Tom’s guests are Alex Kurtagic, founder of publisher Wermod and Wermod, a novelist, and author of the dystopian novel Mister and Richard Spencer, the executive editor and founder of website magazine Alternative Right, also author of numerous literary essays.
The main focus of their discussion is culture, as the vehicle of political struggle, and how can cultural battle shape up political activism.
I read with interest Greg Johnson’s recent article about Douglas Hyde’s Dedication and Leadership, a book where the author — who fed 20 years of his life to the meat-grinder of Communist activism — provided trenchant advise on how best to mobilize the idealism, and inspire the sacrifice, of those seeking to change the world. In bringing Hyde to readers’ attention, Johnson’s aim was to encourage activists on the Right to learn from the winners on the Left. The Right, he argued, has been fighting a losing battle since 1943, to the point where nowadays even so-called “conservatives” are defined by their political enemies. Understanding, therefore, how the Left achieved cultural hegemony during the twentieth century is indispensable if we are to end the Left’s tyranny during the twenty-first.
Learning from the successful strategies of the Left, however, is only part of the ‘homework’. The other part is learning from the failed strategies of the Right. Studying the latter is just as important, because the triumph of the Left is as much a consequence of how egalitarians built their credibility (or at least the illusion of credibility), as the defeat of the Right is a consequence of how elitists squandered theirs. The Left’s early victories were hard fought and hard won, but the Left’s recent victories have been largely by default, possible because they faced virtually no opposition.
And it is this lack of effectiveness that makes it difficult for the Right, and particularly those campaigning on behalf of White ethnic interests, to obtain adequate funding. The populace is for the most part ideologically neutral, so the tendency is for individuals to side with winners, or at least to avoid antagonizing them, because winners confer status and control resources, and it is, therefore, always better to side with the winners. Consciously inegalitarian White folk, on the other hand, largely hang on to their money, even when they would rather invest it in opposing the Left; this can only be because, deep down, they have zero confidence that any donations they make will be used effectively to achieve change. They are conscious of their advocates’ record of failure and sense that if others are withholding their altruism, it must be for good reason.
What are, then, the failed strategies of the Right? Below I enumerate some. And further down I propose alternatives.
Failed Strategies: Arcane or Unbelievable Arguments
Freedom of Speech. When confronted with the Left’s efforts to censor them, many White advocates protest by demanding respect for their freedom of speech. Of course, both the Left and the apolitical majority, see this as rank hypocrisy. Why? Because they have internalized two simple Leftist syllogisms:
White Nationalists are ethnonationalists.
The Nazis were ethnonationalists.
Therefore, White Nationalists are Nazis.
Nazis hate freedom of speech.
White Nationalists are Nazis.
Therefore, White Nationalists hate freedom of speech.
Result: no one listens.
In theory, freedom of speech is the quasi-sacred foundation of a free society. In practice, however, freedom of speech is but a fine-sounding platitude, an eighteenth-century abstraction that is taken seriously by the ruling order only until speech threatens that order’s power. When it does, the rules change.
This ought not to surprise. Deep down people know that it has been that way since before the invention of freedom of speech, and know also that it will remain that way, forever and everywhere, no matter who is in charge. The only difference is that some ruling elites are more candid than others when establishing the limits of acceptable speech, and that some limits are more comfortable than others. What is more, daily praxis suggests that most people think limits on speech are a good idea (no one enjoys criticism; banning it, therefore, affords peace of mind).
Another problem is that, as with other such abstractions, it is difficult to get excited about freedom of speech in general, even if censorship elicits immediate anger. I look at how Norman Rockwell illustrated the concept and can appreciate his technical skill; but I cannot imagine anyone being roused to heroic action and sacrifice by that image — not the way I can when I look at Konstantin Vasiliev’s paintings, for example. The latter extol manliness and raw power. This is something with which ordinary folk can identify. It also celebrates freedom of speech in a much more robust fashion: a feared and respected warrior has freedom of speech, for no one dares contradict him for fear of his life!
Communist Atrocities. Since the 1970s, the Holocaust has become a cultural icon in the West, amorally exploited by Leftists and Jewish activists and forgers seeking to suppress the expression of White ethnic interests. The Right has responded, rather feebly, by drawing attention to the far larger record of Communist atrocity. Communist evil must, of course, become and remain an intense focus of attention, and the Left’s efforts to rehabilitate Communist leaders and former Communists, as well as their efforts to whitewash Communist barbarity, must be subjected to vitriolic condemnation — relentlessly — until the term ‘Communist’ is dragged back into the cloacal depths of epithet, where it rightfully belongs.
The problem, however, is that the very monstrousness of the scale of Communist atrocities robs them of their power as a moral argument: the numbers are too vast to be comprehensible. Worse still: the Communist death machine operated in regions of the world that are too mysterious, too different, and too distant for Westerners to identify with them; and for most, the collapse of the Iron Curtain already made of Communism a museum relic over twenty years ago. Without an assault of TV mini-series, big-budget films, and best-selling memoirs to bring it to life in the popular imagination, the tale of Communist atrocities will remain eclipsed by the tale of the Nazi Holocaust, and thus will lack relevance in a twenty-first-century debate about White ethnic interests.
It’s the Jews! Kevin MacDonald’s study of twentieth-century Jewish intellectual movements provides a powerful explanation for the state of contemporary Western society. His monographs ought to be standard university textbooks in Cultural Studies departments. His subject ought to be a standard university module across the Western world.
Unfortunately, however, far too many lack Professor MacDonald’s nuanced, restrained, and carefully caveated approach when discussing Jewry. The tendency among a visible subset of White Nationalists is grossly to exaggerate and oversimplify, to the point where ‘the Jews’ become a universal explanation for the world’s ills: analysis of Jewish contributions to the humanities and Jewish involvement in finance and politics quickly lapse into an all-encompassing conspiracy theory, where sinister Jews are everywhere, behind everything, improbably omniscient and omnipotent, capable of playing a chess game of superhuman convolution.
Perhaps it is the Right winger’s need for order. Perhaps it is the human passion for a good story. Perhaps it is the need for an identifiable enemy. Whatever the explanation, for the apolitical observer out there, the grotesque conspiracy theories put forth by some are so baroque, so far removed from daily experience, so angrily focused on a tiny group of relatively successful people, that he cannot help but buy the far simpler Leftist explanation: “anti-Semitism”. It takes too long, too many words, to explain to a layman how Freudian psychoanalysis, Boasian anthropology, the New York intellectuals, Critical Theory and the radical Left, and the immigration reform movement of before 1965 comprised a concerted attack on Western culture by a clique of long dead, relatively obscure intellectuals who strongly self-identified as Jews, were deeply troubled by anti-Semitism, and sought to advance the Jewish cause. It takes too long, too many words, to explain to a layman that, no, it was not all Jews; that, yes, there was non-Jewish involvement too; that, no, it was not a conspiracy; that, yes, Whites also have ethnic interests; that, no, it is not racist to talk about it; that, yes, there are good Jews also; that, no, criticism of some Jews is not the slippery slope that leads to Auschwitz, and so on.
It is too complicated – too esoteric, too boring. Without a doubt, the complex role of Jews in modern Western society is one of the most important issues of modern times. But it is also incomprehensible outside a tiny circle of abnormally independent doctors and professors. This is why single-word explanations like “racism” and “anti-Semitism” thrive, even when deployed by smelly, tattooed, screeching, dreadlocked thugs: quick and easy to digest, they are politically far more efficient.
The Plight of the Palestinians. Many White advocates deem it important to highlight Jewish influence in Western governments, whose unconditional support for Israel has come at the cost of not just thousands of millions of dollars, but also of forcing the citizenry to live under constant threat of terrorist attacks by angry Muslims. The plight of Palestinians living under brutal Israeli occupation is reported on, often with expressions of outrage, in an effort to generate antipathy towards the Jewish lobby. Unfortunately, the outrage comes across not only as a cynical affectation motivated by anti-Semitism, but also as hypocritical, in as much as it appears to condemn the ethnostatist policies of Israel while desiring an ethnostate here.
Besides, Why on Earth would a White Nationalist give a damn about the Palestinians? It would be more credible to do away with the expressions of outrage and simply state that unconditional support for Israel has proven too costly for both European and North American citizens, and that Israel needs to be held to the same standards of behavior expected of other developed nations in accordance to international law.
Holocaust Revisionism. The aim of Holocaust Revisionism is to strip supremacist Jews and the Left of their most powerful moral weapon: firstly, by exposing falsehoods and inconsistencies in the standard historical narrative, and, secondly, by exposing that narrative’s protected status, the hope is that the event will lose its iconic qualities and that the standard narrative will be put in doubt, thus revealing the cynical manipulations of those who abuse it as a political tool in pursuit of an ethnic agenda.
Holocaust Revisionists view their task as the most important of modern times, but it has proven difficult for them to gain public sympathy because, notwithstanding the politics and the principle of historical accuracy, the Nazis are still perceived as cruel, inhuman, and criminal. Maybe there were no gas chambers in many of the prison camps; maybe there was no signed order from Adolf Hitler; maybe the six million figure had Biblical origins. But, when the perpetration of a crime on a massive scale is in little doubt, even among revisionists, none of this makes a difference to the ordinary man in the street: as far as he is concerned, even if all of these doubts are valid, still the Nazis were not good for the Jews.
In other words, from the point of view or practical politics, the issue is too arcane, and when the standard narrative enjoys the legitimacy conferred by prestigious publishing houses, eminent scholars, elite universities, and the global mainstream media of news and entertainment, the man in the street cannot help but dismiss the scabrous alternative put forth by what to him is a fringe minority of unaccredited researchers as an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.
The Holocaust Revisionist movement has indeed claimed a number of (uncredited) victories over the years, and it enjoys a small but growing audience. However, this has come at a frightful price for those involved, and the iconic status of the Holocaust has only grown since Paul Rassinier published The Drama of the European Jews in 1964. Against this background, the delirious paranoia of some conspiracy theorists inspired by Holocaust Revisionism has caused that movement to have the opposite of its intended effect, and motivated the apolitical citizenry to support Jewish-sponsored legal limits on speech and thought.
I have no doubt that the standard Holocaust narrative will be revised in future, but this will be a symptom, rather than a cause, of power shifting away from the present ruling order. The history studied in schools and universities is written by victorious rulers, not by vanquished dissidents.
‘I’m not Racist, but…’ Denials of racism on the part of White advocates, or Whites in general, are never taken seriously. On the contrary, they signal weakness and serve only further to stimulate the anti-racists’ blood thirst. The moment someone says ‘I’m not racist, but…,’ my eyes glaze over: like antagonists, observers, and sympathizers alike, I know that I have before me someone who allows his enemies to define him; who lacks the courage of his convictions; who will crumple under pressure; who will apologize on demand; who will appease, and grovel, and stammer, and beg on his knees to retain his perks; whose self-worth, in sum, depends on the system that hates him.
Such a person cannot be taken seriously: ‘I’m not racist, but…’ suggests empty space, a timid structure held together with cello-tape and chewing gum, instead of a solid core. By implication, such a person is a cowardly and hypocritical racist – even proud ones command more respect.
It may or may not be true that someone is racist, whatever that means. But, who cares? Whether or not a White person prefers the company of his extended kin is his prerogative and otherwise irrelevant in an argument about White ethnic interests. Accusations of racism are best met, not with denials or explanations, but with a ruthless counter-attack. And there are plenty of targets.
Prophets of the Apocalypse. I have written on this issue before: Rather than seeking to inspire with visions of a positive alternative to the present order, White advocates seek to terrorise with visions of an impending apocalypse. If you don’t listen to us, their argument goes, it will all end in economic collapse, race wars, and extinction; the planet will end up a “burnt out cinder in the vastness of space.”
This may well prove true, but an all-stick-and-no-carrot strategy is an ineffective method of achieving radical systemic change. Admittedly, it is easier to complain than to think of solutions. But simply complaining is not aiming high. Aiming high is being ambitious, conceiving a radical solution, and developing and pursuing a global plan of action.
Communists, and the Left in general, did all that. As Johnson pointed out, they may have sowed death on the planet, but this does not negate the fact that they demonstrated how radical systemic change is possible in the modern world, even when pitted against a seemingly unmovable ruling order. The proposition of a radical solution, and the active and organized pursuit of fundamental change suggests a vigorous movement likely eventually to achieve its goals — it inspires optimism, mobilizes idealism, and elicits sacrifice. By contrast, to the apolitical bystander all that prophets of the apocalypse suggest is exhaustion, cynicism, old age, and intellectual bankruptcy; the response is, accordingly, to don the blinkers, hoard the victuals, and hunker down. So long as activists on the radical Right cast themselves in the role of prophets of the apocalypse, they will cast themselves in the role of losers.
Voice of Reason. For most ordinary folk, the Right winger, and particularly the White advocate, is a party pooper. He is the gentleman who arrives at a party wanting to switch on the bright lights and turn off the music, to tell everyone to sober up and put out their cigarettes, to scold them for wasting food and electricity, and to inform them that the lawn needs mowing, the floors need scrubbing, the drains need clearing, the overdraft needs paying, the and garbage needs taking out. And when the lung cancer patient is dying, the White advocate is the gentleman who tells him, “See? I told you so! I told you smoking is bad for you, but no, you wouldn’t listen! Now you’ve got what you deserved! And if you think you have it bad now, it will only get worse!”
Again, he may well be right, but his is hardly a recipe for popularity. No one wants to listen to the voice of reason. In times of crisis, when denial is no longer possible and the situation has hit rock bottom, maybe; but in times of real or apparent affluence, in the absence of an immediate and obvious threat, no one has time for the boring realists.
Humans are largely irrational; they hate unpleasantness; and they will dream and pretend for as long as they can before facing the brutal truth. We only need to see what happened to the American economy during the past three years to realise how this is true. There were those who were critical of the credit bubble and prophesied doom at the beginning of the noughties. When Peter Schiff prophesied a collapse in house prices in 2006, he was laughed at on national television (see also here). But when the credit crisis hit and the depression started to bite, at least some of those who laughed were suddenly listening.
And later still, when Washington and the Federal Reserve concocted the temporary illusion of a recovery, the likes of Schiff were again put out of mind, with a sigh of relief. Never mind that the credit time bomb that was ticking under the economic surface has not only not been deactivated, but has been, through bailouts and ill-conceived policies, turned into a thermonuclear warhead — it is easier to ignore the problem, pretend politicians are wise, and hope the economy will soon recover, than face reality and swallow the bitter medicine.
Besides the general unattractiveness of reason, there is a more fundamental problem: most of the citizenry is apolitical; most lack the education, the time, and the energy to arrive at a thoughtful worldview or political opinion, based on original research and personal reflection; most, accordingly, decide on their political and ideological affiliations instinctively, relying on emotional factors connected to their need for status, belonging, and self esteem — some of the main and universal human motivators. The ethnic campaigner on the Right who prides himself on being the voice of reason, and who openly scorns his fellow citizen’s ovine and parrot-like tendencies, has failed to understand basic human psychology. This is astonishing when one considers how much emphasis the Right places on the dumb, biological drivers of behavior. Yet, it is true. So long as he focuses on the frontal lobe, so long as he focuses on that small and relatively recent part of the brain while ignoring the rest of it, his message will fall on deaf ears.
In an earlier article, I stated that the era of the generic White advocacy organization was at an end. The reason is that they have proven not only useless, but, sometimes, also fraudulent, led by fractious micro-Führers and staffed by a creepy gang of undesirables. They leave anyone listening in no doubt of what they believe: they often maintain websites with strongly worded statements of principles. They also — constantly — solicit donations, grandiloquently claiming that the future of the White race depends on them, and that the revolution is indeed coming — maybe not now, but soon.
Yet one never knows what exactly it is that they do, or how they plan to achieve their goals, or even what these goals are, beyond going back to 1933 or 1776. What are they? Political parties? Lobbyists? Developers? Gun clubs? Often, one cannot be sure. Almost always, the only certainty is that through their peculiar mix of ignorance, incompetence, and criminality, they are a blessing to their enemies and a curse to the interests they set out to advance. Almost always, donors end up supporting unemployable, underachieving, and wholly unaccountable webmasters, who survive because those who sustain them know not what else they can do.
The operational practices of generic White advocacy organizations contrast with those of genuine organized activism. Genuine political parties, charities, and pressure groups that solicit donations are mission-specific, focus on solutions, set out achievable goals, have a concrete plan of action, are constantly active, and regularly subject themselves to financial scrutiny, publishing audited accounts on an annual basis in an effort to retain the goodwill of their donors. Accordingly, the millions flow in their direction.
It might be argued that when the system criminalizes an idea, it is unrealistic not to expect believers to adopt underground methods. It might be added that the Communists of old used such methods successfully.
The problem with this argument is that a campaign about ethnic interests is, by its nature — and unlike Communism — inegalitarian. One of the appeals of Communism is that it relieves the great mass of mediocre individuals of responsibility; that it tells them that the reason they are not doing well in life is not that they are less clever, less industrious, and less able, but that they have been held down by a conspiracy of fat, rich capitalists. This allows Communists to siphon from the lower social strata, which is also the most numerous globally, vast hordes of individuals who have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Underground methods go with the grain of who and what they are, so their idealism, dedication, and self-sacrifice confers them credibility.
A campaign for White ethnic interests, on the other hand, is elitist, and therefore loses legitimacy when is seen adopting the style and methods of the lumpen proletariat and common criminals.
Some Winning Strategies
So much for learning from the Right. Is it all hopeless, then? Should we just curl up and die? Should we just hoard the gold, stock up the bunker, and wait until the cannibals outside finish eating each other? No. We use what we have learnt to develop winning strategies.
Some of what follows has been either mentioned or been given more extensive treatment in earlier articles. My purpose here is to distil it all into digestible chunks of information.
The messenger is the message. People are interested in people, and it is the messenger that sells the message, not the message itself. If the average man in the street is comfortable with the messenger, he will be receptive to the message; if he is uncomfortable, he will avoid them both. Therefore, selling a message becomes a matter of style over substance. Substance is important, of course, but politically it is nothing without style, nothing without a personal style, nothing without personality and style. Making a message attractive begins by making the messenger attractive. An attractive messenger is one who makes the people he encounters feel good about themselves, and about being around, and being seen with, the messenger. If the messenger looks like a loser, then his message is for losers. A winning message is delivered by winners.
Be positive at all times. No one likes being around a misery guts. If the Left keeps winning it is in part because Leftists are incurable optimists. Optimism makes people feel good. It shows confidence, and inspires it in others. In a world gone wrong, being positive means focusing on solutions; focusing on solutions necessitates optimism (otherwise, why bother?)
Only optimists can mobilize idealism, dedication, and self-sacrifice. This is not to say that we ought to stop complaining. We must complain vigorously, noisily, systematically, and relentlessly. But we must never simply stop there; complaints must be followed by solutions. Complaints are synonymous with stasis; solutions with forward movement. Complaints followed by solutions means a change of direction, which implies a destination, which implies clarity, ambition, and vigor — all positive qualities that people like to associate with.
Laugh. The stereotypical White Rightist is serious and angry most of the time. He never laughs. He is a pessimist, a cynic, a brooding, fearful, bitter, complaining, nostalgic type. The Left loves this, because these are qualities associated with old age, senility, and death. To the Leftist they prove that Whiteness is on the way out, and that the future is his. Laughter, by contrast, is associated with youth, confidence, vitality, and relaxation. It is infectious and instantly generates an atmosphere of well-being and goodwill.
Leftists understand this, and thus often choose simply to mock rather than debate their opponents. As a result they look as if they are in control, and carry bystanders with them. Underneath, however, Leftists are stern, and do not suffer laughter gladly. In fact, they often do not know what to do when shrugged off and made objects of mockery. Laughter, and by extension humor, is a powerful weapon. Satirize, stereotype, mock, lampoon, caricature, deride, and cartoonify the Left without mercy, in articles, in fiction, in illustrations, in comic strips, in music, in videos, and in computer games. Public laughter will progressively erode the Left’s authority.
Act as if. The negativity, the pessimism, the paranoia, and the emotional masochism of the Right signal to apolitical observers that the Right represents a movement in retreat, a movement of losers, a movement with zero power. Apolitical observers do not need the Left to tell them so: Right-wingers do an excellent job showing it through their behavior. Therefore, apolitical observers treat the Right accordingly, and choose to appease the Left. If the Right is to inspire confidence, it has to act as if. Act as if it is winning; act as if it has millions in the bank; act as if it is going places; act as if it has the key to the future. People are attracted to success; they gravitate to winners; they follow the alpha male. Nothing succeeds like success. Successful salesmen act as if. Act as if.
Non-political organizations. Rather than a monolithic organization proposing to advance White ethnic interests in general, there needs to be a multitude of smaller, focused, mission-specific businesses, clubs, charities, pressure groups, political parties, and media outlets like this one. These do not need to be overtly political: they could take the form of a record label, a publisher, a retailer, a battle re-enactment society, a rambler’s club, or a conservation body. White ethnic interests encompass all areas of life; we need to preserve the quality of our countryside, the quality of our towns, the quality of our food, the quality of our entertainment, the quality of our consumer goods, as much as we need to preserve our culture, wealth, and political power. From an organizational point of view, it is preferable to be the best in one area than to be mediocre in all areas. By envisioning the struggle in terms of a battle for economic and cultural niches, by concentrating effort on winning one winnable battle at the time, and by working harder and smarter than the competition, results will soon mount up.
Parallel status system. Expelled, excluded, passed over, or ignored by clubs, societies, and award bodies because of non-conforming beliefs? Start a rival body, and build a parallel status system. Traditional status systems in the West are currently dominated by the Left, so there is a systematic, structural process whereby the ideologically amiable is noticed, included, rewarded, and promoted, while the ideologically non-amiable is ignored, excluded, punished, and suppressed. (For the Left, work that pays no tribute to egalitarianism — work that is not politically correct — is work without merit.)
There is already an award for those who will not be considered for the Pulitzer Prize: In 2004 Kevin MacDonald received the $10,000 Jack London Award. Let the prestigious awards, prizes, and exclusive societies proliferate, until being passed over for the Nobel Prize can be met with a placid shrug of the shoulders. Why is this important? Because an idea is taken more or less seriously depending on the status of those associated with it. The reason Kevin MacDonald is an especially irksome irritant for the Left is that he is a tenured professor. His professional status confers him academic authority. His academic authority confers credibility to his research. Hence, the $PLC’s efforts to have his tenure revoked.
The above is by no means a comprehensive list. It is also only a proposal. Others might want to contribute with their own ideas, or improve upon mine. The point is that the present situation is only as bad as we make it. The Left would like everyone to believe that the processes they set in motion are unstoppable, inevitable, and irreversible; that they represent the relentless march of progress. Their attitude is that those who cannot, or will not, join this march must fall by the wayside. One would expect that from a faction with a linear view of history. For us, however, history is cyclical. Old masters will fall as new ones rise.
One common tactic used by Leftists is the characterizing of their opponents on the Right – particularly those who self-consciously identify themselves as White and who maintain that Whites have unique ethnic interests of their own – as, among other things, intellectually inferior. We are all familiar with the stereotype, perpetuated with impunity in the mass media of news and entertainment, of traditionalist, racially-conscious Whites as either tattooed neo-Nazi knuckleheads and Hitler fetishists or inbred, defective, periodontitic, Bible-thumping, Klan-supporting hillbillies from the American South. Those who are interested in White-specific political issues will be familiar also with the common Leftist attitude towards debating said issues: the White advocates’ positions are regarded as being beneath contempt – not only morally repugnant, but also so idiotic, so preposterous, so based on fear and prejudice, as to not be worth the dignity of a discussion (unless it is, of course, for the purposes of condemnation).
There is no denying that the Right – as supporters of this website would likely understand it – attracts, besides normal people, a variety of marginal types, particularly via the more peripheral currents and subcultures. There is also no denying that most contemporary academics are Leftists, that most contemporary intellectuals are Leftists, that most contemporary journalists and commentators of note are Leftists, that most contemporary holders of postgraduate humanities degrees from elite universities are Leftists, or identify with Leftist ideas. But does this mean that Leftism represents the intellectually superior position? Are Leftists Leftists because they are cleverer? Or did they become Leftists because of some other reason?Social Identity Theory (SIT) maintains that there are behaviors among humans that occur only in group situations. In such situations, humans will tend to identify themselves and others as either part of a given group (in which case they are said to have an ingroup identification) or as not part of that group (in which case they are said to have an outgroup identification). Ingroup members, according to the theory, will tend to favor evaluative dimensions that are flattering to themselves and unflattering to members of an outgroup. This is because the innate human need for belonging and self-esteem define group dynamics. Thus, a self-identified White Supremacist will tend to regard White skin as positive and Black skin as negative; while a self-identified Black Supremacist will tend to hold the opposite view. Stereotypes, an offspring of group dynamics, follow an analogous pattern: ingroup members will tend to stereotype themselves positively and outgroup members negatively (e.g., “Whites are clever / law-abiding / temperate / beautiful; Blacks are dumb / criminal / impulsive / ugly”). Both attitudes and stereotypes are intensified in ingroup / outgroup conflict situations.
The evolutionist reading of SIT sees human groups as engaging in resource competition in order to maximize life chances and reproductive success. (Here I use these latter terms in the broadest possible sense, which encompasses not only organisms but also ideas.) The same way that individuals attempt to increase their social status in an effort to gain access to more and better resources, groups often do the same. Similarly, individuals seeking to increase their social status may do so via membership of a group, which, in turn, may also seek to increase its own status by attracting high-status and/or high-quality individuals. Ideally, this is a situation where the individual and the group both gain, as their mutually reinforcing status relationship would tend to increase access to resources for both: the group gains the resources brought in by the new high status/high quality member, and the aforementioned member gains the resources offered by the group.
I must make clear at this point that resources do not always and necessary take the form of material wealth: prestige, expertise, contacts, knowledge, access to desirable mates, prestigious jobs, or positions of power are all also sought-after resources, which can – although not exclusively – both derive and confer social status.
Seen from this perspective, it makes sense that a high-IQ individual who seeks to increase his status will tend to be drawn to group identifications and group memberships popularly associated with intelligence. In the contemporary West, where the Left presently enjoys cultural hegemony (dominating politics, education, media, and publishing), and where, therefore, the Left shapes the discourse, the Left’s ideas enjoy high status while the Right’s ideas enjoy low status. (I define the Right broadly as traditionalist and inegalitarian.) Since European culture and civilization are predicated on high IQ, general intelligence is accorded importance as an evaluative dimension. The political consequence of this in our present epoch is that the Left’s ideas are associated with intelligence, while the Right’s ideas are associated with idiocy. This is further reinforced by the addition of moral and psychological dimensions: the Left’s ideas are associated with normalcy and enlightenment, and the Right’s ideas are associated with abnormalcy and moral turpitude. High-IQ individuals seeking to increase their status will, therefore, tend to be drawn to the high-status ideas of the Left rather than the low-status ideas of the Right. If this is true, then superior social status, rather than superior intellectual merit, is the reason why the Left has been able to recruit so effectively from the top IQ percentiles, and why we find so many high-IQ individuals espousing Leftist ideas. It is also the reason why the Right, despite having the empirical data on their side, and therefore more logical arguments, has been fighting a losing battle: ultimately, as I have said before, it is not about the arguments.
Put more simply: Because the Left is in control, they are able to represent their ideas as clever and those of their opponents as stupid, among other things; and clever people, wanting to be seen as clever, go where they think the clever people are and make sure to avoid embarrassing dummies. Thus, the Leftist claim to (among other things) intellectual superiority becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. We can also see it as a form of peer pressure.
This is not to say that this is the only factor influencing people’s choice of political ideological affiliation. I believe temperament, personal history, and marginality status are powerful factors too (some people are attracted to marginal ideas; others identify with them because they themselves are marginal). However, even where these factors cause individuals to be drawn to Right wing ideas, status remains operative as a motivator: said individuals may find their social status lowered within contemporary mainstream society because of their ideological affiliation, but they compensate for this by tapping into alternative or analogous, ingroup-managed sources of status.
This is not to say also that Leftism does not attract its fair share of idiots. We only need to look at the membership lists of “anti-racist” organizations like the ARA in the United States and the UAF in the United Kingdom to find a profusion of examples.
Leftism, on its own, appears to say very little about its supporters’ general intelligence: When considered relative to its status, however, it does seem to tell us something about many of its supporters’ capacity for thinking independently and for courageously resisting pressure to conform or to at least keep quiet. This is true, in fact, for any political or ideological affiliation. Yet, for the reasons mentioned above, in the culture war between Right and Left in the West, each side will claim and seek to demonstrate intellectual superiority as they compete for status. And, unsurprisingly, even where one side finds the other side has arrived at useful insights, the one side will prefer to find autochthonous sources for those insights rather than credit the political enemy.
What about Satoshi Kanazawa’s findings, regarding the apparent tendency of intelligent individuals to adopt liberal views? His basic argument is that intelligence correlates with openness to experience (or openness to novelty), and that, since liberalism is evolutionarily novel, intelligent individuals are more likely to be drawn to it than less intelligent individuals – or, at least, they are less ‘likely . . . to conform to others in the society’.
Kanazawa’s Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis might appear partly to refute the arguments I have made here. But note that the hypothesis’ explanation for more intelligent individuals’ tendency to be drawn to liberalism is not that it takes intelligence to see liberalism’s “superior” intellectual merit, but that liberalism is evolutionarily novel. In other words: Leftism is attractive because it is new, not because it is cleverer.
There is also another angle to consider. Kanazawa proposes that a possible explanation for less intelligent individuals’ preferring conservative ideas is that it might be adaptive for them to mimic those around them, as the majority is mathematically more likely to be correct than the average individual. If this is so, then, in a context where the surrounding culture is politically liberal and intolerant of dissidence, it might be evolutionarily novel not to go with the flow, so to speak, and maintain, as a matter of principle, political positions that risk ostracism and economic sanctions. If this is the case, then Kanazawa’s hypothesis can be used to predict both liberal and anti-liberal attitudes among highly intelligent individuals.
Those familiar with the work of serious modern heretics, we can find among them highly intelligent, independently-minded individuals: Frank Salter, Kevin MacDonald, Tomislav Sunic, Richard Lynn, J. Philippe Rushton, Virginia Abernethy, F. Roger Devlin, Michael O’Meara, Greg Johnson, Kerry Bolton, Edmund Connelly – all of whom hold Ph.D.s – plus many accomplished, successful lawyers, authors, artists, historians, entrepreneurs, and financial analysts. The Left obviously hates this, as the presence of intellect among their ideological opponents confers credibility and prestige to, elevates the status, and increases the appeal of ideas that refute theirs that they would like to see consigned to the dustbin of history. (Hence, the Left’s attempts to neutralize this appeal by ascribing sinister motives, psychopathology, or moral deficiency to its designated intellectual heretics.)
Evidently, because publicly maintaining a “heretical” position requires unusual courage and strength of personality (the penalties of being a heretic are great), White advocates are outnumbered by their opponents on the Left. The Left routinely cites its numerical advantage – or, perhaps rather, its apparent numerical advantage – as proof of their intellectual superiority and normality, and the (apparent) numerical disadvantage of its opponents as proof of their intellectual inferiority and abnormality. Peter Victor, a Black man writing for the Independent and providing an account there of his meeting with Nick Griffin did so in June last year:
“I point out that the vast majority of people in this country are either highly antipathetic towards him [Nick Griffin] or just apathetic. A minority may support him, but they are out of touch with reality. Most sensible people ignore the BNP or think they’re a bunch of crazy folk.”
The oligophrenic baboons from the UAF deployed a similar argument a month later:
“Unite Against Fascism is calling on anti-fascists across the country to converge on Codnor, Derbyshire, at 9am on Saturday 15 August to protest against the British National Party rally taking place in the village that weekend. UAF supporters intend to “kettle” the rally by surrounding it with protesters. This action will demonstrate that the vast majority of people in this country reject the Nazi politics of the BNP.”
And another anti-racist activist, writing in 2007, shows this is a stock phrase:
“There should be a two-pronged attack on the fascists: dealing with their lies on the ground, and dealing with the social problems that lead to resentment and move people to vote for the BNP in a protest vote. We know the vast majority of people in this country abhor the racist, anti-Semitic and Islamophobic ideas of the party.”
This is of course, a fallacious argument, known as argumentum ad populum. The fact that a view is in the majority does not prove that it is correct anymore than the fact that the opposing view is in the minority proves that it is wrong.
We must remember also that the Left did not always enjoy ascendancy. There was a time when theirs constituted a fringe minority view, which “the vast majority of people” dismissed as foolish, evil, and crazy. I believe that as the Left becomes discredited through their ever-growing record of failure, so will their ideas, and so will their appeal among the less independently-minded and courageous men and women of intelligence, who may then become gradually more receptive to non-Leftist alternatives. Obviously, this process needs to be assisted and facilitated while the culture war between Left and Right – between egalitarians and inegalitarians – rages on. The Leftist claim to intellectual superiority must be attacked relentlessly and without mercy, always bearing in mind that this is really an attack on the Left’s status, or their ability to attract high- quality, status-conscious individuals and supporters. Perhaps even more importantly, attack tactics must include the use of humor, for, once people start laughing at the establishment, once the establishment becomes an object of ridicule, we can safely consider the establishment’s power to be on the wane. Let us embarrass the Left. For decades now the Left has used this tactic to great effect. It is time they begin tasting some of their own medicine.
The first time my wife saw Jonathan Bowden’s art she thought he was insane. I had some days before attended a meeting where he spoke about the German filmmaker Hans-Jürgen Syberberg and his epic, 7-hour production Hitler: A Film from Germany. Due to engineering work on the railway network, I arrived late, in the midst of Lady Michele Renouf’s talk about freedom of speech, the Lisbon Treaty, and the European Constitution. At this time Bowden, who was due to speak next, was leaning on a windowsill, facing the audience. Clad in suit and tie, sporting a wooden pendant carved with a rune, and a pair of small, bottle-bottom spectacles, he stood there with a head of curly hair, arms crossed, and eyes closed, deep in thought. The room was hot, pre-Victorian, crammed to capacity with angry middle-aged men, compressed into tightly packed rows of hard coccyx-crunching chairs–stewing in their fury against the modern world.
As I sat down, a man in the front row, who had already asked a question, asked another. Bowden leapt like an attack dog and forcefully silenced the inquisitor. ‘Questions at the end, please!” he shouted. “Authoritarian men won’t have another’s will imposed upon them,” he said on a different occasion. His manner was harsh, loud, serious, unpleasant, overbearing. This is how I knew he was the chairman.
When his turn came to speak, his vast oral cavity exploded with a hurricane of decibels; the thermonuclear shockwave of intellectual verbiage swept over the heads of the congregated audience, stunning it into paralyzed silence. Bowden turned his head left, then right, then left, then right, his eyes closed, gesticulating, baring his teeth, roaring like a lion. Even if there was anyone present who did not understand his erudite diction, everyone knew where it was coming from: a place of Nietzschean ferocity, Doric hardness, primal purpose, pagan pride, ancient darkness, and unquenchable fury. The discharge of energy was inspiring, and motivated me to visit this man’s website.
It found he was a prolific writer and an artist with an especially rabid style. His paintings, done in acrylic (for speed), are chaotic mosaics of color, intense, expressionistic, and densely crisscrossed with sadistic lines. It is the work of a schizophrenic patient, who labors at night, hunched over his table, pen in fist, his face red, his eyes wide, perspiring, hyperventilating, furiously attacking the paper surface in an paroxysm of uncontrolled hatred and rage. Otherwise it is the work of an obsessive compulsive, who fills vast surfaces with incomprehensible patchworks and patterns that respect no rhyme or reason, who destroys as he creates, who accretes as he annihilates, cackles as he militates. The art is grotesque, primordial, and rudely contemptuous of bourgeois expectations. It is filled with ghoulish faces, deformity, evil, psychotic stares, lascivious leers, nightmarish sarcasm, and human monstrosity. The portraits offer nothing but a demonic freak show. Where there are women, the images are not flattering: they are obscene, vulgar, violently sexual. This is no derivation from the Classicist figurative tradition: when one looks at Bowden’s art one thinks of Marvel comic strips, blended with Edvard Munch, Otto Dix, and Jackson Pollock. (View a slideshow of Bowden’s paintings here.)
Bowden’s art is modern, or modernist, but he argues that it is no longer so, for what we class as “modern” art has already been around for well over a hundred years. This is obviously true, but all the same it enrages, perplexes, and horrifies some in Bowden’s political constituency: indeed, some years ago, he was vigorously attacked by a number of anonymous posters in Stormfront, in a manner that he later described as “semi-literate and scatological.” But while for some Bowden’s creations are another example of entartete Kunst, others rate it highly; views on its merits are polarized. In a subsequent response to his critics, Bowden wrote:
Once a classic early photographer like Edward Muybridge produced an interconnected series of images featuring Greco-Roman wrestlers and running horses, the world was forever changed. Fine art now had a choice–it either replicated photography badly or in a stylized way which was loyal to a tradition running from Rembrandt to Orpen or it contrived to do something else. What it did was to go inside the mind and tap all sorts of semi-conscious and unconscious ideas, fantasies, desires and imaginative forays. The point about this art is that it is highly personal and powerful because it comes from inside. This means that people often of a highly rigid and morally defensive character find this work heretical, blasphemous, evil and even degenerate. (Indeed the theory of degenerate art originates from the 1880’s when this change of direction took place).
He explained that “representational, classical, traditional and academic work has been taken over by cinema,” and that he sees the failure of Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union to prevent painters and sculptors from producing modernist work as a confirmation of the dynamism of the modernist current. He added:
Turning to my own work, various currents are discernible. These are the demonic, strength and a concern with pure power, ugliness and fury as well as erotica and shape, or purely imaginative formulations. In my own mind the softer material balances the harsher, more violent and aggressive work. Nonetheless, I have also done a large number of relatively traditional pieces which hark back to classic art by Bosch, Rops, and Caravaggio. Some are also based on Hellenistic form. Obviously a subjective element intrudes into art but I believe that modernistic fury is the correct vehicle for elitist and hierarchical values.
Neo-Classic High Jinx
The Art of Jonathan Bowden is the first of two volumes, collecting the 47-year-old artist’s work from 1980 to 2007. In total we have 179 paintings and 25 sketches. The pages are black and the text white, which is what works best with artwork of such vibrant colors. Sadly, it is a softcover edition and a few of the images are slightly out of focus.
Sadly also, there is no introduction or biographical essay: one goes from the table of contents straight to the art. The interaction between the latter and the former, however, provides an unexpected source of entertainment that compensates for these deficiencies, as it proves quite rewarding either to look at the title of a painting in the index and then find the corresponding painting or vice versa.
This is because the titles reflect an obvious, (in Bowden’s own words) “elitist, semi-transcendentalist, hieratic, non-dualist, neo-pagan, ‘politically incorrect’, and inegalitarian” sensibility, and, as Lasha Darkmoon has pointed out in her recent articles for The Occidental Observer, we do not find that very often in the contemporary art world. One cannot read titles like Against Greenpeace, An Apple a Day Keeps Fury at Bay, Depressed Human Reptile, Eugene Sue’s The Eternal Jew, Louisiana Lynching, Flying Vagina Head, Give Me 140 Million Dollars, God Plays with Balls, Happy Hellraiser, I am Disembowelled, Too Many Turkey Twizzlers, and not want to find out what Bowden visualized.
These are, of course, the quirkier titles. Others suggest a number of recurring themes: classical / mythological (Masked Acropolis, Olympia on Blue), demonic (Orange Lucifer, Lycanthropy Now), sexual (Napalm Blonde, Vulvic Head and Ear), fascistic (Adolf & Leni, Mussolini with Bi-Planes), among others.
Artistically unexplored among Bowden’s obsessions are his morbid fear of obesity, for example, and his troglodytic indifference to technology. At a recent event in the United States, I noticed Bowden, who on previous occasions had refused to eat anything at all, dined out of tiny dessert dishes. When questioned on his rather singular temperance, he explained that he comes from the West country, and that people from his part of the world have a tendency to grow sideways.
His worry, however, is wrapped into a certain morbidity of the imagination. At various points he expressed disappointment at the lack of examples of “brontosaurian obesity,” the witnessing of which he had been eagerly anticipating, not without a measure of horrified fascination. Perhaps this is because Bowden, like one Harry Stephen Keeler, appreciates human deformity and freakery of nature: “it adds to the fauna and flora,” he says.
As to his relationship with the electronic marvels of our age, Bowden admits to not owning a CD player, a DVD player, or even a color television; indeed, the communicates with the world via a mobile telephone that must be nearly a decade old–a geological era in technological terms. “I believe in planning your own obsolescence,” he argues.
The Marquis de Sade
I must admit I recognize a bit myself in this rather eccentric character. This is a man who likes extremes, and rushes to them faster than the speed of light the moment an idea is presented to him. Like me, he cartoonifies everything and everybody; he enjoys exaggeration, obscurity, exoticism, rarity, maximal expression–life is a comic strip; he can see humor in even the nadir of the Kali Yuga.
Bowden’s stern appearance (I say he has looked 40 since he was 18) is somewhat deceptive, but his art accurately reflects this personality profile: beneath the hyperchromatic energy there is a gothic sensibility, that is drawn to authors like Edward Bulwer-Lytton, H. P. Lovecraft, Robert E. Howard, and Bram Stoker–not forgetting the Irishman’s more obscure books–blended with an extroverted theatricality. Suddenly his suit and tie and heavy-soled, skull-crushing footwear and the van filled with corpses are not inconsistencies, but parts of an organic–and partly animalistic, partly inhuman–whole. They are consistent with the orator whose meanest and most gleeful insults are “BBC News reader” and “lib-er-alll!”
The Art of Jonathan Bowden will not please everyone and will not confirm the ordinary man in his beliefs (Bowden does not give a damn), but it is without a doubt interesting for those who revel in psychological extremity and would like an insight into the psyche of this Nietzschean beast.
Note: Many of Jonathan Bowden’s books can be purchased or downloaded for free from his website.
When I learned that Channel 4 intended to air a documentary program featuring Professors Richard Lynn and J. Philippe Rushton, I marked my calendar. The program in question — Race and Intelligence: Science’s Last Taboo — interested me, not so much because I was expecting it to be educational in any scientific sense (I am familiar with Lynn’s and Rushton’s work already), but because I was morbidly curious as to how Britain’s most liberal television channel would once again pervert the course of science in relation to race differences in IQ. This is, after all, the egalitarians’ least favorite topic and one they do not ordinarily deign to discuss.
That the show was not exactly going to be a study in journalistic balance and impartiality was anticipated not just from the fact that it was to be spewed by Channel 4, but also from the fact that it was going to be presented by Mogadishu-born Rageh Omaar, a Black man, who is in an inter-racial marriage with three mixed race children. Omaar once referred to the BBC as “a White man’s club,” despite the corporation having been for some time in the hands of a virulently PC clique with an apoplectic hatred for its White audience. Thus, the program was inevitably going to offer a perspective some billions of light-years left of Trotsky, with a redshift value in the quinquagintaquadringentillion range.
On the appointed day, the program began in line with expectations, with Omaar dumping several metric tons of mind-bending verbiage, calculated to frighten, close, and hermetically seal any open minds in the audience. Omaar’s initial remarks leave no question as to how the audience is expected to feel (italics are Omaar’s emphases):
I am setting out on a journey into dangerous territory — not a physical place, but an idea. At its heart it’s a question so radioactive, that it’s only usually raised in public by political extremists. And the question is: Is there a racial pecking order in intelligence, in which black people are less clever than white people. It seems unbelievable to be asking it in the twenty-first century, and yet it is a question that finds its way into lecture halls and scientific literature. I have a vested interest in the answer, as a black man with children growing up in a diverse society. But as I’ve gone on this journey there’ve been many people that have told me that I shouldn’t be asking this question at all [frown]. Unfortunately, there’s a problem: there is some research that points to what has been called a race gap in some measures of intelligence. Does this race gap really exist? I’d like to reclaim this question from the wild margins. To examine the actual evidence, and discover… the truth about race and intelligence.
Right from the start we are told that we ought to fear the idea, because it is harmful to our health and socially unacceptable. Moreover, instead of framing the idea in its proper scientific context, he immediately moralizes and politicizes it by framing it in a political context, whereby the idea is obliquely (but just as quickly) linked to Nazis. Not satisfied, Omaar then polarizes the issue by making it about Whites versus Blacks, when anybody who has read the research on race differences in IQ knows that there are several other racial groups, with IQ averages raging from above the White norm to below the Black norm, with several levels in between.
He then uses heavily loaded language, such as the trivializing term ‘pecking order’ (instead of ‘hierarchy’), to imply that the idea applies to lower species in the animal kingdom and not to humans; — and such as the negative “finds its way” (instead of “is discussed”), to imply that this idea is meant to be kept contained, and is equipped with an insidious life or property of its own, like ants or mold, with a will to go to places where it does not belong. (Notice the word ‘False’, taken from a multiple-choice IQ test, zoomed in at this point in the film.)
He uses the tired old liberal cliché of referring to our present century, to imply that the idea belongs to some century in the past — that it is retarded and rubbish and we ought to have binned it a long time ago. And he then drags his own offspring into the question, suggesting that the idea is something we need to keep away from children, like rat poison, pedophiles, or pornography. In so doing, he casts himself flatteringly in the persona of the responsible parent and courageous journalist, plunging into the wild in search of ‘the truth’ — a clear call for sympathy and goodwill, which is calculatingly reinforced by his partial admission of bias.
The front-loading does not end there: as he states the documentary’s putative research problem, Omaar chokes his sentence with qualifiers designed to obliquely discredit, in advance, the existing data on race and IQ: It is, “some research,” “some measures,” and what “has been called” (obviously, by some people) a “race gap”; it is not simply ‘research’, ‘IQ’, and ‘racial differences’. There is no need to put ‘some’ in front of ‘research’; and ‘some measures of intelligence’ means, in fact, IQ, which is the crux of the matter, since the question has arisen from IQ tests — from tests designed to measure a narrowly-defined property of the human brain (e.g., cognitive ability) and not from tests designed to measure ‘social intelligence’, ‘emotional intelligence’, or any other type of ‘intelligence’ from popular culture, let alone a person’s worth as a human being.
The implication that the likes of Lynn and Rushton bluntly conflate intelligence and worth persists throughout the program, where neither of the two scientists is invited, or given space, to pronounce themselves on the issue. This is a grave omission, which betrays to what degree Omaar is not really interested in discovering the truth: He is only interested in confirming his own liberal prejudices and scaring people off from further investigation.
All of the above takes place within the first 90 seconds — and this is a 63-minute film! Omaar then pretends to give us a short history of race and IQ. But what he does is name four different scientists and juxtapose each of them to statements they once made that shock egalitarians (as is the case with Lewis Terman) and / or which, in their day, resulted in noisy controversy (as was the case with William Shockley, Charles Murray, and James Watson). True to form, Omaar vacuum-packs his sentences with negative diction; against old, black and white footage of segregated black schoolchildren, he sets the scene:
Every decade or so this toxic issue rears its ugly head, only to be swept under the carpet. And it would be easy to leave it there and dismiss it as bad science, but some of it has come from brilliant scientists.
He then makes a factual error, telling us Lewis Terman invented the term IQ in 1916, when the term was, in fact, invented by German psychologist William Stern in 1912. What Lewis Terman invented was the Stanford-Binet IQ test, based on the previous work of Alfred Binet.
We of course hear nothing of substance from Shockley and Murray, who is not named: Murray is shown simply stating that there are racial differences in IQ, and Shockley is shown juxtaposed to angry protestors and then defending himself against charges of racism in front of a squirming journalist before disappearing into the night inside a police car. Egregiously, Shockley is said to have called for the sterilization of Black women, when, in reality, his proposal was to pay people (of any race) with low IQ to undergo voluntary sterilization. Omaar rounds up his ‘history’ with Watson’s so-called ‘off-the-cuff remarks’ from 2007 about low Black IQs; quoting them before stating that the fierce response compelled him to apologize.
Needless to say, Omaar omits to tell us how these scientists arrived at their conclusions: he makes no mention of any study or body of data. He sweeps that under the carpet, and leaves it there, having dismissed it in advance as bad science.
Modern Heretic No. 1: Richard Lynn
Omaar tells us that James Watson initially agreed to appear on the program to provide frank answers about his “infamous” remarks, but that he subsequently declined after consulting with his advisors and academic patrons. This suggests that Watson’s apology was never sincere, for, if he had really changed his mind — if he had indeed realized that his stated conclusions were wrong, the interview would have gone ahead. It is telling that later on Omaar informs us that “many” scientists had refused to be interviewed, “fearing a backlash.” Obviously they also knew themselves to be heretics, and thought it better to remain hidden in the academic catacombs.
IQ and the Wealth of Nations
Watson apparently informed Omaar that his remarks had come after reading a book by Professor Richard Lynn. Omaar is shown sitting in a train on his way to meet the “highly controversial” academic — modern heretic #1 in the film. We see Omaar at a table with a copy of Lynn’s The Global Bell Curve: Race, IQ, and Inequality, energetically highlighting, circling, and underlining passages from an interview granted by Lynn to The Occidental Quarterly (TOQ). Neither Lynn’s book nor TOQ are named.
Omaar asks here a rhetorical question: “Is he just a scientist brave enough to say something no one else will, or… is he just beyond the pale?” One asks oneself what being beyond the pale has anything to do with having solid data, making reasonable assumptions, and reaching logical, reliable, and testable conclusions. Yet, as is clear in his remarks following, Omaar is not really trying to discover the answer. Rather, he is confronting Lynn and possibly trying to expose him as a forger with a racist agenda.
I mean, just reading through some of my notes on him is startling and shocking… For example, when asked what was the biggest problem facing Western societies he said “The single most important issue is the increase in immigration of low-IQ Third World people into the United States, Canada, and Europe.”
I am gonna go and talk to him and ask him if he really, genuinely believes that and why.
Omaar cannot believe that an honest scientist could possibly reach Lynn’s conclusions.
The original interview with Lynn ran for two to three hours, but the footage that made it into the program lasts approximately two minutes, and focuses on what Omaar calls the racial IQ “league tables.” Lynn appears calm and understated, but Omaar is clearly uncomfortable: his body language is defensive, he squirms, he sighs, and his visage is creased and suspicious; moreover, he gesticulates rather aggressively, and stares at Lynn with obvious incredulity.
The experience so rattles Omaar that afterwards he repairs to a café to reflect on his emotions. He tells us that he found Lynn’s replies “shocking” and “scarcely believable,” and then goes on to compare the experience to those he has had as a BBC foreign correspondent facing “militia leaders, dictators, and war criminals” who had said “far more outrageous and unspeakable things.” He confesses to finding Lynn particularly troublesome because when Lynn and other scientists “say the things they say,” they are talking about him. Yet Omaar also feels compelled to listen to Lynn in order to understand why they ‘believe’ as they do.
Notice how Lynn is misrepresented as a scientist who holds beliefs, rather than defends conclusions; and as someone who is comparable to violent murderers and oppressors of people, who says outrageous and unspeakable things, even if militia leaders, dictators, and war criminals have said things to Omaar that are more outrageous and unspeakable. While one can understand that Omaar may not like Lynn’s data, it is shocking for him as a supposedly objective journalist so obviously to make the issue not about the data but about Lynn. The low IQ scores found in sub-Saharan populations is not something that Lynn did to them, and neither is it something about which Lynn finds reason to rejoice: Lynn’s thesis is that IQ impacts on ability to generate wealth and maintain a technological civilization, so the growth of low IQ populations is a matter of concern. Rather than blame the messenger, however, Omaar should applaud him for bringing the issue to light, as, without knowledge of it, the issue cannot be properly addressed.
The segment with Lynn and ensuing reflections is followed by another link to Nazis. Omaar states that he feels it necessary to confront the data, lest they be hijacked by political extremists. Meanwhile, we are treated to scenes of riots and BNP parades from decades ago, held by tattooed skinheads. This is akin to interviewing John Webster (Professor Emeritus of Animal Husbandry) and juxtaposing a discussion of the implications of his findings on cow psychology with footage of violent Animal Liberation Front terrorists. The fact that groups of fanatical activists may use scientific findings to bolster a particular political position does not invalidate the findings themselves. This is a non sequitur — and a veiled form of slander.
Seeking solace, Omaar runs to William ‘Lez’ Henry, a Jamaican-descended Black anthropologist, musician, and educator, who opines
for me, people never challenge these “intellectuals” [notice the pejorative quotation marks] on the merits of their own science. Why are we having these arguments? Probably because the stuff that can counter it, the information that can counter, this pernicious way of thinking is always hidden. [grins]
Always hidden? Hidden where? How? The allegation goes without challenge or further investigation.
As to Henry’s credentials, he is not an expert in IQ, and therefore lacks qualifications to evaluate Lynn’s data. His contribution to the debate consists of speculation on possible scientific incompetence or self-serving motives. As the author of Whiteness Made Simple: Stepping into the Grey Zone, an Afrocentric monograph that links whiteness with privilege and attempts to analyze how what he regards as the white supremacy of white societies is normalized into invisibility, his function in the program is to further foment skepticism in the minds of the viewers, and encourage them to think the worst.
Omaar is next shown at his dining room table, surrounded by books and printouts, deep in study. Referring to the link between IQ and race, he states:
This area is a minefield. Key parts of the research quoted by Richard Lynn, for example, have been fiercely disputed by other academics, claiming it is biased and based on tiny, outdated sample sizes. Some have dismissed it as virtually meaningless.
Unfortunately for Omaar, he finds that he cannot dismiss all IQ tests, and that those he cannot dismiss still show a gap in IQ between races: In a normal distribution graph, the Black bell curve peaks lower at 85, the White bell curve peaks higher at 100, and the East Asian bell curve peaks even higher at 105. (He does not mention that standard deviations for Blacks are also shorter, at 12 points, as opposed to 15, as is the case with Whites and East Asians. Neither does he tell us — as Lynn does earlier in the film — that Black IQs of 85 are from samples of Blacks living in Western countries, where they have enjoyed better nutrition and education than in Sub-Saharan Africa, where IQs average 70.)
Omaar, the journalist with a bachelor’s degree in Modern History, decides to investigate what professors of psychology have found on whether this gap is real or the result of biased tests that favor some races over others. Thus, we see Omaar meet with Vivian Hill from the Institute of Education in London in order to experience IQ testing. This is good journalism for once: One must always test one’s assumptions, and whenever possible report from first-hand experience.
Omaar does not submit to a full, formal IQ test, however, but simply attempts to solve a few sample problems. As expected, he is able to answer knowledge-based questions, but finds he cannot do the problems dealing with visuo-spatial reasoning. The latter are strongly linked to theg factor of general intelligence, while tests of knowledge are weakly linked to general intelligence.
Therefore, visuo-spatial tests are more accurate tests of cognitive ability than the knowledge-based questions, which simply test ability to memorize and retrieve information, and are, consequently, more culturally biased.
This is one of the most amusing segments in the program, for if Omaar was hoping to find that the race gap in IQ scores was the result of cultural bias in testing, his performance proves consistent with data that refute this argument: Blacks have tended to do better with culturally biased IQ tests.
This segment also undermines the case that Omaar spends much of the rest of the film attempting to make — that IQ is environmentally determined, the product of hard work and middle class values. He confesses to being unable to do the (g-loaded) visuo-spatial problems, despite coming from a comfortable middle class background and possessing a university degree. This is, of course, later on conveniently forgotten.
We are next told that to understand the debate on race and intelligence, we need to look at the history of IQ testing. It is, therefore, time for another potted history.
We are told that Alfred Binet invented the IQ test in 1904 in order to identify children in need of remedial education. However, once it was translated into English, it started being used to discourage the breeding of the feeble-minded, thus taking on a central role in the then emergent eugenics movement.
A classic depiction of eugenics as an interdisciplinary science
Of course, Omaar’s potted history does not extend to even a mention of the arguments in favor of eugenics, even though this is essential for a proper understanding of the history of IQ testing.
Instead, Omaar veers into shockumentary territory, telling us about how American psychologist Henry H. Goddard proposed a system of classification for the feeble-minded, whom he divided into morons, imbeciles, and idiots. These terms are shown against a Black background, with the letters partially fading in and out of view, as ripples of light and dark brown course through the words, creating a rather ominous effect. The terms are also given in the wrong order, and Omaar makes another factual error in telling us that moron was a category between normal and idiot, when it was, in fact, between normal and imbecile.
Omaar knows that Goddard’s terminology will horrify modern sensibilities, and, predictably, he fails to clarify that modern usage of the individual terms differs at times considerably from their usage a century ago. ‘Moron’, for example, from the Greek moros (‘dull’) is nowadays a slang term for a stupid person, but it was originally a term used only in psychology to refer to adults with a mental age of 8-12.
As night follows day, Omaar tells us how in the United States, between the 1920s and the 1940s, 30 states ‘passed laws permitting the enforced sterilization of individuals defined by IQ tests as subnormal’, and that ‘these laws were not repealed until the 1970s’. Omaar omits to mention that these laws were primarily aimed at those unable to function socially due to mental retardation or insanity. The way it is presented, particularly after we are shown the articulate, urbane, middle class, hard-working, Oxford-educated, and professionally successful Omaar doing badly on an IQ test, is subtly but all the same vertiginously skewed — tacitly but ominously suggesting that in the 1930s, people like him would have been dragged kicking and screaming down a hospital corridor, strapped down to an operating table, and surgically castrated on account of a racially biased IQ test score.
Never mind that the purpose of eugenic laws was humane: No one, after all, would wish to have been born criminally insane or with a profound mental impairment, condemned to a life of dependency and institutionalized containment; no one, except the most sadistic or vengeful, would wish such a fate on another; and no one, except criminally insane liberals and the morbidly curious, would think that the breeding of profoundly defective individuals adds value to a society.
The entire section, therefore, offers a very incomplete and unbalanced overview of eugenics. Omaar focuses entirely on negative eugenics (e.g., the effort to reduce dullness, illness, criminality, and deformity), but says nothing about positive eugenics (e.g., the effort to increase intelligence, health, moral capacity, and physical fitness). Omaar also forgets or ignores the fact that eugenics goes back as far as Plato, and that it is still practiced today: The discovery of a congenital defect during pre-natal screening results in the patient being offered the option to terminate the pregnancy.
The skewing or representation continues, approaching the vertical, as Omaar lectures:
The truth about IQ is that it’s history is truly shocking. And so unsurprisingly modern IQ tests remain highly controversial. Besides, can intelligence really be measured in a single number? It doesn’t seem to measure wisdom, social intelligence, creativity, or musical ability. And it’s still open to the charge of cultural bias.
This is, of course, willful ignorance. As stated previously, the scope of IQ tests is very narrow, as they are designed to measure only one faculty of the human brain. Its purpose is not to measure wisdom, social intelligence, creativity, or musical ability. Nor, by extension — because this is what Omaar is alluding to — measure one’s worth as a human being. There have been, for example, highly gifted individuals who were thoroughly evil.
Moreover, Omaar does not explain how IQ testing can still be open to the ‘charge’ (not the ‘criticism’) of cultural bias, when his own personal experience has shown him that cultural biased tests are easier than culturally neutral ones. In persisting with the accusation of cultural bias, despite first-hand experience to the contrary, Omaar shows that the liberal brain is coated in Teflon.
And, for many people, that’s where the argument ends — with IQ discredited. Unfortunately, it doesn’t end there. Because there is some evidence that IQ correlates with success in life. Which means this subject matter has real consequences for real people, right now.
Again we encounter negative diction, further confirming that Omaar’s dislike of IQ tests is based on ideology and a need for self-esteem, not on an objective examination of the evidence. Omaar could just as well have qualified the correlation as fortunate, since a test that can predict success in life is clearly useful — particularly, as Omaar acknowledges (and as Herrnstein and Murray argued in The Bell Curve), because it has policy implications that affect people in real life.
Public policy implications of IQ in America: The figure shows what happens if you have two IQ distributions that differ by a standard deviation — Whites on top, Blacks on the bottom. If the test is made so that 50% of Whites pass, then 16% of Blacks will pass. This would mean that if we consider a population of 1000 people taking the test in a population that is 10% Black and 90% White, then 16 Blacks would qualify, compared to 450 Whites—a ratio of around 28 to 1 — much higher than the population ratio of 9 to 1. If the test is more difficult so that 16% of Whites pass, then only 2% of Blacks would pass, resulting in a White/Black ratio of around 72 to 1. As Richard Hoste points out, at very elite levels, Blacks would be vanishingly rare if their status was based only on test performance.
Our next destination is the University of California–Berkeley — the most prestigious public university in the US. It is here that Omaar adopts a change of tactics, shifting from simple attempts to malign, discredit, and dismiss data showing race differences in IQ to attempts at offering egalitarian-friendly (i.e., environmentalist) explanations for them.
He informs us of a change in Berkeley’s admissions policy, instituted in 1997, whereby admissions were henceforth determined almost exclusively by SAT scores (“close cousins of IQ tests”). The selection process was “colour blind,” resulting in a massive over-representation of East Asians and Asian Americans, matched by a massive under-representation of African Americans. He comments:
For those who think like Richard Lynn, Berkeley provides some evidence that some races are born cleverer than others. But does it? We now enter the heart of the intelligence debate. Is it your genes or your upbringing that determines your intelligence? There is strong evidence that DNA does play an important part in intelligence. Scientists know this from studies of identical twins, particularly those separated at birth, who have the same DNA but a different upbringing.
I was glad to find mention of these twin studies, but, unfortunately, this is done very peremptorily, and various tactics are deployed to obscure their importance. Omaar, for example, does not tells us that twin studies have shown that the IQs of twins reared apart are virtually unaffected by their upbringing, save in cases of extreme deprivation. But he does note that “when they are reunited, they are shocked by how much they have in common.” Unfortunately, the accompanying footage further de-emphasizes similarities in IQ, distracting the viewer by spending most of the time on similarities in hand-writing, sending the same birthday cards, and buying the same clothes.
Having lined up the evidential bowling pins, Omaar proceeds to knock them down. He states:
From twin studies like these, it seems the genes you inherit have a substantial influence on how intelligent you are. But does that mean that differences in IQ scores between races are also genetic? Other scientists have a completely different way of looking at exactly the same data.
What follows masquerades as a refutation of Lynn’s conclusions while being, in fact, simple contradiction.
Richard Nisbett … believes that the goal of educational success [among East Asians] is deep rooted and centuries old.
Nisbett then continues:
The Asians who do well in this country who came [to America] prior to the immigration law changes in the 1960s … capitalized on the IQ that they had to a much greater extent than the White population. Which is a reflection both of IQ-type intellectual skills and hard work. If you know about those Confucian cultures it is not surprising that they would have such an ability to capitalize on whatever talent they had.
This is Omaar’s cue to educate us about Confucius, and the value he placed “on selfless hard work and betterment through education.”
The most interesting aspect of these assertions is that none refute Lynn. Earlier in the program Lynn told us that Blacks who had settled in the West, particularly after several generations, registered gains in IQ, thanks to improved nutrition and education. Therefore, Lynn’s conclusions with regards to Blacks are identical to Nisbett’s conclusions with regard to East Asians: Both, not just Nisbett, accept that environment plays a role in determining IQ.
Where Lynn differs is in that he assigns a substantial role to heredity not only in determining IQ, but also in causing racial differences. Nisbett, on the other hand, thinks that IQ is mostly the result of environmental differences and that racial differences in IQ are entirely the result of environmental differences..
The likes of Lynn have been unjustly branded exponents of evolutionary fundamentalism — in other words, extremists. I contend that the only extremists are the likes of Nisbett, who can be justly branded exponents of environmentalist fundamentalism.
Omaar desires to examine the opposite end of the spectrum, and shifts focus to Black underachievement. He takes us to John Muir High School, in Pasadena, California, and talks to various educators — none geneticists, cognitive psychologists, or experts in IQ — who state their opinions as to the causes of Black underachievement. All believe, of course, that said causes are environmental. And in the effort to bolster the uplifting thesis essayed in the previous segment, the old canard of Blacks being victims of a racist, middle-class, Eurocentric society once again rears its ugly head. Assistant Professor Rema Reynolds, of Azusa Pacific University, opines
The White middle class Eurocentric paradigm that our country is normed on is what we teach. Period. Anything outside of that — if you are poor and white, if you are Latino, if you are black — anything outside that white middle class paradigm you’re going to have a different challenge in our educational system.
Omaar seems pleased. He goads
What you are saying is that it is impossible or absurd to have a standardized test measuring children who are the product of a totally unequal system.
In reply to which Reynolds asserts, “I can better assess whether your mother drives a Volvo than I can assess your intelligence based on these ‘intelligence’ tests.” Reynolds can say this because her expertise is in school psychology and counseling — in other words, in education, not in intelligence or genetics.
For the reasons already stated at the end of the preceding section, this entire segment in the film is largely irrelevant, designed to obfuscate while pretending to elucidate, to conceal while pretending to reveal. Having identified an explanation for East Asian academic success that he likes (hard work), and having soaked in opinions from educators about the importance of education, the purpose of the segment is to set the stage for Omaar to enunciate his theory:
The so-called race gap is not about race at all. … Those Black students who’ve done well in Pasadena have parents with what we might call “middle class values.” Instead of beating the system, these parents have joined it. They have bought into the idea that doing well at school is of paramount importance, and have channeled their children’s aspirations towards college, and beyond that, into middle-class, high-IQ professions.
IQ, in other words, is for Omaar about being middle class, not about race. And, accordingly, the accompanying footage fills the screen with smiling faces from an all-Black high school graduation celebration.
This is where so-called documentary films like this one become particularly insidious. Sitting comfortably in their double-glazed, centrally-heated, well-furnished, middle-class living rooms, with a well-chromed 4×4 in the driveway and acres of plasma television screen filling their vision, Channel 4 viewers would typically hear the voiceover, look at the cheerful Black faces, and think, “Ah, they’re all graduating OK. So it’s not about ‘race’ at all!” They would be able to do so because Omaar decided not to share with them what Richard Lynn told him in that two to three hour interview which viewers were barely given the chance to see: Studies have shown that Black children adopted by middle class families have shown no gains in IQ.
Once again, Omaar shows us that the liberal brain is coated in Teflon.
Modern Heretic No. 2: J. Philippe Rushton
At this point Omaar decides that, having examined IQ measurement and the factors that might influence differences in IQ, the time has come to confront race itself. He opines, “It seems to me the whole idea of some races being cleverer than others also hinges on races really being different.”
Thus, to ascertain the “validity of classifying people according to the color of their skin,” Omaar travels to Minneapolis to meet with Professor J. Philippe Rushton, to experience the heresy firsthand.
In case the minds of his viewers have opened during the course of the film, Omaar takes pre-emptive action by telling us, not about the extent of Rushton’s voluminous research, which continues to be published in the top academic journals in the field, but about how egalitarians feel about it:
He is probably the most controversial of the small number of academics who are prepared to say that there is a racial hierarchy in intelligence. Rushton’s work has been strongly condemned by many psychologists and geneticists.
Rushton being a man of accomplishment, Omaar sounds almost rueful and perplexed when he admits, “Nonetheless, he is a Fellow of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science.” Obviously, this is catastrophic for Omaar, since his thesis is predicated on race differences in IQ being the result of bad science.
He frames the interview in adversarial language: “I want him to explain why he things people who look like him are cleverer than people who look like me.”
Coming two-thirds into the film, Rushton is allowed to provide more detailed answers than Lynn. But all the same, if you were hoping for a solid dose of Rushton, you will be disappointed, for the interview with him is over in less than 135 seconds. Rushton comes across well: He appears amiable, calm, and confident, and provides an effective answer when asked to explain why he thinks race is more than skin-deep:
DNA will tell you a racial classification, but so will most internal organs. Bones, for example. If you actually find a skeleton in your back garden, and you call in the police, and they call in some anthropologists, they will be able to tell from even the thigh bone or the skull whether you are looking for a male or a female, what age they are, what race they are, because the races differ. And so if they weren’t able to do that, it would mean that races didn’t exist, but because the can do that, implies that races do exist.
The camera cuts back Omaar, who looks very unhappy. In fact, throughout the interview, we see him pleating his forehead, staring suspiciously, and cocking his head this way and that, sending out aggressive signals; his hostile visage and head language are not those of a journalist listening with an open mind, hoping to uncover the truth. They are those of a man who has armor-plated his brain; who has hermetically sealed it, and is forcing himself to sit in front of, and be polite to, a clever and powerful adversary. They are also those of a man who feels he is onto something, who is holding on to information with which he will in due course be able to devastate his odious enemy. Omaar’s eyes are like laser guns, and one gets the impression that his rage and his outrage are barely contained by his glinting, dark orbs.
Omaar, unable to challenge Rushton on the existence of race, attempts to turn the female audience against him. He first invites Rushton to tell him about the different pelvic sizes of the various racial groups. Rushton obliges, stating that, on average, East Asian have larger pelvic sizes than European women, who have larger pelvic sizes than Black women; and explaining that this is probably because the women in groups with larger pelvic sizes give birth to larger brained babies.
Omaar then asks whether men and women have different brain sizes, which Rushton confirms, at which point he moves in for the kill:
OMAAR: So women are less intelligent than men?
RUSTHON: The differences between men and women’s brains are due to spatial ability. But the differences between Black and White, and East Asian brains, are due to general intelligence. That’s what we think is the situation.
OMAAR: Even though women’s brain sizes are smaller than men, they are just as intelligent as men, but Black people have smaller brain sizes than White people, but they’re not as intelligent as White people.
RUSHTON: That’s correct. As an average, yes.
Omaar’s is a rhetorical argument, of course, which only appears logical to a shallow mind. It would only follow that smaller brain sizes would necessarily imply lower intelligence for members of both sexes if male and female brains were morphologically identical; but they are not identical: We are dealing with two different dimensions — sex and size — each of which affects the human brain in different ways and to different degrees. This is implicit in Rushton’s reply:
The differences between men and women’s brains are due to spatial ability. But the differences between Black and White, and East Asian brains, is due to general intelligence. That’s what we think is the situation.
Unfortunately, but predictably, Omaar does not want the dimensional issue highlighted, and, therefore, he moves on. He attempts to cast Rushton as a biological determinist:
OMAAR: So intelligence is biologically fixed.
RUSHTON: Fixed is maybe too strong a word.
OMAAR: Biologically determined.
RUSHTON: Yea, for sure. You were born with a genetic potential for a particular brain size.
This answer would appear to confirm biological determinism to the average Channel 4 viewer, and, with Omaar’s mission apparently accomplished, this line of questioning is at this point abandoned. However, an astute listener will note that the use of the word ‘potential’ in the answer does not exclude environmental effects.
Under normal circumstances, given that the film rushes past very quickly and ordinary viewers will not have had adequate time to notice or consider this point, this is the moment where Omaar ought to have asked Rushton to elucidate his thoughts on this matter. Anyone familiar with Rushton’s work will know that Rushton would have replied that race differences in IQ are 50% genetic, 50% environmental. Rushton is not asked, of course, and one cannot but think that this is deliberate, as allowing Rushton to present a nuanced position would make it difficult to discredit him before the viewers.
This is why, perhaps, the interview looks so fragmented and staged on the screen: Rushton has always presented nuanced theses and arguments, and to make Rushton seem a one-dimensional biological determinist must have required savage editing during post-production.
Omaar’s final question is somewhat comical, for it is a transparent attempt to make Rushton look as if he does not know what he is talking about — as if his research is based on racist assumptions and skewed interpretations of ambiguous or irrelevant measurements, as opposed to exact, solid, incontrovertible data. He taunts, “What are the genes that determine intelligence? What are they? Can you name them?” Rushton, however, is well prepared, and supplies an answer that will not be disproved by the other scientists participating in the program. He replies, “We don’t know the specific genes, but we know that genes are absolutely crucial from behaviour genetic studies.”
Next, Omaar is back in London, mulling over the Rushton interview. He announces, “I want to take Rushton’s arguments one by one with Steve Jones, professor of genetics at University College, London.”
The following scene is with Jones, a specialist in the genetics of snails. Gesticulating emphatically, Omaar asks him, “Is it possible to arrive at a biological definition of race that would be acceptable to people in your field?” Jones replies:
It’s obviously true that there are geographic differences in the human population. That is obviously the case. Look at you and look at me. I mean, we look different. But if we were to look beneath the skin, there wouldn’t be a complete split. So actually the human race is remarkable compared to other primates in only one way: we are so boring, we are so similar from place to place.
This is an admission, but a somewhat evasive one: Note the use of the term ‘geographic’ as a euphemism for ‘genetic’; note also the somewhat disingenuous emphasis on overall similarity. As a geneticist, Jones cannot deny that there is a biological basis for race, but, as a committed Leftist and court scientist, he feels compelled to draw attention away from the fact that genes underlie racial differences.
His obscurantism suits the purposes of the film, and Jones’ reply triggers dramatic audiovisual effects: The television speakers explode with a deep slamming sound and the screen is suddenly a multiracial mosaic of faces. This is meant to be a big “Aha!” moment. Omaar states, importantly:
This is important. According to Jones there are genetic differences between different races but they are not very big. What strikes him is how alike we are. Which suggests environmental factors play a key role in IQ.
Yet again, we see Rushton’s and Lynn’s thesis re-stated, but in the guise of a refutation.
It is far from a refutation, of course, because not only is this statement perfectly consistent with Rushton and Lynn’s research: Saying that environmental factors have a key role in IQ is not the same as saying that environmental factors are the sole determinant of IQ. What’s more, Omaar overlooks the fact that genetic differences need not be very large for them to have important effects on humans, to the point where they can significantly affect life outcomes. Humans and chimpanzees have been said to share 96% of their DNA, for example; but, if so, the remaining 4%, although a small proportion overall, still makes us vastly different from our primate cousins. A chimpanzee is not 96% as intelligent as a human.
To conceal his bias, Omaar feigns journalistic fairness by asking, “But at the same time, I mean… on the other side of the argument, one can’t deny that there is hereditary components in IQ.” Jones re-deploys his earlier tactic:
Oh, no, I think you’d be extremely foolish to deny that there is a hereditary component in intelligence. It’s extremely foolish to deny there is hereditary components in almost anything, you know. Most things have some heritability, as we say. We will probably, some day find some of the genes that underlie some of the heritability. What that will tell you about race and IQ I have no idea. I would imagine almost nothing.
Jones is of course free to imagine anything he likes — whether that will tally with future discoveries in genetic research is another question. What is important here is that, even though he makes strenuous efforts to conceal it, he ultimately seems to agree with Rushton and Lynn in that IQ is determined partly by genes, partly by environment.
By this time we are two thirds into the program. We are back with Richard Nisbett, who is asked to comment on Rushton’s research correlating IQ with brain size. At this point it seems appropriate to point out that Rushton was not asked (nor given space) to explain how he arrived at his conclusions, so the viewer has no idea whether Rushton’s data are superior to Nisbett’s or the other way around. This omission seems convenient for the egalitarian position, given that Nisbett is given space to support his conclusions by citing studies. If I were to think badly, it would be easy to imagine this is a tactic designed to make Nisbett appear the better scientist.
Nisbett considers “the whole brain size issue to be a red herring,” and points, with visible condescension, to the existence of a group of people in Ecuador who have head sizes “four standard deviations below the average” and yet perform better in school than “the other people in their community.” His source, however, is a study of a population with Laron Syndrome, a growth hormone deficiency. By citing this study, Nisbett is, like Omaar earlier in the film, effectively conflating two dimensions in order to “prove” the lack of a linear brain size versus IQ correlation. Nisbett needs to compare like with like, not abnormal subjects with normal subjects, if he is to disprove Rushton’s correlation.
Rushton’s data are based on dozens of studies that examined brain sizes utilizing four different methods: MRI scans, “endocranial volume from empty skulls, brain weight at autopsy, or external head size (with or without corrections for body size)” (Rushton & Jensen, 2009), which have shown a consistent correlation, from the 1840s to the present. Rushton and Jensen argue that
larger brains are more intelligent because they contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster and more efficiently. … Rushton … averaged the data and found: East Asians = 1,364 in cm3; Whites = 1,347; and Blacks = 1,267, with a standard deviation of about 10%. Thus, the overall mean for East Asians was 17 cm3 more than that for Whites and 97 cm3 more than that for Blacks. Within-race differences due to differences in method of estimation averaged 31 cm3. Since 1 cubic centimeter of brain tissue contains millions of brain cells and billions of synapses, race differences in brain size help to explain their IQ differences. Indeed, if the racial differences in brain size did not relate to cognitive ability, it would be a mystery why such differences in number of neurons would ever have evolved since they are metabolically very expensive.
Strangely, despite these data being the result of direct measurements from a large aggregate sample, Nisbett dismisses this as indirect evidence.
Stating his preference for direct evidence, which he claims can be found in natural experiments — experiments that occur naturally, without being set up by scientists — he opens a second line of attack. He tells us that Blacks in the United States have, on average, 20% European genes (this is the accumulated result of admixture — inter-racial mating and reproduction — over time). He adds that the proportion of European ancestry among Afro-Americans varies greatly between individuals, with some being almost entirely White. (In the US, anyone with Black ancestry, irrespective of proportion, is classed as Black). If Rushton is correct, argues Nisbett, then it would follow that those Blacks who have a higher proportion of European ancestry would have higher IQs, and those with a higher proportion of Black ancestry would have lower IQs. Nisbett asserts that there is “not a shred of evidence that this is the case” and points to a Chicago study of Black school children with “extremely high IQs, genius-level IQs” where it was found that intelligence did not correlate with the proportion of Black and White ancestry.
A casual listener would likely believe this Chicago study refutes Rushton’s conclusions. And this is, indeed, the second “Aha!” moment in the film. But, what is this Chicago study? Nisbett confirmed to me that it is a study published in the Journal of Educational Psychology in 1934. Notice the date: 1934. This is an early study, which, crucially, provides no indication for how the degree of racial admixture was ascertained.
The Chicago study cited by Nisbett as evidence dates back to 1934, and it is, therefore, of the same vintage as the Buick shown in the picture — then a brand new, modern convertible.
A subsequent study published in 1936 by the same author relied on “genealogical data provided by parents.” This last aspect is a major methodological weakness, acknowledged by the author, who writes
in some instances individuals are unable to determine their own degree of racial mixture. The data are further subject to the weakness of all genealogical material: deliberate inaccuracy of report and failure to account for the totality of ancestry.
In a country where ‘Negro’ could mean anything from a person with wholly African ancestry to one with mostly European genes (e.g. Colin Powell), self-reported ancestry based on conventional racial categorizations, even assuming the children’s parents were all completely candid, is unreliable. In our correspondence, Lynn pointed out that Blacks in Chicago have a high proportion of White ancestry in general.
One wonders why Nisbett cites as evidence studies that are either outdated and methodologically flawed or irrelevant because they rely on data from with abnormal subjects with a hormone deficiency. One need not wonder, however, why Omaar, the Black journalist doing a documentary for Channel 4 (a channel that employs a Head of Diversity), is content simply to accept it from Nisbett.
Nevertheless, it is interesting that, when it appears to disprove inconvenient findings (such as those of Lynn and Rushton), Omaar suddenly sees no problem with a study based significantly on Terman’s Stanford-Binet IQ test, as was the Chicaco study. Is not Omaar’s belief that IQ tests are not a valid method of measuring intelligence? Omaar’s willingness to accept evidence is clearly a function of the degree to which it flatters his racial vanity. And is that not what he is tacitly accusing Lynn and Rushton and other scientists of doing?
The Rose-y View
Having heard from Jones and Nisbett, Omaar positions the ball before the goal, “It seems to me race is not a useful scientific category at all. A view shared by neuroscientist Steven Rose.” Steven Rose’s visage then fills the screen. He asserts:
The social definitions of race — black, white, for example — don’t match the biological definitions. I mean, if you look at gene frequencies, for example, there are differences, on average, between North Welsh and Southern Welsh people, but you wouldn’t call the North Welsh a different race from the Southern Welsh people. There are differences between different groups of people in Africa, and yet what racist language does is group all Black Africans as if they are one group. That makes no sense in biological terms, in genetic terms at all.
While it is right and proper to point out that there is a mismatch between social and biological definitions of race, the ensuing analogy is preposterous. Saying that it would be wrong to mislabel two subcategories as categories does not discredit categorization: It discredits the person misapplying the labels.
Rose’s claim that “racist language” lumps all kinds of different groups into one is an exact inversion of the truth: The language of race seeks to differentiate groups. Leftist ideologues like Rose are the ones doing the lumping, by saying, for example, that there is no race but the human race, when humans are, in fact, racially diverse. In sum, Rose presents us with irrelevant straw man arguments.
His next assertion is telling. When asked by Omaar why the debate between race and intelligence persists, Rose looks down, scratches his head, sighs, and replies with a sardonic smile:
Because we live in a racist society, it’s very simple. Questions of differences in intelligence between black people and white people wouldn’t make any sense unless you live in a racist society.
The study of human cognition, in all its diversity, is a legitimate field of scientific study. Unfortunately for some people (and not necessarily Blacks, by the way), scientists have discovered that populations differ in their level of endowment on the psychological dimension of intelligence. This dimension is highly valued in European cultures, so findings have caused controversy among some Whites, as well as Blacks who have grown up, or been influenced by, European cultures.
These findings are flattering to people like Steven Rose, who is Jewish: Ashkenazi Jews top the world’s IQ league table. Yet, Jewish scholars like Rose, and as his Marxist colleagues and co-authors, Leon Kamin, Richard Lewontin, and Stephen Jay Gould, have campaigned aggressively to make and keep the study of race differences in intelligence an illegitimate area of scientific inquiry — to make it a scientific taboo. (See Chapter 2of Kevin MacDonald’s, The Culture of Critique.)
Personally, I welcome the inclusion of Steven Rose in the film, since presenting all sides of an argument is good journalism. I do have a problem, however, with the fact that the audience is not told that Rose represents a fiercely political, egalitarian, Marxist position.
Rose is more than a scientist: he is also a political activist. In 2001, The Guardian (a Leftist “quality daily” newspaper in the United Kingdom) described him as “Professor Jeckyll and Comrade Hyde,” “a radical biochemist.” and “a polemicist on the left.” It quotes his friend Patrick Bateson describing Rose as “the last of the Marxist radical scientists.” His style is said to be “aggressive,” and “ferocious.” And he is also thought by Bateson to have overstated his position on IQ.
Why does Omaar describe him simply as “a neuroscientist”? Even if Rose was included solely for the sake of completeness, it would be wrong to see him as representing the polar opposite of Rushton and Lynn, because, politically, the latter do not represent an extreme position on the Right in the way Rose represents an extreme position on the Left: Unlike Rose, Rushton and Lynn are not political activists. Although a physicist, the nearest equivalent to Rose that I can think of on the Right is Dr. William Pierce.
Dr. William Pierce
Happy with Rose’s remarks, Omaar reflects, “It seems race is not a useful scientific category at all. So maybe it’s towards society that I need to focus my attention in explaining the race gap in IQ.”
In the next scene we are back with William ‘Lez’ Henry. He relates how his Black students, who, according to him, are “massively underachieving,” associate being intelligent with White attitudes and behaviors. This is unsurprising and normal in a White society, yet it is an important insight in this film. It explains why many Black students, many of whom have been macerated in a racial political discourse of historical grievance, do not think it “cool” to be intelligent and proficient in an academic sense.
But I suggest that perhaps what Henry calls ‘underachieving’ is not so, if we stop attempting to measure the diverse peoples of the world by White standards. As Rushton suggested in Race, Evolution, and Behavior (1995), if Sub-Saharan Black African children appear lively and fully functional, despite having IQs that in relation to the Caucasoid norm would indicate mental retardation, it might be because such low IQs are normal for Sub-Saharan populations.
Certainly, traditional Sub-Saharan societies have never placed as high a cultural emphasis or high a value on, nor ever seem to have had as strong a need for, high levels of general intelligence, hard work, delayed gratification, and betterment through education, as have Confucian and European societies.
Lynn has proposed that the harsh European winters exerted evolutionary pressures that selected for general intelligence over tens of thousands of years, as populations would have had to solve the problem of keeping warm and staying fed in sub-Arctic regions with lower energy per area unit, and where the ready availability of food was dramatically reduced during a sizeable portion of the year. Kevin MacDonald has further proposed that under such harsh climactic conditions, cultural attitudes putting a premium on regionally adaptive traits (like general intelligence) would have developed as a result.
Could it not be the case, then, that these so-called “underachieving” Blacks derive, ultimately, from cultures that place greater value on traits other than general intelligence because these cultures were developed by populations evolved in tropical environments where our relatively high level general intelligence was not needed for survival?
If so, then perhaps the problem is not that there is a race gap in IQ, but that some — i.e., everyone in the program, except Lynn, Rushton, Watson, Shockley, Goddard, and Terman — refuse to embrace human diversity, and would rather force entire groups of people with varying suites of traits to conform to what is for those people a highly artificial European standard. The attempt to do so is, to my mind, not only wrong-headed, but a form of cultural totalitarianism — which is ironic, considering that those who criticize Lynn and Rushton claim to oppose totalitarianism and believe themselves to be champions of diversity.
In case the scientific arguments are too esoteric, Omaar travels to South Africa, in an effort to appeal to our emotions. Walking in a dense maze of grim and filthy shacks of corrugated iron, he tells us that concluding that race and intelligence are biologically determined leads to Apartheid, and to the dreams of potential leading astronomers being crushed by a system that would condemn them to a life of poverty and illiteracy in squalid townships.
Soweto, South Africa. If Omaar is to be believed, Lynn and Rushton’s data lead straight to this.
This is both a straw man argument and a variant of the silly argumentum ad Hitlerum, designed to frighten people off from having an honest discussion about race and intelligence. As such, the deployment of such an argument here constitutes proof of the existence of a motivation to bias a documentary film such as this one, not proof of the non-existence of a biological basis for race and intelligence.
Omaar also tells us that since the dismantlement of Apartheid, the field of medicine has filled with Black students. Omaar does not include in his narrative any mention of the affirmative action policies introduced by the Mandela government; nor of the fact that the country has seen an exodus of Whites, who feel increasingly unsafe in Black-run South Africa — both of these factors, not just the end of Apartheid, may have noticeably contributed to this changing demographic. Neither does Omaar include in his narrative any mention of the violent discontent among township Blacks in the country at the lack of delivery from the ANC after nearly 15 years of power — at the corruption and nepotism that keep them, even now, without running water and electricity. Interestingly, Omaar finds that despite the high influx of Blacks at undergraduate level, this is not maintained at the higher-IQ postgraduate level.
If Omaar succeeds in making a point here, it will be only among the most superficial, conformist, and sentimental members of his audience. The implications he makes are false: Firstly, neither Lynn nor Rushton propose a nature-only model for understanding race differences in IQ — they propose a nature + nurture model. Secondly, a frank discussion about race differences in IQ does not necessarily and automatically lead to Apartheid — it can just as well lead to greater tolerance and understanding of different cultures and lifestyles. And thirdly, a nature + nurture model does not deny the possibility of high-IQ Blacks, nor of IQ gains among Black populations through improved environment — it only argues that the genetic potential for IQ is not identical in all populations and that gains from better environments may not be equal in all populations. Finally, improved environment will not necessarily and automatically cause all populations to develop Western-style societies. This is a liberal myth, the product of a Eurocentric, egalitarian mentality that does not admit or tolerate difference of any kind.
On the whole, therefore, this segment in the film is irrelevant.
“Taking Off Like Crazy”
The ensuing segment is highly relevant, however, for it appears to refute Rushton’s position that humans are, on average, born with a genetic potential for a given brain size. Omaar’s voice, intoning with great reverence over images of an elderly gentleman on his morning jog, introduces Professor James Flynn as a “a moral philosopher, who has long been a civil rights campaigner.”
Flynn is known for drawing attention to a long-term increase in IQ scores around the world, a phenomenon that was referred to by the authors of The Bell Curve as the Flynn Effect. Flynn says:
All throughout the twentieth century, we can trace that each generation is scoring higher than its predecessor. That is, the average person on Raven’s [Progressive Matrices] today is 100. The average person in 1900 scored against current norms would have been somewhere between 50 and 70.
Omaar continues, telling us how Flynn’s research uncovered an increase in IQ of 3 points per decade, with an even faster increase for Black Americans. In dramatic tones, he adds “The IQ gap between Blacks and Whites was actually closing.” According to Flynn, Blacks have been gaining 4.45 points a decade since World War II — a rate of gain 50% faster than Whites. Flynn asks “Does that prove that the difference in IQ isn’t genetic? Well, it certainly shows that differences as great as the IQ gap can be closed environmentally.”
Clearly, although Flynn places great hope in the environment for improving Black IQ, he does not rule out in advance that race differences in IQ may be genetic. Flynn’s explanation is not that we are smarter and our ancestors dumber, but that we have learned to think in abstract categories. As Omaar expresses it, “Our great-grand parents learned to manipulate the world practically, but we have learnt to classify it intellectually.” Summarizing Flynn’s theory, he explains that since World War II, there has been a “cognitive revolution,” whereby science and technology have forced us to think conceptually, in abstract terms, and to “view the world through scientific spectacles.” And since abstract reasoning is what is needed to perform well in an IQ test, IQ tests ‘don’t give a score for intelligence as such, but our adaptation to modernity’.
Flynn asserts in the film that the low scores in tropical Africa and even Northern Africa are due to their being “on the cusp of modernity”; that IQ scores in the region are “taking off like crazy”; and that “over the next century we may well see the developing world match the developed world for IQ.“
This is where the segment ends, leaving viewers with the impression that Rushton has no answer to Flynn’s evidence. In fact, Rushton and Arthur Jensen, Professor Emeritus of educational psychology at the University of California–Berkeley, have addressed the issue in a forthcoming paper entitled “Race and IQ: A Theory-Based Review of the Research in Richard Nisbett’s Intelligence and How to Get It.” Nisbett’s book is the most comprehensive treatment of the Flynn Effect, and builds on Flynn’s previous books on the topic.
Flynn’s thesis is that secular gains in IQ scores imply that improving environment must in time close the race gap in IQ. Yet, much is made earlier in the film about IQ tests being culturally biased, an allegation that was not reflected by Omaar’s personal experience: Earlier in the film, and consistent with Rushton’s and Jensen’s data, we saw the Oxford-educated journalist finding culturally biased test problems easier that culturally neutral ones, such as those involving visuo-spatial ability and abstract reasoning. This is because the latter are more heavily g-loaded — g being, according to Jensen, the “active ingredient“ of IQ scores, since it refers to the processes that underlie performance on all mental tests. Psychological research supports the idea that the mechanisms underlying g relate to the speed and efficiency of mental processing.
Not all IQ tests have equal g-loading, of course, and this represents one of the main difficulties in accurately evaluating to what degree IQ tests measure general intelligence (g). Rushton and Jenson point out that Charles Spearman, the man who discovered g, conjectured that Black-White differences would be “most marked in just those [tests] which are known to be saturated with g.” Jensen later referred to this as “Spearman’s hypothesis.”
Subsequent testing by Jensen and Rushton, using data from multiple tests and large samples, has shown an inverse correlation between g-loading and the Flynn Effect, with the race gap being most persistent in the most heavily g-loaded tests.
This suggests that the Flynn Effect is not all that meaningful: Since Blacks tend to do better in the parts of IQ tests that are least g-loaded, this will account for their faster rate of gain over time in average IQ scores.
Although he has researched intelligence, Flynn is not formally a scientist. He is currently a professor of Political Studies at the University of Otago, New Zealand. He has a long history of campaigning for Left-wing causes, and was a founding member of two of New Zealand’s Left-wing political parties (the New Labour Party, and Alliance). He has even stood for parliament on a number of occasions, and advised Labour Prime Minister Norman Kirk on foreign policy. Clearly, his views on race and intelligence fit well with his political views.
More importantly, it is fair to ask oneself why Omaar accepts Flynn’s theories regarding race and intelligence given that he does not think that IQ tests are valid. Omaar’s thesis throughout the program has been that IQ tests are not a valid method of measuring intelligence. If that is the case, then why should we listen to Flynn at all? And if that is not the case, then why should we not listen to Lynn and Rushton? Logic is not one of the film’s strong points.
Brave New World
Another irrelevant segment follows the Flynn segment. Omaar takes us to Hostos Lincoln Academy in the South Bronx, one of the grimmest districts in America, in an effort to see how the Flynn Effect benefits Black students. We find that the school’s Principal maximizes cultural experience through exposing students to theater, and that the graduation rate is, according to him, 90%, versus the city’s average of 55%.
Other than that, there are numerous scenes of students in classrooms and an interview with one of them, none of which sheds new light on the topic of this documentary. Of course, with adequate supervision, focus, and competent training, it is possible to improve the academic performance even in deprived neighborhoods.
But in this case, we simply do not know key relevant facts. We are not told whether the students filmed in this documentary are representative of the district’s average student or a selection of the brightest ones. And we do not know what the standards for graduation are, nor how the top pupils in that high school compare to the top pupils of other high schools. Needless to say that we are not shown their IQ scores or their subsequent SAT scores, nor the criterion by which some of these students secure a place in elite universities, as Omaar claims. The latter is important to know in a context where universities have affirmative action policies in place.
The final segment immediately follows, with Omaar rounding it all up with a statement of his pre-existing environmentalist beliefs, a dismissal of contradictory data, and a call for a change in the culture and for improving opportunities for Blacks. He concludes his monologue by stating “I am optimistic that change may at last be on its way,” before giving way to footage of U.S. president Barack Obama, delivering a predictable speech about his desire for Black scientists and Supreme Court Justices. Obama’s voice gradually becomes heavily reverberated and is engulfed by the cheers of a rapturous crowd as the screen fades to black and the credits make their run, accompanied by sedate, inspiring music.
My problem with this documentary is not that it is somehow unusual. Rather, my problem is that there is nothing unusual about it. While it is salient in that it purports to tackle an issue that the Left would rather not be discussed at all, and even goes as far as to include credible dissenting voices, its purpose is to simply confirm egalitarians in the correctness of their dogmas and foment conformity among uneducated and apolitical bystanders.
Rather than a science documentary, the film can more accurately be described as a televised sermon that masquerades as science. Its power lies in the ease and the speed with which it can transfer large amounts of information to a passive audience while effectively concealing both the quantity and the quality of that information.
By the time the film is over, viewers have likely already moved on to the next program, or else have gone on to do other things. Unraveling an hour-long documentary demands considerable time and effort, as well expertise on a number of different fields, besides that pertaining to the topic discussed in the film. One must not only understand the science, but one must also be educated in politics and culture, have experience in video production and post-production, and be proficient in semiotic and discourse analysis, as well as have the resources to be able to pursue a meaningful investigation.
Ordinary viewers, lacking all this, will likely watch the film, repeat in conversation whatever they remember the following day, and not think about it twice afterwards. What is more, unless actively interested in the topic, documentaries like this one will be the only source of knowledge for these viewers. Hence the power of television.
My purpose with this article has not been to verify or disprove the data on race and intelligence: My academic training is in lens media and cultural studies, and my professional experience is in popular culture. My purpose here, therefore, has been to provide a perspective on how documentary films serve not to educate, but to miseducate, to mould consciousness and shape attitudes, and thus self-servingly perpetuate establishment cultural values to advance political aims. For the Left, everything is political, and science is just one of the battlegrounds on which they wage their culture war.
Race and Intelligence was structured as an exercise in debunking. Accordingly, heretics were only needed long enough to state their position, so that it could then be contradicted by agreeable scientists. Lynn and Rushton were never allowed to address criticism in the film and the evidence that they have produced in reply to their critics, including Nisbett, Flynn, Rose, and others, was never mentioned.
This evidence, however, is considerable and very detailed. As is usually the case, since Lynn’s and Rushton’s critics fail to refute then, the film aims to create the appearance of a refutation by concealing the absence of one through simple contradiction, omission, and obfuscation. One of their most astonishing tactics, as we have seen, consists of re-stating Lynn’s and Rushton’s findings and repackaged them as a refutation.
Another, of which Nisbett is clearly guilty, is for critics of the nature + nurture proponents to engage in the very same practices that they accuse their proponents of engaging in, including: de-emphasizing or altogether omitting inconvenient data, using unrepresentative samples, and using outdated or methodologically flawed studies. Yet another tactic is to marshal in “experts” from the farthest reaches of the political Left, who are then introduced in either neutral or venerating terms, without inviting any voices from the Right, however moderate.
Finally, there seems to be a tendency in the film to distract with irrelevant information and couch scientific arguments in moral / progressive language, so as to imply that the opposing position is somehow immoral.
While fraud is not out of the question, it is also possible, and indeed probable, that a great deal of self-delusion is involved. There is no doubt that Omaar and the authorities he has marshaled to once again put across the old culturalist argument against race differences in intelligence honestly believe that they represent the side of progress and enlightenment — of what is good and right; and that their opponents represent the side of backwardness and prejudice — of what is wrong and evil.
There is no doubt also that they conceive themselves as engaged in a moral crusade, and that success is so vital for the good of humanity that any and all tactics must be exhausted, including obvious emotional appeals.
To understand the degree to which this is the case, one only needs to look at Steve Jones’ article of 26 October, written for the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph and published on the day Race and Intelligence was due to air. As if to pre-empt open minds in the audience, he chastises
Any link between skin colour and brain power was long ago disproved by science, despite a new outing for the subject on TV tonight. … The program dredges up a number of living fossils — elderly exponents of racial differences — many of whom I thought had passed long ago to the Aryan hunting ground in the sky. … With impressive but misplaced confidence, they roll out a series of hoary, dubious and predictable claims about the abilities of different racial groups; those with lower scores living, oddly enough in the poorest countries with the worst schools.
Never mind that, as Richard Lynn pointed out in a recent email to me, “Since the people of the poorest countries are those with darker skins, and most of them are in sub-Saharan Africa, the last sentence contradicts his initial statement.”
Jones’ sneering language reeks of ideological snobbery, and we see that he is not above dredging up the old canard about nature + nurture proponents being Nazi relics. This is all about positioning — about making people admire one group of scientists and hate the other — all in accordance with political expediency.
The science itself is largely irrelevant, because only a tiny percentage of the population is competent enough to interpret it and understand it. The debate is, therefore, reduced to personality and presentation — to the emotional and pre-rational manipulation of laymen’s attitudes and perceptions.
Jones, a poster-boy of the Left, plays an active media role in this process. In a desperate effort to cast his cause as modern and progressive, for example, Jones makes in the article two disparaging references to the age of all two of his opponents in the film, even though he and all of his comrades are in their same age group: Lynn is 78 and Rushton a youthful 65; Jones is the same age (65, although he looks 75), Nisbett is 61, Rose is 71, and Flynn is 75. With a median age of 68, the Leftist contingent is hardly a paragon of youth. I propose that it is their ideas that are by now ‘superannuated’ and out of date, and that Lynn and Rushton represent the paradigm of the future, having shown that they have been right all along.
I am not going to pretend that I am impartial; no one capable of forming an opinion really is. Neither am I going to pretend that I have not made a self-conscious use of language in the attempt to generate sympathy for one camp and antipathy for the other. Personally, however, I believe that Omaar and his comrades are deserving of criticism — particularly as otherwise, their filmic and discursive manipulations would go unnoticed and unchallenged.
The fact that we ought not to be surprised that these manipulations occur (particularly in this case), does not excuse us from pointing them out, analyzing them, and discussing them. Given present social, cultural, and demographic trends and given the present political and juridical climate, documentaries like Race and Intelligence have real implications for European-descended peoples, as egalitarianism usually places the welfare of all peoples at the expense of European man.
Egalitarian Leftists polarize and politically charge the debate about race and intelligence by misrepresenting it as being one about the superiority or inferiority of one race versus another, when, in reality, it ought to be a debate about the uniqueness of each race. In evolutionary terms, each race represents a unique physical and psychological adaptation and, while from within one culture a set of traits may be assigned greater value, from another those same traits could very well be irrelevant.
This does not preclude a certain amount of malleability and responsiveness to environmental factors, and evolutionists do accept this, despite egalitarian Leftists’ tendentious caricatures of evolutionists as rigid biological determinists.
The evolutionary perspective embraces uniqueness and diversity; the egalitarian Leftist, on the other hand, is often disturbed by it and desires homogeneity.
If we are to protect our uniqueness as a race from the homogenizing forces of egalitarianism, we need to systematically expose the pseudoscience peddled by egalitarians in their efforts to add credibility to their wishful thinking. And crucially, we need to systematically expose the methods by which egalitarians manipulate our mass media of news and entertainment in their efforts to pass their wishful thinking as truth.
I have suggested in previous articles, as well as in my dystopian novel, Mister, that the longer we allow our enemies to carry on as they are, the harsher the measures that will be required to extricate ourselves from the present mess.
This is not a profound insight; it is something every schoolboy learns in the playground. When a challenge is allowed to pass without a forceful response, the challenger is immediately emboldened into starting a program of escalating depredations. The greater the depredations, the greater the retaliation needed to end them. After a while, the level of retaliation needed to regain peace becomes so destructive that victory over the predator ultimately becomes a pyrrhic victory. It is, therefore, always preferable to take the first challenge very seriously, and to respond forcefully, even disproportionately, rather than ignore it or let it pass in an attempt to keep the peace.
Perhaps no film serves as a better metaphor for this than the controversial 1971 psychological thriller, Straw Dogs. Directed by Sam Peckinpah, and starring Dustin Hoffman and Susan George, this is the story of a young couple – David Sumner, a timid, American mathematician and, Amy, his rather puerile Cornish wife – who move to a farm in a small village in Cornwall, and quickly run into trouble with the locals.
Having hired four workmen to finish his garage roof, David becomes absorbed in his work and Amy, bored and craving attention, begins flirting with the men – one of these is Charlie, who has a previous history with Amy. David had encountered a status challenge early on in the film (see below), but he had chosen to ignore it, thus triggering idle talk and a progressive loss of authority before the workmen.
One evening, David finds their cat dead, hung by the neck in their closet. Amy claims the workmen have done it as a provocation, to prove that they could get into his bedroom. David, however, is a coward, and lacks the nerve to confront the workmen. Instead, he attempts to win their friendship, and invites them in for a beer. Amy is horrified, but David argues that he wants to ‘catch them off-guard’. She is not fooled, however, and, when David fails to mention the cat, as expected, she visibly loses respect for her husband.
The workmen suggest that he come duck hunting with them, and David agrees; but on the appointed day the workmen leave him stranded on a lonely moor, after promising to drive ducks in his direction. Charlie then goes back to the Sumners’ house and rapes Amy, who, after some resistance, soon appears to enjoy the violation. Upon finishing, however, another workman shows up, and forces Charlie at gunpoint to hold Amy down while he takes a turn at raping her.
After several hours of standing around looking like an idiot on the moor, David finally realizes that he has been had and decides to walk back to the farm. By the time he arrives back home it is dark, and he finds his wife in bed, disheveled and withdrawn; she does not tell him about the rape. David tells his wife how the workmen stuck it to him, but is patronizing — as he always is towards her — and makes himself look even more of a fool in the process; Amy rebukes him for his cowardice and failure to confront the workmen about the cat. True to form, however, David blames Amy for ‘pushing’ him.
The following day David fires the workers, but even at this point he does it nervously and with diffidence. Later, David and Amy attend a church social. Amy is haunted by the trauma of the rape, and David, noticing her discomfort (yet still unaware of its source) suggests that they leave early.
They do, but it is a foggy night and, on the drive home, they hit the village idiot, Henry Niles. David takes him back to the farm. Unable to reach anyone as he telephones for help, however, he eventually telephones the village pub, with whose landlord he leaves a message.
This proves a mistake, though, for Niles had earlier in the evening disappeared with Janice Hedden, a village girl, who was later found dead: the girl’s father, Bobbie, an unemployed drunk and Charlie’s uncle, was by the time of David’s telephone call out for blood. Upon learning that Niles is at the Sumners’ farm, he and the workmen, including the two who raped Amy, decide to go there.
All drunk, they pound the door of the Sumners’ house and begin breaking windows. David refuses to give them Niles, despite his wife’s remonstrations, deciding it is a matter of principle. The violence escalates until the local magistrate arrives; the latter, however, is shot dead by Janice’s father. At this point, seeing that there was no turning back, the workmen decide to pull all the stops, and begin a violent siege. David attempts to defend his home, but, eventually, defenses are breached and some of the workmen gain access to the house. One by one, however, David kills them all. The last scene is David driving Niles back to town, smiling.
The film was meant to be an exploration of violence, and Dustin Hoffman is said to have agreed to play David Sumner because he was intrigued by the idea of a pacifist who was unaware of his capacity for violence.
I, however, see the film as an exploration of pacifism, and I believe David Sumner illustrates rather well how stupid we must look to our racial competitors when we remain silent in the face of their depredations and rationalize tolerating endless forced concessions and humiliations. To them, we are David Sumner; to us, they are the drunken villagers.
The villagers are rough, uncouth, virile, hard, clannish, and menacing; they wear Wellington boots and coarse garments; they represent low cunning, brute force, excess, base instinct, and manual labor. David Sumner is polished, polite, feminine, soft, individualistic, and physically insignificant; he wears cloth shoes, cotton, and wool; he represents intelligence, pacifism, moderation, high principle, and mental work.
The sad moral of the film is that low cunning and brute force tends to be an effective strategy for resource acquisition. It is certainly also a universal one, which is favored by the bulk of humanity. And even if David emerges victorious in the end, we are forced to think of what he has lost: his cat has been killed, his wife has been raped, his home has been trashed, his peace has been stolen, and any goodwill he might still have enjoyed among the villagers has been fully expended. It is reasonable to speculate that he will have to move out and be tried for the deaths of the men he has killed — he might even be convicted for some or all of those deaths, and his wife might even leave him in the end.
Despite his intelligence, his high principles, and good will, the evil, lazy, drunken, and dumb workmen are unimpressed and they manage to take everything away from him — everything, including his sense of self, for through his final resort to slaughter, he abdicates the intellectualism, pacifism, and high principles with which he sought to define himself. All right, the workmen lose their lives, but what do they care? Their lives seemed rather useless anyway and they are dead, so they do not suffer their loss.
There are a number of key points in the film worth noting.
As Charlie rapes Amy, she is seen to become enthralled by his obvious masculinity, and she, accordingly, allows herself to be dominated. This scene was controversial at the time and instigated bans and cuts. Yet, it is probably one of the most educational scenes. There is no doubt here that she re-discovers in Charlie what her husband is lacking; even if only momentarily, her brewing contempt for, and anger at, her husband for his spinelessness is what causes her only to mount a weak resistance and to finally melt and embrace Charlie’s usurpation.
And despite the second rape by one of Charlie’s friends, of which Charlie is an accomplice, the two men subsequently show neither remorse nor worry at the prospect of David finding out. It does not seem to even cross their minds for the remainder of the film. Throughout it, both before and after the rape, the workmen remain tight and maintain a united front; the Sumners, by contrast, are divided: they undermine each other; she taunts him he ignores her; she is petty, he is patronizing; she rebukes him, he dismisses her; and, in short, they fail to act as a unit — to synchronize, complement, and synergize — which is one of the keys to a solid marriage.
Although Amy’s anger was triggered by the cat incident, David’s weakness and the fissures in their marriage, not apparent to her until that point, are revealed much earlier, during the initial scenes of the film. The latter begins in Amy’s native village in Cornwall. She has obviously been away with David in America, and has only just returned; David has obtained a research grant and the nearby farm is to serve as a retreat.
Amy encounters Charlie as David is loading the Sumner’s car with groceries, and Amy and Charlie engage in conversation. She attempts to show off her husband, telling Charlie about his research. But she does not explain it accurately, and David makes a patronizing and dismissive remark.
This is mistake number one: a married man ought never to undermine his wife in front of third parties; only a coward would do so to a loving wife, and only a man not interested in keeping his wife would thus invite others to steal her from him.
Then, David, upon learning that Charlie is unemployed, decides to hire him, as the workman he had previously hired to build the roof of his garage was taking too long. David asks for a cost estimate, but Charlie says simply ‘Reasonable,’ an unspecific answer that David accepts.
Mistake number two: if your money is on the line, you always demand precise answers; you always establish who is boss.
David then goes to the pub nearby to purchase a packet of cigarettes. Bobbie Hedden, hunched over at the bar and drunk, notices David walking in and facially registers his scornful disgust at the sight of David’s unmanly shoes; David, oblivious, looks immediately weak in the hard, working man’s pub, standing wide-eyed as he blows his nose. By the time he approaches the bar and orders his cigarettes — apparently the wrong kind, as far as the locals are concerned — he has already marked himself, not only as an outsider, but as prey: he speaks quietly and unassertively and is, accordingly, ignored by the barman.
Mistake number three: in a hard setting, hard presentational tactics apply; the moment the newcomer enters the scene he is under observation, and male observers begin determining his position in the power hierarchy; it is essential to confidently and unambiguously establish an assertive position, and to scare off challengers before they dare surface.
David then walks to the window and witnesses Charlie putting his hand around his wife’s neck, in a possessive gesture of masculine assertion. Charlie is trying it on, attempting to revive an old romantic flame. David watches the scene, says nothing, and does nothing; therefore, it falls upon Amy to rebuff him, which she does. Charlie backs down as David returns. Despite what he has just witnessed, however, his behaviour remains agreeable.
Mistake number four: self-explanatory.
Thus we see that the mock politeness of Charlie and his workers and, subsequently, their escalating transgressions have very subtle and fleeting points of origin. David, a classic introverted, intellectual type, attaches little importance to what I would like to call here ‘primate politics.’ He probably has never even thought about it.
Perhaps this is because David grew up in, and inhabited, a rarefied environment, where other people were very much like him, and where, therefore, he lived a sheltered existence. As a result, with offensive and defensive instincts very weak, power moments and status challenges pass either unnoticed or unacknowledged, with power and status gains invariably defaulting to the challenger.
This is very much analogical to the position of European-descended peoples in relation to the ever-growing presence of, and ever-escalating challenges from, immigrants from the Third World in Europe and across the Anglophone world.
European man is said to be the product of environmental evolutionary pressures that occurred in relative geographical isolation and, therefore, occurred away from intensive ethnic and racial competition. With the environment, rather than competing human collectivities, presenting the main source of challenges, group strategies designed for dealing with competition from the latter appear not to have been as important as those designed for dealing with the former: it could be that for European man intelligent cooperation, rather than cunning competition, proved more adaptive, and that, consequently, any inborn ethnocentrism became weakened or recessive.
Be that as it may, it is clear that modern European man unwittingly marked himself as prey long ago, and that he continues to do so now because, like David in the film, he encounters a psychological — and perhaps even a physiological — barrier when faced with the need to overcome evolved temperamental proclivities that were once adaptive but have become maladaptive in the changed human ecology of traditional White homelands.
Besides what I outlined at the beginning of this review, a key lesson of this film is the importance of being alert, of remaining vigilant, and even of being on the lookout for those subtle power moments that fly by in an instant, well before a visible, tangible challenge occurs. Before present negative trends became established, there were plenty of opportunities to pre-empt even their origin — yet we failed to notice them, and, when we did, we failed to act upon them, each time in the belief that it was only a minor incident, not worth the hassle and the unpleasantness of kicking up a fuss. Even the most minor of transgressions needs to be taken very seriously, and retaliation has to come fast and overwhelmingly.
Straw Dogs is a splendidly shot film, and both the interiors and exteriors are highly evocative, sometimes because of their bucolic charm, sometimes because of their natural beauty, sometimes because of their chilling grimness. It is also a film that perpetuates the tired old stereotype of rural and small-town Whites: the village’s tightly-knit community is portrayed here in a blatantly negative way, to the point where the villagers are quasi-animalistic, nearly deformed, and positively sinister.
This is likely to resonate with a Jewish audience, not only because the village is what one would imagine is every Jew’s worst nightmare, but also because Dustin Hoffman is so obviously Semitic in his physiognomy and — being cerebral, bespectacled, puny, urban, and high minded — a fairly common type of hero in Jewish American cinema. (Sumner’s swipe at Christianity at one point in the film contributes to this perception.)
Yet, for those who know and appreciate European village folk and the charms of living in a close, friendly rural community, the villagers in this film resemble not real life ones in Cornwall, but our new non-European fellow citizens and arrivals — although many of the latter are far uglier, far ruder, far more lustful, far more primitive, far more rapacious, and far quicker to engage in evil violence.
It works in this case, but such negative portrayal of Cornish villagers ought to be admonished all the same. The Duchy of Cornwall should have slammed the filmmakers with an immediate suit for defamation, if only to teach them a lesson.
This is certainly a strong and excellent film, even though made decades ago – and a must for its educational value.
[This is the article Alex Kurtagic spoke about on last Friday night's show with Dietrich & Mishko covering the BBC ambush on Nick Griffin as he sat on the discussion panel for the UK television show, Question Time. I will post the entire video of the show at the end of this article for those who wish to view what Alex is writing about.]
October 24, 2009
After much controversy, discussion, soul-searching, explanation, and legal posturing, BNP Chairman and Member of European Parliament Nick Griffin was allowed to participate in the BBC’s premier political television program, Question Time. The format of this show consists of a panel of politicians and public figures, sitting at a table, chaired by a moderator (David Dimbleby), and facing an audience inside a television studio. The purpose of the show is to perpetuate the illusion of a democratic society, whereby members of the public are given the opportunity to question politicians and public figures on current affairs issues in front of the nation. The show broadcasts from different cities every week, and average audience figures tend to be under the 3 million mark.
The audience for the 22 October 2009 edition — that is, the edition with Nick Griffin — was nearly 8 million viewers.
Nick Griffin is not new to mainstream television, having appeared on various news programs broadcast by corporate networks, including the BBC, ITN, and Sky. Appearing in Question Time, however, was different, for this is a one-hour forum, intended for mainstream politicians only. And this being the first time that the leader of a pro-White party was allowed to contribute his views to the political debate alongside mainstream politicians, the unrepresentative liberal clique that staff the present British establishment was terrified that Mr. Griffin’s appearance would cast the BNP as a credible party, thus increasing the voting public’s level of comfort with admitting sympathy for the party’s policies on race and immigration. The BBC bosses, however, perhaps because they relished the boost in audience, perhaps because they feared exposing themselves as the organ of liberal fascism that we all know they are, felt that they had better allow Mr. Griffin into their studio, deciding to remember that they are obligated to fulfill a charter of due impartiality.
I knew that the BBC would use every trick in the book to massively bias the program against Mr. Griffin, and ensure that he was properly and thoroughly humiliated. I knew that they would ensure that both the audience and fellow panelists were aggressively hostile. I knew also that they would focus their odion laserbeams onto Mr. Griffin for the duration of the program. I knew that they would make sure to keep the political discussion well away from relevant issues by dredging up the Nazis, the Holocaust, and the Ku Klux Klan. And I knew that Mr. Griffin would be interrupted at every possible moment and not given adequate opportunity to reply to accusations.
And, of course, I was not disappointed.
Caption from Mail Online: “On the offensive: Nick Griffin (right) left Jack Straw (left) speechless after attacking his father’s wartime jail spell.” In this video clip, Nick Griffin Labels his Question Time Appearance a “Lynch Mob.”
The BBC hosted the program in heavily multicultural London, thereby ensuring a strong presence by ethnic minorities while avoiding, by only technically fulfilling, their moral obligation to host an audience representative of the British population. And the BBC then invited Jack Straw, the (Jewish-descended) Justice Secretary, representing Labour; Bonnie Greer, a Chicago-born ultra-liberal Black playwright, author, and critic; Muslim Conservative politician Sayeeda Warsi, Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion and Social Action (yes, we now need a whole ministry to try to keep communities from exploding); and Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat’s home affairs spokesman, a socialist. The set up was almost cartoonish in its tendentiousness, to the point where I could not help but imagine the program makers standing around the kettle in the BBC kitchen, doubled up in hysterical laughter, with tears running down their faces, as they dreamt up ever more outrageous ways to pervert the program.
The resulting spectacle presented by the BBC was shameful. The panelists were childish, their arguments moronic, their ad hominems base, their sophistry unbelievable, their self-delusion even more so. And their fear, in the secret knowledge that their position in these troubled times is weaker and more precarious than the public realizes, glaringly obvious.
As to the audience, it was apparent to anyone with detectable cranial cubicage that the BBC had comically contrived to fill the studio with all manner of hooting apes, pious liberals, rabid anti-racists, self-hating Whites, irascible Blacks, militant homosexuals, and politically agitated Muslims. The audience also represented all manner of tricky demographics, including mixed-race British citizens, inter-racial couples, and descendants of Asian and Afro-Caribbean immigrants.
Accordingly, Mr Griffin was barely given opportunity to express himself on behalf of the million who voted for him: He was systematically attacked, he was seldom allowed to respond, he was almost never allowed to finish his sentences, and every minor hesitation or draw for breath was rudely exploited by his pitiless opponents. Mr. Dimbleby, who happens to be the president of the Institute for Citizenship, which issues resource packs aimed at promoting diversity and (get this) educating people about media bias, studiously tolerated this chaos. So much for due impartiality!
And, of course, all the while, an unwashed anti-White rabble of deranged, deformed, egg-pelting terrorists — sponsored by the government with tax-payers’ money — protested outside, having been frustrated in their attempts to prevent Mr. Griffin from entering the building or to have the BBC workers go on strike.
Mr. Griffin’s performance was not excellent. He was nervous, he faltered, he sought to be liked, to refute his media image as a hater, a Nazi, a racist, and a potential mass murderer in a suit, and he even made absurd attempts to ingratiate himself with Bonnie Greer. It seems harsh to rebuke him for being nervous: This is, to a large degree, physiological, and it is easier said than done to perform brilliantly in a psychologically hostile environment, in a situation that poses as a great opportunity, yet has been so carefully engineered to embarrass and discredit.
It also seems harsh to rebuke him for attempting to discredit the media portrayal of him as a nasty, hate-filled, and unpleasant hoodlum — no ordinary human wants to be perceived like that. Yet the nervousness is linked to what, to my mind, is the main weakness in Mr. Griffin’s position, so clearly exposed in the program, and to what motivated his attempts to make friends with those who despise him: As a politician, access to power and the media is a function of his being liked, and his being liked is a function of his perceived legitimacy as a politician, which is, in turn, a function of how much he is willing to conform to the liberal establishment’s ideological orthodoxy.
In other words, Mr. Griffin’s position is dependent on the favors and toleration of a corrupt power structure that abhors him and is fundamentally inimical to the interests of those whom he was elected to represent.
In the post mortem examination, Mr. Griffin will probably hope for sympathy and will re-evaluate his tactics. There is no question that his efforts to re-present the BNP to the public as a sensible party have yielded electoral results, and that, as a result, he has been able to reach a much wider audience.
There is also no question that many voters know that the only way to motivate mainstream politicians to listen to concerns they would rather ignore is to scare them with the threat of a so-called ‘fascist’ party coming to power. It was the BNP ‘threat’, after all, that motivated the Conservatives to make immigration a campaign issue in the 2005 general election. Moreover, it is true that major movements have had marginal beginnings — one has only to look at the Labour Party itself. It is therefore possible that the BNP could continue to grow.
Yet, the creeps that comprise the present establishment will never cede power voluntarily: they are absolutely ruthless and amoral, they are convinced of their own righteousness, and they will never permit a threat to their existence. If there is a lesson from Mr. Griffin’s appearance in Question Time, it is that, when dealing with the enemy, it is futile to be anything but perfectly frank in one’s hostility, vicious in one’s humor, and relentless in one’s aggression. However elegant the suit or polished the language, one has to be proud to be considered a monster, a beast, a demon, and never apologize for it, never feel one owes an explanation, never accept their terms, never empathize, never sympathize, and never issue an apology. One must encourage their fear, relish their discomfort, and revel in their demonizations.
Some might not agree with unconventional opinions, but they all respect what they fear.
It is painful to think of the opportunities that went unexploited in this program. In theory, it should have been easy to make the establishment politicians in the panel look like fools, for it is not as if their parties have not already supplied — through a lurid chain of failure, corruption, deception, embezzlement, and scandals of every stripe, all going back decades — ample ammunition with which to gun them down into the trench of discredit and professional embarrassment. They are vermin; a horripilating freak show of intellectual dwarves, equivocating slugs, fiscal leeches, snake oil salesmen, lying demagogues, pompous ideologues, toxic pedagogues, legal eels, media lice, economic burglars, political toads, crooks, cowards, traitors, cretins, weirdoes, academic fraudsters, and orangutanaceous buffoons. It should have been equally easy to ridicule their delirious utopian visions, for they have failed on every level, and the mess we are in is entirely of their making. No one else has been in power.
Peter Hain, Secretary of State for Wales, was furious Nick Griffin was allowed to appear on Question Time.
Unfortunately, Mr. Griffin’s desire for legitimacy and acceptance, caused him to temper his aggression and offer amiability: Much time was wasted in the effort to appear moderate by explaining, denying, or qualifying alleged remarks and previous statements, and not enough was invested in vigorously attacking the corrupt politicians and mediacrats, their lies, their cravenness, their slipperiness, and their catastrophic policy failures.
Mr. Griffin has performed much more forcefully on other occasions, and to his credit, he did go on the offensive several times, such as when he pointed out that during World War II his father had served in the RAF while Mr. Straw’s had been in prison for refusing to fight for his country. However, on the whole, despite presenting some sound arguments, he came across as defensive, almost obsequious, which hostile observers have smugly interpreted (for the ‘edification’ of fence-sitters) as evasion and as Mr. Griffin’s deceptiveness in the secret knowledge that he is wrong.
DuringWorld War II, Mr. Griffin’s father served in the RAF, while Mr. Straw’sfather was in Wandsworth Prison for refusing to fight for his country.(Jack Straw could have fallen foul of the law as well, had he not acted before the recent MP’s expenses scandal broke out.)
But he is not wrong. The aboriginals of the British Isles are White. They have never been, and will never be, anything else. They have a culture, a language, an identity, and a geographical space of their own. They are right to desire a White society. They are right to desire its continuity and prosperity. They are right to desire the ability to define themselves and to choose their own destiny. They are right to loathe and despise those who seek to take away what is rightfully theirs. They are right to wish the destruction of those who seek to destroy them. They are right to be vicious and ruthless in dealing with their enemies, because their enemies are vicious and ruthless too. They are right, and the Left is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, forever wrong.
This issue transcends British politics, because the same applies everywhere else across traditional White homelands. Utopian liberals dream of cohesive communities of multicultural diversity where very different groups live in splendid, impossible harmony, followed by a homogenized brown world were everyone looks the same, earns the same, and thinks the same. For utopian liberals equality is the ultimate goal, the key to happiness and human progress. If the price is the destruction of genius, the suppression of individuality, and the irrecoverable loss of beauty, so be it. It is monstrous, perverse, insane. Yet they are absolutely determined to realize their vision.
If we are to stop them, if we are to survive them, we have to embrace the Nietzschean maxim and dare to be ourselves. To be assertive and devoid of qualms in the pursuit of glory — of glory defined by us, for us, and in our terms. To not care what they think, to scorn their friendship, and be prepared to eat them, lest they eat us first.
Let us hope Mr. Griffin’s appearance has cured the hopeful of any illusions that this is anything but an all out war to the finish.
I write because the future is not what it used to be.
I know, because I have lived in it. My parents had overseas jobs during the 1970s and early 80s, and, consequently, I spent part of my childhood and early teenage years in Latin America. Venezuelan schools — at least at the time — taught their students that the country’s population was racially diverse, going from White to Black, with eight shades in between. Schoolbooks stated that these ten shades of skin color — each with a designation and a definition — were the result of intermarriage between three original populations: the native Amerindians, the Spanish Conquistadors, and the Black slaves. The educational narrative was matter-of-fact, but prevailing attitudes on the ground suggested a tacit ordering of social status that loosely correlated to skin pigmentation: whites were at the top, blacks at the bottom. Not surprisingly, whites were wealthy and in positions of authority, while millions of their dark-skinned counterparts were poor and lived in slums. Skin pallor was a valued asset among women. There was no obvious racial hostility in the air, however, beyond the occasional playground taunt: outside the most rarefied of gated communities, racial diversity was ubiquitous in everyday life and accepted as a fact.
Some years ago it became fashionable within the Western media class to use Venezuela’s larger and better-known neighbor, Brazil, as a paradigm for the future. Anything Brazilian was, accordingly, promoted as fun, colorful, sensual, and exotic. The desire to one day “tour South America” became a fashionable memetic consequence among British women. This highly idealized image of multiracialism — the image of the tropical paradise, like Cuba but with more money — however, was wildly at variance with the reality that I had experienced decades before, when conditions there were much better than they are now. It is a clear case of bait and switch: the future that is being prepared for us by our government, academic, and media class is far from paradise.
Living in the future is extremely frustrating: you have to endure frequent power outages and brownouts; the bureaucracy is at a permanent standstill, unless you have friends, relations, or money to grease the necessary palms; your property is constantly at risk of being stolen by burglars, muggers, and pickpockets, unless you keep within gated communities and protect your car and real estate with alarms, bars, cages, armored doors, and combination keys; nothing works as it is supposed to: the infrastructure is grim, out of date, derelict, broken, vandalized, gone, not yet built, or altogether out of the question; your money evaporates in your hands, frequent prey to high inflation and hyperinflation; 90% of your fellow citizens are poor; governments are so inept and so corrupt that a revolution and a spell of military dictatorship — usually Communistic in ideology — is always just around the corner; if you live in a city and there are hills, these are covered by slums and shantytowns; low cunning, scams, shirking, and an ethos of short-term selfish advantage prevail over intelligence, honesty, hard work, and long term benefits; roads are poorly maintained, cracked, potholed, badly illuminated (if at all), and extremely dangerous, particularly at night: cars are often roaring rust-buckets and their drivers more unbelievably selfish, childish, and aggressive than you thought possible; motorists who drive with their windows open are likely to be mugged or to have a water bomb thrown at them while waiting at a traffic light; it is tradition for university students to be attacked on the first day by their older peers with eggs, paint, beatings, and haircuts; military service is always mandatory; industrial labor disputes in lead to intimidation and goons tailing managers on the motorway; and the prevailing attitude anywhere and everywhere is that you are guilty until proven innocent, a liar until proven honest, an idler until proven industrious, and a scam artist until proven a man with real talent and desire to work. The future, in short, is a highly dysfunctional place, where mediocrity has triumphed over excellence, and crushed and suffocated the latter, until its expression either becomes impossible or only lasts a few seconds before it is stolen or vandalized by a human marabunta of smirking idiots, ruthless desperados, and petty criminals. If a nation is as good as its human capital, upon which, ultimately, its institutions, governance, enterprise, morality, and efficiency depend, then, as our demographics converge with those of the Third World, the above is what we can expect to see with increasing frequency, until it becomes the norm.
I do not want that.
Yet, I am persuaded by the evidence — evidence of long-term demographic decline among European-descended peoples; evidence of intellectual fraud in modern academia on issues pertaining to European history and identity; evidence of dishonest reporting in the mass media on issues of race and immigration; evidence of a corrupt political establishment that actively works against the interests of the people whom they were elected to represent; evidence of increasing assertiveness among ethnically-defined groups with aggressive anti-White agendas — I am persuaded by the evidence that convergence with the Third World is what we have heading our way in Europe, North America, and elsewhere.
My observations suggest that the future is so grim that it seems rather silly to worry about being called names today, when the price of avoiding it is perpetual horror tomorrow. Any temporary social discomfort or inconvenience arising from voicing an unconventional opinion today will never be as bad as those that will accrue from keeping the peace — not only because they will be bad, but because they will also be permanent and irreversible.
It could well be the case that full convergence will not be arrived at until after I am gone. But even it takes that long, even if it affects me a lot less than those that will come after me, I would not want to be remembered as a spineless “respectable conservative,” who kept quiet and let it all happen, because he was too scared of being called this, that, or the other by the cowards, the criminals, the imbeciles, and the vicious haters of European man that made the world what it is. Even if we reach the Leftist dystopia — the world of Mister — within my lifetime, I want to be able to say to my children and my grandchildren, that I did everything I could to prevent it. Needless to say, however, that I would rather not have to give them any explanations — that I would rather tell them that we had terrible structural disruptions following World War II, but that we took care of them and everything turned out all right.
It is puzzling to me that so many of my fellow Europeans seem to care so little for their culture and the civilization that their ancestors built over the past few thousand years. Perhaps it is because they take it for granted, because they are ignorant, because they are miseducated, because they are misinformed, because they are so focused on their own petty pursuits to notice what is happening around them, or because European civilization has been powerful for so long that they cannot imagine it collapsing and disappearing. In some cases, it is certainly because they are afraid: afraid of being ostracized, of losing their jobs, or losing their livelihoods — it is easier to pretend that the unpleasant realities they notice or otherwise hear about, that the apocalyptic scenarios prophesied by the likes of us, are but paranoid delusions dreamed up by a fringe clique of freaks, weirdos, rejects, Hitler fetishists, and nasty psychopaths — and that we are all equal, and that humans of any description, given equal amounts of food and opportunity, can produce the philosophy, the music, the science, the literature, and all the rest, to the same degree and with the same frequency that we have.
It is puzzling to me, because it seems rather obvious to nearly everyone else on Earth that European man has created an enormously attractive civilization. They value what we have more than many Europeans do. That is why immigrants would rather die among us than return home, as has so eloquently been made clear by the millions who risk their lives, and put up with any humiliation, every year, in order to reach our shores and have a piece of the European El Dorado — here in Europe, in North America, in Australia, and in New Zealand. They probably cannot believe their ears when they hear our politicians, our academics, our media people, and our liberals, extol the virtues of multiculturalism. They probably cannot believe their luck, and at the same time they cannot believe how stupid we are, to give it all away so freely and so easily, even to the point of attacking, persecuting, prosecuting, fining, and imprisoning the very few who openly object.
Like many of my coevals, I have found myself living in a sick world. Yet it is easy to see that there is an etiology and a point of infection, and that, for the moment, although the infection is far advanced, it can still be successfully treated: the pathogens — liberal utopians, corrupt careerists, ethnic radicals — are known and localized, and, while finding the cure may require research and an investment of time, nerve, and effort, said cure is within reach of intelligent minds. I may not be able to restore health to the European organism on my own, but as nature has been generous with me, I feel it is my civic duty to actively contribute to this effort. It is my hope that through my creative energy I may be able to leave the world a little better than I found it.
Ten years ago, I lived in, and worked from, a one-bedroom flat in East Finchley, London. I had a large, rectangular living-dining room area, part of which was my office. My day would begin with the arrival of the postman before 9 in the morning, which brought packets with CDs and orders from customers; it would continue with the daily processing of orders, answering of emails, and preparation and mailing of packets; and it would end with research and development work.
At 7pm, however, I stopped and switched on the television — invariably to watch the news. And from that time on, until I went to bed, and interrupted only by occasional bouts of guitar playing, I would remain seated or lying down on the sofa, in front of the television, watching show after show — anything ranging from the mildly entertaining to the least tedious of whatever was on offer. On Fridays I stayed up later than usual (watching television), and on weekends I switched the device on even earlier, and remained hypnotized by the screen into the wee hours of the morning. I calculate that between 1994 and 2001 I averaged over 7 hours per day, 50 hours per week, 2,548 hours per year, and 17,836 hours in total — a PhD takes approximately 7,300 hours to complete.
Fortunately for me, I was not entirely unproductive during this time: between 1995 and 1998 I composed three albums, drew many album covers, and taught myself high-end computer programs; I also weight trained three times a week, had girlfriends, and found time to read a fair number of cognitively-stimulating books. (The latter included Tipler and Barrow’s The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Roger Penrose’s The Emperor’s New Mind, Preston’s Franco, Coveney and Highfield’s The Arrow of Time, plus some classic fiction.)
However, since the Summer of 2002, when I put an end to my TV addiction, I have often asked myself: How much more could I have accomplished in my 20s, had I not wasted so much time on an ultimately unrewarding and unproductive activity? And: How much better prepared I would have been to meet the challenges of the dystopian future I anticipate in my novel Mister(a future that is coming) had I spent that time learning about whom and what is behind the world I live in, instead of remaining submerged in (and distracted by) the feel-good fictions that have been designed to conceal them.
There were, of course, good reasons for this addiction. Because of moving and changing schools frequently (particularly during my teens), I would typically make friends one year and have to start all over again the following year. It also meant that all my girlfriends during that period moved away mid-way through a relationship. The frequent disruptions were aggravated by the fact that people like me, who have grown up in countries with different cultures, have a poor track record of making close friendships and keeping in touch with those with whom friendships are made (see: Dr. R. A. Bergemann’s Global Leaders: A Review of the Globalite Culture [forthcoming]).
The result was that, during the nineties, my having a thriving business designed around myself and based at home, away from family and friends, soon led to a hermitic existence. Television thus became a substitute for real human interaction — and one that suited me well, as not having to deal with people calling in, visitors, flat mates, or regular social or family obligations enabled me to work any and all hours on my business and my projects — which is what I wanted to focus on.
My television-watching habit formed during childhood. My parents were very focused on their corporate careers and I was an only child, so, from the age of seven onwards, I spent most afternoons after school on my own (before that my parents had a maid). The school bus would drop me off, I would let myself into our apartment, and from four o’clock onwards, I would watch television. My parents would arrive home in the early evening, my mother would cook me dinner, and we would all sit down to watch television until I was sent to bed around 9:00 PM. Of course, being a creative type, I could not simply sit there for 4 or 5 hours in a vegetative state. Throughout my childhood I made thousands of drawings while in front of the television. I also wrote down all the numbers from 1 to 10,000, twice; catalogued and memorized every American car model build between 1940 and 1979, plus all the Mercedes Benz models; and learned to tell which number code corresponded to which shade and which description in the entire Berol Prismacolor pencil range.
In the face of such intensive exposure to the medium, my view of the adult world beyond my parents inevitably came to be shaped by television — not so much the children’s programming, however, but the incessant cop shows my parents enjoyed watching: Kojak, Canon, McCloud, Starsky and Hutch, Columbo.
This is apparent in the cartoons, comic strips, and animations I drew as a child, as well as in my choice of Lego constructions: I drew and built cars, with which I then re-enacted the car chases I had seen on television (especially the ones from the 1978 film, The Driver; watch them here and here). It also influenced my writing: at the age of 12 I wrote a 15,000-word Columbo-style murder investigation story; and even over a quarter of a century later, my novel Mister ended up with substantial police interrogation, police station, and police detention cell scenes, satirizing the ones I must have seen on the gimmicky cop shows I was bombarded with during the 1970s. The degree to which my worldview became shaped by what I saw and heard on television, however, only became apparent years after I quit consuming its content.
I was always aware that I was an avid consumer of television, yet it was not until January 1995 that I first realized that I had become psychologically dependent on this medium, and that it filled an enormous cognitive space in my life. When my television set broke down and I was forced to leave it at the repair shop for a week, the sudden silence at home proved acutely unsettling. Access to a CD collection mitigated somewhat the oppressive stillness around me; but this was before I had access to the internet, and music could not replace the link to the outside world that the television had been providing for me — if in its own mediated and distorted way. And the grimness of my material circumstances at the time was certainly of little help. I quickly scrambled for a substitute, which I found in a small radio alarm, and this sustained me — barely — until I recovered my television set. I sighed with atmosphere-rippling relief when I was finally able to plug it back in and switch it back on.
Like many people, there were programs I would not miss for anything, and I structured my life around the television schedule. On occasion, this led to truly absurd situations. Later that year, for example, Creative Review, a monthly magazine showcasing some of the best contemporary advertising, design, illustration, new media, photography, and typography, designated me the best magazine illustrator of the year, awarded me a prize, showcased me and my winning illustration in their The Annual double issue, and had my illustration exhibited at the Royal College of Art, in London, where they held a reception. Instead of rushing to attend the latter, however, I chose to stay at home and watch a nuclear — but completely irrelevant — parliamentary exchange between the then Conservative Home Secretary Michael Howard and his shadow in the Labour Party, Jack Straw, on an issue to do with the prison service. I did eventually make it to the reception, but it was near the end. And, sadly, I did not even regret my choice.
Another time I became conscious of my psychological dependence on television was when I moved to a semi-rural, Victorian three-bedroom cottage in Surrey in October 2000. Prior to moving, I had made sure to schedule with Sky (the United Kingdom’s largest satellite television provider) a dish installation the very next day after I moved in, because I was absolutely determined not to miss out on an edition of a particular documentary I was following at the time.
Awakening and Reform
Television had become for me — as it has for many in the West — an electronic drug, and, after 27 years of continuous exposure to it, had circumstances remained unchanged, I might have never cured myself of this habit — or even found a reason to try. Fortunately, however, three events took place between 2000 and 2001 that loosened the medium’s hold on my mind.
Firstly, I signed up to Sky in May 2000. This suddenly gave me access to hundreds of channels and led to an initial surge in television watching. However, in due course the effect of increased choice was to narrow my television diet to strictly circumscribed categories: in my case, it was mainly news, space documentaries, and science fiction films. Such a monotonous diet eventually made it easier to derive progressively less satisfaction from television — a process identified in 2002 by researchers investigating television addiction.
Secondly, David Irving lost his appeal to Judge Gray’s decision in his defamation suit against Deborah Lipstadt. BBC Radio 4 reported Irving’s defeat in the Today program, where he was aggressively interviewed by John Humphries. I had not followed the trial, or even been aware of it, until April 2000, when Irving’s original defeat led to his being interviewed on television by Jeremy Paxman on the BBC’s Newsnight. The radio report of Irving’s travails led me — because I like to hear both sides of an extraordinary story — to his website, which provided access to an alternative perspective on the world.
It was the interdisciplinary process of attempting to determine whether Irving was telling the truth or was indeed a forger — as was claimed by the mainstream media — that made me conscious of how histories, and historiographical methodologies, can be — and indeed are — a process whereby politicized factions with competing power agendas attempt to construct self-serving versions of reality, in the attempt to gain or perpetuate cultural hegemony. The interaction between this research and my undergraduate training in art, video, sociology, and media, encouraged me to take an increasingly critical view of what I was presented with by the television screen.
And thirdly, 9/11 took place. I had my own personal link to the twin towers, having stood inside them as an astonished 5-year-old in December 1975; but, most importantly, the moment I saw the smoking ruins on the television screen, and learned of the hijacking, I knew beyond any doubt that the attack was a consequence of the American government’s pro-Israel foreign policy in the Middle East. The research I conducted in my attempts to better understand the event brought Neo-Conservatism into relief and led me to the inevitable controversies surrounding Zionism in America and Jewish power and cultural and economic influence.
Not surprisingly in retrospect, enlightenment brought depression. On the one hand, it was fascinating to discover that there was an entire layer of reality about which I had been completely ignorant, and which imbued existence with a new level of complexity — and danger. On the other hand, it was depressing to find that the present historical trajectory led, not to the future of mind-blowing technologies, space exploration, and scientific discovery that I had come to imagine through my exposure to science fiction, but to a gloomy future of cultural decline, universal poverty, state-sponsored oppression, and intellectually-orchestrated racial extinction.
Once awakened to these realities, it became increasingly difficult not to notice a persistent and all pervasive pattern of semiotic bias and deception encoded in all Western television and general media content. Moreover, it became increasingly easy to identify how this content had been designed, sponsored, or otherwise shaped by plutocratic, ideologically-harmonious, and often tribal cliques, who had an interest in anticipating and neutralizing opposition to their nefarious order through conscious or semi-conscious strategies of public distraction, disinformation, enculturation, and infantilization.
I came to see, in other words, how television was not simply a provider of entertainment for its brainless audiences, a source of employment for its frivolous professionals, and a font of profits for its money-hungry proprietors; but also a cognitive anesthetic, which encouraged a non-threatening, system-preserving lifestyle of superficial and trivial knowledge, political conformity and passivity, and narcissistic and pleasure-oriented consumption. A society whose populace is ignorant, sedentary, and materialistic is not a society whose academic, political, and media establishment fears its dislodgement and disprivileging by violent revolution.
It eventually proved a normal and logical step one evening in the Summer of 2002 to make a conscious choice not to switch on the television, and instead attack the system that wanted get rid of me by educating myself and eventually becoming involved in some form of oppositional activity. I never looked back.
View from the Other Side
My new life as a non-consumer of television instantly yielded significant benefits. Suddenly I had seven hours extra per day to invest in learning and creating: I recorded my third album, and composed and recorded a fourth; I read hundreds of serious, non-fiction books, plus the Greek and Roman classics; I learnt a third language and began learning a fourth; I completed a postgraduate degree; I grew my social capital; I began writing novels; I met a talented and beautiful girl and married her; and much more. I believe I have achieved and contributed twice as much in my 30s than I ever did in my 20s.
The beginning of this new life was defined by a vehemently negative attitude towards television: Angered by having wasted so much valuable time, I was, as is perhaps normal and natural, possessed by the zeal of the converted. As time passed, however, this attitude matured into one of scientific detachment, and I was able to dip in and out of the medium, to obtain what I needed, without fear of a relapse. (Indeed, my wife, who never knew me as a television addict, cannot imagine me suffering from such a condition.)
It came to seem a sociologically interesting phenomenon how the television set is the physical and psychological axis of most Western living rooms; how evening news reports and analyses are often repeated — verbatim and unquestioned — in office conversation the following morning; how well-educated professionals vehemently reproduce attitudes that are often illogical or counter to their interests simply because the latter have been normalized by television; or how highly intelligent viewers develop obsessive relationships with particular shows and strong attachments to fictional characters, living vicariously through them.
What struck me the most, however, was the degree to which on-screen behaviors, utterances, and juxtapositions of sounds and images that I had as an addict accepted as normal suddenly appeared blatantly ideological, gimmick-ridden, revisionistic, and grotesquely artificial. I always knew that this was to be expected of any film or program by tribally-oriented directors and producers like Steven Spielberg or Spike Lee, but the fact was that this applied even to the most unlikely and seemingly innocuous of programs, where the same iniquitous politically correct, anti-White, hedonistic, materialistic, postmodernistic messages were encoded and disguised in quasi-subliminal metaphor. (In Mister I satirized this by writing into my dystopian future the existence of an underground, Esoteric Hitlerist version of Space: Above and Beyond.)
The medium’s style and content, in short, which in the past had remained invisible to me as a taken-for-granted property of the medium itself, subsequently became in my mind dissociated from the latter and distinctly foreign: It suggested a group personality that was over-verbal, highly-neurotic, emotionally intense, liberal, urban, cosmopolitan, and (despite the apparent contradiction) authoritarian — attributes that Kevin MacDonald has identified in various 20th century Jewish intellectual movements.
And, in this context, it became particularly alarming for me to see my neighbor’s teenage son avidly consuming episodes of Friends, and having his worldview subconsciously and progressively shaped by its writers and their ilk, for these had — by then to me obvious — views, attitudes, and aspirations that in important ways conflicted with those of European-descended peoples. The reverent references to Freud seen in shows like Frasierwere just the tip of the iceberg.
A Simple Act
Given the pervasiveness of television as a medium in the West, and the dependency of its content on the munificence and toleration of small, interlocking cliques of individuals with highly compatible political, ethnic, economic, and/or cultural interests, it is difficult not to take a political view. Mine is that, if you are not satisfied with the status quo, if the future being decided for you in the top echelons of power seems bleak, if you believe you are ruled by a hostile or heinous establishment, one of the first acts of resistance available to you is the practice of an embargo on that establishment’s principal weapon of mass distraction: television.
A hypoglycemic coach potato dozing off in front of a televised boxing match, a metrosexual modeled after his twitchy counterparts in Friends, and, in general, a self-satisfied, superficially-minded consumer who is not given reason to question the modern myths of social progress and endless economic growth, may occasionally complain about lying politicians (meaning perhaps a little more than he dares to say). But such a person is unlikely to lead an armed insurrection or otherwise become actively engaged in ousting a noxious establishment.
And because it is a source of propaganda, television is particularly effective at neutralizing the most highly capable elements in a population (see Jacques Ellul’s Propaganda). Therefore, boycotting television is freeing up your mind, your body, and swathes of creative time that can be profitably invested in self-improvement, relationships, networking, preparation, opposition, and change.
It bears thinking that every minute that a person spends on a productive activity while everyone else is sitting at home watching television, that person has an edge and is taking control of his destiny. If he sustains the effort, and channels it effectively, he may one day come to shape events, while television viewers remain shaped by them.
Commentators and theorists on the right often focus on macro events, vast conspiracies, historical morphology, evolutionary trends, and civilizational collapse — and this is all well and good, as it needs commenting and theorizing upon. But the emphasis on metanarratives and metapolitics can infuse a sense of despair: Events are too large for a mere individual to have an effect, it seems.
This is a mistake.
The truth is that the great changes taking place out there had small beginnings, and often enough began with a single individual performing a simple act. That those changes have grown into an omnivorous monstrosity owes not to their inevitability, but to the absence of an informed, focused, and effective opposition.
On occasion of my 39th birthday, my wife organized a holiday in the Lake District in Cumbria, in the North East of England. While there we visited England’s Pencil Museum, where we learnt much about the invention and manufacture of the pencil, a tool that spawned a huge industry in the region during the Victorian era. One of the most remarkable exhibits in the museum (aside from all the weirdly-shaped Derwent pencils) was an enlarged photograph of a group of male Victorian pencil factory workers. The photograph was not remarkable because of the antique machinery or the outmoded attire of the men, but because of their faces: these were uniformly stern, grim, serious, and ferocious, to the point where they inspired an exclamation of amazement from my wife. Indeed, as is often the case when one looks at photographs of men from the 19th century – and particularly working class or rural men — the image in the museum provided yet another sample of the hostile frown, ice-cold blue eyes, and troglodytic beards and angrily scowling moustaches that appear to have been common during the days of the Industrial Revolution and the frontiersmen of American Old West.
When my wife and I discussed the photograph afterwards, there was no question in our minds that there had been a pronounced deterioration in the quality of the White male since the days of yore, and that the etiology of this deterioration implicated the comfort and superabundance of modern life. Granite-hard facial surfaces, primitive gurns, and ocular lasers, signaling assertion and social dominance, have given way to doughy flaccidity, placid smiles, and amused festive glances, signaling agreeability, docility, and frolicsome distraction.
I subsequently met with Jonathan Bowden, the Nietzschean British artist and gifted Right wing orator, with whom I once again discussed the contrast between modern and Victorian physiognomy. He mentioned, as one of various eximious examples of physiognomic severity, the early photographs of Shakers, adherents of the ascetic Protestant religious sect otherwise known as the United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing.
And the photographs of Shaker assemblies I subsequently examined on the internet were very grim indeed.
Notable in all these images to modern eyes are the sharp gender distinctions, and the harshness of the archetypical male. Since early 1900s the tendency has been for masculinity and femininity increasingly to converge, for distinctions to be blurred, and for transgressions to become socially acceptable and protected by law.
During the Victorian era (1837–1901), conceptions of masculinity were grounded on historically specific power relations among Christianity, science, industrialism, empire, and man.
The Victorians valorized manliness as a restraint on the brutishness of primeval maleness. Thus, by extension, the Victorians, influenced by Christianity, idealized the notion of man as spiritual and a faithful believer. This was tied with the notion of patriarchy: a Victorian man was the head of his household, duty-bound to rule firmly, but also to provide for, and protect, his weaker dependents: his wife and his children. The need to provide, especially in the context of the industrial revolution, caused work — being active in enterprise — to become an essential element of Victorian masculinity, particularly among the middle classes: Work became associated with virtue and strength, whereas being a burden on the public was associated with sin and weakness. And, because being active in enterprise was a way of signaling masculinity in a social climate where work and home were segregated spheres, this in turn caused clubs and taverns to thrive as non-domestic venues of masculine display.
With the advent of Darwinism and the rise of biology and the natural sciences during the second half of the 19th century, the spiritual ideal gradually gave way to a physical ideal, leading to the cultivation of muscle and a belief that the education of the mind was predicated on the cultivation of the body. Interest in physical health raised the social status of athletes, and fuelled the growth of games and sports, which were then channeled into the public school system.
The cult of muscle also gained importance in the context of imperialism, the physical conquest and domination of non-Western cultures. Masculinity was bound with military duty and the ideal of the adventurer, the pioneer, the explorer, and the hunter: physically formidable, hard, enduring, stoic, self-sufficient, and equipped with a vast scientific knowledge. In other words, a well-educated mind in a well-educated body.
Of course, only the most bestial aspects of this are in evidence in the photographs of the brutalized working class of Victorian England, for conditions in the factories of the era were so grim that they eventually destroyed the bodies and obliterated the minds of those who fell into, and were ground for 16 hours a day by, its mechanized maws. Wage slavery, filthy slums, and weekend drunkenness could only produce faces of animal rage, deformity, lead poisoning, exhaustion, indifference, and a measure of bemusement and suppressed perplexity. Images of the Victorian working class stand in marked contrast with the stiffly dignified portraits of the upper classes. Yet they both exude their own brand of male fury.
The Victorian era coincided with the period we in modern times associate with the American Old West, which spans the second half of the 19th century. Victorian immigration to the wilderness of North America only helped to make the Victorian ideal extreme. The stereotype of the cowboy / frontiersmen of the Old West includes many of the above-listed attributes, only reduced to their most primal and rugged forms, until we are left with the somber, laconic, emotionally-detached, inexpressive, solitary, lawless, fiercely independent, almost misanthropic, ice-cold, and often violent man of nature, small frontier settlements, and drunken bars and saloons, popularized in Western films and implied in 20th century Marlboro advertisements. The reality in the American Old West, however, seems to have been more extreme than that suggested by Marlboro man, because when compared against the real cowboys and frontiersmen in the photographs from the 1800s, Marlboro man is, in fact, quite effeminate.
We must not, however, allow our ancestors to romanticize themselves with these images. Photography was a new technology during the 1800s, and being photographed was not a familiar experience to most people. Having one’s photograph taken was an event, which took time and preparation, and which one imagines people took seriously. The state of the technology also allowed little room for spontaneity, making portrait photography more akin to portrait painting. Therefore — and especially among the middle and upper classes — what we see is not an accurate reflection of how people were in everyday life, but rather an exaggeration: a reflection of how they wanted to be seen and remembered, which is perhaps even more important.
The Industrial Revolution that defined many of the old notions and attitudes gradually ushered in a world that the Victorians could have scarcely imagined. If modern man appears weaker and frivolous to us in relation to our 19th century ancestors, the probable etiological factors are not difficult to find: the accelerating cultural shift from a society based on quality to one based on quantity, made possible by mass production and aggravated by a capitalist logic that dictated the need for products with inbuilt obsolescence; the entrance of women into the labor force; improvements in medicine and public health; progressive declines in Serum Testosterone levels; a series of radical egalitarian movements, such as Marxism and Feminism; political correctness; the growth of the welfare state; the growth of credit-based economies; the triumph of the Left following World War II; the dismantling of the European empires; and, since the end of the first half of the 20th century, a long period of peace and economic prosperity and expansion.
Industrial production caused overall standards of living to rise in the West by giving ever-growing numbers of people access to tools, precision instruments, household goods, and machinery that previously were either impossible or confined to the very wealthy. Time and energy that would otherwise have been spent on mindless chores was freed up, creating social conditions that necessitated a lower overall level of discipline: Since only a small minority of people are highly creative or self-driven to productive activities in the way that born artists or entrepreneurs can be, it is easier to become placid, soft, lazy, and less conscientious — in other words, to grow weak — when an electrical appliance, a robot, or a computer relieves its user of the need to be resourceful and make a focused, consistent, and detailed effort over a long period of time. (Let us remember that one of the methods employed by boot camps to instill discipline is the assigning of mindless, tedious chores, such as the daily and fastidious polishing of boots.) It is also easier to grow weak when a broken tool, appliance, or household good can be replaced relatively quickly and cheaply with the swipe of a credit card, and the tool itself is so flimsily made and has become so rapidly obsolete as for it to make more sense to simply throw it away rather than attempt to repair it and maintain it.
The entrance of women into the workforce significantly increased the supply of labor, causing real wages overall significantly to fall. Fifty years ago it was still possible for a middle class man to own a house, a car, and a full complement of furniture and goods, and also maintain his wife, children, and their pets, with his salary alone — and this at a time when credit was not as easily available and ubiquitous as it subsequently became. This contrasts sharply with our present times, when spouses aspiring to an equivalent standard of living must now both work full time and, even then, are often forced to postpone children and amass credit card debt. In a cultural and social context where women have been encouraged, by increasingly radical forms of feminism and by the ever more fiercely competitive and challenging economic environment, to adopt male roles and traits, the erosion of male economic power and independence has stripped many modern men of the material means with which to maintain their status as heads of their households.
The economic and status convergence of men and women has been further aggravated by the leveling downward effect of the welfare state. The latter’s relentless expansion has necessitated the introduction and enforcement of ever more extensive, intensive, and intimidatory government-sponsored asset confiscations (popularly known as ‘taxes’). The process, still ongoing, penalizes industry and ambition, destroys motivation, and concludes with the citizen’s complete economic dependency on the state, whereby a man (and a woman) is thus reduced to the status of a child. I remember that by the mid 1980s, while living in The Netherlands, some white collar workers already preferred to avoid promotions (lest the consequent higher salaries put them on a more punitive tax bracket). Many able-bodied, sane males of working age preferred to opt out of the labor market altogether, and simply live on welfare. It is easy for a non-creative, non-self-driven person, to grow weak when living idly for years on government handouts, without the discipline of daily work.
The infantilization of Western man on the economic front has been accompanied by his infantilization on the moral front. Political correctness, with its detailed and strict speech and behavioral codes and restrictions; the legislative regime that has grown out of it, with its strict system of rewards for conformity and punishments for deviance; and the monitoring and surveillance apparatus that has been implemented to enforce it, is not substantially different from the methods authoritarian parents employ to train their children.
And this is because the modern nanny state does indeed seek to treat men like children: to tell men what they can and cannot say and do, and give them an allowance.
The expansion of the nanny state is, of course, predicated on the triumph of Marxism, an ideology that pretends that all humans are equal in value and potential, and which tells mediocre men that inequality of outcome in life is not the result of mediocrity, but the result of a system of unequal opportunity, designed by a selfish ruling elite that seeks to perpetuate its power. While Marxists would argue that their discourse gives hope to those to whom it is denied by so-called genetic determinists, and that a powerful and paternalistic state apparatus is needed to prevent one class gaining dominance over another, I would argue that their discourse also absolves the lazy, the mediocre, and even the malevolent of responsibility for their substandard performance and failures. In Victorian times welfare was based on deterrence: Workhouses were made as miserable as possible in order to discourage people from becoming burdens on the public.
Inextricably linked to the above processes is the growth of credit-based economies. While credit, when used judiciously, can be a useful tool for enabling enterprise, the relative fall in wages, the tourniquet of predatory taxation, and the enervating urges of the consumer culture (particularly when the latter is understood in terms of status display among hyper-social primates) have made credit a necessity for survival. The increasing availability of cheap and easy credit in the final decades of the 20th century fomented a high-velocity culture that put a premium of immediate gratification and discouraged consideration of long-term consequences. It also enabled many, if not most, to live well beyond their productive capacity. If in the past the acquisition of large or costly assets necessitated the ability to work and save — to delay gratification — consistently over a long period of time, the proliferation of credit cards with aspirational and ever-expanding credit limits, has in modern times obviated the need for such discipline — particularly as until very recently it appeared that there was always another credit card and/or another loan available once credit terms and limits had been reached. If fiscal incontinence is a sign of weakness, the consumer culture in the post-industrial West has rewarded weakness for many years.
Medical advances and improvements in public heath, combined with the growth of the welfare state, have had a similar effect, encouraging dysgenic fertility and allowing the weak and the sickly, who would have otherwise suffered reduced fertility and an early death, to live normal, reproductive lives. If this is indeed the case, this has led to a progressive genetic deterioration of modern populations. This is Richard Lynn’s argument in his book, Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations.
Recent research has shown, in addition, a trend of progressive declines in Serum Testosterone, at least in American men. The causes are not entirely explained as yet — they could range from estrogen from seepage from plastic bottles for drinking water to birth control pills that have flooded in the water through the sewage system. Testosterone is also lowered when men lose contests or are in a submissive posture (see here and here). It requires little imagination to suppose that ceding social and political dominance to the multicultural has lowered White men’s testosterone.
The triumph of the Left following the end of World War II allowed Jewish intellectual movements to radically undermine, discredit, and marginalize the inegalitarian, evolutionist, militarist, and racial nationalist discourses that had been culturally acceptable in the West throughout the second half of the 19th century and until the middle of the 20th century. The dismantling of the European empires further intensified this cultural shift by removing the perceived need for the cultivation of the physical and moral strength required for a role of leadership and dominance over non-European cultures around the world. The old discourse and media images that glorified aggressive traits (strength and dominance) gave way to a new non-aggressive discourse of agreeability, guilt, contrition, reparations, and apology. Americans need only watch an episode of the wildly popular hit TV show Friendsto sample the degeneration of masculinity into metrosexuality. Watch the 1948 film Scott of the Antarctic and witness the difference.
“Masculine” Images in Friends
The scope and reach of the processes, tendencies, and shifts discussed above would have been limited without the extended a period of peace and material prosperity that we have enjoyed in the West since 1945. It is not inconceivable that a war or a major economic collapse could interrupt these processes and reverse at least some of the shifts that took place during this period.
In sum, if images of contemporary White males suggest the latter are somewhat less formidable than their 19th century predecessors, we owe this to a confluence of social, cultural, economic, political, and historical factors.
I do not wish to convey the impression that I believe life was superior in Victorian England or the American Old West, or in the 19th century in general. Modern life has many advantages, particularly for those with creative capacity. And were Western man living in homogeneous societies in geographical isolation, the debilitating trade-offs of modern life could well have proven justified, in the absence of natural predators.
The problem is that with advent of global communications and easy travel, we are no longer able to thrive in geographical isolation, and we are no longer able even to choose our neighbors. Non-European populations, attracted by the comfort, convenience, relative stability, safety, and material abundance of our complex and technologically advanced societies, are increasingly encroaching on our vital space and aggressively competing for resources. I do not blame them, but not resisting this effectively ends with Whites being oppressed minorities in their own traditional homelands — and, eventually, with extinction. As both space and resources are finite, the non-Europeans’ gain in political representation, economic power, cultural influence, and demographic presence is necessarily our loss. And after over a century of de-muscling, and after over sixty years of progressive intellectual and moral liquefaction, at present we are no longer adequately equipped to hold on to our culture, our ancestral homelands, or our genes.
It is this that makes comparing the stern frowns of the men from the 19th century against the frivolous grins of the men from the 21st a chilling experience. Men of 19th-century caliber have not entirely disappeared, but they are a dwindling minority. I hate the thought of having to rely on the fruity queens that pass for 21st century men, as illustrated in the photographs accompanying this article, for the preservation of European culture and way of life.
20th century man is obsolete: Averting total loss at the hands of the younger, hungrier, more vigorous non-European populations in the 21st century will necessitate our sacrificing some of the conveniences and comforts that made 20th century man possible. The other side, already contemptuous, is hoping that we will prove too lazy, too complacent, and too deluded to do so.
In this show, Dr. Tom Sunic and Alex discuss the social underpinnings of Alex’ dystopian novel Mister, a must-read to comprehend the Western endtimes. The plot takes place in the not too distant future, in the European city of Madrid. Both in terms of the language and style, this fine book is comparable to Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints. Also discussed is black metal music and its meta-political message and its promotional uses.
Tomislav Sunic’s recent article, Who is an Anti-Semite?, brings to the fore an important question that has been insufficiently discussed within our circles, and which must, nevertheless, be the complement to any debate about White displacement and multiculturalism. That question is: How are we to redefine our attitudes towards non-Whites in a context where Whites are being forced to compete for resources under the gaze of a hostile elite?
As Sunic points out, in both Europe and America, White attitudes towards Jews have come to be defined in modern times by mendacity and intellectual servility. Faced with a political, academic, and media establishment — the current masters of discourse — configured around a colossal concentration of Jewish power, Whites have not only trained themselves to avoid Jewish wrath by keeping any critical opinions about Jews to themselves, but they have also learnt to curry Jewish favor by flaunting their admiration for Jewish superiority and achievement, by piously demonstrating their conformity to Semitically-correct cognitive structures, and by loudly championing Jewish causes — even when these run directly counter to White interests. Sunic correctly suggests that, in as much as this fuels Jewish hubris, such an unhealthy relationship approaches a limit where it exists one crisis away from detonating into violent anti-Semitism.
The phenomenon is not confined to Jews, however, because inasmuch as the political, academic, and media discourse has come to be defined by a succession of highly-influential Jewish intellectual movements that have over time discredited White racial consciousness and affirmation, White mendacity and intellectual servility also permeate — just as unhealthily — White relations with other racial groups. Thus we end up with a situation where, out of fear of or a desire for favor from the present masters of discourse, Whites dare not protest, and even applaud, their own displacement and dispossession by a rainbow coalition of hair-trigger Blacks, thermonuclear feminists, in-your-face homosexuals, vengefully reproductive Hispanics, and agallimaufry of ethnically-motivated intellectual terrorists.
For Whites, such a state of affairs makes no tactical sense. Any relief or advantage that Whites may gain now from dulcifying their racial adversaries will be more than cancelled out if Whites end up an oppressed minority in their own traditional homelands, with nowhere else left to run on planet Earth. It is infinitely preferable to accept the discomfort of being called names now, because the more time passes, the worse the consequences of appeasing the name-callers will become, and the more radical the subsequent corrective measures will need to be — if they are to have any chance of success. And even then, there is a limit to how long we can postpone the unpleasantness, for the consequences of appeasement will eventually become permanent and irreversible.
Of course, were it purely a matter of logic, we would easily win the debate over White displacement and multiculturalism, because our arguments are amply substantiated by science and history. The problem is, however, that we are not dealing with rational processes: we are dealing with psychological processes that stem from an innate human need for belonging and self-esteem, which have been successfully exploited by the masters of discourse, and which are notoriously impervious to logical argument.
Because self-esteem is largely dependent on social legitimization, humans are unlikely to risk opprobrium without a pay-off that is both comparable in character and superior in extent. This is particularly true of what I call “respectable” Whites — status-conscious Whites whose self-esteem is dependent upon meeting the accepted definition of respectable in a social context whose moral tenets conform to the establishment formulation. Because “Respectable” Whites will typically find any pay-off for pro-White dissidence either negative or not immediately apparent, these “respectable” Whites will sooner buttress their socially-sanctioned anti-White attitudes with absurd self-justificatory sophistry and rationalizations than visibly defend their own collective racial interests.
“Respectable” Whites are prevented by their fear of opprobrium from accepting that there is nothing wrong with criticizing, or even disliking, members of a particular racial group because they exhibit characteristics that are in fact more common among that group.
Further, “respectable” Whites are conditioned by their fear of opprobrium to forget that we all have our own individual preferences, and that no one can possibly like everybody: After all, a great many people can be downright irritating, obnoxious, stupid, embarrassing, and, sometimes, malevolent and radically opposed to everything we hold dear. These Whites are prevented by their fear of opprobrium from finding it natural that individuals, even if likeable on a personal level, may well have interests that conflict with those of Whites because of a group self-identification.
“Respectable” Whites are at present incapable of honesty in race relations because they conflate criticizing or disliking entire groups of people with rudeness, crudeness, ignorance, lack of culture, lack of intelligence, moral turpitude, and psychiatric disorder. This is because the masters of discourse, being excellent tacticians and consummate stylists, have very effectively promoted that conflation both in academia and in the mass media of news and entertainment, where racially-conscious Whites are persistently portrayed as primitive nincompoops whose company no self-respecting, cultured, intelligent person would ever seek or tolerate. The stereotype of the White hillbilly from the American South, dysgenically inbred, gap-toothed, jug-eared, and of negligible cranial cubicage, is a well-known — and socially acceptable — weapon of mass embarrassment.
Media Image of Whites
Because the underlying psychological processes are irrational, the war against White racial consciousness is waged on an infra-rational battlefield, through a controlled flow of highly stylized images, memes, and sound bites. The latter are readily identifiable, as they are invariably regurgitated — almost word for word — every time a racial infraction has been committed: “There is no place for racism in the 21st century”; “Hitler and the Nazis killed six million Jews”; “Such views are abhorrent and I deplore them.”
None of these are logical or substantive arguments. Yet, together with the progressive disappearance, slander, and stupidification of Whites in big-budget film, television, and advertising, they comprise a semiotic strategy that is integral to the Leftist anti-White project, and more effective than any logical argument. As I have argued before, mastery of style trumps superiority of argument every time.
Effectively combating the anti-White mental poison will require us to mirror our enemy’s tactics through the development of a semiotic strategy our own — notfor the enemy’s consumption, but for the emotional benefit of the “respectable” Whites whom the enemy have so thoroughly terrorized. Only then will the positive pay-off of pro-White dissidence become apparent to this self-effacing constituency. The data and the arguments already exist, and they are quite substantive; what is missing is the shiny packaging.
In the current cultural climate, in a society where power has its basis on money, it might seem impossible to elaborate a convincing semiotic strategy with which to sell pro-White dissidence to “respectable” Whites. When the masters of discourse have the power to frustrate the achievement of academic, professional, social, and economic status (i.e., the usual sources of social legitimization upon which self-esteem largely depends), attempting to suggest that incurring the wrath of these masters is likely to pay off might justifiably appear unrealistic and naïve. Few have the stomach to be martyrs or impecunious revolutionaries.
Yet, the fact is that Whites still possess a considerable demographic advantage, they still concentrate an enormous amount of talent, and they still control most of the wealth within their own traditional homelands: Enough opportunities exist within alternative networks, therefore, to remain economically active, and even enjoy material security, without subservience to the present political, academic, and media establishment.
Moreover, there are plenty of alternative networks — call them subcultures — that have successfully grown in demographic presence, economic power, and cultural influence, despite being defined, in some cases, by radically anti-establishment ideologies. The Black Metal music subculture, wherein I operate a record label, is an excellent example. The Neo-Folk music subculture is another. And the Martial Industrial music subculture is yet another. All, it should be noted, possess well-defined and highly stylized semiotic systems. And while the latter are informed by ideology, it is their auditory and visual appeal that first gains a following.
Most importantly, however, any semiotic strategy that we develop can easily exploit the fact that dissident subcultures confer upon its members feelings of intellectual and moral superiority. This stems from their being in a select minority that possesses information that is unknown within (and is often too harrowing for) a self-deluded and mendacious mainstream. This already applies within pro-White activism and related circles (and has also long characterized Jewish intellectual and political movements), but in our case it has not been self-consciously stylized and repurposed as a marketing tool —not since the fascist movements of the 1930s.
Unity Mitford in Munich, 1937. Clad in a Fascistoid, Futurist style.
Finally, and as contradictory as it might seem, given the fact that pro-White activism aspires to achieve mainstream status, any semiotic strategy that we develop must emphasise elitism and exclusivity. These values are closely associated with the idea of belonging to a dissident subculture with access to secret knowledge. They are also highly compatible with the worldviews — Nietzschean, Conservative Revolutionary, Radical Traditionalist — prevalent among racially conscious Whites.
The integration of these values into a stylized semiotic system is essential if the latter is to successfully capture the imagination of “respectable” Whites who otherwise would rather arrest their continuing displacement and dispossession. It makes people feel good when they belong to something special, and making something special necessitates a semioticized system of status levels and barriers to entry that recognises worthiness and achievement but is not open to everyone. Why otherwise do so many in democratic societies — democratic societies that loudly proclaim their commitment to equality — voluntarily create and subject themselves to authoritarian structures, eagerly making financial sacrifices and enduring all manner of trials and humiliations as they strive to attain membership in an exclusive club, lodge, circle, or society?
The need to market themselves with a view to improving performance in electoral contests has forced pro-White political parties like the BNP, Jobbik,Vlaams Belang, and the NPD to improvise their own semiotic laboratories. In capitalist economies, however, where people define themselves according to what Jean Baudrillard called “the system of objects,” the valorizing of Whiteness needs to be encoded in a wide range of high-quality, visually-distinct, style-conscious, and ideologically-informed commercial products, so that their consumers may surround themselves with a feel-good message of self-affirmation while the designers and manufacturers of these products enhance the economic power and social status of racially conscious Whites. In as much as these products will necessitate an alternative consumer media within which to advertize them and alternative advertizing agencies to design the advertisements, the pro-White message could well develop into a marketable proposition.
The end product to aim for is a parallel universe, comprised of alternative institutions, media, and markets, that legitimates Whiteness and is poised for a cultural reconquista once the present establishment is sufficiently weakened by its own cultural bankruptcy and corruption.
So long as we persist in relying solely on logical argument and in dismissing style as a superficial pursuit, however, we will remain a clique of middle aged, angry White men, slanderously cartoonified by our enemies in the derisory manner that best suits their purpose. Our enemies became masters of the discourse by first being masters of style; they understood that humans would rather look good and feel good and be accepted in a social context than maintain a factually correct position. So long as we fail to match our enemy’s astute understanding of the irrational urges that motivate human behaviour, we will remain on course to be remembered in future histories as the extinct human race that always apologized for itself with the timid preface, “I am not racist, but…”
One would think that an award-winning journalist writing for a national “quality” newspaper and with access to some of the most eminent personages of the age would be capable of penning an intelligent article about an unconventional politician, providing novel insights and depth of analysis where his lesser peers would have been content with a facile regurgitation of clichés. Unfortunately, we live in an age when, not originality of approach or sophistication of insight, but blind subjection to Freudo-Marxist dogma and crass fealty to the state-sponsored party line are the key to achieving recognition in a journalistic career.
Nigel Farndale’s recent piece for the Daily Telegraph on the launch of the British National Party’s European election manifesto offers yet more evidence — if any was needed — of the vulgar extent to which the mainstream media routinely insult the intelligence of educated readers and seek to manufacture opinion in an effort to perpetuate the existing establishment, of which they are a part and the main organ of communication.
I have never been a member of a political party and I have no links to the BNP, but, quite frankly, I am tired of the crude attempts constantly made by the mainstream corporate media to get me to hate this particular organization. Their techniques deserve exposure.
Political analysts expect the BNP to benefit substantially in the upcoming electoral contest from the recent corruption scandals and the catastrophic policy failures afflicting the main political parties. Yet (and as is typical whenever the BNP is in the press), instead of offering his readers a unique insight into the BNP’s leader, Farndale has treated them to an odious effusion of bigotry, replete with invidious cartoonifications, tendentious phraseology, loaded ellipses, malevolent punctuation, snide quotation marks, bizarre logic, deliberately wrong-headed assumptions, and a slew of sniffy, hostile, self-righteous a prioris.
Mr. Farndale begins by suggesting that politics outside what is offered by the likes of Gordon Brown and David Cameron (and by implication, the “respectable” political parties) are decidedly illegitimate: a sinister, semi-criminal endeavor, existing in an underworld dominated by violence and fear. This is rather comical, considering that, not only have Labour and the Conservatives been exposed recently as a malebolge of corruption (staffed by a shadowy freakshow of venal kleptomaniacs), but they also offer nearly identical propositions — policies that are decidedly illegitimate and dominated by violence and fear: more immigration, more debt, more support for Israel, more Islamic extremism, more foreign wars, more political correctness, more state surveillance and terror, and more and higher taxes and inflation to pay for it all.
Mr. Farndale’s characterization of the BNP’s cautious logistics is also perversely disingenuous, considering that BNP members have for decades been subjected to state-sponsored harassment, intimidation, and violence at the hands of prognathous Marxist hoodlumswhose conception of a political debate equates reasoned argument with clubs, boots, and knuckledusters.
Mr. Farndale reports surprise that patriotic, professionally employed men and women dared stand in front of the BNP meeting venue sporting red, white, and blue BNP rosettes — not because he is concerned this might pose a security risk for them, but because in his mind patriotic, professionally employed men and women vote for either Gordon Brown or David Cameron. In Farndale’s world, the town should have been up in arms, shouting truculence and waving pitchforks in the air, hounding the rosette-bearers out of town, out of the country, out of the planet, out of the galaxy, out of the universe, and out of existence altogether.
It does not occur to him, even though he refers to last year’s leaked party membership list, that when the BNP assert in their slogan “People like you voting BNP,” that “people like you” is meant to refer, not to Whites, but to normal, happy, family-oriented people — people like those comprising much of the aforementioned membership list — as opposed to, as Griffin confirms in the subsequent interview, the orangutanaceous skinheads Mr. Farndale and media people like him portray them to be.
He does, however, imply that the “white van men and nightclub bouncers you would expect” (who is “you”?) are abnormal people. Admittedly, they might not be the most loved of species — after all, who among the liberal elite has any sympathy for working class White people, who are most impacted by the piledriving of multiculturalism into the United Kingdom. But, surely, in as much as they are not effete metrosexuals, fashion-conscious literatti, hirsute ball-busting feminists, Molotov-throwing Marxists, profligate New Labour embezzlers, cosmetically-enhanced celebrities, exploding Islamists, aggrieved Black revisionists, academic fraudsters, kleptomaniacal plutocrats, militant homosexuals, pious egalitarians, or some of the other zoological specimens of equally perplexing taxonomy that comprise the Left’s core support base, they are probably more normal than the likes of Mr. Farndale are prepared to admit.
Curiously, however, Mr. Farndale reproaches the BNP for using what he terms “the language of otherness, of fear.” Yet, is he not using the same language when reporting on the BNP’s European election manifesto launch?
Farnsdal’s language of otherness is evident when he reports that the mainstream parties — whose remit, in a sane world, ought to have been the representation, defense, and advancement of British interests, both at home and abroad — are so terrified of the BNP that they either refuse to even name the party in their public discussions or are already spending taxpayers’ money to “stop the BNP” – in other words, to limit, restrict, and eliminate taxpayers’ options at the ballot box. One would have expected Mr. Farndale to ask, in outrage, What kind of democracy do we live in, where democratically elected politicians plunder the public purse to prevent a democratic election from taking place?
Unfortunately, Mr. Farndale did not ask this question, and seemed rather to tacitly approve of such totalitarian practices — some could well argue they are worthy of Maoist China. And is it surprising, then, that BNP supporters regard the mainstream political parties as a single block, more interested in perpetuating themselves than in safeguarding people’s freedom of expression, both inside and outside the ballot box?
Another of Mr. Farndale’s exasperating contradictions is his equating with thuggishness and lack of patriotism any concern for the ability of Britain to preserve its indigenous customs, traditions, and way of life, as well as its right to choose its destiny in a manner that fits the desires and sensibilities of the peoples who built and defined the character of the nation. He writes:
Grotesquely, given the British were fighting the Nazis in the war, Griffin compares June 4 to D-Day…
— somehow forgetting that the war was fought ostensibly to preserve the British way of life. Where is the inconsistency with the BNP policy?
Outrageously, in his mind, it is ‘thuggish’ to vocally oppose Islam’s conquest of Britain — an already ongoing process, anticipated by the Archbishop of Canterbury and yearned for by our now disgraced Justice Minister, that would be accelerated by the accession of Turkey into the EU, since Britain, by virtue of its wealth and relatively generous minimum wave legislation, would indeed attract millions of low-wage Turkish Muslims, who, like earlier Commonwealth imports, would in time desire progressively greater juridical recognition, concessions, and accommodation.
I wonder if Mr. Farndale, a married man, has contemplated the prospect of British women being treated as second class citizens, forced to wear burqas and undergo cliterodectomies and infibulations, as is the case in a number of Muslim countries, for if Islam ever becomes the dominant religion in this country, British laws and customs will eventually be changed to reflect Muslim priorities, sensibilities, and traditions. It would be naive to think that a shrinking, ageing, deracinated, fearful, self-apologetic, guilt-ridden White minority could ever persuade dominant Muslims to adopt Western customs they deem degenerate. And, once Turkey is in, what next? Syria? Iraq? Iran? These are all Turkey’s neighbors. If he has contemplated this prospect, and is still perplexed by the BNP’s lack of enthusiasm for it, Mr. Farndale’s conception of patriotism is very peculiar indeed.
In the second half of the article Mr. Farndale focuses on the BNP leader, Mr. Nick Griffin. Mr. Farndale is obsessed with racism: Does Mr. Griffin think he is racist? Is his party racist? If not racist, how does Mr. Griffin define racist? Could the “People Like You” slogan not be considered racist? Since there are a lot of racists in Britain, would it not make sense to admit that the BNP is a racist party? Why does the BNP, as a party whose purpose is to look after the interests of White Britons, not admit Blacks and put them in their posters?
Mr. Griffin’s answers are quoted at length, but his arguments are left unexplored. Why? Is not the task of a journalist to investigate and report? One imagines Mr. Farndale squirming as he listened, horrified, petrified, blown away by Mr. Griffin’s mind-blowing racism, heavily perspiring, trembling, barely able to write it all down, and dismissing Mr. Griffin’s replies out of hand as so perverse as to be unworthy of investigation. For want of an explanation, one also speculates that Mr. Farndale regards Mr. Griffin’s arguments as a deviously-formulated cognitive virus, designed to alter the human brain structure upon first contact, and instantly transform its victims into vicious racists, anti-Semites, Islamophobes, and prison-proof Holocaust deniers. The public must be protected from this contagion!
Mr. Farndale self-righteously states that he thinks it a shame that there is a party that seeks to look after his interests as a native Briton, and that seeks to preserve the customs, traditions, and way of life that was defined his ancestors, many of whom gave their lives in order so that he may have a country where he could feel secure and at home. I think it is a shame that Mr. Farndale thinks this way, even if the BNP is an imperfect instrument: The BNP is currently the only pro-White party that has a prospect of scoring electoral victories (I would like it to be bigger and better and for there to be more); the mainstream parties are all actively working in dismantling Britain, vandalizing its culture, consputing on its traditions, and promoting policies that will lead to the physical destruction of its people — down to the genetic level, so they may never rise again.
At best, the political establishment thinks that by blending all humans together — by creating a standardized, homogenized, pasteurized human — they will create a utopia where there will be no war, because everyone will be exactly equal, neither rich nor poor, neither clever nor stupid, neither beautiful nor ugly, and, in sum, reduced to a generic civic unit of production and consumption, perfectly interchangeable and replaceable by any other human, and perfectly malleable and dull. At worst, they think “Pah! Who cares if I sell out? I won’t be here to see the result. I will take the money now and live in luxury while I can!”
Whether it is because of ideological commitments, the economic logic of party funding, their fear of being called names, combinations thereof, or all of the above, it makes no difference: The end result is the same.
Mr. Farndale has been spoiled rotten, but it would be unfair to single him out for denunciation and obloquy, for he is not atypical of Western men of our generation: He has enjoyed a lifetime of security and prosperity, without personal experience of what it took to obtain it; he has lived in one of the world’s richest and most preeminent nations, without personal experience of what it is like to be an ethnic minority under the heel of a hostile race with cultural and religious values very different from his own. To this effect, it would be interesting to see if Mr. Farndale lives in an implicit White community, or in a Muslim or Black ghetto. I’ll wager it’s the former.
My point is that it is easy to be a prissy multiculturalist from a position of security; to be a bleeding-heart egalitarian from a position of dominance; and to be a self-righteous Marxist from a position of comfort. Leftist historiography might serve to assuage the guilt of wealthy, socially-conscious idleness, but the fact remains that Britain was built not by self-apologizing, compassionate, comfortable, easy-going, liberal, and politically correct metrosexuals, but by intelligent, ambitious, disciplined, strong, brave, and formidable White men — men whose descendants come from Europe — who actively and openly strived for betterment and glory.
I read with interest Douglas Olson’s TOQ Online article “Why We Can’t Wait,” and I cannot fault the argument that taking corrective action sooner rather than later is always going to be the least costly option, for the longer present trends are allowed to continue, the more extreme the measures that will be required to alter them.
Olson is also correct in pointing out in “Whites – Are We Still Worthy?” that much of the reason for white inaction is the fact that, notwithstanding the decades of concessions to the Left, whites are still relatively comfortable; they are still wealthy and they are still able to find, albeit admittedly in diminishing quantities, geographical refuge and juridical sanctuary. The loss of status, wealth, and safety that entails attempting to destroy the established order are unattractive when viewed from a position of social respectability, economic comfort, and physical security. Because the short-term pay-off appears higher, therefore, mobilizing the not-very-ethnocentric whites to pursue their long term ethnic interests will necessitate first experiencing the hardships of disenfranchisement and minority status. And even then, this mobilization might not occur until there is a crisis serious enough to make life unbearable, because hard choices are rarely made unless precipitated by a crisis, and many whites will still prefer to make do and suffer in silence rather than risk even greater hardships by provoking the wrath of a non-White-dominated police and juridical apparatus. People tend to have no (or a not very strong) opinion on most important issues unless there is a crisis serious enough to catalyze the formation of strong opinion and force the choosing of sides.
There are, however, circumstances where severe conditions are not required. In fact, everyday life is replete with examples of large masses of people being mobilized into action, even when it runs counter to their long-term interests and the immediate material pay-offs are almost non-existent. In some cases, people are mobilized into giving up comfort in favor or discomfort.
Many will remember when the film ET was released. At the time I was astonished to learn how millions of people were mobilized to drop everything and watch that silly film. I remember people queuing for hours, and hearing reports of many watching the film dozens of times, some weekends several times a day, while it was still in the theatres.
Net material benefits? Zero: these people spent hours in standing position, surrounded by crowds of strangers and screaming children, spending money, eating junk food, getting headaches, and sacrificing many hours of their time that they could have spent much more productively, profitably, or comfortably elsewhere. They did not grow richer, become wiser, learn anything of vital importance, or gain any awards.
Why did they do it?
Because the film was fashionable.
It is a demonstrable fact that people care less about being right than about being in with the right crowd. Social identity theory predicts that the interaction between the innate human need to belong and the innate human need for self esteem results in individuals selecting social identities based on evaluative dimensions that validate who they are because they are likely to register a good level of performance along those dimensions. Therefore, a person with a high IQ is likely to consider IQ an important evaluative dimension and likely to find his self-esteem enhanced by, for example, making membership of a high-IQ society part of his identity. Conversely, a thoughtful person who prides himself in being moral will likely avoid memberships and affiliations that, in the eyes of his family and circle of friends, will suggest he registers poorly along the dimension of morality – even if he inwardly agrees with the people he shuns. Ultimately, individual choice has more to do with self-esteem as derived from social acceptance than with objective truths.
This problem is further compounded by the fact that that the barriers for entry into the realm of objective truth are much higher than the barriers for entry into the realm of some form of social acceptance: extricating the truth from the sea of opinion, conjecture, unverifiable claims, and disinformation that surrounds our lives is laborious, risky, and difficult, and the social rewards for doing so can often be very negative.
Those who persist in the face of social rejection typically belong, and rely, on alternative social networks that validate an identity based on opposition to the mainstream. These networks replicate the proud pariah phenomenon evident in extreme Metal music subcultures.
This means that the most vital element in any strategy aimed a selling an unconventional idea to any number of people is not so much the quality of the ideaper se (or the arguments deployed to sell it) as the quality of the packaging, and the latter’s potential to enhance the consumer’s self-esteem in a social context.
In other words, rather than telling people something is good for them for x, y, z reasons, it is best to show them that what is on offer is very cool indeed, and will cause observers to exclaim “Woah! I want to be like that!”
Never mind if the majority vigorously opposes an idea: if the idea is packaged in a manner that inspires awe and envy and captures the imagination, miscreants can be dismissed as clueless, lumpen nincompoops, too stupid, too uncouth, too weak, and too craven to belong to an exclusive club of elite men and women.
Dazzling graphic design, jaw-dropping style, addictive music, well crafted prose, infectious slogans, and a distinctive look exuding quality and personality will gain converts much more rapidly and efficiently than any debate, political tract, or manifesto. Indeed, if deployed in a sufficiently dexterous manner, style-oriented tactics can even transform defiance, arrest, and even martyrdom into fashionable acts of subcultural integrity and authenticity. Militant Marxists, eco-terrorists, road protesters, and animal rights activists, have known this for a long time. The lesson of the 1960s (and indeed of the 1930s) is that style needs to be at the forefront.
Did not the Nazis’ well-formulated aesthetic – their uniforms, their flags, their anthems, their charismatic and distinctive-looking leader, and their huge motor vehicles, play as significant a part in gaining converts as did the global economic depression at that time? I doubt that without the prominent element of self-conscious, seamless, and technically proficient stylism the Nazis, or the rainbow coalitions of the 1960s and beyond, would have got as far as they did.
Note that I am not necessarily saying that the cause of European man will be won by wearing designer suits and driving Maseratis. Even if nothing succeeds like success, style must not be equated with luxury. The old Western films were highly stylized, for example, but they were also rugged.
What is important is that, whatever it is, the style projects quality, excellence, and uniqueness – qualities that confer upon the people adopting the style the sense of belonging to something special and above the norm. If the pay-off in self-esteem in a social context is sufficiently high, individuals will not mind making sacrifices.
Of course, even scintillating style without substance will be transient and short lived (see Obama, for a recent example). But style with substance is an irresistible combination. If European-descended peoples are in a predicament at present, I suggest it is because substance has been emphasized at the expense of allowing the Left to become consummate stylists, and be in a position to generate a regular supply of stylized sounds and images with which to dazzle and gain converts to their cause.
I recently watched the BBC documentary series, Tribe (Going Tribal in the US), which originally aired between January 2005 and September 2007. In the series, former Royal Marine instructor Mr. Bruce Parry visits remote tribes in Africa, Asia, and Oceania, and spends a month living with each as a participant observer. The idea is to interact with the tribesmen, adopt their customs, and take part in their rituals in an effort to understand their lives.
In the series, we see Mr. Parry eat the unthinkable, don a penis gourd, undergo penile inversion, ingest powerful hallucinogenics, and subject himself to ornamental mutilation. It is an extreme form of ethnography, turned into mass entertainment.
The series was especially interesting to me for two reasons. First, in the episode Cannibals and Crampons, where Mr. Parry spends a month living with practicing cannibals, the Kombai in the forests of West Papua, the expedition party (consisting of Mr. Parry, Mr. Mark Anstice, and a local guide) makes first contact with a tribe never previously known or observed. We are given the opportunity here to witness, if vicariously, how humans who continue to live today as our ancestors lived tens of thousands of years ago react to an encounter with what are effectively highly-evolved descendants visiting from a distant future (more on this later).
Kombai tribesmen in New Guinea
Secondly, it was possible to observe obvious parallels between the behavioral patterns, emotional proclivities, and styles of communication, dress, and bodily adornment prevalent in the prehistorical communities featured in the series, and those of their near genetic relatives in modern, urban environments in the developed world. Against this backdrop, the subcultures of urban Blacks in America in particular, emerged not as idiosyncratic responses to slavery and racism, but simply as reformulated expressions of desires and sensibilities that have their roots in a tribal past.
That the parallels are resilient enough to hold across time and space and radically different environmental conditions will not come as a surprise to anthropologists who accept the influence of genes in human behavior. Indeed, these parallels are efficiently explained by J. Philippe Rushton’
s Race, Evolution, and Behavior (1995). In this sense, because of its illustrative power, Tribe is educational in a manner that no anthropological tract or table of statistical figures could hope to be.
Among the African tribes showcased in the series, we see a preoccupation for status display through prominent and extreme forms of bodily adornment, such as lip plates, jewelry, and scarification. We see a tendency to glorify violence and for neighboring tribes to remain locked in perpetual conflict, involving frequent raids and bloody retribution. We see a tendency towards very pronounced expressiveness in communication, and, outside combat mode, for masculine body language to involve, in contrast, an almost lethargic, lazy calm.
We see a tendency to engage in extreme performances and acts of body modification in order to be deemed desirable by members of the opposite sex—
matched by relatively loose emotional ties. We see, finally, a tendency for life to unfold at a generally slow pace: outside of the hunt for food (which is never conducted in a hurry), long stretches of diurnal inactivity are punctuated by ritualistic performances involving dance and music of a vocal / percussive nature (this slow pace of life contrasts sharply with the constant activity of the cold-dwelling Nenet, in Asia, also featured in the series).
These traits can still be found today among Blacks in Western urban environments, where lip plates, beads, and scars may have given way to gold toothcaps, diamond-studded gold chains, and tattoos; elaborate tribal gear to dandy zoots; Suri stick fights to Gangsta Rap music videos; cows to Bentleys; cattle raids to muggings and robberies; bows and arrows to pistols and Uzis; tribal warfare to gang warfare; cattle jumps to Rap concerts; polygamous hunters to promiscuous players; outlandish shamans to exuberant preachers; ritual dance and music in the village to ritual dance and music in the church.
Woman of the Suri Tribe of Ethiopia
A genetic explanation for the resilience of these parallels, despite centuries of geographical and cultural isolation in markedly different environments, might partly elucidate why access to the wealth, infrastructure, and technology of White societies has not erased or fundamentally altered existing behavioral, cognitive, and emotional traits among post-colonial Blacks in Africa. Rather it has amplified their expression.
Because of this amplification, sociocultural differences between Blacks and Whites have become more pronounced. It would be simplistic perhaps to characterize this process as a post-colonial process whereby Black populations have become more dysfunctional. Michael Levin, Richard Lynn, and J. Philippe Rushton, writing from different perspectives, have suggested that behavioral, cognitive, and emotional traits that are sometimes deemed dysfunctional in White societies are, in fact, normal for Black populations.
If these authors are correct, this would furnish a powerful argument against the effectiveness, and indeed the wisdom, of White-sponsored development programs in Sub-Saharan Africa and other developmentally “retarded” parts of the world. Indeed, decades after decolonization, and despite ever-growing mountains of aid money being thrown at the Dark Continent, violence, famine, disease, and economic failure — even in formerly prosperous colonies like Rhodesia and South Africa —
have flourished and remained endemic.
Theories of development uphold the belief that, given enough investment and education, sub-Saharan Africa can develop itself into something equivalent to the West, save minor anatomical differences. To my mind, those theories are profoundly dubious.
Firstly, they are elaborated on fallacious a prioris, such as the idea that the region needs to be developed, and that development necessarily means convergence with modern Western paradigms, such as capitalism, free markets, democracy, and progress.
Secondly, they rationalize their own failure by attributing it to an imperfect implementation of these Western paradigms, as opposed to the futility of introducing them in the first place. Development theories ignore that the peoples indigenous to the region have a suite of traits and abilities that in important ways are very different from those of European-descended peoples.
Development theories also ignore the fact that the abstract philosophical concepts, the legal relations, and the technology and infrastructure of European societies reflect the desires and sensibilities of European-descended peoples. This is because the traits of European-descended peoples that predispose them to these phenomena were adaptive responses to a unique set of environmental conditions — conditions that were very different from those of sub-Saharan Africa. Things like political parties, banks, post offices, civil servants, and integral equations with partial derivatives never existed — and had no reason to exist —
in the sub-Saharan bush until their introduction by European colonialism.
Left-leaning Science Fiction authors have critiqued colonialism via scenarios where aliens, typically with a unique biology and originating from a highly advanced civilization, arrive on Earth and set out to conquer the planet in order to despoil it of its natural resources. When one considers that the European settlers of the 19th century were incalculably more advanced than the bushmen they encountered in sub-Saharan Africa, and that these settlers possessed cognitive abilities, technologies, and a body of knowledge that was inconceivable, unassimilable, and incomprehensible to the peoples they conquered, it seems fair to draw an analogy with the alien conquest Sci-Fi scenarios.
In these scenarios, plotlines typically end with either the triumph or the defeat of the conquerors. However, imagine if an author were to write a novel in which highly advanced aliens conquered the Earth, stayed for a few centuries, and then, for reasons of their own, decided to leave, after having erected a society predicated on traits vastly different from — and, in some areas, biologically far superior to — our own. I suppose that the part of the novel dealing with how the aliens sought to alleviate their guilt by attempting to make us more like them would probably read like sub-Saharan Africa’
s postcolonial history.
Although Mr. Parry appears to possess irritatingly liberal sensibilities, he nevertheless seems to partly concur with my view that development programs in certain parts of the world are a White man’
s folly. In the series he frequently expresses the hope that the tribes he has encountered will be allowed to decide their own destiny, solve their own problems, and (if they choose to do so) evolve their societies in their own way and at their own pace.
In my view, there is no moral turpitude in allowing sub-Saharan societies to devolve until they stabilize at a lower ecological niche, if this means that indigenous peoples end up with societies that more accurately reflect their desires, sensibilities, and capabilities. Such societies might even be happier and more stable than societies whose correct functioning necessitates a suite of traits that is absent in the population and which could only be mimicked with great difficulty.
Put more simply, a society that whose correct functioning is predicated on, for example, people averaging IQ scores of 180 is unlikely to be stable or happy if the people living in it only average IQ scores of 90. This is Richard Lynn’s argument in Eugenics: A Reassessment(2001). The quality of the decisions will not be the same. The same applies to any society whose correct functioning is predicated on the presence in abundance of very rare or non-existent traits. Like Communism, such a society would be contra natura.
The problem with proponents of development, of course, is that, for all their righteous talk of tolerance and diversity, they are disturbed when they see populations with living conditions vastly different from their own. This is because they rely on evaluative dimensions designed to measure compliance with their preferred subset of Western values, rather than with the values of the population being evaluated.
One does not have to go to sub-Saharan Africa, however, to see examples of how what we may proudly consider an asset in our society is scornfully repudiated as dysfunctional in another: Look at the Muslim world vis a visfemale visibility and bacon sandwiches. A functional sub-Saharan Africa would necessitate Western liberals being prepared to accept lifestyles in the region that people in the West would likely regard with horrified fascination —
and at times find deeply disturbing and even repugnant. It would also necessitate a painful period of readjustment, which would involve a great deal of misery and end with a population implosion. This is just as inconceivable to modern Western minds as the idea that decolonization in many cases ought to have been accompanied by some level of deindustrialization.
Certainly, the naked cannibals first encountered by Mr. Parry and Mr. Anstice in the forests of West Papua looked terrified at the mere sight of European man. One can only speculate what the two expeditioners, fully decked up in high-tech trekking gear and digital equipment, must have looked like to the forestmen, who had never seen or conceived anything remotely similar. Being distant prehistorical relatives, it is certainly easier for us to comprehend them than for them to comprehend us. And given that the forestmen relied on foot travel and stone axes, Mr. Parry and Mr. Anstice might as well have come from a different planet. Mr. Parry and Mr. Anstice chose, correctly, to leave them alone and be on their way.
Notwithstanding the above reflections, my primary concern with this discussion is the effect that sub-Saharan development programs have on White societies. Firstly, because it is predicated on fantasy, development programs have exacerbated failure, and failure has, in turn, been a driver for Third World immigration into European societies. There is little doubt that many of the facilities we have the West, such as abundant food supplies, hot showers, insect repellents, analgesic tablets, and rapid transport, will be attractive to any human anywhere. Without an understanding of what the elaboration and maintenance of such facilities demand in terms of cognitive ability, temperament, and lifestyle, the West is seen by the “undeveloped” mind as an El Dorado to be despoiled of its riches —
a paradise of affluence, comfort, and leisure. This is extremely dangerous, given population and birthrate differentials.
Secondly, and for the reasons stated earlier, I find the guilt-mongering, anti-White subtext that runs through development and ‘anti-poverty’
campaigns dangerous and an insult to the intelligence of educated men. This is not only because the idea of development is fallacious, but because development is also used as a moral weapon to rally support for an ostensibly egalitarian political program that seeks to undermine European societies. Whether the political program is utopian or dreamt up by malicious conspirators, as some have argued, is immaterial. The end product is the same.
At this point in our history, a shrinking demographic presence and the dominance of legitimized anti-White ideologies in the West represents a material threat to the existence of European-descended peoples in a world where they already constitute a small minority. Either by accident or design, theories of development contribute to existing negative trends.
It is important, therefore, that these theories be subjected to radical critiques that fundamentally challenge their underlying assumptions. Because these assumptions are quintessentially Western in character, it should be possible to critique them using post-colonialist language and theoretical frameworks.
In other words, it should be possible to enlist the spawn of our opponents and marshal them to soldier against their progenitors. I would eventually like to see a tidal wave of criticism directed against proponents of Third World development, and not just a polemical compilation by an underground Black Metal label. We need to develop our own postcolonial theories and do our ownmarch through the institutions.
Tribe is only a television program, but I believe that, in the context of the ideas articulated here, it has educational value, provided it is viewed intelligently and with caution. Given the enormously favorable consensus we witnessed in response to Bob Geldof’
s Live8 events of 2005, it seems fair to assume that most Westerners support the idea of development in the Third World. Yet, only a small minority of Westerners has ever been to sub-Saharan Africa, and within that minority only those affiliated to Christian missions have ever met a bushman in the wild.
This lack of actual experience with Africans helps to perpetuate the comforting liberal myth among Westerners that the objects of their compassion can and must eventually become middle class consumers, just like them. In as much as seeing is the first step to understanding, Tribe may be a step in the right direction.