RACISM - A BIOPHYSICAL
DEFENSEby Andrew Ryan and
Peter J. White
"While
Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians entering
their country as a priceless cultural gift, they are supposed to "celebrate"
their own loss of influence, their own dwindling numbers, their own dispossession,
for to do otherwise would be hopelessly racist."
- Thomas Jackson [1]
"(Racism) is any
opposition by whites to official policies of racial preference for non-whites.
It is any preference by whites for their own people and culture. It is any resistance
by whites to the idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to
be pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of people-hood
that have defined nations since the beginning of history - but only so long as
the aspirations are those of whites."
- Thomas Jackson [2]
"...the racial question overshadows all other problems of history….it
holds the key to them all, and… the inequality of the races from whose fusion
a people is formed is enough to explain the whole course of its destiny."
- Arthur De Gobineau [3]
Racism The
term "racism" was first coined by a Jew, Magnus Hirschfeld (1868-1935),
a German Jew used the term "racism" as the title of a book published
in 1933. Hirschfeld was a medical "scientist" working in the field of
sexology and an early apostle of sex "liberation." He attacked traditional
sexual morality. He wished to normalize homosexuality and other sexual "perversions"
- as it was called at the time. In 1922 he was attacked by anti-Semites in Munich
and almost killed. [4] Hirschfeld popularized the idea that "racism"
was not merely the hatred of other races, but love of one's own, as well as the
acceptance of any form of biologically based inequality. [5] As
such Hirschfeld was struggling against both history and intellectual tradition.
Although there are examples of artificially created vibrant multicultural and
multiracial market enclaves in cities throughout history, there are few examples
of entire societies with good relationships between visibly different people.
Racial strife typically arises if a minority's numerical strength exceeds a certain
limit. Further, the larger and more noticeably different a minority, the quicker
and more complete relations between the majority and the minority deteriorate,
cumulating in open warfare and often ethnic cleansing. Such facts of common sense
have been recognized in the great literature of the ages; it is not multiracialism
that wins the votes of history. [6] The Jew, Professor Harold I. Isaacs in his
insightful book, Idols of The Tribe said: "Skin
color and other physical characteristics figure critically in the shaping of every
basic group identity and, with high visibility and powerful glandular effect,
in relations between groups. Men have used these primary symbols of what has been
called "race" as a basis for their self-esteem or their lack of it.
Skin color has served as the badge of master and subject, of the enslaved and
the free, the dominators and the dominated. Of all the factors involved in the
great rearrangement of political and other human relationships now, none is more
sensitive, more psychologically explosive, or more intimately relevant to each
individual's involvement in the process of political change." [7]
Although
Isaacs held that race was not co-equal with other factors such as technology,
military strength and resources, the racial factor was present to some degree
in all of these factors, as Arthur De Gobineau also recognized. The
great biologist, Sir Arthur Keith was of the view that "Mankind is more in
need of a racial physician than in any of its maladies." [8] Keith recognized
that the most effective way to destroy a civilization is to destroy the race which
created it. The idea that human races do not exist was a common Left strategy
for attacking the White race. Keith believed that nature through natural selection
had programmed into the human psyche, prejudice in favour of one's own kind -
and that this "tribal spirit" was the basis of an evolutionary improvement
in the human species. Racial prejudice was a natural bias which allowed improvements
via mutations to survive in small groups through crossing and recrossing so that
superior qualities continued. Without this, dilution would occur and the type
would not be preserved.
"The "tribal spirit" which is "a
machinery of prejudice" keeps members of a tribe together and isolates them
from other tribes. Keith saw civilization and evolution in conflict. Ancient evolutionary
machinery produced new races "each new form in the course of time being replaced
by others - more adapted for the world in which they were born than those which
had gone before." [9] However:
"Modern civilization has crossed
Nature's evolutionary plans; her old tribal organization has been broken up and
replaced by a conglomeration of massed communities - nations, states, vast empires.
But inside the massed populations of today beats the old tribal evolutionary heart.
Our modern political unrest is due to an inherited nature which is within each
of us and is ever seeking to reassert its old evolutionary dominion. Man designed
the modern world for the increase of life and the production of wealth. Nature
designed the human heart for the production of better races of mankind. The strife
between our inherited instincts and the needs of an economic world is the cause
of all our unrest." [10]
Racial prejudices in the prehistoric world served
a useful purpose and "we should nurse and preserve them" [11]
Further:
"A race or nation which seeks guidance in pure reason can never survive even
in an earthly paradise." [12] Prejudices are thus "parts of Nature's
old evolutionary machinery" and "give rise to an instant line of action."
[13] Keith believed that it was not for the common good that prejudices are overthrown
by "reason". He quotes Thomas Carlyle
in Sartor Resartus: "But indeed man is,
and was, always a blockhead and dullard; much readier to feel and digest, than
to think and consider. Prejudice, which he pretends to hate, is his absolute lawgiver;
mere use and want everywhere leads him by the nose." [14] Keith
continues this line of argument:
"The tribal organization is part of
Nature's scheme. A modern breeder, if he entered this prehistoric world, would
at once perceive the object which Nature had in view. If he were called on to
evolve a new human breed he would do just what Nature has done, separate Mankind
into herds and tribes and keep them isolated and pure for an endless period. Each
tribe in our prehistoric world represented an evolutionary experiment." [15] Effective
racial barriers are not merely geographical but are in the "heart" in
the form of prejudices, instinctive likes and dislikes:
"They are essential
parts of the evolutionary machinery which Nature employed throughout eons of time
to secure the separation of man into permanent groups and thus to attain production
of new and improved races of Mankind." [16] "Racial
tribes are "Nature's evolutionary cradles." Without hate - racial hate
- tribal organization would not exist: "There could have been no evolutionary
progress - no ascent of man." [17] The
price of de-racialization and miscegenation is racial destruction and he claims
the head and heart will rise against it:
"Race prejudice, I believe,
works for the ultimate good of mankind and must be given a recognized place in
all our efforts to obtain natural justice for the world."[19] This
means that intertribal rivalries will continue he fully recognises:
"Without
competition Mankind can never progress; the price of progress is competition.
Nay, race prejudice and, what is the same thing, national antagonism, have to
be purchased, not with gold, but with life. Nature throughout the past has demanded
that a people who seek independence as well as peace can obtain these privileges
only in one way - by being prepared to sacrifice their blood to secure them. Nature
keeps her human orchard healthy by pruning; war is her pruning-hook. We cannot
dispense with her services." [20] The
philosophy of commonsense, Thomas Reid is also quoted by Keith who said:
"As far as the intention of Nature appears in the constitution of Man, we
ought to comply with that intention and act agreeably to it." [21] This applies
then to racism and ethnocentricism. Sir Arthur
Keith's position has been developed further by contemporary socio-biology and
psychobiology. [22] An interesting work bringing the many threads of the argument
together is David Allen's Fear of Strangers - and Its Consequences [23] The principal
thesis of this book is that racism, discrimination and bigotry are not the result
of moral failure, but arises from an innate fear of, and hostility to strangers.
This fear of strangers, sociobiologically "is a primordial spacing mechanism
which we inherit from lower life forms. Its purpose is to limit populations through
group competition for food resources and territory." [24] Allen
analyses the inherent defect in multi-racial, multi-ethnic societies and also
of democracy as applied to such societies, for democratic theory emerged in largely
mono-ethnic nations rather than multi-ethnic nations. Allen refers to the sociologist
William Graham Sumner's book Folkways (1906) which introduced the concept of in-group/out-group.
Sumner articulated the idea known for centuries that humans favoured in-group
members and denigrated out-group members. They thus showed preference for their
own family, friends, clan, tribe, nation and race.
Allen claims that Sumner
missed an important ingredient: strangerfear. This is the cause of in-groups and
out-groups. This innate hostility to strangers is the source of "racism,"
and strangerfear is "a perfectly normal and natural reaction to a certain
kind of stress." Allen points out that although the results of strangerfear
are often awful, it doesn't follow that the cause necessarily is because natural
causes often result in painful consequences. Evidence
for strangerfear appears in infants about eight months after birth and this occurs
cross-culturally, so it is not a learnt behaviour. [25] Theoretically, ethnocentric
behaviour serves an evolutionary purpose because it has survival value. It therefore
differs from random destructive behaviour. Allen quotes the sociobiologist E.O.
Wilson on xenophobia being the "most hostile response an individual of any
species can make" which is evoked by the sight of a stranger of his own kind."
Wilson goes on to say: "This xenophobic principle has been documented in
virtually every group of animals displaying higher forms of social organization."
[26] At present "strangers," typically
in the form of legal and illegal immigrants are locked into the iron cage of the
nation state:
"The stress the stranger caused is ever-present; the problem
of how to turn him or her off is overpowering and unceasing. A nation-state with
its exploding ethnic populations grinding against each other, more and more assumes
the lineaments of a behavioural sink. As population pressure increases and open
space decreases and nations become more and more multi-ethnic through uncontrolled
immigration, hostility to strangers becomes extreme to the point of pathology."
[27] The majority group will express prejudice
simply because it is the majority:
"Historically Orientals, both Chinese
and Japanese, suffered discrimination by white majorities in the U.S. when they
were minority immigrants. But at the same moment in time Chinese majorities in
China were evicting white minorities…white Europeans were so detested by
the Chinese, they had to cannonade their way into China, which then sought to
exterminate them by the sword. In Japan, while the government was waxing furious
over the action of the U.S. Congress in legislating to exclude Japanese (the Yellow
Peril), its own majority was actively discriminatory against Koreans, Okinawans,
Ainu, and its own despised underclass. In the U.S. again, where discrimination
against the black minority incited black intellectuals to perceive whites as "evil,"
black majorities in Africa were expelling Chinese from their borders…."
[28] Racism and prejudice are universals and
a part of human nature and is a development of the baby's distinction between
"self" and other. Allen says on this point:
"If the baby grew
up among the Munurucu of Brazil before or at the time of the first meeting with
a white man, she would refer to her tribe as "people" and everyone else
in the world as "pariwat" or "enemy," a proper object of exploitation,
like a game animal. If the baby grew up among the !Kung Bushmen of the Nyae Nyae
area of Africa, she would refer to her own tribe as "perfect" or "clean,"
and other !Kung tribes as "strange," murderers who used deadly poison.
Nyae Nyae bands almost never left their home territory for fear of other tribes.
If she grew up among the Northern Samayeds, she would refer to her tribe as "Hassovo"
or "nainek," or "men," the implication being that her people
were human while others were not.
The Tunguses still call themselves "men"
with the same implication. The remnant original inhabitants of Japan call themselves
"Ainu," meaning by that "people," "men" or "mankind."
But the Japanese conquerors call them "aini" or "dogs."….
Among Australian Aborigines in general the name of each separate tribe usually
translates as "man" or "human being." They usually connect
a prefix or postfix meaning "tribe" or "people" with the standard
inference about others. Thus the Wotjo call themselves "Wotjo-Baluk,"
meaning "tribe of men." Over the eastern parts of Victoria the term
"Kulin" was used, meaning "man." The Kieri of Cooper's Creek
and the Narimyeri called themselves "men" and all other tribes "merkam"
or "wild savages." The Kurnai apply the term "Brjerak" to
their neighbors, "bra" meaning "men" and "jerak"
meaning "rage" or "anger," or "wildmen who kill."
In the western part of Australia "thurung" is used for others meaning
"tigersnakes," because "they came sneaking about to kill us."
Outsiders, like other species, were for killing and eating or disposing of."
[29] Ethnic separatism is therefore a natural
state for human beings; it is multicultural, multiracial societies which are unnatural:
"It should be obvious from the survey of reactions to strangers from
ants up to apes and man, and for man all around the globe, that nature did not
intend for members of a species to be included in a universal group but instead
decreed that members of a species would be broken up into many, competing groups.
The probable reason was to improve the breed through competition. But that interpretation
doesn't have to be true to justify the acceptance of the observation that species
are organized into many groups rather than one. That being the case, it is also
obvious that moral teaching, which commands that all individuals be accepted regardless
of whether they are in -or out-groupers, is in direct conflict with evolutionary
imperatives that divide individuals into in- or out-group members." [30] Ethnic
neighbourhoods illustrate the point of separatism; they are logically discriminating
but are accepted by liberals without much ado. [31] There are ways for non-whites
to maintain self-identity and are never seen by the liberal as "racist"
although as a strict matter of philosophy such neighbourhoods are discriminatory.
[32] For Allen, multiracialism spells the end of democracy:
"…democratic
theory by refusing to acknowledge the existence of ethnic groups fails utterly
to cope with reality, and in the intellectual straight-jacket that freezes thought,
the immigrants become a persecuted "minority," and the resident majority
become "bigoted," justifying the swamping and destruction of the original
inhabitants. In democratic theology there can be no cry of "help" from
a drowning group. Group death is supposed to be the only fair outcome. The "color-blind"
bias of democratic ideology permits only extinction of resident groups who are,
however, permitted to survive as disoriented individuals, caged in, unable to
separate from an invading group, cowed by the fear of appearing bigoted,….
Natives smolder in resentment and snatch at any disguised opportunity to vent
their anguish…." [33] There are thus
good theoretical and empirical reasons for believing that racial and ethnic prejudice
is inane, and that at least from a biological perspective, is a good thing. But
is it a good thing morally? We turn now to establish a moral, as distinct from
a biological case, for racism. A Moral Case
For Racism Define racism in whatever politically
correct form you choose: we will outline a strategy to defend it. We should note
that philosophers have a difficulty with avoiding racist discourse. (The sentence
quoted from the literature complete with the "N" word)
(N1) Nigger's
will benefit from improvements in welfare payments taken from the taxes of hard-working
Whites
is either true or false. Whatever its truth value, the following sentence
is true:
(N2) It is either true that niggers…. [N1]
or false that
niggers…. [N1]
But this yields commitment to a racist claim and the standard
theory of truth of Tarski commits us to accepting these claims, and hence racist
claims! So the liberal is committed to the truth of some racists claims (and anti-Semitic
ones as well.) Philosophers have spilt much ink trying to escape those "paradoxes"
but other philosophers typically undermine each escape route. [34] But all of
these logical puzzles are not a problem for the "racist," but rather
a confirmation of his position. An excellent
defence of racism was offered by Wilmot Robertson in his book The Dispossessed
Majority [35] Robertson argues that the sickness of America is the sickness of
the "American Majority" - the American Nordic people - that is people
of Northern European descent, due to the moral debility of liberalism, which has
split the majority and minority racism which, like a virus, has destroyed the
majority's powers of resistance.
On the issue of racial sentiment he quotes
Shakespeare as offering valuable insights:
"Strange it is that our bloods,
of colour, weight and heat, pour'd all together,
would quite confound distinction,
yet stand off
in differences so mighty."
All's Well That Ends Well
Act 2, Sc.3. Thus, if biology and anthropology
cannot be appealed to, to establish racial links, then history, philosophy or
mythology is appealed to, and rightly so.
Robertson defines "racism"
as "the overt or covert expression of the concept of race at one or more
levels of human activity - in politics, art, religion, business, community life,
and the privacy of the home." [36] Almost all nations, societies and ethno-racial
groups have been racists in this sense. The ancient Greeks believed that they
were one race and one people and viewed all foreigners as barbarians. The ideal
of racial purity found expression in ancient Greek thought in the works of Hippocrates,
Plato, Aristotle and others. The ancient Romans saw the Greeks as degenerates.
The Jews have held to the idea that they are a "Chosen People" since
antiquity. The Chinese have viewed non-Chinese as barbarians and this attitude
has changed little since ancient times. Robertson summarises the value of racism
in these words:
"….racism is a form of group morale. It provides
a protective psychic shell for the most defenceless and defensive peoples. It
is also largely responsible for the high aggression quotient of dynamic peoples.
Promoting tribalism both in the most retarded and most advanced nations, racism
makes the modern tribal state with its sophisticated technology a fearsome opponent.
Everything else being equal - manpower, industrial plant, scientific proficiency,
and natural resources - a racist state can muster a deadlier military machine
than a non-racist state. In the matter of fighting spirit, the tribe or race may
be regarded as the extension of the family, and death comes easier to those who
believe they are dying for their people as well as for their country. The soldier
with only a modicum of race consciousness has more difficulty being brave. Conscientious
objectors, pacifists, and draft evaders are in short supply in racially oriented
societies." [37] Racism is thus a basic
element of human nature. Indeed the Nordic racialist Robert Knox and the Jew Benjamin
Disraeli have gone so far as to say that race is everything:
"That race
is in human affairs everything, is simply a fact, the most remarkable, the most
comprehensive, which philosophy has ever announced. Race is everything: literature,
science, art, - in a word, civilization depends on it."
Robert Knox,
The Races of Men (1850) "No one must lightly
dismiss the question of race. It is the key to world history and it is precisely
for this reason that written history so often lacks clarity. It is written by
people who do not understand the race question and what belongs to it. Language
and religion do not make a race, only blood does that!"
Benjamin Disraeli,
Endymion
"A Saxon race…. has stamped its diligent and methodic
character on the century. And when a superior race, with a superior idea to work
and order advances, its stake will be progressive…. All is race; there is
no other truth."
Benjamin Disraeli - Tancred (London 1847) In
short, racism is a value philosophy.[38] This idea has been well expressed by
an enemy of racism, George D. Kelsey:
"In the experience of faith, the
devotee has a double relation to the object of faith. He trusts in it as the source
of his personal value, and at the same time he is loyal to the object of his faith
for the value it possesses independent of himself. Niebuhr illustrates this double
relation in the life of the patriot whose faith is Nationalism. The experience
of the racist corresponds to that of the patriot, with the difference that the
racist deifies his own being rather than an objective historic structure. The
racist relies on the race as a source of his personal value. His life has meaning
and worth because it is part of the racial context. It fits into and merges with
a valuable whole, the race. As the value-center to race is the source of value,
it is at the same time the object of value. No questions can be raised about the
rightness or wrongness of the race; it is the value-center which throws light
on all other value. Criminals, degenerates, and even enemies have worth and goodness
if they are members of the in-race. They have a goodness and worth which is not
found in the most noble character of members of out-races, for goodness and worth
are only secondary qualities of behaviour and character. Primarily they are qualities
of being. Goodness and worth inhere in being that is worthy. If noble character
inheres in a racially defective being, that person of noble character is nonetheless
depraved, for the nobility he has achieved inheres in his unalterably corrupt
humanity." [39] Relativism seems to have
arisen as the standard intellectual position today. All "truth" is relative;
there are no objective or absolute truths. Relativism may be global, as in the
case of cognitive or epistemological relativism, or local, about specific areas
such as ethics, as in the case of moral relativism. In all cases, the core argument
for relativism is the same: universalism cannot be justified in the face of a
plurality of incommensurable and undecidable theories. Applied to anti-racism,
universalism in say morality, the argument goes, is that anti-racism cannot be
shown to be universally correct because its core assumptions (e.g., the equal
value of all races except Nordic Whites!) cannot be given a non-question begging
justification. To appeal to those anti-racist assumptions begs the question against
the racists, anti-Semite, Neo-Nazi or whatever, (sensitive folk that they are
to question - begging.) And the defense is in any case viciously circular because
what is at issue is whether the original anti-racist position is correct. To attempt
to justify the anti-racist moral premises on non-moral grounds leads to either
a confrontation with the is-ought problem or else to a vicious infinite regression
of justifications. Hence anti-racism cannot, by its own terms be shown to be true.
[40] Matters are worse for the anti-racist.
Stephen P. Schwartz [41] has criticized the principle of equality, a fundamental
principle of liberal conceptions of morality and justice. The principle states
that similar cases must be treated similarly. Thus, if two distinct individuals
are the same in all morally relevant respects, then they are to be treated the
same. As well, if there is a distinction in the treatment of individuals, this
must be based on morally relevant differences between these individuals. If people
are treated differently in certain respects by a system of social arrangements,
then reasons for this must be given. The principal of equality is a "logical
demand," an instance of the Leibnizian notion of sufficient reason. [42] As
Schwartz points out, the principle of equality has played a crucial role in arguments
against racial, gender and other forms of discrimination. Generally it is argued
that X deserves the same basic rights as Y because X and Y are relatively similar
or there is no morally relevant difference between X and Y, so that it is against
the principle of justice to treat them differently. But the principle of equality
leads to contradictions, Schwartz argues, so as this fundamental principle of
morality cannot be satisfied it is impossible to be "moral," at least
in the "liberal" sense. Schwartz's argument is based on the non-transitivity
of similarity: A is indistinguishable in respect R from B, and B is indistinguishable
in respect R from C, but A is distinguishable in respect R from C. Thus for example
in a series of red paints, where each one is slightly darker than the one before
it, it may be possible to be able to distinguish between the first red and the
last red, without being able, by the naked eye, to distinguish between any red
and its immediate successor. [43]
The non-transitivity of similarity
applies to any vague predicate and morally relevant characteristics such as personhood
and having interests, being rational and other notions beloved of analytic philosophers
are vague and admit of borderline cases. [44] A
closely related principle to the principle of equality is the principle of differential
treatment: "It is morally required (or at least allowed) to treat sufficiently
dissimilar cases differently" [45] which Schwartz believes is a basic requirement
for a characteristic to be morally relevant. But the principle of equality, the
principle of differential treatment and non-transitivity of similarity lead to
contradictions:
"Consider the following simple model: It is morally required
to treat items indistinguishable with respect to morally relevant and characteristic
R similarly. It is morally required (or at least allowed) to treat items distinguishable
with respect to R differently. Now we have the situation that A is indistinguishable
from B in respect R, B is indistinguishable from C, but A is distinguishable from
C. Thus it is morally required to treat A and C similarly, because A and B must
be treated similarly and B and C must be treated similarly, but it is also morally
required (or allowed) to treat A and C differently. This situation will arise
wherever A and C are required (or allowed) to be treated differently and NTS applies
to respect R, but this is just the situation with all morally relevant characteristics.
Thus it is impossible to be moral…
…This may not seem to make it
impossible to be moral, just very difficult, for after all I can still be moral
in situations where I treat neighbours in the series the same. It may seem that
the contradiction arises only when I consider what to do with respect to end points.
But we still get a contradiction even when we consider immediate neighbours -
say, n and n+1. Since n and n+1 are indistinguishable with respect to R, we are
required to treat them similarly. Let us suppose that we are required to treat
B and E differently, because they are sufficiently distinguishable in respect
R (the argument works as well with "allowed to treat them differently"
but is less dramatic.) Since B+1 is indistinguishable from B with respect to R,
and E-1 is indistinguishable from E with respect to R, we are required to treat
B+1 differently from E-1 (because whatever applies to E applies to E-1, and whatever
applies to B applies to B+1.) Now just continue to march until you reach n from
B, and n+1 from E. You will by this argument be required to treat n differently
from n+1." [46] Therefore anti-racism
is theoretically untenable, being based upon the incoherent principle of equality.
Racists explicitly reject the principle of equality so this paradox does not apply.
In this respect racist moral theories are logically superior to standard liberal
moral theories. The conclusion of this paper is that racism is a viable, intellectually
coherent and defensible position.
NOTES
1. T. Jackson, "What Is Racism?" American Renaissance,
vol.2, no.7, 1991, pp.1, 3-5, cited p.4.
2. ibid p.4.
3. Arthur De Gobineau,
"The Inequality of Human Races," trans. A. Collins, (Noontide Press,
Los Angeles, 1966.)
4. S. Francis, "The Origins of Racism," American
Renaissance, May 1999, pp.7-9.
5. On the racial inequality issue cf K.
Lorenz, "The Waning of Humanness," (Unwin Paperbacks, London, 1983),
pp.178-180; A.A. Sayce and R. Peterson, "Race in Ancient Egypt and The Old
Testament," (Scott-Townsend Publishers, Washington DC, 1993); R. Lewis, Anti-Racism:
A Mania Exposed, (Quartet Books, London, 1988); K. Lamb, "The Problem of
Equality," The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies,vol.20,
no.4, 1995, pp.467-478. According to K.Lorenz in 1940, (A.L.Caplin (ed), "The
Sociobiology Debate," (Harper and Row, New York, 1978), p.167): " The
only resistance which mankind of healthy stock can offer … against being
penetrated by systems of degeneracy is based on the existence of certain innate
schemata … Our species-specific sensitivity to the beauty and ugliness of
members of our species is innately connected with the symptoms of degeneration,
caused by domestication, which threatens our race…Usually a man of high values
disgusted with special intensity by slight symptoms of degeneracy in men of the
other race… In certain instances, however, we find not only a lack of this
selectivity … but even a reversal of being attracted by symptoms of degeneracy.
… Decadent art provides many examples of such a change of signs. …The
immensely high reproduction rate in the moral imbecile has long been established.
… This phenomenon leads everywhere … to the fact that socially inferior
human material is enabled … to penetrate and finally to annihilate the healthy
nation. The selection for toughness, heroism, social utility … must be accomplished
by some human institution of mankind, in default of selective factors, is not
to be ruined by domestication-induced degeneracy. The racial idea as the basis
of our state has already accomplished much in this respect. The most effective
race-preserving measure is … the greatest support of the natural defences.
… We must - and should - rely on the healthy feelings of our Best and charge
them with the selection which will determine the prosperity or decay of our people.
…" For reference it is worth noting that some of the most politically
correct establishments have a dark "racist" past. Mahatma Gandhi is
a good example, and others will be mentioned in passing throughout all other papers.
Gandhi detested Africans. He supported the Indian caste system until his death.
His first use of fasting was directed against an early affirmative action program
for the Untouchables which the British tried to establish in 1931. When the British
were evacuating Dunkirk, Gandhi urged them to surrender to Hitler, saying "Hitler
is not a bad man". Later he advised Jews to respond to Nazism by collectively
committing suicide.
6. H.R. Isaacs, "Idols of the Tribe : Group Identity
and Political Change," ( Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1989); J.W.
Gregory, "The Menace of Colour," ( Seeley, Service and Co. Ltd. London,
1925).
7. ibid pp.53-54.
8. Sir Arthur Keith, "The Place of Prejudice
in Modern Civilization," (Prejudice and Politics.): Being the Substance of
a rectorial Address to the Students of Aberdeen University 1931, (Quest, Saratoga,
CA 1973).
9. above p.13.
10. above
11. above p.14.
12. above p.20.
13. above
14. above
15. above p.33.
16. above p.34.
17. above
p.41.
18. above p.48.
19. above
20. above pp.48-49.
21. above
p.54.
22. The most important work to consider is V. Reynolds, V. Falger and
I. Vine (eds.), "The Sociobiology of Ethnocentrism," (Croom Helm, London,
1987). Also of interest: H. Tajfel (et al), "The Development of Children's
Preference for their Own Country : A Cross-National Study," International
Journal of Psychology, vol. 51, 1970, pp.245-253. David Barash, "Sociobiology:
The Whispering Within" (Fontana/Collins, N.Y., 1981) says: "People of
different races are different. Although we are all one species and quite capable
of exchanging genes, the fact remains that members of any race seem likely to
share more genes with each other than with individuals of a different race. Physical
resemblance almost certainly has some correlation with genetic resemblance, and
accordingly, we can expect the principles of kin-selected altruism to operate
on this fact. More to the point, we can expect the other side of the coin - antagonism
- toward those who are different." (p. 153). There are now some interesting
experiments being done, even in the context of our present aggressive pc environment,
which are yielding results quite contrary to the ideology of multiracialism. A
couple of years ago, researchers at the University of Chicago recruited six men
of different ethnic backgrounds. They avoided spicy foods, perfumed soaps etc.,
during the test period, as well as many other activities that may contaminate
their chemical - signals. Then wore the same T-shirt for two consecutive nights.
The shirts were then cut up and sniffed by 49 unmarried women who had never been
pregnant. It was found that the women consistently preferred the smell of those
men whose genetic profile matched their own, i.e., their same ethno-racial group.
23. David Allen., "Fear of Strangers - and It's Consequences," (Allan/Bennington,
Garnerville, New York, 1991).
24. above p. 1.
25. above p. 6.
26.
above p. 10.
27. above p. 16.
28. above p. 17.
29. above pp. 76 -77.
30. above p. 173.
31. above p. 178.
32. above p. 180.
33. as above
34. D. Goldberg, "A Grim Dilemma about Racist Referring Expressions,"
Metaphilosophy, vol.17, no.4, October 1986, pp 224-229; P. Grim, "A
Note on the Ethics of Theories of Truth," in M. Vetterling-Braggin (ed.),
"Sexist Language," (Rowman and Littlefield, New Jersey, 1981), pp. 290-298.
E.E. Cashmore, "The Logic of Racism," (Allen and Unwin, London,1987);
D.T. Goldburg (ed.), "Anatomy of Racism," (University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis,1990).
35. Wilmot Robertson, "The Dispossessed Majority,"
(Howard Allen, Cape Canaverall,1981).
36. above p. 7.
37. above p. 9.
38. See Richard McCulloch, "Right and Wrong Racism," Instauration,
April 1991, p.9; Robert Throckmorton, "The Case for Racism," Instauration,
January 1992, pp.12-14.
39. George D. Kelsey, "Racism as Idolatry,"
in A.K. Bierman and J.A. Gould (eds.), "Philosophy for a New Generation,"
2nd edition, (MacMillan, New York, 1973, pp.402-414, cited p.407, taken from his
"Racism and the Christian Understanding of Man," ( Scribner's New York,
1965).
40. See D.E. Geels, "How to be a Consistent Racist", The
Personalist, vol.52, 1971, pp.662-679; R.J. Ketchum, "On the Impossibility
of Epistemology," Philosophical Studies, vol. 88, 1997, pp.29-36.
41. S.P. Schwartz, "Why It is Impossible to be Moral," American Philosophical
Quarterly, vol. 36. no.4, October 1999, pp.351-360.
42. above p. 351.
43. T. Williamson, "Identity and Discrimination," (Basil Blackwell,
Oxford,1990), pp.11-12.
44. M. Black, "Language and Philosophy,"
(Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, 1949), p.352.
45. Schwartz at
353.
46. as above.
|
