Ah, mankind! The crowning achievement of three billion years of evolution. Except – we now dismiss evolution and we take credit ourselves for our achievements! What hubris!
We race realists will make the blindingly obvious, and scientifically indisputable, statement that world’s different races must be the product of evolution. As Darwin himself observed, a large successful species such as ours invariably separates into races and sub species adapted to different geographies and niches.
Adaptation, the process of becoming better suited to an environment, means becoming more disease-resistant, faster, or better able to deal with unexpected problems that the environment presents. Intelligence is the term we use to describe this adaptation. Yes, evolution, which favored intelligence over the seven million years since our ancestors split from chimpanzees, seems somehow still to favor intelligence. The unavoidable conclusion, except for those whose thought is muddled by liberal fantasies, is that different peoples have to have evolved to different average levels of ability.
Altruism has been another of our northern European adaptations. The survival of our own genome depends on the survival of the tribe. We learned to support the weaker members of the clan. As we consolidated from clans into tribes, nations, and states that altruism persisted. It served our ancestors as nations and states coalesced and competed with one another.
We support other like us. The hierarchy of our loyalties summed up by Hamilton’s Rule: family, clan, tribe and nation. My genome is carried by my direct descendants. Each child carries half, grandchildren a quarter, and so on. But it is also carried by my people. In biological terms, I am part of their gene pool. I share a measurable amount of my genome with cousins, both close and distant, and eventually with all populations of Northern Europe.
Altruism persists even today in the liberals’ argument that all of mankind is somehow our tribe. Not at all – peoples are still in competition with one another. Our altruism is seen by other breeding groups as unilateral disarmament. They don’t understand it, they don’t trust it, but they certainly are willing to take advantage of it. Yesterday’s virtue has become today’s vice. Pathological altruism has entered the lexicon. The United Nations and European Union convince nations everywhere that an infusion of Somalis will be good for them.
I am not writing to complement us on our insight, but chastise us for what even us realists are unwilling to see. Our problems are not with the other, but with ourselves. Just as weeds won’t grow in a healthy lawn, a healthy people is able to withstand incursions by other races. Our European ancestors did it for centuries. We have lost that ability, and are being overrun. Why? How?
Richard Dawkins famously wrote in The Selfish Gene that the phenotype – the living, breathing animal – is no more than the vehicle for its genes to reproduce themselves. Primitive people know that. The individual is transient, ephemeral. Only the tribe is permanent. Carle Zimmerman wrote that individuals in primitive societies regard themselves as simply trustees for one generation of their tribal inheritance. It frightens us that modern Moslems, sharing that view, are so reckless with their lives – and ours. But, we must concede that they are reproducing themselves. They remain evolutionarily successful whereas the fertility rate for Caucasians in every nation of the world is below replacement level.
Individualism is a perverse outgrowth of our overdeveloped brains. The Greeks, then the Enlightenment philosophers gave the full flowering of individual talents greater emphasis than passing such talents along to one’s offspring. Providently, the people who entertained such lofty notions remained a minority until the last century. The modern age, however, fostered the conceit that we are all Enlightenment men, such precious and delicate flowers that we cannot be bothered with making seed. One may welcome such thinking among progressives – may they die out quickly – but it almost equally affects those of us who would like to pass along our white identity.
It has long been known that animals raised apart from their kind do not reproduce well. Animals born in radically changed social environments also do poorly. Even though we would like our children to appreciate, absorb and reproduce the culture that formed us, we cannot. That culture has largely vanished from America. As a prolog to the proposing some fairly radical solutions, let me catalog some significant changes since my boyhood in the 1950s.
I went to school with kids like myself, taught by teachers like our parents. The teachers saw it as their job to form us into adults like them. We sang traditional songs. We learned square dances. We learned social dancing, and the etiquette of inviting girls to dance. Our textbooks depicted families like ours – the kind we were being programmed to form.
We were taught to extend to girls an array of courtesies and considerations that make sense only on the assumption that they would mature into women, being primary responsibility for our offspring. Why would I open a door, or carry a heavy parcel for another person who is no more than a competitor in the marketplace? I do it because women are essential to perpetuating my genome. It makes evolutionary sense.
We had institutions like Cub Scouts, Brownies, Boy Scouts, the YMCA and others that reinforced the notion that boys would grow into men, girls into women, and that they would marry one another and have kids. Moreover, we were members of a community, and were expected to contribute to that community. Our parents took leadership positions in local government, Scouts, church and other institutions, and we were quite consciously trained to assume such roles in our turn.
Most of us belonged to churches. No, we were not so credulous as to accept the Bible as the ultimate authority. We were simply humble enough to concede that neither science nor philosophy, and certainly not politics, had all the answers. We accepted scripture and preaching the way our ancestors had done. It is our cultural inheritance, and if not a body of knowledge to answer every question, at least a body of wisdom about how to lead one’s life.
Our parents were self-reliant. Roosevelt’s Social Security notwithstanding, they planned for their own retirement. They paid their own medical bills. They disciplined their kids – and neighborhood kids as necessary. They trusted each other, and knew each other well enough to work problems out without resorting to lawyers.
Thus, the world of my childhood had evolution covered from both angles. The whole society impressed upon us kids the expectation that we would marry and have children. Those same institutions, in turn, offered the promise that they would help form our children in the image of our society. As among Zimmerman’s primitives, the interests of society were still able to contend strongly against individual interest, at least to a great enough extent that society perpetuated itself.
Sir Arthur Keith, writing at the time of my birth, understood the implications of evolution for us Caucasians. Evolution had been a hot topic for the previous half century, among luminaries such as Darwin, Galton, and Herbert Spencer.
We modern traditionalists, conservatives and/or libertarians of today are more prone to state our case in Enlightenment language, that of individual rights. We rightly contend that the government has no right to invite immigrants, to shut us up in the name of political correctness, or to invade our privacy. We are looking after ourselves, as individuals.
In rising to defend our phenotype, our genotype is left to shift for itself. Which it does, in perverse ways. White people not bright enough to have accumulated property or hatched ideas worth defending through the political process let instinct guide them with regard to children. The smarter among us – you and I – have our elbows out, contending with liberals and other threats. We despair of raising children in an environment we know all too well to be hostile. And… we don’t have them.
There’s the rub. If not for our posterity, for whom would we save the country? We concede the fight before the battle is joined.
Our dismal fertility means that we white people are set for another shake-out, a bottleneck of reduced population. We will leave behind the liberals who did not deign to have children. Technology will obsolete, and probably eventually doom human strains without wit enough to master it. Those above middle age in the advanced societies will discover that government promises of health care and retirement income are unsustainable. Just as in the former Soviet Union, the promises will persist, but the actuality will be that these societies must employ inflation to make them affordable – in other words, meaningless. Those who cannot contribute to their own upkeep by continuing to work, and don’t have children to care for them, will feel the same pinch as elderly former Soviets do today. We hope our children will muddle through. How?
Evolution is the survival of the fittest. It requires several conditions. There must be enough births to sustain a population. For the species to improve, there must be more born than can survive. Otherwise there is no mechanism for eliminating less useful traits from the gene pool. Additionally, the more fit must reproduce more successfully than the unfit. Attributes of fitness: resistance to disease, physical strength and intelligence, are all heritable. White people do not come close to meeting any of these conditions. Until we do, it is vain to even consider other races’ success vis-à-vis our own. We have doomed ourselves from the start.
Evolution itself is a blind, purposeless force, whatever the intelligence of the creatures on which it operates. However, a few times in human history intellectual currents have changed the course of evolution. The brilliant thinkers of antiquity – Buddha, Confucius, and Jewish, Greek and Roman writers established cultural institutions that made their adherents dominant. Culture co-evolved with the genome, bringing the Asians a dogged work ethic and us the blessing and curse of our altruism. Christians prevailed in ancient Rome because they alone believed in “proles, fides, sacramentum” or children, fidelity, and the sacred, while others pursued hedonistic pleasures. To make it work they established their own communities apart from the heathen mainstream.
We may have some remote hope of nudging evolution this way or that along its blind path. In any case, we can anticipate where it is headed and avoid our bloodline getting steamrolled.
The first and most important observation is that today’s political processes will not save us. So-called liberal democracy is the captive of mass sentiment: smart politicians pandering to dumb voters. The self-interest of those voters is firmly in the present; our evolutionary interest is in the future. The voters are average; evolution favors the strong. Here are five ways we as individuals can, ever so slightly, nudge evolution our direction.
We can bear three or more natural children and raise them in a stable environment. That’s two for replacement, plus a spare to increase our numbers, or just in case one doesn’t turn out. This commitment involves sacrifice of time, money, and freedom. The choice of a mate is often a compromise. We have to have the courage to bypass those who, however attractive, don’t want children. We have to recognize the need for compromises and maintain the moral courage to live with them. No spouse is ideal, but our progeny usually benefit if we stay together.
We can set examples for our children, through our own lives, of the values that will enable their progeny to succeed. These involve the traditional virtues of hard work, thrift, commitment to family, and leadership in the community as well as earning a living. “Protestant Ethic” was a serviceable all-inclusive phrase for these values.
At a local level we can attempt to maintain homogeneous communities and do our best to control the influences on our children. If we raise them with the idea that they will become parents in their turn, and will contribute to the community, they may just do it. The Mormons offer one example. The Amish, the Hutterites in the Hasidic Jews are others. Note that no examples spring to mind of secular groups succeeding in this. Having children is an act of faith; there is nothing logical about it. Even if we are not religious, we have to have a religious-like commitment to our people.
We can educate children to be good spouses and responsible citizens as well as to earn a living. Children are socialized by peers and other adults in the community just as much as parents. The choices of where to raise them and how to educate them are of paramount importance. The right choice may involve making financial sacrifices to raise a family away from the city, in places like Idaho or Montana, Chile or Ukraine, and to home school them. We want to raise them among people with traditional values rather than the free lunch mentality and Gay BLT smorgasbord values of big city schools, public and private. Truly gay kids will figure it out without the active encouragement of teachers. We can accept them if they are, but for the sake of our genome, pray it is otherwise. The religious groups cited above demonstrate the advantage of raising kids in a community of like-minded people.
We must participate actively in the political process, to protect our own interests against the encroachments of others who would deprive us of our property and live at our expense, and prevent us by force from forming our own children to be our legitimate progeny, by culture as well as by blood. Religion, home schooling, commitment to freedom, and above all commitment to our white identity under constant challenge. We need to recognize the challenge and defuse it by keeping a low profile, changing where we live, or as a last resort, taking the fight to a political arena in which we are vastly outnumbered.
We have to concede the irrationality of our project. There is no logic driving our desire to perpetuate our kind, no more than three billion years of evolutionary history. Peoples who have not had the drive to reproduce died out. We can also, however, point out the absurdity of the opposition. For whom are liberals pretending to save the planet, if not their own progeny? We have to have religious-like conviction regarding our desire to have children, and be willing to call out the absurdity of our opponents’ dogmatism. Stick it to those liberals with Darwin-fish stickers on their cars – point out how utterly at odds their positions are to evolution.
Evolution is unfair. If it has better equipped us for survival than some others, so be it. That’s how it works. If Caucasians are to avoid becoming the dodo birds of human evolution, we cannot be embarrassed about exploiting traits in which we are superior, looking out for our own. If we fail to acknowledge our white identity, we perish.