance being Indians and various crosses between Indians, Negroes and whites. In Jamaica the whites number not more than two per cent, while the remainder are Negroes or mulattoes.
In Mexico the proportion is larger, but the unmixed whites number less than twenty per cent of the whole, the others being Indians pure or mixed. These latter are the “greasers” of the American frontiersman.
Where two distinct species are located side by side history and biology teach that but one of two things can happen; either one race drives the other out, as the Americans exterminated the Indians and as the Negroes are now replacing the whites in various parts of the South; or else they amalgamate and form a population of race bastards in which the lower type ultimately preponderates. This is a disagreeable alternative with which to confront sentimentalists but nature is only concerned with results and neither makes nor takes excuses. The chief failing of the day with some of our well-meaning philanthropists is their absolute refusal to face inevitable facts, if such facts appear cruel.
In the Argentine white blood of the various European races is pouring in so rapidly that a community preponderantly white, but of the Mediterranean race, may develop, but the type is suspiciously swarthy.
In Brazil, Negro blood together with that of the native inhabitants is rapidly overwhelming the white Europeans, although in the southern provinces German immigration has played an important role and the influx of Italians has also been considerable.
Throughout history it is only the race of the leaders that has counted and the most vigorous have been in control and will remain in mastery in one form or another until such time as democracy and its illegitimate offspring, socialism, definitely establish cacocracy and the rule of the worst and put an end to progress. The salvation of humanity will then lie in the chance survival of some sane barbarians who may retain the basic truth that inequality and not equality the law of nature.
Australia and New Zealand, where the natives have been virtually exterminated by the whites, are developing into communities of pure Nordic blood and will for that reason play a large part in the future history of the Pacific. The bitter opposition of the Australians and Californians to the admission of Chinese coolies and Japanese farmers is due primarily to a blind but absolutely justified determination to keep those lands as white man’s countries.
In Africa, south of the Sahara, the density of the native population will prevent the establishment of any purely white communities, except at the southern extremity of the continent and possibly on portions of the plateaux of eastern Africa. The stoppage of famines and wars and the abolition of the slave trade, while dictated by the noblest impulses of humanity, are suicidal to the white man. Upon the removal of these natural checks Negroes multiply so rapidly that there will not be standing room on the continent for white men, unless, perchance, the lethal sleeping sickness, which attacks the natives far more frequently than the whites, should run its course unchecked.
The Negroes of the United States while stationary, were not a serious drag on civilization until in the last century they were given the rights of citizenship and were incorporated in the body politic. These Negroes brought with them no language or religion or customs of their own which persisted but adopted all these elements of environment from the dominant race, taking the names of their masters just as to-day the German and Polish Jews are assuming American names.
Looking at any group of Negroes in America, especially in the North, it is easy to see that while they are all essentially Negroes, whether coal-black, brown or yellow, a great many of them have varying amounts of Nordic blood in them, which has in some respects modified their physical structure without transforming them in any way into white men. This miscegenation was, of course, a frightful disgrace to the dominant race but its effect on the Nordics has been negligible, for the simple reason that it was confined to white men crossing with Negro women and did not involve the reverse process, which would, of course, have resulted in the infusion of Negro blood into the American stock.
The United States of America must be regarded racially as a European colony and owing to current ignorance of the physical bases of race, one often hears the statement made that native Americans of Colonial ancestry are of mixed ethnic origin.
This not true. The Nordic blood was kept pure in the Colonies because at that time among Protestant peoples there was a strong race feeling, as a result of which half-breeds between the white man and any native type were regarded as natives and not as white men.
Concentration of whites in the American Continent
In the Catholic colonies, however, of New France and New Spain, if the half-breed were a good Catholic he was regarded as a Frenchman or a Spaniard, as the case might be. This fact alone gives the clew to many of our Colonial wars where the Indians, other than the Iroquois, were persuaded to join the French against the Americans by half-breeds who considered themselves Frenchmen. The Church of Rome has everywhere used its influence to break down racial distinctions. It disregards origins and only requires obedience to the mandates of the universal church. In that lies the secret of the opposition of Rome to all national movements. It maintains the imperial as contrasted with the nationalistic ideal and in that respect its inheritance is direct from the Empire.
Race consciousness in the Colonies and in the United States, down to and including the Mexican War, seems to have been very strongly developed among native Americans and it still remains in full vigor to-day in the South, where the presence of a large Negro population forces this question upon the daily attention of the whites.
In New England, however, whether through the decline of Calvinism or the growth of altruism, there appeared early in the last century a wave of sentimentalism, which at that time took up the cause of the Negro and in so doing apparently destroyed, to a large extent, pride and consciousness of race in the North. The agitation over slavery was inimical to the Nordic race, because it thrust aside all national opposition to the intrusion of hordes of immigrants of inferior racial value and prevented the fixing of a definite American type.
There has been little or no Indian blood taken into the veins of the native American, except in States like Oklahoma and in some isolated families scattered here and there in the Northwest. This particular mixture will play no very important role in future combinations of race on this continent, except in the north of Canada.
The native Americans [i.e., whites] are splendid raw material, but have as yet only an imperfectly developed national consciousness. They lack the instinct of self-preservation in a racial sense. Unless such an instinct develops their race will perish, as do all organisms which disregard this primary law of nature. Nature had granted to the Americans of a century ago the greatest opportunity in recorded history to produce in the isolation of a continent a powerful and racially homogeneous people and had provided for the experiment a pure race of one of the most gifted and vigorous stocks on earth, a stock free from the diseases, physical and moral, which have again and again sapped the vigor of the older lands. Our grandfathers threw away this opportunity in the blissful ignorance of national childhood and inexperience.
The result of unlimited immigration is showing plainly in the rapid decline in the birth rate of native Americans because the poorer classes of Colonial stock, where they still exist, will not bring children into the world to compete in the labor market with the Slovak, the Italian, the Syrian and the Jew. The native American is too proud to mix socially with them and is gradually withdrawing from the scene, abandoning to these aliens the land which he conquered and developed. The man of the old stock is being crowded out of many country districts by these foreigners just as he is to-day being literally driven off the streets of New York City by the swarms of Polish Jews. These immigrants adopt the language of the native American, they wear his clothes, they steal his name and they are beginning to take his women, but they seldom adopt his religion or understand his ideals and while he is being elbowed out of his own home the American looks calmly abroad and urges on others the suicidal ethics which are exterminating his own race.
As to what the future mixture will be it is evident that in large sections of the country the native American will entirely disappear. He will not intermarry with inferior races and he cannot compete in the sweat-shop and in the street trench with the newcomers. Large cities from the days of Rome, Alexandria, and Byzantium have always been gathering points of diverse races, but New York is becoming a cloaca gentium which will produce many amazing racial hybrids and some ethnic horrors that will be beyond the powers of future anthropologists to unravel.
Kievsky’s recent article “What’s Wrong with White Americans?” provoked an exchange between smart white nationalists and those clueless about racial issues that moved me to quote excerpts of it (no ellipsis added between unquoted sentences):
Cameron said…
@ Matt Parrott
But hopefully you can understand, from that framework, why I believe it’s imperative that we preserve the White population and our unique attributes.
No, I don’t understand why we’re making race-mixing an issue. If it’s such an issue, then what is your proposal as to a solution for this problem? Do we get rid of everyone who is mixed? Do we marginalize them as African-Americans were done in the past to the fringe of our culture?
Furthermore, without a solution, you prove of how little substance you and the rest of the white elitist movement (call it Racial Realism, if that makes you feel more like Jared Taylor and less like David Duke) are made of. I want to know how you and the rest of the white elitists plan to re-establish yourself as the dominant class. Or, because I doubt that will happen, the surge in reproductive rates in minority communities will eventually establish another ethnic group as the ruling class in a few hundred years. White elitists such as yourself have already been marginalized to the confines of the web and intellectually racist publications such as the Occidental Quarterly and American Renaissance. Neither you nor Kievsky would have the balls to say something to me if you saw me on the street with my African American girlfriend and future wife. You are confined to the web to espouse your hate and that gives me immense satisfaction.
Realist said…
Cameron,
I hope you’re happy with your decision to marry a Black woman. I’m sure your children will be immensely benefited by the Black genes. I bet you’re so happy that you have extinguished the White heritage of your family.
Some White people want to remain White and not have propaganda shoved down their throat and down their children’s throats about how it’s cool to race-mix. It obviously worked on you. You think it’s cool and that you are morally unimpeachable.
I’ve got news for you. You’ve made a huge mistake, and there is a reason people are staring at you and your pet minority. It’s because you have chosen to mix with one of the most undeveloped people on Earth. They think, “What is wrong with that White man, to stoop to that level.” I assure you, even the anti-White diversity lovers think this in secret.
We all know race is real and it matters.
Enjoy your mulatto children. Don’t blame us when half of their genes revert to the Black American IQ of 85. Don’t blame us when they grow without any real identity, confused as to whether they are Black or White, when in reality they are neither. Don’t blame us when they most likely side with and consider themselves part of the Black culture, which will give you plenty of blessings of diversity.
Matt Parrott said…
@Cameron
No, I don’t understand why we’re making race-mixing an issue. If it’s such an issue, then what is your proposal as to a solution for this problem?
Simple. Let those of us who are White leave. Then don’t follow us. There are regions of America that are almost completely White. And even an Orania-style enclave will do. After all, most White Americans are eager to shed their ethnic identities and plunge into the Cosmic rainbow nation, so a humble little reservation ought to be sufficient.
Do we get rid of everyone who is mixed? Do we marginalize them as African-Americans were done in the past to the fringe of our culture?
Yes. You get rid of the ones who are mixed. You don’t “marginalize” them or exploit them as underlings, second-class citizens, or anything. That’s one of the best features of you letting me depart – you no longer have to deal with me lording my racism and White Privilege over you. It’s win-win.
What are the stringency tests for racial purity and being “white”?
Not that stringent at all. If the person looks like he’s probably of overwhelmingly European descent and he embraces his White American identity to the exclusion of non-White American identities, then he’s in. No DNA tests. No craniometry. Just intuitive straightforward stuff. And if some people with fractional Black ancestry end up there, then that’s okay, since this is about ethnic identity, not biological purity.
If you do not have a platform to stand on behind what you deem a “problem”, then you are just espousing white elitism.
I’ve been very very clear about rejecting “white elitism”. In case you hadn’t noticed, “white elitism” is the default state we’re in right now. Rich White guys dominate and exploit Mexican immigrants, the Black underclass, and overseas sweatshop laborers to enrich themselves. The platform I’m building (it’s not sturdy enough to actually stand on just yet) is one in which we Whites who wish to carry on as Whites will gladly hand over every bit of America’s infrastructure to you, every bit of it’s most fertile land to you, and every bit of its wealth and global influence to you, in exchange for being allowed to go off and simply exist.
It doesn’t seem like I’m offering you a bad deal.
I want to know how you and the rest of the white elitists plan to re-establish yourself as the dominant class.
I am fighting harder than anybody else to dislodge us from being part of America’s dominant class.
Or, because I doubt that will happen, the surge in reproductive rates in minority communities will eventually establish another ethnic group as the ruling class in a few hundred years. White elitists such as yourself have already been marginalized to the confines of the web and intellectually racist publications such as the Occidental Quarterly and American Renaissance.
No question. Folks like me who are trying to secure the basic rights we need to continue as a people are getting our asses kicked, are being marginalized, and have been reduced to nothing but a handful of websites and self-published books.
Neither you nor Kievsky would have the balls to say something to me if you saw me on the street with my African American girlfriend and future wife.
I wouldn’t have anything to say to you and your girlfriend unless you asked. You have every right to be in an interracial relationship and be in an interracial community. More power to you. No judgment, here. Now please extend the same courtesy to those of us who choose to remain among our own kind. You act like I’m the one who’s trying to control you when my core message is the exact opposite of wanting anything to do with you. You’re the one threatening me.
I take my message to the street very regularly. Less than a month ago, I stood on the statehouse steps and delivered my message, unfiltered, to a mob of Mexicans, Blacks, and “anti-fascists”. With the exception of the anti-fascists, who continued barking at me, the others politely debated me, conceded some points, made some good points, and acted like adults.
You are confined to the web to espouse your hate and that gives me immense satisfaction.
The only one espousing hate on the Internet is you.
Gorilla said…
Realist, Go fuck yourself. That is all.
Alte said…
Don’t blame us when half of their genes revert to the Black American IQ of 85.
Huh? That doesn’t even make any sense. Children’s IQ’s are at least half inherited from their parents, not from their parents’ races average IQ.
Realist said…
Cameron said: “the surge in reproductive rates in minority communities will eventually establish another ethnic group as the ruling class in a few hundred years.”
Actually miscegenation or even the growth of brown or black populations does not establish new ethnic ruling classes. In fact, it only makes that population more susceptible to the whims and control of the typical ethnic ruling classes.
This is precisely why elites in USA are happy to race-replace (i.e. genocide) White Americans to minority status in favor of brown Mexicans and Third Worlders. There are many places where miscegenation or the growth of brown populations has happened for hundreds of years. Guess what? It gets worse. They turn Third World.
Do you think Brazil is some multicultural utopia? Sure, some Brazilian will lie to your face and say they don’t think about race because it’s so mixed. It’s BS. Brazil is incredibly racially stratified. The favelas (ghettos/shantytowns) are all filled with Blacks and some browns. The White (German/Italian) and Japanese and Jewish elite live in houses with barbed wire and tall fences or walls. Is this utopia? The lighter-skinned mulattos, if they happen to achieve material success, invariably “marry up” by marrying a lighter or White person. All countries and cultures do this.
Did you know India used to be ruled by Indo-Europeans (White people)? That’s why they instituted to the caste system. Over time, the system failed. Now India is mostly brown. Is India a wonderful place, or is it a teeming mess of Third World brown people with starving children and flies and disease everywhere?
Haiti used to be the Jewel of the Caribbean, when the evil White Frenchman ruled it. It exported 40% of global sugar. Then the African slaves killed all the French, and even killed the mulattos. Guess what? Haiti is now all-black, and it is the embarrassment of the Western hemisphere. A little Africa.
Ever notice how the South American countries with the highest White populations are the most stable and have the best economies? Gee, what a coincidence. Ever notice how the industrial capital of Brazil is Sao Paolo, with a higher concentration of German, Italian, and Japanese immigrants? How strange.
While anti-Whites spew their filth about ending race, what they really mean is the end of the White race. Nobody says Africa is too Black. Nobody says Mexico is too brown, let’s flood it with non-Mexicans and create a blended humanity.
Yet every White nation and only White nations are “not diverse enough” so we have to flood them with non-Whites and encourage “integration” (i.e. miscegenation). Even if you couldn’t object to this on the genocide that it is, at least look at it from a utilitarian perspective.
You’re trying to kill the goose that lays golden eggs! If this evil plan works, I wish the best for your sloppy mongrel descendants who sadly live in a brown society of stagnation and decline. But hey, it was all worth it, right?
Alte: It’s called “reversion to the mean.” The genes of the parent are not in isolation. So two 120 IQ Black people that have a kid are more likely to have a smarter-than-black-average kid, but the kid’s IQ nonetheless has a tendency to “revert to the mean”, which for blacks is 85 IQ (USA, 20% White blacks) or 70 (real blacks, Africans).
Gorilla: truth is hard, I know. It’s very hard to either (a) realize you’re not White and that racial differences are real or (b) if you are White, realize that everything Mommy Professor told you in college about race isn’t really true.
Thinking exercise: replace everyone in Haiti with Japanese people. In 50 years, who can honestly say that this experimental group will not exceed actual Haiti (all black) in 50 years? You’d have to be nuts to not realize that different groups (races) have different abilities to build and sustain civilization. And the pattern is quite clear. Whites and Northeast Asians are very good at this. Browns are not so good at this. Blacks cannot even create anything remotely approaching civilization. Ever visited Africa? Blacks cannot even sustain civilization when it is handed to them, e.g. Haiti, Detroit, Gary, Watts, DC, Chicago, or… any significantly black neighborhood, area, swath of land, nation or continent.
Everybody says there is this race problem. Everybody says this race problem will be solved when the third world pours into every white country and only into white countries.
The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this race problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and “assimilating” with them.
Everybody says the final solution to this race problem is for every white country and only white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was this race problem and this race problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into every black country and only into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a race problem. I am talking about the final solution to the black problem?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a nazi who wants to kill six million Jews.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
Nullpointer said…
If Genghis hadn’t passed away all of Europe might have fallen to the Golden Horde. Islam had its hey-day too – one of the most important words in mathematics “algebra” has its origin in Islam.
Realist said…
Nullpointer,
That’s a very fancy way to avoid the simple truth: Whites build superior societies, and then non-Whites try desperately to follow them to said societies. You can talk all day about correlation or phenotype or anything else that impresses the easily impressed, but you can’t refute my simple truth. White people (and North East Asians) make great civilizations. Brown people make stagnant or declining civilizations. Black people ruin and are incapable of creating or sustaining civilization. Some Whites just want to be left alone in their White societies, even if there are super-genius, power-lifting, Ivy league Blacks/browns/mongrels to serve as the “exception.” I’m sorry, I know you this amazing mamzer is a valuable individual, as Parrott said, he’s “Super.” But he’s not White. And not average or representative, rather, he is an outlier.
Re: Whiteness
Does anyone here dispute there is such thing as a Black person? An Asian? Probably not, if they have a lick of sense. But due to decades of anti-White “critical studies” and academic race-denial, there are credulous people still piping off about how there is no such thing as white people.
OK, fine. No such thing as White people. So you don’t mind if we have a world of exclusively White people, right? Nothing wrong with that, it’s just a social construct. Please. Race is real and there is a racial type that can be further broken down into subgroup: White… Nordic… Alpine… Dinaric… Mediterranean… Call it whatever you’d like, Caucasian, European, Europid. But don’t feed us these lies and distortions about doubting the existence of White people.
P.S. Genghis Khan conquered a lot. They also say he had red hair. But either way, he did not build complex societies. He just conquered a lot of land. Amazing in its own right but that’s not a good example of building a successful civilization. He was an insanely-success warlord.
Ruby said…
The delusional narrative in the minds of most White Nationalists and White Supremacists is one of “The Immutable Superiority of Whiteness”. That is, that the current geopolitical, social, cultural and economic hegemony held by Anglo-Europeans is due strictly to partitioned genetic factors.
It is not due to the narrow “Fertile Crescent” of highly arable land extending diagonally from Turkey up to Germany which allowed for stabilized agriculture and animal husbandry for thousands of years.
It is not due to geography and irregular resource distribution driving historical inter-ethnic conflict and cross-continental exchange which then spurned the advancement of martial and utility technologies up to the modern age.
It is not due to brutal domestic class stratification and then worldwide colonialism giving rise to relatively cheap manpower, goods and energy sources.
It is not due to the U.S. corporate, banking and military industrial complexes exploiting the all but destroyed infrastructure and geopolitical spheres of allies post World War I and World War II for gain.
It is not due to any of these rational and easily corroborated facts; No — It is due to their belief in the mystical ability of that socio-cultural concept known as whiteness.
To those skeptical of the claims and aims of White Nationalists and White Supremacists, know that the nature of their faith in their Elected Nature as the vanguard of their “Peoples” prevents them from seeing any logistical or logical fallacy that bolsters their ego and self-esteem.
For this reason, much like any zealotous cultist you may encounter, it is best to be wary and aware of them — But generally to avoid being drawn into their perceptual frame of false victimhood through argument.
Realist said…
Anytime someone defends White interests, people bring up superiority. Question: If Whites want racial partition, how can there be any of this oppression or supremacism, at all? There cannot. It is impossible. All we’re saying is that we don’t want non-Whites to hang around us and leach off of us, and what do we get for it? People call us supremacist.
Supremacy and Superiority. No race is supreme or superior. You can only compare the average ability or best examples of a race on specific abilities. West African Bantus are superior at sprinting and jumping (watch the 100 meter dash or the NBA). They also have superior bone density. But that same density makes them poor swimmers. Here’s where the “supremacy” BS comes up. Whites seem to be superior in the things that count. Civilization. Intelligence. Creativity. Joseph Sobran:
“Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It’s Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don’t grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it. And, superiority excites envy. Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call minorities.” [Chechar’s bold and italics]
Minorities realize they are the children of the White world, desperately clinging to the guardianship and good will of others, never able to live as free and independent adults. So Whites get called supremacists and oppressors. After decades and trillions of dollars of non-White handouts, redistribution schemes, and social programs, Whites are still these evil supremacist racists.
“Socio-cultural concept known as whiteness”.
Let’s point out the obvious: nobody denies the existence of any other race. It is only Whites who are demonized and denigrated as a social construct. I will not accept your evil, genocidal characterization of my race. It is wrong to deny the existence of my race just so you can wipe it off the planet with miscegenation, anti-White discrimination, and the imminent violence that happens whenever Whites find themselves in the minority (e.g. US inner cities, South Africa, former Rhodesia).
You have no right to deny the existence of the White race. If there’s no White race, I suppose you won’t mind if the entire world consists of only White people? Of course you would. That’s wrong. Every race has the right to exist, including the White race.
The biggest supremacists and haters and bigots are not White Nationalists or defenders of White rights. The worst of the lot are anti-White people who do nothing but spew venom against Whites, blame them for everything, and call for their slow genocide through intermarriage, income distribution, and overwhelming non-White immigration into all White nations and only White nations.
Tell us, why do you hate Whites so much? Why are you so anti-White? What did Whites ever do to you that make your heart so cold and black? How can you justify White genocide?
By the way, Ruby Rothstein, your Mommy Professor forgot to tell you something about the Fertile Crescent. Africa has the largest and most fertile farmland and natural resources in the world, bar-none. Why isn’t Africa booming with intelligent and productive people?
Oh, I forgot. You believe in environmentalist explanations, like that which Jared Diamond proposes in Guns, Germs, and Steel. That’s cute. The problem is that theory is completely and 100% false, and Jared Diamond is a known race-denier. He denies it right at the beginning of his book!
How can environmentalism and natural resource endowment theory explain the rise of Japan (tiny island, few natural resources). Why isn’t Mexico a bigger economic player, since it is teeming with natural resources and arable land (hint: it’s full of Mexicans). How in the world is Iceland doing so well in that cold, desolate place?
Some people will just never admit what is front of their noses: race matters. Culture and civilization is the expression of race.
Race is not a social construct. Society is a racial construct. If you replace Mexico with Swedish people, it will improve. If you replace Sweden with Mexicans, it will devolve.
If Africa and Europe switch populations, in 100 years Europe will be using candles and hacking each other’s arms off, and Africa will be a major center of commerce with stable and successful civilization.
Goldenfetus said…
Well said, Realist. You’re obviously correct, and the detractors here are obviously motivated by anti-white sentiment.
The thing is, when someone points out some accomplishment of Asians or Jews you aren’t going to see butt-hurt Whites crying, whining about oppression, or playing the victim and demanding compensation. This is what Blacks do, for example, because they don’t have any historical achievements to take pride in. Hell, they haven’t even contributed a cogent religion or philosophical system. And no, voodoo doesn’t count. They are parasitic everywhere they go, and there’s nothing oppressive about Whites wanting to live without them. “If the Negro is entitled to lift himself up by enforced association with the white man, why should not the white man be entitled to prevent himself from being pulled down by enforced association with the Negro?” – William T. Polk.
nullpointer said…
Err… wow. Philosophically, I’m all for finding a place where you can be as white as you want to be. Practically speaking, there’s not an infinite amount of land.
I don’t have time correct your misinformation in detail, but you should read Jared Diamonds book in closer detail. His thesis was that north south transfer of agriculture and pastoralism was much more difficult than east west transfer. He backed this up with up a wide spectrum of evidence. Please don’t try to contradict Jared Diamond with such poor justification. I’m open to the idea that he is wrong and a race-denier, but simply stating does not make his idea wrong (ad hominem fallacy).
Black people have been very unlucky and it’s unfortunate, because as a result a lot of their accomplishments get lost in the fray. If you stop saying negroes suck for a second you might start finding examples of what American blacks have done, as well as evidence of large African empires that impressively resisted colonial rule. Africa is a clusterfuck of colonialism that is useless for the purpose of extrapolating inferences on negroes.
In South America, the mapuche adapted European technology quickly and were able to hold their independence until they helped with Chilean independence and then got screwed over as a result.
Japan is a poor example due to vibrant trade with China. When they shutdown and stagnated our dear Rear Admiral Perry showed up with advanced ships and intimated the Japanese into the future. China got raped by Japan in WWII.
If you really want a place for whites, where you’ll be left alone, you’re going to have to find an inhospitable piece of land that nobody wants. Otherwise, you’re gonna have a heck of time defending it without your non-white separatist former countrymen. You could start something like the free state project that the libertarians tried – Alaska has tons of natural resources and a clean food supply. They’ve already got a good pro-white base and if you all moved there and seceded I’d be all for it. If white are so good at empire building you could eventually take over Canada and show the world how it’s done.
Matt Parrott said…
@nullpointer,
Err… wow. Philosophically, I’m all for finding a place where you can be as white as you want to be. Practically speaking, there’s not an infinite amount of land.
This is transparent BS. There are vast swaths of relatively habitable land in the United States alone that are essentially uninhabited. The bottom line now is that we have no political power, so you can play your cheeky shtick of “Sorry, little buddy, the Earth just doesn’t have enough room for any White people.”
Of course, if I were to invert the equation and declare that there wasn’t enough room in the world for mixed-race people, I would be vilified.
I don’t have time correct your misinformation in detail, but you should read Jared Diamonds book in closer detail. His thesis was that north south transfer of agriculture and pastoralism was much more difficult than east west transfer.
Diamond begins his book with an explicit declaration of bias against White people and an irrational refusal to consider that humans have innate group differences in intelligence. His book is overwhelmingly true, but it deliberately leaves out a huge piece of the puzzle: Those serendipitous geographical advantages in agricultural, animal domestication, and military technology shared throughout the fertile temperate belt also conferred a genetic advantage over time.
The 10,000 Year Explosion maps out how a lot of these relatively recent factors, many of which Diamond brings to bear, appear to have genetically altered us, as well. How could things with such a dramatic effect on our habitat not genetically alter us?
If you stop saying negroes suck for a second you might start finding examples of what American blacks have done, as well as evidence of large African empires that impressively resisted colonial rule.
Black people are awesome, and much of America’s cultural contributions have been due to the cultural and artistic synergies that come with Whites leveraging their resources and media technologies to tap into the Black American imagination. They ain’t that bright and they ain’t that safe. But I’ve never said they suck. I guess if there’s a race out there that really sucks, it’s the Andamanese negrito. Those folks have nothing going for them.
For this reason, much like any zealotous cultist you may encounter, it is best to be wary and aware of them — But generally to avoid being drawn into their perceptual frame of false victimhood through argument.
Translation: Their arguments are persuasive. But as the adult in the room, I order you to dismiss them as crazies and keep walking. Don’t let them suck you into their hypnotic “We have a right to exist” voodoo word games. Nothing to see, here.
Nullpointer April 1, 2011 at 2:03 pm
@Matt Parrott
You will maintain intensive agriculture on this land, how? You’re going to have to trade with some very unsavory folks as well as people who aren’t going to trust you. You think a large more effective society won’t ever disenfranchise you? Doesn’t necessarily need to be a multi-cultural one. Chinese, Indians, and others have a lot of mouths to feed. It’s gonna get rough.
I’m not disagreeing with you on the possibility that populations have innate differences. I’m saying you have no metric, with which to turn that into a useful statement. Populations have parameters and you can estimate those parameters from samples of a population, but you can’t extend that into a useful mathematical framework for expressing your idea of whiteness. I can’t cite this, but if I recall correctly intra-racial variation in blacks is greater than the inter-racial variation between whites and blacks. Mitochondrial DNA comes from what seven women.
In addition, I don’t see a conclusive link between the environment and increasing complexity that justifies the accelerated evolutionary claims you make. Mexicans had wheels they just used them on toys (just a single example). I’m sure there’s somebody out there with a theory about how spending all your time fighting and doing agriculture made white people smarter, but pre-pastoral cultures could identify thousands of herbs and effects by memory alone.
Whites have a history of taking other people’s ideas and using them in creative new ways (advanced sailing & pastoralism from Arabs as an example). This maybe a result of forced interaction within the small space in Europe and trying to eek out every advantage possible to kill each other, but there’s been plenty of other societies in Eurasia that had equal or greater success (in particular the Chinese), but due to their isolation lost the impetus. Has this made the Chinese dumb? Does losing Jerusalem to renewed Islamic vigor in the later crusades make the West dumb or weak? As the mapuche in the south of Chile showed, taking technology, mastering it, and improving it is not an inherently “white” quality.
Looking at a successful society is the ultimate source of success bias. You only see the society we’re in that made it, you never see all the other societies that were identical (often made up of white people) who were not so lucky and just died out (at some point in the past). Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there are some differences, but I think there’s a lot of assumptions that I don’t think we’ll be able to settle.
Matt Parrott said…
I never claimed to be somehow “pure” of influence of non-White non-gentile cultures. I’m all about learning about and learning from other people. I just believe there’s a line to be drawn the crossing of which results in threatening the integrity of your people. You can learn karate and enjoy Cohen Brothers films without agreeing to the wholesale replacement of your people.
You will maintain intensive agriculture on this land, how?
If Icelanders can have paradise on Earth atop a craggy island in the frigid North, Dutchmen can create their own nation from scratch through draining the ocean, and Mormons can establish a celestial homeland in the arid West, then we can figure it out. Don’t worry yourself about whether we sink or swim once you allow us off your boat.
I can’t cite this, but if I recall correctly intra-racial variation in blacks is greater than the inter-racial variation between whites and blacks.
Stop for a moment and try to actually parse what you’re saying. It means nothing. It’s as asinine as noting that physical strength varies more within gender than between gender, as if that negates the very real differences in the strengths of the two genders.
Mitochondrial DNA comes from what seven women.
That was a really long time ago. And it’s not like this means there were seven chicks during the bottleneck, only the seven of the female lineages exist unbroken into the present. While this would only mean there had been a bottleneck about 120,000 years ago, it means even less in light of the discovery that Eurasians have a small but significant amount of Neanderthal admixture, pushing the actual evolutionary divergence between the populations higher than 500,000 years.
A casual stroll will confirm that there was no shortage of genetic diversity within the genome for humans to diverge into radically different forms with radically different characteristics in a relatively short span of time.
In addition, I don’t see a conclusive link between the environment and increasing complexity that justifies the accelerated evolutionary claims you make.
In a sparsely populated and environmentally challenging habitat, you don’t have to worry as much about being killed by somebody who’s smarter than you. The higher population densities and more free time that people in the temperate belt had afforded them more opportunities to engage in male territorial aggression, causing a race condition in which human intelligence evolved in competition with human intelligence. It’s a familiar evolutionary template.
The human brain is analogous to a deer’s antlers or a rhino’s horn. It’s there for killing other male humans. The fact that increased intelligence also enabled them to even more efficiently populate the environment was merely an added bonus, one that caused more overpopulation and more male territorial aggression. Female humans are almost as intelligent, but only because most of the genes for increased intelligence were gender-neutral.
Female thinking is evolutionarily vestigial. Women have abstract thoughts for the same reason men have nipples.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there are some differences, but I think there’s a lot of assumptions that I don’t think we’ll be able to settle.
At the beginning of this back and forth, I asserted that my official reason for separatism was a simple wholesome nationalist love of my ethnic extended family that didn’t need justified and existed independently of all this scientific stuff. I just indulged in a digression. I agree that blog’s comment section is not the most fruitful medium for seriously resolving these more subtle and specific tangents.
