WARNING: This topic may cause
offence to some readers. I make no apologies for that. However, if you
do wish to comment on what I have written, please do so in the spirit
of reasoned discussion. Just because an idea if offensive to you, it
does not mean that it is not true. By all means seek to show what I
have written is false but please make an attempt to show proof of why it
is false. Thank you.
The Theory of Race is a politically incorrect subject. It posits that different races of people are not equal but are diverse in their physical and mental attributes.
(You may wonder why I tackle these thorny subjects? Look out of your window, look what is happening in the world. Does it indicate to you that we should carry on with our current ways of thinking and living? Or does it indicate to you (as it does to me) that our current ways of thinking and living are destroying all that we hold dear, including our own planet? Look at what is happening in the Middle East - is this progress or just a symptom of a species in decline? This is why I discuss these subjects; we desperately need new ideas, or perhaps the resurrection of ancient truths, forgotten or suppressed...).
Those that grew up in post World War II England, as I did, were taught that Germany under Adolf Hitler was our enemy and the philosophy expounded by Hitler repugnant and evil. As National Socialist philosophy was very much race orientated, by definition race theory must be evil.
But is that the case? Dare we consider that the underlying theories of racial difference are correct?
In my own life, it has surprised me greatly just how strong the link is to ones locality (that in which one is born) and to those people who were also born in that locality. I spent two years living in Wales, where the scenery was magnificent and the people friendly and open. Yet I still felt, in some undefinable way, an "outsider". When I moved back to Colchester, the town in which I was born, I felt an undeniable sense of homecoming.
People I know that have lived for many years in London talk about the large influx of different cultures and races into London. They find this very uncomfortable. Are Londoners "racist" (whatever that means) by nature? I believe people naturally feel most comfortable when located amongst their own "people", in a culture they understand. Having talked with many people as a consequence of my job, I am convinced that this is a fact of life, a truth that is currently ignored by our political establishment.
I am sure I am in the same boat as you are in considering the theory of race - I am at the beginning of my study. However, I have come across the following useful article online:
"The
struggle of our time is to concentrate, not to dissipate; to renew our
association with traditional wisdom; to re-establish a vital connection
between the individual and the race. It is, in a word, a struggle
against liberalism." - T.S. Eliot
AS far
as the Left is concerned, National-Anarchism is simply a form of
generic fascism or, according to some of the more paranoid theories, a
Right-wing conspiracy devoted to the subversion of the Left itself.
Needless to say, this interpretation is incorrect and
National-Anarchists are vigorously opposed to statism and reaction in
all forms. At the same time, the 'national' component of the term
National-Anarchism centres on the fact that we are racial separatists.
Needless to say, whilst we wish to form Anarchist communities that are
ethnically organic we also oppose negative and counter-productive
attitudes that encourage racial hatred or mindless violence. Race-based
politics have nearly always been the domain of Right-wing organisations.
But the fact that National-Anarchists are prepared to address this
thorny issue should not cause people to wrongly dismiss us as yet
another Right-wing organisation committed to promoting 'white
supremacy', because National-Anarchism itself transcends both Left and
Right. We are not supremacist, racist, statist or totalitarian. In
addition, the German National-Socialists and Italian Fascists of the
twentieth century allied themselves with large banking interests and
betrayed the more 'socialistic' aspects of their original programmes. We
are genuine Anarchists and proud of the fact.
Right-wing organisations that recommend either a tightening of current
immigration laws or advocate that people of non-European descent be
repatriated to their countries of ethnic origin, inevitably try to play
the system at its own game and therefore always come off second-best.
The reason for this is simple. Not only do they become seduced and then
corrupted by the parliamentary establishment and end up having to
compromise in order to make electoral progress, they also reinforce the
nonsensical realities of the modern nation-state by completely failing
to understand the important difference between citizenship and
ethnicity. As we mentioned in the Introduction,
the 1789 French Revolution transformed a nation of monarchical subjects
into citizens of a new republic, but aside from the fact that the
jingoistic watchwords of 'liberty, equality and fraternity' were never
put into practice, it did become possible for individuals to become part
of the nation through citizenship alone, rather than it being a result
of their French ethnicity. This subtle change has now smoothed the way
for modern capitalists to bring in economic migrants from the Third
World who, allegedly, are just as 'French', 'English' or 'German' as
those of us with a blood-lineage stretching back thousands of years. The
'nations' of today, therefore, are completely false. By giving credence
to these artificial entities, the Right actually reinforces the
liberal-democratic myth. However, due to mass immigration and shifting
demographics, the populations of contemporary Western 'nations' are
changing all the time and therefore the establishment makes a determined
effort to constantly redefine the whole concept of nationhood. The
multi-racial populations of Europe and North America cannot be regarded
as 'nations' at all. People of non-European extraction may well be
national citizens and hold a valid passport informing them that they
have become 'naturalised', but, in reality, true nationhood is based on
ethnic considerations. Names like 'England', 'France' and 'Germany' were
once related to specific tribes and they were hardly Moorish, Bedouin
or Zulu, so the fact that modern nation-states no longer reflect the
ethnic identity of those original Indo-European tribes - or at least not
entirely - makes the whole thing a total farce. Is northern Paris, with
its large African population, still French? Are the Turks who have
settled in Deutschland still German? Of course not.
Race defines who we are, it provides us with an identity and exists for a
damn good reason. Without maintaining this essential diversity,
something you can find throughout nature, the world will become
increasingly drab, standardised and monotonous and the only people left
on the planet will inevitably form part of a coffee-coloured mush of
uniform humanity. National-Anarchists wish to preserve the different
races of the earth and believe that multi-racialism ends with the
dissolution of all races. Racial separatism is the only way that the
organic balance can be restored. We realise that it is impossible to
separate people in the large cities and towns, many of whom have
racially-mixed children or wish to live among foreign populations, and
neither should we attempt to do so. Indeed, we believe that the
nation-states of the West are likely to collapse in the next few decades
and that our respective countries will begin to fragment along racial
and cultural lines. So there is clearly no need to treat people
inhumanely by herding them into camps or deporting them in the way that
the Nazis and Soviets did in the last century; something which ended
disastrously for those concerned. National-Anarchists must form new
communities based on their own racial and cultural values. The maxim of
the future will be respect for others and unity in diversity.
Source: http://www.national-anarchist.net/2010/09/part-5-racial-separatism.html
Biologist John R Baker wrote a book entitled "Race". Here is his Wikipedia entry:
" John Randal Baker FRS[1] (23 October 1900 – 8 June 1984) was a biologist, physical anthropologist, and professor at the University of Oxford (where he was the Emeritus Reader in Cytology) in the mid-twentieth century. He is best remembered for his 1974 book, Race, which classifies human races in the same way in which animal subspecies are classified. John Baker received his PhD at the University of Oxford in 1927."
In Race, Baker explores, among other things, the nature of civilization,
giving 23 criteria by which civilizations may be identified. He
explores the relationship between the biological traits and the cultures
of five civilizations. Based on these criteria, Baker declared that
Mesoamerican societies such as the Aztecs and Maya were not civilizations, and that no indigenous civilizations ever arose in Africa. Baker rejected the methodological relativism that has characterized anthropology since the days of Franz Boas, instead going back to earlier ideas of hereditarianism and cultural evolution.
Together with Michael Polanyi, Baker founded the Society for Freedom in Science in 1940. In March, 1958 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society.[3]"
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Baker_%28biologist%29
His book can still be found online, as can the strong views, for and against.
Here is a flavour of the book, taken from some online reviews:
"Race is a veritable mountain of evidence, all of which can lead only to
the conclusion that the races differ in ability. Nevertheless, Dr. Baker is
strictly the scientist. He draws no further conclusions and makes no
suggestions about social policy. There is no doubt in his mind that current
orthodoxy on this subject is absurd, but he limits his exegesis to the
interpretation of data."
Other famous men have pronounced themselves on the question of racial
differences and, until recently, few have had any sympathy for the notion of
equality. Rousseau, for example, thought the chimpanzee was a primitive form
of human being, and Kant, Voltaire, and Hume thought the Negro vastly inferior
to the European. Dr. Baker reminds us that even the Bible is hardly silent on
the ethnic problem. The Children of Israel routinely exterminated enemies,
whom they considered inferior, and in the tenth book of Joshua, they enslaved
the entire Hivite people.
Dr. Baker notes drily that although modern man is scrupulous in selecting
only the most promising breeding couples among his domestic animals, he almost
never gives the same attention to his own reproduction. "It follows," he adds,
"that we cannot look for any advance in inborn intelligence . . . ."
Every explorer found a remarkable poverty of development. No black African
society had a written language or a calendar. None used the wheel or practiced
joinery or built multi-story buildings. Iron smelting was common but no black
Africans built what could be called a mechanical device, even one so simple as
a hinge. Africans apparently tamed no animals themselves but received
already-domesticated dogs and cattle from north of the Sahara. None used any
beast of burden, despite the presence of large mammals that could have been
tamed.
In the concluding section of Race, Dr. Baker draws the only conclusions
that the data will permit: Just as they differ in biology, the races differ in
their mental traits. They are not equally intelligent or capable of building
civilized societies. Dr. Baker reviews the literature on mental testing and on
the heritability of intelligence and finds that it only confirms his
conclusions.
Source: http://www.euvolution.com/articles/racereality.html
Baker is an extraordinarily learned biologist, who approached the topic
of race among humans with the same thoroughness that he brought to
studying race among non-humans animals.
Much of his data comes from
before political correctness completely enshrouded anthropology in the
late 1960's, so the vocabulary often seems dated. Nonetheless, many of
his views on the ancestry of different populations, based on
morphology, linguistics, archaeology and the like, have been confirmed
by recent genetic testing (see Cavalli-Sforza's "History and Geography
of Human Genes" -- and, please, do read C-S' book, don't just satisfy
yourself with C-S's deceitful cover stories about how poltically
correct his finding are.)
Baker's focus in the concluding chapters
is on different races' capabilities to found a civilization. He gives a
23 point test of whether a culture can be reasonably considered a
civilization, and examines various races' accomplishments in this
regard. This book is worth reading in tandem with Jared Diamond's
Pulitzer prize-winning "Guns, Germs, and Steel," in which Diamond
argues that every racial group in the world did as well as any other
group could have with the resources of that region. Baker anticipated a
number of Diamond's arguments and refutes them (e.g., could
sub-Saharan Africans have put elephants to work like Asians and
Carthaginains did?), but the truth probably lies somewhere between the
two authors' views.
Baker's exploration of the capability of
different groups to start true civiliations is certainly interesting,
yet, I wonder how relevant this question is to the modern world. The
Japanese, for example, have shown relatively little talent at
originating a civilization, but vast skill at borrowing others' novel
ideas and adapting and, often, improving them. Similarly, the question
of whether Africans could have invented a civilization on their own is
interesting, but it's not as germane as Baker seems to assume to the
more pressing question of how African-Americans can best fit into the
existing American civilization. Further, some groups that did little to
build their own civilizations, and still seem to have a certain amount
of trouble fitting into others' civilizations -- e.g., sub-Saharan
Africans and the Irish -- have contributed an extraordinary amount to
the culture of modern life.
Steve Sailer
News and entertainment entities have almost always promoted the idea
that to believe in any racial differences other than skin color means
that you are uneducated and ignorant. A torrent of scholarly books on
the explosive subject of race have disproved that dogma. In Part 1,
Baker examines the historical thought on race, from the earliest
attempts to define who we are, to the recent Hitler era. In Part 3,
Baker approaches the issue from a biologic or taxonomic point of view.
In order to diffuse the explosiveness of the issue, Dr. Baker examines
the different races of various vertebrae animals and then moves on to
more complex organisms -- humans. The differences in racial
characteristics increases in proportion to how closely the subject is
examined, and Dr. Baker examines racial features right down to the most
detailed physical attributes. In Part 4, Dr. Baker examines the most
critical attribute -- that of intelligence and race. It is here that
Dr. Baker treads onto late twentieth century taboos. Dr. Baker's
conclusion surprised me when I first read the book, though he tempers
his understanding of racial inequality with the statement that "no one
can claim superiority simply because he or she belongs to a particular
ethnic taxon."
It was a very wise choice to provide a thorough,yet comprehensive book
that promotes such lucid exposure of racial differencies,in such manner
that not only it won't left anybody to doubt the existence of that
reality,but also to provide certain historical digression that includes
historical development of concept that explains why study of race
remains something like the last taboo among sociologist and
biologist,given that exclusion of racial factor in such diverse
studies-anthropological,ethnological,historical and one of clinical
medicine-in the name of aprioristic egalitarian idealism and "political
corectness" can lead to generation of false conclusions,as author
exemplifies trough essays on ethnicity and pseudoethnicity in the case
of Celts and question of origin of modern Jews.Also,a very well
documentated discourse is given on such issues as intelectual
diferences among various ethnic,racial and socioeconomic groups with
regard to cognitive and powers of deduction.Wide range of immplication
deriving from constitutional differences among selected races are
given,for example in sport achievments.These and many other fundaments
of racial anthropology are exposed in an extremely free of any
prejudice manner,and although conclusions may left an impression of
right-wing milleau,this is certainly not a specimen of pejorative
racist literature.Although this book has been published first time in
1974,it will remain worth reading for a long time.It's fundamental in
the process of understanding the meaning of race.
This book is probably one of the best, if not THE best example of pseudo-science used for personal ends.
The
writer is a very credentialed person who uses this certifications to
push their bias and create guidelines for what is a superior race, and
who gets membership.
The other reviewers attempt to frame this as
"He is simply noting racial differences with an anthropological model",
which then leads to "Some races are just not that smart, genetically.
Read the book."
I appreciate the existence of this book and of
the book's supporters, as it highlights how backwards and anti-science
can exist in the age of Internet information sharing.
Source:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Race-John-R-Baker/dp/1471640582
Note: the last comment is the type of comment I was seeking to avoid on this page. It makes no attempt to refute the arguments made by Baker.
Clearly, the multiracial / multicultural ideal sought by our current political leadership is unobtainable - racial strife is still with us. I can only assume there is some underlying agenda that is prompting this policy throughout Europe?
Comments (subject to the caveat at the top of this page) are welcomed...
