Racethink

Post Reply
Reinhard

Racethink

Post by Reinhard » Wed Jan 22, 2014 2:54 am

It has been opined in past issues of this magazine that man’s most dangerous myth is that of equality: the myth which, in its starkest form, says that every featherless biped, regardless of race, gender, or lineage, has essentially the same physical-psychical constitution and the same set of capabilities as every other, and that differences in performance are attributable solely to unequal environmental influences and unequal opportunities.

In other words, there is no reason except “sexism” why very few women are test pilots, homicide detectives, or industrial pioneers—and why correspondingly few men win quilting contests or choose nursing as a profession.

Likewise, “racism” is the sole valid explanation for the overabundance of Negro basketball players and welfare recipients, and for the dearth of chess masters and physicists of the same race.

And, of course, the best way to run a nation is to let everyone have an equal say in public affairs, because people all have about the same innate intelligence, character, and sense of responsibility.

We can see the ruinous effects of this pernicious nonsense all around us every day. It is destroying the long-established relationship of complementarity between men and women; it is destroying the family as an institution; it is destroying our culture; it has already destroyed our civic life, for all practical purposes; and it threatens to destroy our race.

Because we can see these things, there is no doubt among us about the danger of the myth of equality. But there is another myth abroad, which is the more dangerous because it has beguiled many of those who have seen most clearly that there is no equality of constitution or capability in the world—not between men and women or between Blacks and Whites or between men of good breeding and the misbegotten. This other myth is the one that says: Because people are unequal in their predispositions and their aptitudes, the course of wisdom is to judge each person only as an individual, and not as a member of a gender, a race, or a family.

Unfortunately, this myth—let us call it the myth of individuality—has become as fashionable on the right side of the ideological spectrum as the myth of equality has on the left side. It has its adherents among the very bright as well as the very dim.

One of America’s foremost scientists, long a battler in the front lines against the minions of the equality myth, often is denounced as a “racist” by his opponents because of his assertions that Blacks, on the average, are less intelligent than Whites, and that the difference is innate. He has replied, “I am a raceologist, but I am not a racist.” He has then gone on to say that he judges everyone, Black or White, only as an individual.

Another very bright man, a eugenicist who founded and operates a sperm bank in order to increase the number of offspring of Nobel Prize winners and other exceptionally intelligent men, has fended off the suspicions of news reporters that he, too, may be a racist by assuring them that he is looking for any intelligent sperm donors, regardless of race, and that he will gladly accept sperm from a qualified Black; i.e., a Black with an IQ of 160 is just as desirable a progenitor of the next generation as a White of the same IQ.

At the other end of the scale is the Southerner who fondly remembers a bygone era of institutionalized racial segregation, with its patron-client relationship between middle-to-upper-class Whites and their Black servants and employees. He is quick to condemn Black violence and Black welfare loafing, but he is just as quick to praise law-abiding, hard-working Blacks who “know their place.” He is happy to offer employment to Blacks of the latter type, even without being forced to do so by the Federal government’s “civil rights” bloodhounds, and he takes pride in the fact that he harbors none of the racial animosity found so often in lower-class Whites, who feel more directly threatened by Black economic and social advances.

The myth of individuality is more insidious than the myth of equality, because, whereas the latter has no basis whatsoever in fact, the former can be bolstered with facts galore: It is a fact that some Blacks are more intelligent or more trustworthy than some Whites and, therefore, may make more profitable employees; it is a fact that some women have performed quite well as test pilots; [1] it is a fact that there are a few Jews who care little or nothing for money, do not despise all who were not born into their tribe, and are genuinely appalled at the behavior and attitudes of the great mass of their kinsmen. The egalitarian ideologue is easily proved a liar, a fool, or both; but the man who judges everyone only as an individual can back his judgment with reason.

To be sure, the reason is not unassailable: it is reason which stands only in an individualist vacuum and fails to take account of a larger reality. For example, everyone understands that in a war the course of wisdom is not to judge men as individuals, but only according to the uniforms they wear. The soldier who reasoned that some of the troops in the opposing army might have no hostility in their hearts and actually might be much nicer fellows than many of his own comrades-in-arms—and who concluded from this that he would make his decisions about whom to shoot solely on the basis of individual judgments, without regard to uniforms or nationalities—would not last long.

And we certainly are in a war—a war without uniforms, but nevertheless one in which a glance ordinarily tells to which army a soldier belongs. At least, it tells those who have not had their brains addled by the myth of equality or the myth of individuality. The soldiers on the other side don’t have that problem.

To the Jew, the Black, the militant feminist, the homosexual, or the Hispanic, what is of paramount importance about any individual is whether or not he is one of the “chosen,” a “soul brother,” a woman, a fellow queer, or a member of la raza, respectively. He always knows to which army he belongs.

Being conscious of group characteristics does not necessarily imply hostility, of course. In particular, consciousness of the profound and fundamental gender differences between men and women is a prerequisite to the mutual appreciation of the sexes for one another necessary to a healthy society. It has been the shrill insistence of an abnormal and disturbed few that these differences be ignored—and the acquiescence to those few by a feckless, opportunistic, or confused many—which has caused much of the hostility, resentment, and suspicion which now exist between the sexes.

It is the real world in which we must survive—a world in which race and gender are determinative characteristics telling us more about the nature of an individual than any other features by which we might judge him—not the make-believe world of the individualist, in which we are supposed to ignore all features identifying an individual as a member of a group having those features in common. The man who ignores relevant evidence for the sake of politeness—or for fear of being thought a “racist” or a “sexist”—puts himself at a competitive disadvantage in evaluating those about him. That’s no way to win a war.

And it’s no way to build a future for our race. If Whites regard themselves and others only as individuals, while non-Whites maintain their racial consciousness, then eventually the non-Whites will inherit the earth.

There always have been irresponsible individuals among us, willing to advance their own welfare at the expense of unborn generations of their racial kinsmen. But never before has such behavior been regarded as virtuous; never before have the intellectual leaders of a race accepted it as the norm.

Ignoring the real world and playing by make-believe rules is a poor survival strategy even for the individual wholly devoid of racial consciousness. For a race it is a guaranteed path to extinction—and not just because it is a strategy which ignores some of the evidence needed in making decisions.

Just as an army will not win its battles unless its soldiers put the goals and interests of the army as a whole, and not just their private interests as individuals, into their decision-making, a race will not win the competitive struggle with other races for existence unless its members—and especially its intellectual and moral leaders—habitually think of themselves and others in racial terms and act accordingly.

It is the ineluctable responsibility of every White man and woman who claims to stand for racial progress to free his mind of the last vestige of the myth of individuality.

Note

1. One of the most outstanding test pilots who has lived, male or female, and certainly the greatest woman test pilot, was Hanna Reitsch (1912–1979), who flew the world’s first turbojet, pulsejet, and rocket-propelled aircraft. Interestingly enough, she flew for a government which, according to popular mythology, was the most oppressively “sexist” which has existed in recent times. A dedicated National Socialist, she also was a remarkably attractive and feminine woman.

Source: National Vanguard, no. 100, May 1984, pp. 2, 4, 7.

User avatar
Jim Mathias
Posts: 3292
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:48 pm

Re: Racethink

Post by Jim Mathias » Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:10 am

While I might take issue with the use of the term "Hispanic," this is a great essay on individualism versus racial thinking.
Activism materials available! ===> Contact me via PM to obtain quantities of the "Send Them Back", "NA Health Warning #1 +#2+#3" stickers, and any fliers listed in the Alliance website's flier webpage.

User avatar
White_Vengeance
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri May 13, 2022 5:54 pm
Location: In the Whitest possible location, high in the Appalachian Mountains, deep in the heart of Dixie.
Contact:

Re: Racethink

Post by White_Vengeance » Fri Oct 07, 2022 2:08 pm

Reinhard wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2014 2:54 am
He is quick to condemn Black violence and Black welfare loafing, but he is just as quick to praise law-abiding, hard-working Blacks who “know their place.”
If negroes displayed even a basic, fundamental level of civility and responsibility, perhaps, then, a Southerner would not have to bend over backwards to praise the microscopically scant few who are law-abiding and hard-working. Doing so is comparable to the moron who has spent $30,000 in hiring landscapers to grow a "lush green lawn" on his property. After years of colossal failure he explains to his neighbor while pointing to one single, solitary blade of tall fescue growing in his front yard overgrown with weeds and crabgrass: "See there, neighbor; I've definitely got some promising signs of grass growth."

After living for over 400 years in a nation with highest living standards on the planet--America;, and living alongside the most intellectually-advanced race of people on the planet--the White Europeans in America; the barbaric, subhuman negro species still has not proven that it can possibly elevate itself to even the very lowest levels of civility, humanity, respectability, and responsibility.

If we allow the "negro problem" in America to continue on its merry way--continue, let us say, for the NEXT 400 years (in theory)--it is still absolutely unfeasible to ever believe that after 400 more years--stretching to calendar year 2422--the cannibalistic, feral negroes would improve their lot in life even one tiny fraction of one iota.

Attempting to civilize and make human a species of bi-pedal savages--the backwards, indolent, ignorant negro--whose biological and evolutionary nature is to live as wild, inhumane cannibals in the jungles and grass fields of sub-Saharan Africa is tantamount to believing that America's unsustainable national debt will ever be satisfied through collecting the unconstitutional income tax. Face facts: neither one is ever going to happen!
Any White person who can see the threat to the future of the White race today and who refuses, whether from cowardice or selfishness, to stand up for his/her people does not deserve to be counted among them.

User avatar
White_Vengeance
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri May 13, 2022 5:54 pm
Location: In the Whitest possible location, high in the Appalachian Mountains, deep in the heart of Dixie.
Contact:

Re: Racethink

Post by White_Vengeance » Fri Oct 07, 2022 2:15 pm

Jim Mathias wrote:
Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:10 am
While I might take issue with the use of the term "Hispanic," this is a great essay on individualism versus racial thinking.
"Hispanic" is another in a seemingly-endless string of words that, due to political correctness, liberalism, and egalitarianism, has not only lost its actual, textbook definition, but to the radical leftist, progressive Marxists has become a utilitarian "catch-all" word for lumping all sorts of brown and mixed-race scum, and other "undefinables," into the category of "White people." This is not by accident. It is another scheme of the despotic federal government to not only heap scorn upon the White race but to dishearten, discourage, disenfranchise, and dispossess us of our pride and dignity.

Originally, the word "Hispanic" actually meant "people who live in European nations where the predominate language is Spanish." So, technically speaking, the original inhabitants and MOST of the current people residing in Spain and Portugal are actually Hispanics—and due to the fact that they are distinctly European they are also Aryan and White.

The despotic federal leviathan, in its never-ending quest to denigrate, humiliate, and further weaken our White race, makes the false claim that mestizos (i.e., non-White, "brown" individuals from Mexico and Central American nations) are "Hispanics," and for purposes of statistics thus categorizes "Hispanics" as "White." That is utterly impossible; the only original White people on the planet are White Europeans, regardless of where on the globe they eventually immigrated and where their descendants currently reside (i.e., America, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Rhodesia, South America, etc.).

By perpetuating this utter falsehood the corrupt federal government can thus do all sorts of implicit and explicit damage by publishing misleading and even patently false statistics about our White race. One example that immediately comes to mind is the statistic on violent crime. While there are mountains of evidence that prove the inhumane, barbaric, savage negroes commit the vast majority of violent crime in America, the group that commits the next-greatest amount of violent crime is the mestizos. By wrongly considering mestizos to be "Hispanic," the federal government serves a huge injustice upon the White race by intentionally applying its erroneous definition of "Hispanics" to the category of "White," thus making it appear that White people commit much more violent crime than our actual, and much lower, percentage.

For calculating the census and population percentage of each group in America, the corrupt federal government also includes its fallacious definition of "Hispanics" in the category of "White" to make it appear that the "real" (at least "real" from the standpoint of the corrupt federal government) White European population of America is far greater than its actual percentage. This sleight-of-hand works to the benefit of the corrupt federal government, which can then challenge our correct argument about the Great Replacement Theory, intentionally and erroneously claiming that our argument cannot hold up to scrutiny.

By misrepresenting mestizos as Hispanics, and misrepresenting "Hispanics" as "White," the government is thus able to confuse the general public about virtually anything involving race—and especially when it works to the detriment of White Europeans.
Any White person who can see the threat to the future of the White race today and who refuses, whether from cowardice or selfishness, to stand up for his/her people does not deserve to be counted among them.

RCavallius
Posts: 381
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2021 3:52 am
Contact:

Re: Racethink

Post by RCavallius » Fri Oct 07, 2022 2:33 pm

That's right, WV: you called it.
H0216

Post Reply